• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The evolution of this abstract is centered in the frontal brain lobe, Autistics lack access to this region of the brain, as such scientists report their skills in all that make us "human" lacking. Including the principles of religion that are tied into our physical beings, these are not physically available to them.

Autism seems to be a falter in this conceptual evolutionary process. Loss of empathy, abstract, communication and non violence all of which are centered in the frontal brain and all are affected by Autism.

Lack of stimulation of this area shows that regression of development, this leads to an "Autistic" like state in social beings.

The fact that our physical well being is tied into what the principle "God" set forth to live by are in some ways true. So religious concepts when practiced although not survival based, help us survive.

The reversal of this seems to be a lack of access to the frontal brain and even though Autistics brains are larger than those of their peers, they are unable to use those areas and as such lack the ability to understand things such as social skills, art, abstract, and metaphor, all used in "religous" teachings.

The physical welfare of our bodies is true in religion teachings as well.

KMS
 
Last edited:

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This thread has turned into a contest of who can say the least with the greatest number of words! Gad Zooks how boring!:doh
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
This thread has turned into a contest of who can say the least with the greatest number of words! Gad Zooks how boring!:doh

I never knew the totality of all complete thought could always be summed up in one sentence and an exclaimation. wow!
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
I never knew the totality of all complete thought could always be summed up in one sentence and an exclaimation. wow!

No need to thank me! LOL
:2wave:

The discourse does remind one of the TV Hindu Gurus that can go on for hours with impressive vocabularies and convoluted flowery statements and allusions that in the end are just soothing sounds carrying very little substance!
 
Last edited:

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
CaliNORML said:
The rise of 805% in Autism is alone in 10 years makes this step in evolution seem to be faltering. Where this area is physicaly bigger it should be used more, yet children are unable to use it more and more often.
That is mainly a change in diagnosis, not in occurrence.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
CaliNORML said:
Maybe this micoro/macro evolution can be looked upon.
First it needs to be defined so we know what is meant with the terms.

The Darwin thought always centered around physical change. Never a chemical one, let alone a chemical brain change. There was no medicine this advanced at the time and no idea of dopamine, seratonin, and chemical processes like diabetes and the known function of these chemicals in our physical systems.

Diet has always shown as a huge factor in evolution, we are what we eat after all and our bodies adjust to the diet.

Today able to control our enviorment, top of the food chain, and with the ability to farm and produce food for many, our "Macro" evolution is done, there are hardly any physical needs we need to adapt to, we adapted the enviroment to suit us.
And what do you mean with this in a biological, rather than a physiological sense?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
oracle25 said:
Umm... no, it's not. Micro evolution is simply shifting in DNA.
So is all evolution. How is whatever you claim is macro-evolution (but cowardly refuse to define) not just change in DNA?

Macro evolution requires new DNA to be created.
What do you mean with "new" DNA? You are making an awful lot of claims that don't make sense.

Think of micro evolution as horizontal change and macro evolution as vertical change. Micro evolution + time will not equal macro evolution.[/quote]Why not? Talking horizontal, have you ever heard of "ring species" they seem to directly disprove that claim of yours.

Once again, what is macro evolution in a biological sense, and where is the distinction from the micro-evolution you talk about?

This is a scientific fact which has been demonstrated in numerous experiments.
Are you lying again? You haven't even shown a scientific definition, nor a scientific fact yet.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
CaliNORML said:
My point is I just showed what you described the chemical micro did not affect the larger frame we carried it in, our bodies. The tiniest trace is the skull contained the macro.

