Greetings to one and all, (thread moved from somewhere else)
Hopefully I have posted in the correct section and will stimulate some discussion.
Instead of a long word heavy post I will offer short paragraphs in understandable English and see what catches and expand from there.
I will predominately be looking at issues within the human evolutionary theory and other related matters.
The larger brain hypothesis.
Around 2 million years ago it is suggested early humans began the progression from ape to human, this hypothesis is supposingly supported by a rapid (in evolutionary terms) increase in body and brain size due to environmental challenges.
If we are to be generous the “rapid” brain development was achieved in around a million years, is it reasonable to suggest the necessary brain development for survival was rapid enough to prevent extinction? Or that the intermediate physical changes (where the creature is neither adapted to standing straight nor walking on all fours and still with a stunted brain) would have lessened the chances of survival considering the many hunting animals that had already achieved an evolutionary peak?
Quite how all primates with the same starting point and challenges were not driven to walking tall, thinking big and migrating has never being answered. If evolution is a random process where all possibilities are explored (with many failing and the successful attempts carrying on to reproduce) how where all other primates left to happily carry on as before unaffected by the non-sentient evolutionary process?
Other hypothesis include a need for better social communication, yet the chimp (along with the vast majority of primates and mammals) appears to have enjoyed a complicated social structure along with the use of tools and a changing environment over millennia with the evolutionary processes “deciding” a bigger brain is not required.
Interesting to note the chimpanzee is now officially classed as endangered due to environmental stresses, evolutionary logic would suggest the chimps should start rapidly evolving to counter this natural threat.
Rapid Brain Development.
Academic wisdom tells us it took the natural evolutionary process 500 million years to develop the anthropoid maximum of 1 million neurons inside the brain, yet it also tells us that (again being generous) over the next 2 million years man acquired an additional 11 billion neurons. At the original evolutionary rate man’s brain would have needed an additional 5 billion years to naturally evolve not 2 million years.
The accepted hypothesis states that it was an evolutionary necessity due to an environmental change or threat that was the driving force yet this evolutionary decision on rapid (which is an understatement really) brain enlargement has only ever affected early man.
another argument to support the hypothesis is eating meat which is obviously a stretch.
Furthermore this rapid enlargement stopped back in ancient history yet the modern brain packed full of knowledge and experience today is no different from that of early man, would evolution really evolve a human brain millions of years in advance that would never need an upgrade regardless of the massively different environmental challenges from then to now.
It is accepted that Neanderthals had a bigger brain capacity than today’s modern man, thicker bones to handle more torque from stronger muscles and had also mastered fire, complex societal structures, utilised pitch for weapons and boats plus used a refined common language (language is commonly thought to correlate with the larger brain).
How could a bipedal evolutionary peak for the time be replaced by a smaller brained weaker unestablished species? Survival of the fittest in reverse?
Reaching an evolutionary peak.
Evolution, we are told, is an ever changing random mutation theory that tests multiple combinations of mutation allowing the well adapted to pass on its code and the failures to die out. Why then do certain participants of evolution appear to have peaked? Has evolution taken the decision a peak has being achieved?
Many so called “living fossils” have been over looked by the evolutionary process for (lets pick a round number) 40 million years. We are told that organisms such as jelly fish and sharks have not altered significantly since they came into existence. Why has the random chemical process of evolution decided to not invite them to the mutation party?
Physical perfection (if such a thing exists) would surely lead to improved brain function and an unending improvement program, considering the shark achieved this physical peak 38 million years before the earliest human, evolutionary logic would suggest the shark is a victim of the randomly occurring chemically inspired evolutionary cold shoulder.
Finger prints of the evolutionary victims.
Again if we are to believe that no sentient decisions are made in the chemically driven multiple variation version of evolution then we would see many more failures in the fossil record than we do successes.
Random mutation is the hero of the evolutionary story, yet all evidence points to a very lucky progression along the timelines, so lucky in fact that random mutation are the least likely of conclusions.
Taking Darwinian evolution at face value we should expect to find all manner of recognisable failed organic designs, if many minute mutations over a long time leads to an improved species and the failed species dies out then it stands to reason the failed inferior animals would be found in abundance.
The amazing balance of function within species needs (no wait….demands) many failed evolutionary attempts FOR EVERY SPECIES otherwise the whole evolutionary model is debunked.
Phew…. So hopefully there is some food for thought there, I have skimmed over the subjects of interest to me and am willing to flesh them out if it is desired,
Your thoughts are welcomed and if I have dropped a clanger please let me know.
