Human Evolution

[Golden Yak]

Yes, I did.

But our brains apparently are SMALLER than our ancestors'.

So intelligence and physical evolution of brain size and body do not relate?

Intelligence is not purely a matter of sheer size. I was being a little facetious with the 'big fat brains' remark - there are animals with physically larger brains who are not as intelligent as humans. I was referring to our increased intellect, relating to our brains.

My point was that biological evolution and technological development are distinct from one-another - it took a long time for us to evolve to our current level of intelligence, but once we'd reached it we could learn, invent, and develop technology at an ever-increasing rate.

That's the reason for the apparent discrepancy in your timeline - the slow development is biological evolution, while the rapid development is technological development.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Intelligence is not purely a matter of sheer size. I was being a little facetious with the 'big fat brains' remark - there are animals with physically larger brains who are not as intelligent as humans. I was referring to our increased intellect, relating to our brains.

My point was that biological evolution and technological development are distinct from one-another - it took a long time for us to evolve to our current level of intelligence, but once we'd reached it we could learn, invent, and develop technology at an ever-increasing rate.

That's the reason for the apparent discrepancy in your timeline - the slow development is biological evolution, while the rapid development is technological development.

I would like to add that the person who had the world record largest human brain was mentally challenged.

 

[bhsmte]

That's the reason I'm here. I study this and that, then I come here to see what you all have to say about it to get more clarification.

What's wrong with that and what is so contradictory???!!

Anya, your posts are loaded with contradictions such as:

Stating you have studied the evidence and statting it doesnt make sense, while at the same time, you call the evidence all lies. How do you know it is lies if you dont understand it? Then you state you have made up your mind and the bible is true and evolution is all lies, but yet you come her for clarification on something you have made up your mind on? You then state you dont have time to study the evidence after you previously claimed you have? You come here for clarification and to learn, but then you put your fingers in your ears when you are presented with evidence that goes against your belief?

You are all over the place and are clearly confused internally, likely from cognitive dissonance. Lastly, if you want to hold onto a literal view of the bible, science is not for you, because it contradicts a literal view of the bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

If we look closer at this timeline, there are alot of gaps and no missing links for the evolution,

Which is it? A lot of gaps, or no missing links? You can't have both.

The gaps are necessarily between found links. If there is more than one gap it means that there is a transitional between us and a common ancestor with chimps that is creating those two gaps. If there are a lot of gaps, as you claim, then there has to be a lot of transitionals creating those gaps.

How is this theory supposed to make any sense really? The evidence for this consists enough to fit a coffin.

Another lie told to you by other creationists.

Just accept the fact that it is a made up story with little evidence.

Why should I accept creationist lies over the real evidence?

And biased dating techniques.

And yet you can't show a single bias.

All you have is denial and bluster.

 

[Dizredux]

Anya

Some of what you discover when getting an education on a subject is not just new information but that many of the things you knew were not true. It is part of the process but you have to be open to it.

Dizredux

 

[selfinflikted]

Anya

Some of what you discover when getting an education on a subject is not just new information but that many of the things you knew were not true. It is part of the process but you have to be open to it.

Dizredux

It's part of the process, and is the exciting part for me. You just can't be afraid to go where the evidence leads. When you aren't, it's a very liberating thing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Ok when I look at this timeline from the Smithsonian Institute, I am quite overwelmed that you Evolutionists take human evolution so seriously.

The general timeline consists of human evolution taking 8 MILLION YEARS.

We have a few bones and no missing ancestors found on the right side of the timeline. Their brains slightly increase and they start to walk upright.

We move on some thousands of years to find more bone fragments and teeth

Then we get to 2600 MILLION years ago and the 'humans' start to develop Tools.

So this was 4 to 5 MILLION YEARS just to learn how to walk and start to use stone Tools!!

Then we have about 2 MILLION YEARS just to learn how to use a fire after using Tools.

Then we have about 788 THOUSAND YEARS for our brain to increase and the development of farming and herding after Learning to use a fire.

Then we have 8 THOUSAND YEARS of evolution: using symbols on objects to flying to the MOON!!!

Don't you all see how bizarre this looks??? 8 thousand years from carving on objects to flying to the moon and 6 MILLION years just to learn how to walk and use Tools and a fire??!!!!!!

(Evidence includes fragments of bones and skulls, and Tools)

That's the way Fairie Dust theories go, you make it up as you go along.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's the way Fairie Dust theories go, you make it up as you go along.

No, we learn more and revise the theory accordingly. New information is added. This doesn't make the theory any less valid. If anything, it means the theory is getting stronger over time.