The horizontal is the physical, the vertical is the conceptual. A thought movement of understanding another dimension we humans alone see.
And what does that have to do with "macro evolution"? Are you just making up stuff here? Because certainly, that babbling nonsense in your post had absolutely NOTHING to do with science.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
CaliNORML said:
The evolution of this abstract is centered in the frontal brain lobe, Autistics lack access to this region of the brain, as such scientists report their skills in all that make us "human" lacking...
And how does this have ANYTHING to do with the definiton of, or evidence regarding the "macro evolution" Why are you trying to turn this tread into metaphysical babble?
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Metaphysical babble! Yah, that's a good term for it! My metaphysical babble is superior to yours! It's more wordy, pompous and contains less actual substance, so certainly it will replace Lunesta and Ambien for inducing sleep! At what point does the debate of the genius become simply mental masturbation? You guys should hire out to clear parties! I can't take no mo! :2wave:
 
Last edited:

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"Gravity is a only a theory. It shouldn't be taught in schools to impressionable kids."

I love it!

I suppose the Creationist's proof of that is that angels fly! They are scientific proof that gravity does not exist except in the minds of atheistic scientists and teachers!:2wave:
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
steen said:
So is all evolution. How is whatever you claim is macro-evolution (but cowardly refuse to define) not just change in DNA?

Please do not confuse macro-evolution with something "I" define. It was originally defined by leading micro=biologists.

What do you mean with "new" DNA? You are making an awful lot of claims that don't make sense.

I think the statement is fairly self explanatory. "new" DNA, means just that, new. Meaning not pre-existing DNA, or DNA that was not all ready there. I think your the only one who missed the meaning of this statement.

Why not? Talking horizontal, have you ever heard of "ring species" they seem to directly disprove that claim of yours.

Why? "Ring Species" have nothing to do with macro-evolution, they are simply species that do not seem to be related to each other but in fact share a common ancestor, this is perfectly acceptable in micro-evolution and the creation model.

Once again, what is macro evolution in a biological sense, and where is the distinction from the micro-evolution you talk about?

Again, I fail to understand your dilemma. Macro-evolution is simply basic darwinian theory, that is that all life sprang up from a common ancestor. This requires NEW DNA to be formed. In order for one organism to become another organism, the genetic code must become more complex. This is what we have no evidence of.

Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is completely different. Micro evolution is DNA that shifts (or reshuffles) itself to develop defenses. Once the need for said defense is gone the genetic information reverts back to it's original form in the next generation. This is know as "Mendel's law". An obvious consequence of this is that variations have LIMITS, so no matter how much you jumble up the DNA you are not going to get one species to evolve into another, you will merely get new VARIATIONS of already existing species. Or even these "ring species" you describe.

Are you lying again? You haven't even shown a scientific definition, nor a scientific fact yet.

I believe I showed both, but oh well.
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CaliNORML said:
It seems the chemical, enzyme, and protien micro world that has continued to evolve, leaving very little physical evidence, and no trace, as it is soft tissue at the center of this change. No fossils can exist.

I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time. This should bring the creation/evolution debate to a close but evolutionists insist on saving there precious theory.

According to most evolutionists the organisms that (according to there theory) would have lived before the cambrian explosion, were too soft bodied to be fossilized. The problem with this theory is that we have found many fossilized soft bodied organisms. From microscopic creatures too jelly fish, soft bodied creatures seem to have no trouble fossilizing. Therefore if there were such soft bodied creatures before the cambrian explosion we should have some record of them by now. Instead we have nothing.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
oracle25 said:
I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time. This should bring the creation/evolution debate to a close but evolutionists insist on saving there precious theory.

According to most evolutionists the organisms that (according to there theory) would have lived before the cambrian explosion, were too soft bodied to be fossilized. The problem with this theory is that we have found many fossilized soft bodied organisms. From microscopic creatures too jelly fish, soft bodied creatures seem to have no trouble fossilizing. Therefore if there were such soft bodied creatures before the cambrian explosion we should have some record of them by now. Instead we have nothing.

The thing that you fail to realize is that this is entirely irrelevant. Flaws in Evolutionary Theory (even ones other than the imagined examples that you bring up) do not provide any positive evidence for other theories.

