Bad examples of intelligent design?

by gringojj 62 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  doogie

  the best discussion of the evolution of the human brain i've seen was "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence" by Carl Sagan. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345346297/qid=1121174834/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-3219845-1664141?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

  like abaddon said, we're can't go much further than speculation at this point, but this book does a great job of separating the fact from the speculation and it's all presented in a very logical, non-dogmatic manner. i don't think it would put anyone off.
• 

  roybatty

  Tet & Aba,

  Thanks for the info.

  I do hope I've shown in a nice way you simply need to learn about a subject before you try to disprove it.

  My purpose wasn't to disprove it. If that were my intention I would have proposed my beliefs on either creation or evolution. I was simply asking questions.

  I will buy into the reasoning that some external forces caused man's brain to grow (i.e. females preference for smarter mates). I also recall reading some article that man's larger brain was the result of our need to better release heat from our bodies. As we were evolving in Africa, the dudes with the larger brains could better dissipate heat, thus allowing them to hunt longer, work longer, etc. Makes sense to me.

  But what I still don't understand is how these new feature (however small and however long they take) are introduced into a population and again why we don't see species closer to our own level? Why did neanderthal man and cro-mag man die off (along with all of these other groups they find in Africa) but much lesser primates live on and flurish?

  I understand that DNA can mutate, even slightly, and create a new feature. I have read articles how science has simply changed one one portion of an animal's DNA making it 10 times smarter. Is it all a matter of mutation, natual selection and how many offspring one has?
• 

  badboy

  Position of human larynx
• 

  doogie

  why we don't see species closer to our own level?

  what is our level? i look at it like if we're talking about the sense of smell, dogs have us beat hands down. if dogs had the ability to reason on things like a human they may wonder why other animal's sense of smell is so primative compared to theirs. or if we're talking about the ability to breathe underwater, tons of species have us beat.

  humans happen to be the best adapted to rule this planet mostly because of the size of our brains compared to our body size. so we assume that we are the "best" and that other animals that have evolved differently somehow lagged along the way, or are dawdling in their evolutionary development towards human-like traits.

  the assumption is that evolution should always point towards humanlike characteristics (like a big brain). this is not what evolutionary theory says. there is no concept of progress. every species on alive on earth at this time that is multiplying is perfectly evolved for this time. basically, we are the pinnacle of evolution...just like every other animal...just in different aspects (i.e. intelligence, sense of smell, sight, speed.).
• 

  roybatty

  why we don't see species closer to our own level?

  what is our level? i look at it like if we're talking about the sense of smell, dogs have us beat hands down. if dogs had the ability to reason on things like a human they may wonder why other animal's sense of smell is so primative compared to theirs. or if we're talking about the ability to breathe underwater, tons of species have us beat.

  Which feature would you choose, the ability to have a great sense of smell, breathe underwater or a far superior brain? Which ever a person believe, evolution or creation, everyone has to agree that no other animal even comes close to our level.
• 

  doogie

  Which feature would you choose, the ability to have a great sense of smell, breathe underwater or a far superior brain? Which ever a person believe, evolution or creation, everyone has to agree that no other animal even comes close to our level.

  i understand what you're saying, but in the african savanna, i'd take speed. in the jungle, i would take greater strength. underwater, i would take ability to breathe underwater. ultimately, all things being equal and all animals starting at "zero" (with regards to levels of proficiency in various traits), whatever helps an animal survive to reproductive maturity will be favored by natural selection. in certain instances intelligence is not the most valuable trait. remember, in the beginning of the development of any trait, it would've been an archaic, vague representation of the trait that we observe now (greater intelligence would've been the ability to pick a piece of fruit...not understand advanced calculus).

  let's say a species is being decimated by a land predator (maybe a lion or something similar). the individuals in the prey species with a slight advantage in speed would outlive/out-reproduce the individuals with a slight intellectual advantage, but are slow. speed wins and (assuming this is the only selective pressure) that species will become faster, not smarter. this scenario played out with each species in the prey role and a various actors in the predator role. whatever beats the predator wins. and the primitive seeds of intelligence weren't always the best defense.
• 

  funkyderek

  Which feature would you choose, the ability to have a great sense of smell, breathe underwater or a far superior brain?

  If you make your living hunting and/or scavenging for food, and have poor eyesight, a great sense of smell is vital. If you make a living eating fish, the ability to breathe underwater is a huge advantage.