 

[andy b]

so if im correct it took 8 million years to get from a monkey ( or whatever) to man...so just how long did it take to go from a single cell creature to a monkey. Monkey to man i can see the connection microbe to monkey i cant see the time line,it would take billions of years

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the way Fairie Dust theories go, you make it up as you go along.

Which of these are made up?

 

[46AND2]

so if im correct it took 8 million years to get from a monkey ( or whatever) to man...so just how long did it take to go from a single cell creature to a monkey. Monkey to man i can see the connection microbe to monkey i cant see the time line,it would take billions of years

It did take billions of years.

In fact, it took over a billion years just to get from the first cell to a nucleated cell.

 

[lasthero]

so if im correct it took 8 million years to get from a monkey ( or whatever) to man...so just how long did it take to go from a single cell creature to a monkey. Monkey to man i can see the connection microbe to monkey i cant see the time line,it would take billions of years

It did.

 

[StormanNorman]

Interesting. But doesn't that imply there is an advantage to a smaller brain or a disadvantage to a larger brain?

There could be. Large brains require lots of energy; if a certain-sized brain does not benefit one in terms of survival and reproduction, then why have it? Of course, large brains have their benefits ... so, it's a balancing act.

 

[andy b]

It did take billions of years.

In fact, it took over a billion years just to get from the first cell to a nucleated cell.

before i barge in ive just goggled earth age and its saying 4.5 billion years. now im assuming it must of took a millions or billions of years for the planet to be in a position to support life ( water atmosphere etc) also why im at it where did all the water come from as ive just read that the earth was a molten mass of larva and to top it of the moon hit us, but thats another story.And bingo soon as the sea settled a cell appeared and a billion years later here i am...you aint selling that brother and i aint buyin it

 

[StormanNorman]

I still have not found any decent explanations to 'make me think twice' about the timeline I posted from the Smithsonian Institute.

Populations tend to grow exponentially; I'm of the opinion that knowledge also grows exponentially which means it's a very flat curve with a slight slope for a large portion of the time and then begins to rise fairly quickly in an ever increasing manner.

 

[PsychoSarah]

before i barge in ive just goggled earth age and its saying 4.5 billion years. now im assuming it must of took a millions or billions of years for the planet to be in a position to support life ( water atmosphere etc) also why im at it where did all the water come from as ive just read that the earth was a molten mass of larva and to top it of the moon hit us, but thats another story.And bingo soon as the sea settled a cell appeared and a billion years later here i am...you aint selling that brother and i aint buyin it

Life on earth started roughly 1 billion years after the planet existed, leaving roughly 3.5 billion years for evolution to take place.

 

[HitchSlap]

Master Hitch, I was wondering... what are midichlorians?

Great question Jedi selfinflikted, midichlorians are the very essence of which we are able to understand ToE... without a sufficient midichlorian count, it is futile to even study ToE, and relegates one to creationist status.

 

[Golden Yak]

before i barge in ive just goggled earth age and its saying 4.5 billion years. now im assuming it must of took a millions or billions of years for the planet to be in a position to support life ( water atmosphere etc)

Around a billion.

also why im at it where did all the water come from as ive just read that the earth was a molten mass of larva and to top it of the moon hit us, but thats another story.

The earth condensed out of a cloud of stellar material that contained all the matter and elements that we currently have on it, including the oxygen and hydrogen necessary to make water.

And bingo soon as the sea settled a cell appeared and a billion years later here i am...

3.8 billion, give or take an eon or two.

 

[andy b]

Life on earth started roughly 1 billion years after the planet existed, leaving roughly 3.5 billion years for evolution to take place.

that leads me on to my next point .it seems that soon as the dust settles millions of forms of plants and animal just sprang from nowhere ( alleluia )
for no reason why? whats the point? what does the universe gain ? where does the water come from ? why would a plant grow ? what would the very first cell mate or eat with without prior knowledge ? but most of all if life is so easy to create why cant we do it , throw some bits and bobs in a pool of sludge and you get a t rex but with all our labs we cant create anything .throw me a bone i need to get my head around this.

 

[Loudmouth]

before i barge in ive just goggled earth age and its saying 4.5 billion years. now im assuming it must of took a millions or billions of years for the planet to be in a position to support life ( water atmosphere etc) also why im at it where did all the water come from as ive just read that the earth was a molten mass of larva and to top it of the moon hit us, but thats another story.And bingo soon as the sea settled a cell appeared and a billion years later here i am...you aint selling that brother and i aint buyin it

If a bunch of bronze age herdsman write a myth about a god poofing the world into being, you will swallow that one whole, right?

However, the actual science backed by real evidence . . . that you won't accept.

Tell us again why we should care about what you will or will not accept?