It wouldn't matter if Evolution were disproven tomorrow (which would be rather easy to do - it'd only take a single misplaced fossil), it would not mean that Creationism or Intelligent Design are any more valid.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oracle25 said:
Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is completely different. Micro evolution is DNA that shifts (or reshuffles) itself to develop defenses. Once the need for said defense is gone the genetic information reverts back to it's original form in the next generation. This is know as "Mendel's law". An obvious consequence of this is that variations have LIMITS, so no matter how much you jumble up the DNA you are not going to get one species to evolve into another, you will merely get new VARIATIONS of already existing species. Or even these "ring species" you describe.
Have a scientific source for this?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oracle25 said:
I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time. This should bring the creation/evolution debate to a close but evolutionists insist on saving there precious theory.

According to most evolutionists the organisms that (according to there theory) would have lived before the cambrian explosion, were too soft bodied to be fossilized. The problem with this theory is that we have found many fossilized soft bodied organisms. From microscopic creatures too jelly fish, soft bodied creatures seem to have no trouble fossilizing. Therefore if there were such soft bodied creatures before the cambrian explosion we should have some record of them by now. Instead we have nothing.
Why don't we see homo sapiens in the cambrian period? Why don't we see hippos or giraffes or lions and tigers and bears oh my? Why do we see only such soft bodied invertebrates during that period?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
oracle25 said:
Please do not confuse macro-evolution with something "I" define. It was originally defined by leading micro=biologists.
Well, then you are using the definition where macro-evolution solely deal with speciation. In that case, it has directly been proved.

I think the statement is fairly self explanatory. "new" DNA, means just that, new. Meaning not pre-existing DNA, or DNA that was not all ready there. I think your the only one who missed the meaning of this statement.
nope, your claim is ambiguous, Are mutations counting as "new" How do you measure "new" DNA or demonstrate its existence? Are you claiming something that can't be tested or measured and therefore is utterly meaningless?

Why? "Ring Species" have nothing to do with macro-evolution, they are simply species that do not seem to be related to each other but in fact share a common ancestor, this is perfectly acceptable in micro-evolution and the creation model.
but they are new species because of this, and therefore are demonstration of macro-evolution. But if you are saying that "a common ancestor" is acceptable within creationism, then you sure are talking about the oddest creationism that I have ever heard about.

Again, I fail to understand your dilemma. Macro-evolution is simply basic darwinian theory, that is that all life sprang up from a common ancestor.
Like what you said above. But "darwinian theory" certainly doesn't need to go to the common ancestor to occur, it merely requires a change in populations. So it is not only what you call "macro evolution." And in that same line, up above you claimed two species with a common ancestor to be micro evolution.

So your arguments are garbles and without meaning.

So once again I ask you to fully and completely define the terms as you use them, so we can stop messing around with the incredible inconsistencies in your claims.

This requires NEW DNA to be formed.
And what do you mean with "new" DNA? How do you recognize or measure "new" DNA"? Are you talking about mutations?

In order for one organism to become another organism, the genetic code must become more complex.
No it doesn't. That claim is false, it is nonsense.

This is what we have no evidence of.
Yes, we do.

Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is completely different. Micro evolution is DNA that shifts (or reshuffles) itself to develop defenses. Once the need for said defense is gone the genetic information reverts back to it's original form in the next generation. This is know as "Mendel's law".
Is it now? Please document that. You are again spewing what in science is utter nonsense.

You need to move beyond your "just because I say so" false claims to actually provide some in-depth explanation/evidence for your claims. Right now, you are merely babbling.

An obvious consequence of this is that variations have LIMITS, so no matter how much you jumble up the DNA you are not going to get one species to evolve into another,
Sure you are. Even ring-species evidenced this, as has other examples of directly observed episodes of speciation.

