Why did only humans develop our great brains? (1 Viewer)

[stainmepink]

at least you all believe in the darwin theory

*phew*

 

[borkis04]

You still want to play?
This representation of Darwins Theory of Evolution is completely misguided and false.

"You mutate"? So what? Variations in species is a result of crossing over, random segregation of chromasomes and the fact that the two haploid cells of the parents combine to produce genetically different offspring. Organisms do not just "mutate" and "pass on mutations". A mutation is a change in the DNA of an organism mostly always results in a cancer.

Actually know what you are talking about before you post.

Just because you Wikipediaed that summary of The Theory of Evolution doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Fuck. If only i knew that for biology...fuck!

Haha, meh its all over!

 

[Kwayera]

This representation of Darwins Theory of Evolution is completely misguided and false.

"You mutate"? So what? Variations in species is a result of crossing over, random segregation of chromasomes and the fact that the two haploid cells of the parents combine to produce genetically different offspring. Organisms do not just "mutate" and "pass on mutations". A mutation is a change in the DNA of an organism mostly always results in a cancer.

Actually know what you are talking about before you post.

Just because you Wikipediaed that summary of The Theory of Evolution doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Well okay, if you're going to be snippy about it, lets define 'mutation'. You could assert that a mutation is a DIRECT change to cells as a result of external stimuli - such as radiation - causing cancer and other such fatal or extremely degenerative afflictions. I'm not using that definition. It could be because my internal thesaurus has been exhausted by recent 'circumstances', but I refer to the more plebian definition of a 'mutation' - a physical 'alteration', a difference, that favours one set of genes over another (like a bigger nose or whatnot). Of course, you're very right that I was using the wrong word; however, it negatively adds to your credit that you focused so doggedly onto that point without regarding the rest of it - thank you for digging yourself into that rather embarassing hole!

Next time, try not to be so stupidly semantic, will you? One could then easily mistake you for previously mentioned plebian.

why don't you all suspend your disbelief and go for the simpler explanation- we were all created this way...

it seems as though you're looking for a strictly evolutionary explanation NTB...you're not going to find any sorry, amoeba living in a primordial ocean don't just become humans with complex thoughts and emotions through chance alone

Well firstly, Mr. Dissenter, it didn't start out as 'amoeba' living in a primordial ocean. It started out as rather barely living cyanobacteria living in said primordial ocean, and it took them roughly a billion years to GET to 'amoeba' stage. To be precise (as Damage Inc. apparently insists on moral grounds that I, vehemently, should be), life 'began' with amino acids and bacteria (procaryotic) in 'primordial oceans' in the Archean Eon, which ran from roughly 4000 million years ago to 2500 million years ago. Then, sometime in the Proterozioc, it evolved into procaryotes, etc, la de dah.

Now, what YOU'RE saying is that life didn't just 'get' here. Well, I'm sorry to say, but yes, it did. In fact, coupla dudes - can't remember their names off the top of my hat... wait, no, it was the Urey/Miller experiment! Google/Wiki THAT, if you please - showed that those amino acids could be RECREATED under lab conditions that in themselves recreated conditions (chemical compositions of ocean and atmosphere, temperature, climate, etc) of the Archean -- therefore, longwindedly, life did manage to create itself.

Which throws a rather large spanner in the works of our argument.

Humans developed more advanced brains because we discovered how to make/use tools (.. axes and grinding devices.. not... *tools*). The reward of food promoted brain development.. the better food harvesting techniques we had the more we eat, the better we survived.

There's only one facet of your comments I see fit to quibble with - reward of food promoted brain development? Sorry, that's bull. A treat as a reward for a dog rolling over does not the dog smarter make. It only invokes a Pavlovian response - what's to say that what you describe wasn't similarly Pavlovian?

 

[ur_inner_child]

I think the more pertinent concern is the fact that we aren't evolving anymore

isn't that because we seem to kill everything and we do not have a primary predator (except for the random accidents such as sharks, and such)

and every mutation is either fixed up/cut off or is encouraged to have a long and healthy life? and some humane, understanding person will go and breed with the mutated being?

I think we are evolving, perhaps not a physical sense, but our minds. But then again, that's quite subjective.

 

[malkin86]

In a way, innovation discourages evolution - when we encounter a problem, we don't die out, we adapt our environment. Of course, in the end we'll all be living on the moon...

 

[Kwayera]

I should hope not - the moon's a bit dull.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

LOL GOOD ONE you ROCK

 

[The_highwayman]

Now, what YOU'RE saying is that life didn't just 'get' here. Well, I'm sorry to say, but yes, it did. In fact, coupla dudes - can't remember their names off the top of my hat... wait, no, it was the Urey/Miller experiment! Google/Wiki THAT, if you please - showed that those amino acids could be RECREATED under lab conditions that in themselves recreated conditions (chemical compositions of ocean and atmosphere, temperature, climate, etc) of the Archean -- therefore, longwindedly, life did manage to create itself.

