You very much misread my argument. I was not contesting the evolution of the Blue Whale. I was giving that as an example of the awesome potential of evolution. I contrasted that with the less-spectacular evolution of crocodiles. So, yes, as you go on to say, in your post, environmental factors are key. The mere fact that our ancestors moved from forest to savannah, however, does not explain all human evolution from that point, given enough time. This is what it appeared to me that @cristiansoldier was doing; essentially showing that natural selection could go into the locker room, at half-time, with a good lead, in the evolution-explanation game. From there, though, he & others seem to be willing to call it a win, without playing that 2nd half-- we're up 21 to 3 so, give it another 30 minutes of play, and let's just call it 42 - 6. All I was saying was that there is STILL a lot left unexplained, to get us to where we are. Those gaps cannot be merely spackled over, with, "and millions, or hundreds of thousands, of years."
I think you misread his point. I think all he was saying was that it’s truly hard for the human mind too grasp the amount of time it took from where we started, to where we have arrived. Next, I think there is a compelling case laid out on how our own evolution was shaped the change in our own evolution.
I absolutely believe in evolution. However, as one possibility, I don't completely discount that apes or some related organism was genetically altered, or uplifted, to have an intelligent species that is fully adapted to Earth's environment. If you believe in souls or spirits, which I do, this would provide vessels for souls that are well suited to our environment. In this age of UFOs being proclaimed a real thing, I wouldn't discount something like that completely. And it would explain why we havnt been able to find the missing link between us and apes. And could explain descriptions of angels and chariots of fire or whatnot. Aliens, lol.
As to your first point: even your interpretation, stresses the, "time," factor. I cannot speak for others (nor do I think C.S., legitimately, could), but I was saying that this cited element-- that is, if the "human mind" WERE able to "grasp the amount of time it took..."-- that would not eliminate the doubt, about it happening, naturally. That was his main point, don't you think: that IF people had a better sense of the great expanses of time in question, they would not be so skeptical? I am responding, that I don't agree that this is the primary obstacle. As to the latter part of your reply, in red, I can only assume that you are unaware of the unresolved questions, around our evolution, primarily around the vast expansion of our brains. Certainly, there have been all sorts of speculated theories, but no, laid-out, "compelling case," that is both thorough, and agreed-upon. I will give one example. What allowed humans to form larger groups than our chimp relatives (which top-out, at about 45 members), were alterations in our brains, that predispose us to, "religious," experience, of losing ourselves in a sense of union with the surrounding "congregation." Being in these larger tribal groups, is a necessary precursor to some of the other factors that are cited, as spurring greater brain size. However, it is hard understand how this individual mutation (which is a benefit, mainly, after there is an entire community that already has it), would have been naturally-selected, by our species. Do you see the problem? Again, I am not saying that, because of this, therefore, evolution holds no water. Nor could I possibly know that no plausible explanation for this, might someday be proposed. What I AM saying, is that, at present, this is a HOLE in the argument for a strictly, natural selection-based evolution, of Homo sapiens. But it is my impression, that people who unreservedly accept natural evolution, as the end-all explanation for humanity, and who just laugh-off any suggested adjustments to that theory, must simply be ignoring any of the holes or, more likely, have not even had the inquisitiveness, to be aware of the shortcomings of our current theory.
It is not known with absolutely certainty but it was long speculated that before Neanderthals went extinct they may have interbred with homo sapiens. I am not sure what your expectations are for "absolute certainty" would be though. There is no eye witnesses around, a written language or body cam footage. The fossil records may be an option but the similarities are so great it may be difficult. I am sure there are people that have researched and written papers on the subject. It has been a long time since I looked into the subject.
Probably a few different hominid groups interbred with Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. I know that in far Western Europe, particularly among the Basques, it is believed their genepool has some contributions from Neanderthals. Maybe as much as 15%. Some of those people have thick orange-brown body hair that almost looks kind of similar to an orangutan, and the skull structure in their upper face is just the tiniest bit reminiscent of a Neanderthal. I know this because many years ago the owner of a French restaurant brought this theory up in a conservation. I think I asked him what his ethnicity was since he looked just a little different in a strange sort of way. The majority of Basques don't have these special body features, by the way, just a small percentage of them. The Negrito tribes in Southeast Asia (and this includes Andaman Islanders) are believed to have descended in part from the Denisovan hominids, which anthropologists are still not sure whether it constituted a separate species from humans. Some of the Australasian peoples in the tribes of Irian Jaya have long toes with can help them grasp on to tree branches, since they traditionally lived in houses high up in the trees. I mean the toes can't grasp onto branches nearly as much as a primate, but it does help a little bit.