And it does now seem like you are trying to claim that mutations never happen, that they are a figment of our imagination. That sinks your argument right there, as they are indeed very well documented. It frankly seems like you are very much to ignorant of science to have this discussion?

you will merely get new VARIATIONS of already existing species. Or even these "ring species" you describe.
They are actually new species.

I believe I showed both, but oh well.
And with that you CONTINUE to evade and avoid providing the actual definitions of the terms you use, micro- and macro-evolution. Why the reluctance? Why do you KEEP evading doing so?

It just results in conflicting stuff like what you claim above, so do us all a favor and provide the definitions so we have a clue what the $#% you are talking about. because you sure aren't using the terms in any biologically-meaningful way.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
oracle25 said:
I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time.
nope, no evolutionist have ever stated this, your claim is false.


Listen, are ALL your claims based on attacking what are not even evolution or scientific claims to begin with? Are they ALL straw men?
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am able to do this "metababble" from a physical place in my body, a place in the fronal brain allows humans to have conceptual thought and understanding.

In it's own right so to is religion a form of metababble. It speaks of metaphorical concepts that science has recently tied to physical reactions.

Why evolution is set so geared to the physical aspect alone does not explain "human" thought process itself is evolution. Sotf tissue meaning the brain and spinal column unless in mud outside the human body would not be saved as a fossil. Soft tisse of the brain encased in a skull would not be preserved and as such we do not have a fossil of the humans mind, we can only chart its growth by the size of the skull and any evidence we can see today, any changes.

Did evolution have to be only in our physical DNA or could it be the understanding of these effects of religious principles and their actions cause on humans. This thought process that formed the basic religious principles must have left a physical change, possibly one so small and inside of our bodies as not be physically evident on the outside of our physically evolving form. A form which changed to suit our external enviorment.

"Human" is not in the shape we have it is in the thoughts we have, and the way our physical bodies respond to thoughts. We have even deemed certain actions "inhumane."

KMS

KMS
 
Last edited:

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The primary way to discredit the simple law of evolution is to create a straw man by extending its meaning far beyond what Darwin intended and science can prove! I don't believe any reputable scientist extends the Law of Evolution to include all the speculation and theory flying all over the map today! To see the obvious truth of evolution is not to say we came from apes or a single celled organism in the sea! Those theories are not proven! Fossil records seem to show we developed on separate tracks from apes as we know them!

The obvious reality is that new species evolve from existing species by way of natural selection and survival of the fitness! Obvious in nature and proveable in a laboratory! Trying to extend that law beyond what can be proven plays into the hands of Creationists and other enemies of science and logic! Accepting the truth of Evolution does not require that we be able to track man back to a single celled organism! That would be the mistake of the Creationists! If we can't explain the whole process, it means God created Adam in the Garden of Eden out of dust and then wondered what he could make from a rib! He did well with the rib! :2wave:
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is a researcher that I found who gave an interview on this subject.

LINK HEREfor the full text.

KMS
Steven Pinker: Evolution of the Mind
Transcript:
Q: Can you talk about our origins in Africa?

A: The genetic evidence suggests that we evolved in Africa. We know that people reached Australia by forty thousand years ago, maybe earlier, which required travelling across sixty miles of open ocean, and it would have required a species with considerable intelligence to put together some kind of canoe or dugout that could have traversed that distance.

Q: So languages began just about fifty or sixty thousand years ago.

A: We really don't know when language began. It can't be any later than fifty or sixty thousand years ago because that's when the races diverged, and we know that all the races are interchangeable in their language abilities. Bring up an Australian Aborigine in New York, they'll speak English with a New York accent, or vice versa. So it had to be in place before that; it couldn't be later than fifty or sixty thousand years ago.

How much earlier? I think considerably earlier, simply because language is complicated. It's like the eyeball or the ear, and complicated organs can't evolve in one fell swoop -- they need too many mutations in order to craft this finely engineered organ. So I think language had to have had a fairly long evolutionary history.