  Which ever a person believe, evolution or creation, everyone has to agree that no other animal even comes close to our level.

  Agreed, but that's also true of a lot of other animals. Nothing comes close to the blue whale in terms of size. No animal has a neck anywhere near as long as that of the giraffe. Bats hear at frequencies far higher than we can, and build sophisticated images of their environment. Elephants have bigger ears and a bigger nose than any other animal. What use to them is a brain that can do trigonometry and write poetry? They do fine with what they've got.
• 

  tijkmo

  elders...they possess both a mind and a heart..which they never use

  which rather disproves the evolutionary theory that we develop things as we need them

  oh what an oscilating siligism
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Actually I think H. sapiens brain hasn't changed in size at all. H. neanderthal (which we now are pretty sure was H. neanderthal and not a sub-species of H. sapiens) had a larger brain, but we have no idea about it's operational efficiecny in comparison to ours (other than when we were side by side with neanderthalI they died out).
  
  
  

  Or am I wrong? I draw a distinction between ancient H. sap and modern man, as there are differences especially around the sapiens and hidelbergensus boundary. But my understanding was anatomically modern sap has been around 100,000 years +.

  hey Abaddon,

  modern sapien has been around for longer than 100 000 years, yes. and in addition to the H.neanderthalis, i also believe that the european Cro-Magnon homo sapiens sapiens, of the upper paleolithic, had a brain that was about 4% larger than modern humans.

  i think this is the second time in a couple of days that i cause unnecessary confusion due to not distinguishing between old sapien and modern sapien, in what i am writing. i just tend to see the difference between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens as a splitting of hair in a lot of instances.

  this tid bit about brain size decrease, in a very slight sense, was a pared down version of something i read in Discover recently (not exactly a scientific journal, LOL). i should have noted the source, but it was not parenthesis either, so i did not see the point. i wish i had now, but the mag is at home. let me see if i can explain better what i read:

  i don't think cranial capacity actually changed per se. but rather, over all brain size decreased slightly, but with a corresponding slight increase in the cerebellum. paleontologists can note this, as you know, with internal "casts" of the cranium. and the so-called "shrinkage" is really quite small, as to be basically negligible species-wise. as a matter of fact, researchers see us and cro-magnon as both homo sapiens sapiens, with the slight difference of 4% in brain size. same species, both anatomically correct modern human for all intents and purposes, with a slight mutation in brain size, off set by an increase in the cerebellum for information processing. this was important, as you know, in helping us keep track of social contacts and obligations etc. edited to note: it's controversial, but there is evidence that the cerebellum also acts as an information processor in addition to being a regulator of timing movements for muscles ( Edward S. Boyden,* ­ Akira Katoh,* and ­ Jennifer L. Raymond 2004). this was the connection to my description of "learning to throw a rock", from my post above.

  so, i'm not really saying our brains shrunk. perhaps that's the wrong descriptor. but the slight decrease is, of course, nothing compared to the increase of the previous 6 million years (and the increase in the previous 170 000 years for that matter), and not noticeable from the outside of the cranium.

  i am sure i can get the source from Discover, and i will send it your way.

  cheerio,

  TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  But what I still don't understand is how these new feature (however small and however long they take) are introduced into a population and again why we don't see species closer to our own level? Why did neanderthal man and cro-mag man die off (along with all of these other groups they find in Africa) but much lesser primates live on and flurish?

  I understand that DNA can mutate, even slightly, and create a new feature. I have read articles how science has simply changed one one portion of an animal's DNA making it 10 times smarter. Is it all a matter of mutation, natual selection and how many offspring one has?

  hi roy,

  yes, you basically answer your question right here. also, just to emphasize, in addition to natural cumulative selection, and mutation, sexual selection most likely also played a part.

  interestingly, right on topic with this, i have found an interesting article explaining that researchers now feel they have made a substantial step in determining that the evolution of the human brain was a special accelerated genetic "event". here is the link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/hhmi-eth122804.php

  but for those of you who want a breif recap, here is a quote i found interesting and descriptive of gradual change in human intelligence, even though the change is so profound:

  One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. "For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

  It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

  Varki points out that several major events in recent human evolution may reflect the action of strong selective forces, including the appearance of the genus Homo about 2 million years ago, a major expansion of the brain beginning about a half million years ago, and the appearance of anatomically modern humans about 150,000 years ago. "It's clear that human evolution did not occur in one fell swoop," he said, "which makes sense, given that the brain is such a complex organ."