Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That weird because I see lots of chaos and randomness. Weird, eh?
Superior? No. If you give a species enough time, it is bound to become different. This is because selective pressure changes over time. Evolution has no notion of superiority, only survival and reproduction. But since it is competing with other species that are also evolving, it may not even become better at survival or reproduction with time: it may die out if other species out-evolve it, or the environment changes too dramatically for it to evolve to the new environment.So basically if you give a species enough time, they are bound to become superior.If I leave my car in the snow for years, I do not think it will look like a better car in the spring.
When I look at the human brain, I see workmanship and intelligent design.
I prefer to point out the eye. The sensory receptors are behind the nerves that transmit the information. And since the optic nerve enters the eye we all have a blind spot. The octopus doesn't have this blind spot. The only reasonable conclusion is that if there is a creator, s/he likes the octopus more than us.If the human body was designed why were the reproductive and waste removal systems put in the same place using some of the same body parts?
And they don't blow each other to pieces with explosives. Nor do they launch metal projectiles at each other with the purpose of ripping messy holes in their victim.Octopi are without doubt far cuter than humans are. If I were a creator I'd certainly like them better. Ha.
And they don't blow each other to pieces with explosives. Nor do they launch metal projectiles at each other with the purpose of ripping messy holes in their victim.
I would like the octopus better too.
Octopi are without doubt far cuter than humans are. If I were a creator I'd certainly like them better. Ha.
All part of the atheist octopus conspiracy. Clearly you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
As far as I'm concerned, proof that any Creator must hate humanity is in the knee. Honestly, it's the product of a madman.
It fasinates me that evolutionists are unconcerned about the lack of a scientific explanation or a genetic basis for this unprecedented expansion.
Our ancestor would have had to triple their cranial capacity awfully fast.
{snip image}
Figure 2: Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees.
Lateral views of the left hemispheres of a modern human and a chimpanzee brain. Although the overall skull sizes are roughly comparable, the human cranial capacity and brain are much larger. a, Two areas of the human brain that are associated with communication are shown: Broca's area in the frontal lobe and Wernicke's area, which overlaps the posterior temporal lobe and parts of the parietal lobe. In the left hemisphere, Broca's area is larger, as is the planum temporale, which lies below the surface in Wernicke's area. b, These asymmetries have been found in corresponding regions of chimpanzee brains15,17, suggesting that the areas in humans might be elaborations of a pre-existing communication centre in a common ancestor of apes and humans.
------------
A second area of interest is Wernicke's posterior receptive language area in the temporal lobe (Fig. 2). A site within this area, the planum temporale, is implicated in human communication (both spoken and gestural) and musical talent, and also shows a left-hemisphere dominance. In most humans, the Sylvian fissure associated with the left planum temporale extends more posteriorly. Evidence for this asymmetry has been found in fossil endocasts in H. habilis, H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis16. More importantly, an asymmetrical planum temporale pattern has recently been demonstrated in chimpanzees17, 18 (Fig. 2).
Evolutionists simply don't have a genetic basis for how this is possible. It's not just the size but the density and the radical development of genes that would have remained virtually unchanged since the Cambrian Explosion.
{snip abstract quote}
Was human evolution special?
The magnitude, rate and pattern of change during hominin evolution, inferred from the fossil record, comparative neuroanatomy and embryology, provide the essential foundation for approaching the genetics of human evolution. From the studies discussed above, five key points emerge that have a bearing on attempts to reconstruct the genetic events that underlie the origin and modification of human traits.
First, trait evolution was nonlinear. The 1,000-cm3 increase in brain size over 57 Myr did not occur at the same relative rate in hominin phylogeny: it was static at times, faster in some intervals, and reversed slightly more recently. Second, most trait evolution can be characterized as simple quantitative changes (that is, traits are continuous). Third, evolutionary rates were not at all exceptional with respect to mammalian evolution. For example, fossil horse lineages in the late PliocenePleistocene show similar rates of body-size and other character changes as do those of hominids31. Fourth, much evolutionary change preceded the origin of the Homo genus and of H. sapiens: the history of our species represents just the last 3% of the time span of hominin evolution (Fig. 1). And fifth, many characters are present not only in humans, but also in apes. This suggests that modification of existing structures and developmental pathways, rather than the invention of new features, underlies much of human evolution.
These observations indicate that morphological evolution in hominins was not special, but the product of genetic and developmental changes typical of other mammals and animals.
It fasinates me that evolutionists are unconcerned about the lack of a scientific explanation or a genetic basis for this unprecedented expansion.
due to a diet very high in protein, as compared with our earlier ancestors, humans were able to get protien through there diets. Do you know where the body gets protein if you dont have enough of it in your diet? It gets it from your brain. thats right, your brain. your body will metabolize your brain if you dont get enough.
Thats the first way our ancestors tripled their brain size.
the second one is that it was obviously beneficial for our ancestors to have higher brain capacity because this converges an advantage because you can hunt more effectively if you are smarter and more clever
I didn't know cars could replicate themselves?So basically if you give a species enough time, they are bound to become superior.If I leave my car in the snow for years, I do not think it will look like a better car in the spring.
6-7 million years isn't all that fast, but because Mark thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old he has trouble grasping how long a time frame we're looking at.
Uh oh, Mark's cheating again. The image he uses to show how "different" human and chimp brains are because of cranial capacity actually comes from an article that uses similarities between human and chimp brains as evidence of hominid evolution.
Here's the whole article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6934/full/nature01495.html
Here's the caption and relevant paragraph for that image:
You've had a year and a half to contact the authors of the HAR1 paper and tell them you've found the magic bullet to kill hominid evolution. If your position is so tenable, why haven't you done so?
And Mark's wrong about the human brain being a whole new invention after our split from our ape LCA. From the Nature article he lifted that photo above:
Of course all one has to do is enter the right words into a search engine and one can see work is being done. Take the Google results for "genetic basis for human brain evolution".
Did you know that not all genes have the same mutation rates? And that there are different types of selective pressure that can have a different effect on the rate at which mutations are fixed? (I don't think selection affects the rate of the appearance of mutations, though - it's only that sometimes more, sometimes less of them are weeded out before they can spread)The gene accumulates 2 substitutions in 350 million years and then suddenly has 18, the evidence speaks for itself.
Did you know that not all genes have the same mutation rates?
And that there are different types of selective pressure that can have a different effect on the rate at which mutations are fixed? (I don't think selection affects the rate of the appearance of mutations, though - it's only that sometimes more, sometimes less of them are weeded out before they can spread)
If selective pressures are stabilising - i.e. deviation from the current sequence in any way would decrease the organism's fitness - then mutations (more precisely, nonsynonymous mutations, those that actually change the gene product) are going to be fixed at a very slow rate. However, directional selection (i.e when deviation in a certain way is advantageous) can accelerate the process immensely.
Utterly false. A number of environmental factors, from nutrition to stimuli, can affect a developing brain. And complexity fluctuates throughout a lifetime, owing largely to the formation of new synapses.That's absurd, the brain can only increase in size, density and complexity when protein coding genes are altered at an amino acid sequence level.
Utterly false. A number of environmental factors, from nutrition to stimuli, can affect a developing brain. And complexity fluctuates throughout a lifetime, owing largely to the formation of new synapses.
That's cool. It means you actually understand something about evolution.As a matter of fact I did:
Perhaps the vast majority of mutations are synonymous or deleterious, but advantageous mutations aren't nonexistant. And once they appear, they are fixed much more easily than a neutral mutation, not to mention a harmful one.Considering that the vast majority of mutations are selectively neutral with the bulk of the rest being deleterious I'd say your point is moot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?