We don't really know why it took us as long to evolve as we did, but I think there's a strong suggestion that language couldn't have evolved before other things were in place. First of all, you have to have something worth saying. What's the use of having long, flowery sentences if you have nothing interesting to communicate? If chickens had language, what would they talk about? Nothing terribly interesting.

And also, you've got to be on speaking terms with someone else. If no one else is interested in what you have to say, or if you tell someone something and they will take advantage of you and you can't expect something in return, there'd be no point in having language. So I think we evolved language when we also evolved something to say and when we also evolved to be on speaking terms with one another.

Language evolved over an extended period of time, but it seems to have coevolved with other things that all came to their present configuration about the same time, somewhere before fifty thousand years ago. Our intelligence, our language, our social interactions, all of them seem to come together at this magic point.

I think human evolution couldn't just have been driven by social completion, by people gossiping and plotting against each other, because that's the equivalent of taking in one another's laundry; it doesn't get you anywhere. I think social intelligence coevolved with physical intelligence -- figuring out how the world works. It gives you a reason to hang out together because you can accomplish things that one person couldn't, and it creates an environment in which know-how is that much more worth having because you can share it with your buddies and your kids. And so the costs of a big brain are repaid if everything you know can be multiplied in terms of sharing it with other people.

Q: We're talking about anatomically modern humans -- anatomically modern and behavioral modern are two very different things. Why didn't the others make it and why did this new group make it?

A: It's possible that once the skull had evolved to the present size, there was still more evolving to do. And that might explain the gap between the first anatomically modern human that had the same amount of brain that we had, and the first behaviorally modern human who created art and fine inventions and so on. The difference is that there could have been a lot of evolution going on inside the skull as the brain got rewired.

The actual cause of behavior is not just brain tissue acting en masse like a muscle, but it's the wiring diagram of the hundred billion different brain cells connected by a hundred trillion connections. There are so many ways in which those could be wired and many ways for the genes to bias that in one direction or another that, for a long period of time, there could have been a kind of internal rewiring even if on the outside the skull looked exactly the same.

Q: We always say that we're never going to find the answer to that because the brain doesn't fossilize. Is that true, or do you think we may find the answer?

A: We probably won't find the answer to that in the fossils because the neuron-to-neuron connections certainly don't fossilize. We'll have to be awfully clever about reconstructing it, both from the products that they left behind -- what does a functioning brain do? -- and perhaps also from clever use of genetic evidence, working backwards from the genes that build the brain today to figure out what the genes that built the brain fifty thousand years ago might have looked like. That's science fiction today, but who knows what will happen in ten or twenty or thirty years?

Q: If you look at a Neandertal skull and the skull of the modern human, they're about the same size. One failed and one succeeded. Why?

A: We don't really know why Homo sapiens succeeded and Homo neandertalensis didn't. The brains were the same size, but they may have been wired quite differently, and it could have been that there was wiring in the Homo sapiens brain that supported better language, cleverer know-how, better social coordination, that gave them an advantage. And it didn't have to be a big advantage; even an advantage of a couple of percentage points in survival rate could, over a few thousand years, have driven the less well-adapted species to extinction.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Q: What are memes?

A: Certainly, when we look around us and are amazed at all the things that Homo sapiens has wrought -- rockets that go to the moon and the Internet and modern medicine and so on -- that wasn't because our brain evolved to do those things in particular; no Robinson Crusoe thinking by himself on a desert island could have invented a rocket. It depends on the accumulation of an enormous number of discoveries that were passed on, not through the genes, but from one person to another through language and other forms of communication.

This is called cultural evolution. Some people call the units of cultural evolution memes -- little units of memory or knowledge -- and we've been accumulating them for tens of thousands of years.

So we figured out how to make nice sharp tools and our jaws and teeth became smaller. We figured out how to use the hides of other animals to stay warm and we got naked. We are now figuring out how to cure diseases, how to build shelters. And for tens of thousands of years the products of the human brain have accumulated in almost a parallel course in evolution to the changes in our bodies and brains.