I am not sure what theories you think I am dismissing. As for time, I never said time itself leads to evolution rather that the process of evolution when it does occur requires a staggering amount of time. Time on it owns does not equal evolution. The conditions for evolution are normal driven by need or mutations having an advantage but for it to happen it requires time on a large scale. Again I am not sure which development you are referring too but I do not think I have dismissed any. I totally agree there are many things in science that we have no explanation for. I do not even assume that science can ever answer all unknowns but just because something is unknown does not mean we should make up something as a place holder. We simply recognize the fact we do not know and continue on to find out. It seems like you think I am dismissing alternative theories but unless you are speaking about creation or intelligent design I am at loss to understand what theories you are referring too. I think if your theory publishes their research and it goes through peer review it should be taken seriously.
@Flynn from Az Here is a conventional explanation, for these changes in humans, from my last SNIP. It even comes from the first segment of the same, BBC article. I will agree that it is theoretically possible, that it happened this way. But it still requires that this mutation-- which, provides no survival benefit, until it reaches a certain concentration within a group-- did, nevertheless, reach that level of sufficiency, in many, many, groups of humans. It just seems to me, that to be at least a little tentative of accepting that explanation, as undisputable fact, is warranted, from any mind looking for truly scientific proof. No? So, basically, this vital mutation, happened to come along at just the right time, to preserve humanity from extinction, or so the quote, above, recounts. IF this is how it happened, it would suggest to me that there was something less than completely RANDOM, about gene mutation. Does that not seem reasonable?
Just so I get you right, “So how did nature achieve this socialisation process? Turner says the key isn’t with what we typically think of as intelligence, but rather with the EMOTIONS, which was accompanied by some important changes to our brain structure. Although the neocortex figures prominently in many theories of the evolution of religion, Turner says the more important alterations concerned the subcortical parts of the brain, which gave hominins the capacity to experience a broader range of emotions. These enhanced emotions promoted bonding, a crucial achievement for the development of religion.” “IF this is how it happened, it would suggest to me that there was something less than completely RANDOM, about genemutation. Does that not seem reasonable?” Are you saying the development was our brain was do to mutation in a gene? Have you ever considered how diet played in the evolution of our own Brains?
That was your response to: Bill Carson said: ↑ Were more likely to come from an alien planet than from apes, although this is something the masses can't or refuse to grasp. Or at least, through some kind of alien intervention. The missing link hasn't been found because there is no missing link. Every fossil record has been found except for the 'missing link'. Good luck searching. <End Snip> The theory that some changes in human DNA were intentionally introduced by an alien species is, while certainly only speculative, not completely dismissible to any truly scientific thinker, in favor of a theory that has not yet produced all its proofs, or adequately explained all aspects of human evolution. But that is what you did. If you like, I can produce tons of quotes about the paucity of the fossil record, surrounding the transition from the ancestor of gibbons & great apes all the way down to us. You will also notice many contended theories. You will also read about a dramatic shift in our ancestors' brain sizes, which are supported by less than dramatically convincing explanations. Maybe you fall prey to the very same problem you cite, of either some, or all, people-- I'm not sure which you were implying-- not being able to comprehend vast stretches of time, in contemplating our line's cranial evolution for say, the 15 million years before our own branch, and what happened, in that branch, in 2 million years, and then, after that. It is more than just, "distinctive." I know, people will claim, "environmental factors," but which, strangely, didn't cause chimpanzee brain size to double. But it is a lot to go over, and I don't how interested you are, in it, as you seem pretty settled on your beliefs. So, maybe you could start by looking a bit, for yourself, and then tell me if you read nothing that was worth a second look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Yes. Emotions are produced by our brains. You don't get a creature with a different emotional disposition, without a prefacing change in that creature's genes, thereby affecting its brain structure. This is one of the cited advantages of modern humans over Neanderthals, who actually had greater cranial capacity, but had less of it devoted to areas of socialization (they needed more space devoted to visual acuity, for the low-light conditions of glacial Europe, and for the maintenance of functions in their larger bodies). The groups of modern humans were larger than Neanderthal groups (155 vs. 120, IIRC), which meant less inbreeding, and the greater distribution of any new information, ideas, tools, and techniques. But this larger group size was dependent on changes in the human brain-- changes that existed in all, or most, of the human population. How do you mean? Obviously, a higher protein diet contributed to larger brain size. But that doesn't explain the structural, circuitry changes. This is not something that lends itself, well, to brief treatment. There were many factors co-contributing to brain size, including our development of language. Which was also, I'll note, fueled by our greater sociability which, in turn, proceeded from these neurological changes in our minds, resulting from-- the conventional view would have us thing-- some random mutation, in just one individual. Though I don't completely disregard it, this seems the least plausible possibility.
