That’s where my thoughts were at when I said that, a part of me thinks that since we have no access to a physical brain of early hominids who’s to say that for whatever the reason the hominid brain may have been more miniature yet equally as powerful back in the early days (like perhaps neurons enlarging over time, or possibly the region that is now in the forehead area was more sunken back with the rest of the brain matter in the past). We simply don’t know 100% because we have no access to an actual brain of early hominids.
True, but we have no reason to suppose that was the case, and since other contemporary primate brains have similar neuron sizes, it seems unlikely.
Good and bad as far as maintaining a healthy balance. I think that a healthy balance is evolution’s norm. So I am calling “bad” a drastic deviation from a norm.
What is a 'healthy' balance? healthy and balanced in what way? There are plenty of examples of 'boom and bust' in populations that grow rapidly until their resources are exhausted and then die-off en masse before repeating the cycle. Similar boom & bust cycles occur in many predator-prey relations. Is that a 'healthy balance'?
I mean that usually when I point out the strange world domination of Homo Sapiens the reply that I get is that evolution only cares about local conditions, so I was saying hey but here we ARE talking about local conditions, Homo Sapiens are being allowed way too much domination locally as well as globally.
I'm not familiar with that characterisation of evolution - evolution doesn't 'care', it happens to populations, which, while they may move around the world, must, by definition, remain local enough for the members to interbreed.
As for human domination, there's no concept in evolutionary biology of organisms being 'allowed' or 'denied' any behaviours. There may or may not be natural constraints on what they can do. Humans dominate in many ways, which may be beneficial for some organisms, detrimental to others, and seems to be damaging ecosystems and reducing overall wildlife. We may judge this as bad for us and the organisms we need and like, but mass extinctions are periodic features of life on Earth, and it's not the first time one group of organisms were the driving force behind a mass extinction.
I see human domination as being a completely clear as day indicator that nature has unfairly stacked the deck in humanity’s favor (guided), which points to humans being special.
We're certainly exceptionally destructive. Your anthropocentric bias is understandable.
Whereas you see domination of humans as simply forming a new evolutionary paradigm that you now call the evolved “Normal.”
No, that's not the case. Please don't try to tell me what I think.
I think that our mutation broke the rules of what evolution was up until that period of time, it ripped up the instruction book and made up a new game.
There is no evidence for any teleological 'rules' of evolution, or that evolution was 'up to' anything. It's a very simple process with complex ramifications.
But for you that is an illogical thing to say because the pattern of how reality plays out REVEALS evolution.
Again, please don't try to tell me what I think. Both the concept and the theory of evolution are based on observation and experiment.
The molecular level IMO makes “Evolution” in general sound misleading because things did not start at total disorder, instead bits of prepackaged intelligence where present in the primitive Earth from the beginning.
What was this 'prepackaged intelligence'?
How ever polymers might have swooshed together in that primordial soup, once these things connected in certain molecular ways they just started self assembling and doing things all by themselves.
Self-assembly is a feature of chemistry; atoms assemble into molecules, molecules combine and form ordered structures. It's mainly the result of the interactions of electromagnetic charges on atoms & molecules.
There is a super intelligence written into the fabric of Earth. The potentiality of human cognition was present in the Earth from the very start (a cause can not give to its effect what it does not have to give).
Of course, that's trivially true in hindsight.
Self awareness and creative thinking!
There's no particular mutation for self-awareness and creative thinking - many animals show signs of self-awareness, and even more show creative thinking. We happen to have specialised in flexible cognitive abilities, so we are extremely proficient in that respect.
I am saying that I find that the mutations given to hominids are guided favoritism to take dominion over the Earth.
I guess you would say that, given your beliefs; but what evidence is there to support that, besides your personal incredulity?
Bacteria are far more numerous and thrive on (and in and above) much more of the Earth than humans do - some would say they have the true claim to dominion - although viruses have the greater numbers.
How many hominid fossils do we have, and how many hominid categories do we have? If the amount of fossils that we have outnumber the amount of categories by an astonishing rate doesn’t that argue against slow and steady progression? We might see a Homo Erectus that looks slightly off or a Homo Sapien that looks slightly off, but are there any fossils that have people asking “Is this a Homo Sapien or a Homo Erectus?”
I don't follow your logic about progression; on the second point, no, not really - those fossils are from different times - Homo erectus is far earlier than Homo sapiens. Fossils found in the intervening period broadly show a transitional sequence of characteristics.
However they do not give us that snapshot in time that the fossils give us. They are silent to make any inferences about rates of how fast evolutionary jumps took place.
Well, not necessarily; if you make some simple assumptions, you can estimate the rates of change. For example, you can assume that over the last couple of million years, the mutation rate was fairly stable; one can assume the rate of ERV insertions was fairly stable, and so-on; then you can match the predictions from molecular biology with the fossil record, assuming that the fossils we have found are random samples of the lineage. You can also correlate these calculations with archaeological site evidence of cultural artefacts and activity, even when no fossils are available.