These memes can be anything from styles that help you fit into a group, like turning a baseball cap around and wearing the peak in the back, to figuring out the cure for some disease or how to grow crops. So the products of the brain that have been transmitted not through the brains but through language have, for many thousands of years, been as important or more important than the actual physical stuff that we're made out of.

A lot of the creations of our brain can make up for physical deficiencies, and could actually change the course of evolution. Thousands of years ago, someone who was severely nearsighted probably wouldn't have had many descendants; he would have been eaten or fallen off a cliff a long time ago. But we invented eyeglasses and now being nearsighted has no disadvantage at all.

There are some people who might say, "Well, isn't this interfering with evolution? Wouldn't we be better off letting the diabetics and the nearsighted die an early death to improve the physical vigor of the species?" That really goes against the way that human evolution works, which is that for tens of thousands of years we've depended for our survival on our own inventions, on our own creation, and this is simply extending this process.

Also, probably the longer we look the more we'll find evidence for signs of human creativity and ingenuity in Africa. Europe is where you have a lot of caves, which preserve stuff, and Europe is where you have a lot of archaeologists out looking for human remains, and so I think there's a bit of a bias toward the European landscape. As people get cleverer about finding things in Africa and look longer, I suspect that we will see things beyond the age at which the European artifacts appear.

We also know that a lot of our evolution had to have taken place before the human races diverge because we're pretty much birds of a feather. If you took a bunch of human babies from anywhere around the world -- from Australia, New Guinea, Africa, Europe -- and scrambled the babies at birth and brought them up in any society, they'd all be able to learn the same languages, learn how to count, learn how to use computers, learn how to make and use tools. It suggests that the distinctively human parts of our intelligence were in place before our ancestors split off into the different continents.

Q: So what happened fifty thousand years ago?

A: Human evolution, at first, seems extraordinary. How could the process that gave rise to slugs and oak trees and fish produce a creature that can fly to the moon and invent the Internet and cross the ocean in boats? Was it some kind of divine spark that made our brains special? Well, I don't think so, because I think that you can understand human evolution in terms of the ordinary process of Darwinian natural selection.

The way to understand how different species evolved is to think about the niches that they fill in an ecosystem -- basically, how they make a living. And how do humans make a living? Well, with their brains. You could think of an ecosystem as a bunch of antagonistic arms races, almost: Everything that an animal depends upon for food is the body part of some other animal or plant who would just as soon keep that body part for itself.

And so all the things that we depend on for food evolve defenses against being eaten. Animals run away, they develop spines or poisons. Plants can't very well defend themselves by their behavior, so they resort to chemical warfare, and plants are saturated with toxins and irritants to deter creatures like us who want to eat them. Now, whenever you have some kind of defensive weapon in nature, you get an offensive weapon, and vice versa. So as the hide gets thicker, the fangs get stronger and sharper, which makes the hides get thicker still, and so on.

This arms race, though, is played out in evolutionary time, and the animal can't will its skin to get thicker in its own lifetime. Now, here's the trick, I think, behind humans: We participate in this arms race -- but in our own lifetime, not in evolutionary time -- by using our brains, by developing a model of how the world works, what causes lead to what effects, and figuring out ways of defeating the defenses of other plants and animals before they can evolve countermeasures in response.

So we invent snares or camouflaged pits, or we coordinate our behavior to drive large animals and stampede them over a cliff, or ways of detoxifying plants by cooking them or fermenting them or soaking them. And because we can figure these things out in our mind's eye by learning how the world works, we can figure out how to use more of the ecosystem to our advantage, and I think that explains why these big-brained creatures became as successful over the planet as they did.

Q: How did evolution, for humans, happen so quickly? We [already] had a big brain, but how did the big brain suddenly start working?