I dont agree 100% with the concept of special creation (ie: that we were created as we are, with minimal change) but i do find it incredibly difficult to comprehend that all of this happened by chance. I'm not saying it couldnt happen, but it would be highly unlikely if u looked at the probability.

On regards to the Urey/Miller experiment there were flaws and points for objection.
i)How did they know that these were the same conditions as early earth? The answer is that they didn't. So the fact that experiment was based on assumptions (intelligent assumptions, but still assumptions) places a large question mark over the validity of the experiment.
ii) There would have had to be tremendous energy requirements on Early Earth if the experiment was a true model. This energy could have come from a lightening strike but it is put down to a highly random chance that the lightening struck the right rock-pool.
iii)All of the products of the experiment (formic acid, acetic acid, lactic acid, urea and amino acids) have all been found on meteorites (eg: murchison meteroite 1969 VIC) so what Urey/Miller modelled may not have happened on earth at all.

I'm not saying it couldnt happen based purely on chance. My suggestion is that it didnt. I dont believe 100% in special creation. Rather i personally believe that it is a combination of both evolution and creationism. A "GUIDED EVOLUTION" where the conditions were altered by "another thing" (it does not have to be a GOD but could be something else entirely) which contributed to the evolutionary path.

 

[loquasagacious]

I prefer the dumb luck of chance. Because afterall if we apply parallel universe theory then it becomes inevitable anyway. In that whilst the chances that life develops in any given place are incredibly though life gets A alot of chances because the universe is pretty big and B following parallel universe theory everywhere it has a chance but fails in our universe it has a chance and succeds in a parallel one.

 

[Serius]

There's only one facet of your comments I see fit to quibble with - reward of food promoted brain development? Sorry, that's bull. A treat as a reward for a dog rolling over does not the dog smarter make. It only invokes a Pavlovian response - what's to say that what you describe wasn't similarly Pavlovian?

actually its quite plausable... a man who has the characteristic of hightened intelegence and can create a simple tool like a sharpened rock will get more food or have an easyer time getting food than others who are not as intelegent. It isnt a treat for a dog because the man used his larger brain characteristic to get his own food... that man has a higher chance of survival because he can get more food, hence he is more likely to reproduce and pass on the favourable characteristic of a larger brain to his offspring, who in turn will be more successful, pass on their characteristic etc....

 

[inasero]

If I'm not mistaken, you don't believe in evolution?

Indeed, I don't- that is what I am saying, but more on that later

It started out as rather barely living cyanobacteria living in said primordial ocean, and it took them roughly a billion years to GET to 'amoeba' stage

Okay then where did those cyanobacteria come from? Random amalgamation of proteins? Sorry but I'm not convinced a primordial sea of proteins can become a thinking/feeling organism by pure chance...
Also, you seem to know your biology stuff pretty well- you would be familiar with the concept that proteins are polymers of amino acid chains...but these chains must be regulated in a precise manner and timing so the molecular folding structure is perfect. Where do those translation instructions come from?

showed that those amino acids could be RECREATED under lab conditions that in themselves recreated conditions

"Showed"?! Woman, its the 21st century now and Urey and Miller have conceded that the conditions in which they conducted their experiment were suboptimal and contaminated...if you really want I can find you various academic papers.

A treat as a reward for a dog rolling over does not the dog smarter make

Speaking like Yoda you are. I believe my man is on the right track, read on:

actually its quite plausable... a man who has the characteristic of heightened intelegence and can create a simple tool like a sharpened rock will get more food or have an easyer time getting food than others who are not as intelegent. It isnt a treat for a dog because the man used his larger brain characteristic to get his own food... that man has a higher chance of survival because he can get more food, hence he is more likely to reproduce and pass on the favourable characteristic of a larger brain to his offspring, who in turn will be more successful, pass on their characteristic etc....(thank you Serius)

Now, some of you might know me as a crazy fundamentalist Christian dude but even on an intellectual basis alone, many scientists today are beginning to question the many holes in the theory of evolution being unable to answer these questions of existence. Personally, I don't believe that evolution is the antithesis of creation science or "intelligent design" and that's where the problem lies...people tend to see these concepts as being diametrically opposed when in fact they can be complementary. I believe in micro-evolution as evidenced by Darwin's abservations of various finch species during his travels on the Beagle and whatnot...but there are still many questions to be answered.

Also, you have failed to explain the missing chunks in the fossil record...if you had a complete fossil record you might change my stance.

 

[SashatheMan]

Why did only humans develop our great brains?
I know it's a question like asking "why didn't humans get the ability to fly", but we seem to be a remarkably different species due to our greater intelligence.

My theory is that we actually killed off the species that were our competition.

its becuase god made adam and eve smart dah

 

[SashatheMan]

Also, you have failed to explain the missing chunks in the fossil record...if you had a complete fossil record you might change my stance.

also you have failed to explain the missing evidence that god created it. if i had a complete and logical piece of evidence that god made it, you might change MY stance.