Thanks
: )
Hopefully I have posted in the correct section and will stimulate some discussion.
Instead of a long word heavy post I will offer short paragraphs in understandable English and see what catches and expand from there.
I will predominately be looking at issues within the human evolutionary theory and other related matters.
The larger brain hypothesis.
Around 2 million years ago it is suggested early humans began the progression from ape to human, this hypothesis is supposingly supported by a rapid (in evolutionary terms) increase in body and brain size due to environmental challenges.
If we are to be generous the “rapid” brain development was achieved in around a million years, is it reasonable to suggest the necessary brain development for survival was rapid enough to prevent extinction? Or that the intermediate physical changes (where the creature is neither adapted to standing straight nor walking on all fours and still with a stunted brain) would have lessened the chances of survival considering the many hunting animals that had already achieved an evolutionary peak?
Quite how all primates with the same starting point and challenges were not driven to walking tall, thinking big and migrating has never being answered. If evolution is a random process where all possibilities are explored (with many failing and the successful attempts carrying on to reproduce) how where all other primates left to happily carry on as before unaffected by the non-sentient evolutionary process?
Other hypothesis include a need for better social communication, yet the chimp (along with the vast majority of primates and mammals) appears to have enjoyed a complicated social structure along with the use of tools and a changing environment over millennia with the evolutionary processes “deciding” a bigger brain is not required.
Interesting to note the chimpanzee is now officially classed as endangered due to environmental stresses, evolutionary logic would suggest the chimps should start rapidly evolving to counter this natural threat.
Rapid Brain Development.
Academic wisdom tells us it took the natural evolutionary process 500 million years to develop the anthropoid maximum of 1 million neurons inside the brain, yet it also tells us that (again being generous) over the next 2 million years man acquired an additional 11 billion neurons. At the original evolutionary rate man’s brain would have needed an additional 5 billion years to naturally evolve not 2 million years.
The accepted hypothesis states that it was an evolutionary necessity due to an environmental change or threat that was the driving force yet this evolutionary decision on rapid (which is an understatement really) brain enlargement has only ever affected early man.
another argument to support the hypothesis is eating meat which is obviously a stretch.
Furthermore this rapid enlargement stopped back in ancient history yet the modern brain packed full of knowledge and experience today is no different from that of early man, would evolution really evolve a human brain millions of years in advance that would never need an upgrade regardless of the massively different environmental challenges from then to now.
It is accepted that Neanderthals had a bigger brain capacity than today’s modern man, thicker bones to handle more torque from stronger muscles and had also mastered fire, complex societal structures, utilised pitch for weapons and boats plus used a refined common language (language is commonly thought to correlate with the larger brain).
How could a bipedal evolutionary peak for the time be replaced by a smaller brained weaker unestablished species? Survival of the fittest in reverse?
Reaching an evolutionary peak.
Evolution, we are told, is an ever changing random mutation theory that tests multiple combinations of mutation allowing the well adapted to pass on its code and the failures to die out. Why then do certain participants of evolution appear to have peaked? Has evolution taken the decision a peak has being achieved?
Many so called “living fossils” have been over looked by the evolutionary process for (lets pick a round number) 40 million years. We are told that organisms such as jelly fish and sharks have not altered significantly since they came into existence. Why has the random chemical process of evolution decided to not invite them to the mutation party?
Physical perfection (if such a thing exists) would surely lead to improved brain function and an unending improvement program, considering the shark achieved this physical peak 38 million years before the earliest human, evolutionary logic would suggest the shark is a victim of the randomly occurring chemically inspired evolutionary cold shoulder.
Finger prints of the evolutionary victims.
Again if we are to believe that no sentient decisions are made in the chemically driven multiple variation version of evolution then we would see many more failures in the fossil record than we do successes.
Random mutation is the hero of the evolutionary story, yet all evidence points to a very lucky progression along the timelines, so lucky in fact that random mutation are the least likely of conclusions.
Taking Darwinian evolution at face value we should expect to find all manner of recognisable failed organic designs, if many minute mutations over a long time leads to an improved species and the failed species dies out then it stands to reason the failed inferior animals would be found in abundance.
The amazing balance of function within species needs (no wait….demands) many failed evolutionary attempts FOR EVERY SPECIES otherwise the whole evolutionary model is debunked.
Phew…. So hopefully there is some food for thought there, I have skimmed over the subjects of interest to me and am willing to flesh them out if it is desired,
Your thoughts are welcomed and if I have dropped a clanger please let me know.
Thanks
: )