A: Certainly humans didn't evolve to their present state in one instant, in one fell swoop, because we know that our ancestors, the species like Homo erectus and Homo habilis already had a pretty big brain for a primate of that size. They were already using tools. They were almost certainly cooperating with one another. So it's not as if our species was the first to do it; it was building on some earlier stepping stones.

And it's unlikely that it happened all at once. You have to remember that not every creature that was evolving left behind its skull or its tools for our convenience tens of thousands of years later. Most bones or most tools rot or get buried and are never found again. So the earliest date at which we find some fossil or artifact is not the point at which the species first appeared; it was probably doing its thing for many tens of thousands of years before we were lucky enough to find something that it left behind that lasted to the present day.

Q: Can you talk about the rewiring of the human brain?

A: You have to remember that human intelligence and intelligent behavior don't just come from having a whole bunch of stuff packed into our skull like meatloaf. The actual organization of behavior goes on the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections, and we have a hundred billion nerve cells, probably a hundred trillion connections. It's just mind-boggling to think of all the different ways in which they're arranged in a baby's head. And a lot of our evolution consisted not just in getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence.

Q: Does Darwinian evolution allow for such internal rewiring as part of its process?

A: There are lots of ways in which Darwinian natural selection could rewire a brain. There are chemicals that are released in the growing brain that attract nerve cells, encouraging them to grow in certain pathways versus others. There are molecules at the tips of the growing neurons that can engage or not engage some target, like a lock and a key. There are rules for when brain cells die in what part of the brain, so that they might grow in one part, die off in another. All of these are under the control of genes, and as genes evolve, the way they do throughout evolution, the wiring of the brain can change.

Q: So this rewiring pattern happened progressively?

A: Yes. It's very likely that the changes in the brain didn't happen overnight. There wasn't one magical mutation that miraculously allowed us to speak and to walk upright and to cooperate with one another and to figure out how the world works; evolution doesn't work that way. It would be staggeringly improbable for one mutation to do all that. Chances are there were lots and lots of mutations over a span of tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years, that fine-tuned and sculpted the brain to give it all the magnificent powers that it has today.

I don't think there was a thunderclap or a divine spark that suddenly made one species smart. You can see, in our ancestors, there was a gradual expansion of the brain, there was an expansion of the complexity of tools. Even when our species evolved, it surely was spread out over tens of thousands of years. The fact that we find a whole bunch of artwork or tools in one place just means that that's when they arrived there and left some garbage that survived to the present time. But it's virtually certain that it was extended over many, many generations before that.

More HERE

KMS
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
CaliNORML said:
Q: What are memes?

KMS
I know you put a lot of elbow grease into these arguments, but what you are arguing for is neither ID nor evolution.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am arguing for evolution, the informations states it is such, it is the area where that evolution took place in the brain, not in the physical shape.

"Q: Can you talk about the rewiring of the human brain?

A: You have to remember that human intelligence and intelligent behavior don't just come from having a whole bunch of stuff packed into our skull like meatloaf. The actual organization of behavior goes on the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections, and we have a hundred billion nerve cells, probably a hundred trillion connections. It's just mind-boggling to think of all the different ways in which they're arranged in a baby's head. And a lot of our evolution consisted not just in getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence."

It was genetic based, however the rule of a physical within the enviorment must have made it so, on a cellular level. Ever so small, a re wiring and expansion of the brain.

To hold true to Darwin, some physical property had to change the brain, expand it and rewire it for us to have gained intelligent thought over the centuries.


The frontal brain is packed with receptors and regulates what makes us "human" and sends out messages to physically reward us for those humane actions.

That is what Creationist put in the place of "God" and the fossil records leave no trace of this re wiring happening to our physical form, thus evolution will always too come up with no physical proof. The evidence is not in the bones, it was in the brain long rotted away.

What evolution term this is i do not know, I see many parts of it in various sciences. Chemical, neuro, micro, it fits them all.


KMS
 
Top Bottom