The evolutionary roles of nutrition selection and dietary quality in the human brain size and encephalization “Over the course of the last three million years, hominid brain sizes tripled. It is often taken for granted that the benefit of a larger brain is an increase in “intelligence” that makes us stand out among other mammals, including our nearest relatives, the primates. In the case of humans, brain expansion was associated with changes in diet, foraging, and energy metabolism. The first marked expansion occurred with the appearance of the genus Homo. Improved diet quality, allomaternal subsidies, cognitive buffering [by earlier weaning and longer juvenile periods], reduced costs for locomotion and by cooperative behavior, and reduced allocation to production, all operated simultaneously, thus enabling the extraordinary brain enlargement in our lineage.” “It appears that major expansion of brain size in the human lineage is the product of synergistically interacting dietary/nutritional and social forces. Although dietary change was not being the sole force responsible for the evolution of large brain size, the exploitation of high-quality foods likely fueled the energetic costs of larger brains and necessitated more complex behaviors that would have selected for greater brain size.” “The neocortex( perception, decision-making and language.) volume has grown out of all proportion to the rest of the brain during the course of primate evolution. In small animals, the volume of the neocortex increased from only 16% of the volume of the whole brain, to 74% in Hominoidea. In contrast, the relative volume of the cerebellum remained constant at 13% of whole brain volume, regardless of the absolute size of the brain.” “In general sense, both episodes of human brain expansion were triggered by environmental factors, specifically foraging, therefore suggesting that diet may have been an important factor in providing the nutritional basis for the selection of larger brains [10]. Bipedalism-derived behavior The evolution of bipedalism has traditionally been related to changes in the environment, including increasingly dry conditions and the expansion of open habitats, a more wooded and humid context [19]. These changes in the environment presented new challenges to arboreal apes, some of which started to forage the more scattered resources of the mosaic landscape at ground level [10]. Trunk morphology of the Australopithecines and modern great apes contrasts with that of modern humans in having a conically shaped rib cage, flaring at the waist. The inference is that Australopithecines likely retained large ape-like guts, in contrast to reduced gut sizes of H. sapiens. [18]. Gut size is associated with both the bulk and the digestibility of food. Diets characterized by large quantities of food of low digestibility require relatively large guts characterized by voluminous and elaborated fermenting chambers (the stomach and/or large intestine [colon]). Conversely, higher quality, more easily digestible diets require relatively smaller guts and are characterized by simple stomachs, reduced colons, and proportionately long small intestines (emphasizing absorption). An extreme example of folivores is the cow whereas carnivores typify the other pattern .” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41110-018-0078-x
Read what a scientist has to say, about published research The reference to, "the dress," is that social media phenomenon, in which different people interpreted the picture of a dress as different colors. This was later explained as being due to different assumptions that people made, as to lighting conditions. So it turned out showing how one's pre-suppositions, made all the difference in their view of what was right before their eyes. You might consider this tendency of people-- and scientists, it has been proven countless times over, are still only people-- to view things with a bias (both personal and group biases), as it relates to your choice to limit your thinking only to those theories that have gone through "peer review." What-- like String Theory? I'm not criticizing it; I'm saying: how much "review," is really possible, in a case like that? And I would submit that, when it comes to all the factors that played into the birth of modern humans, so long ago, there is also a strong element of supposition & guesswork; also, that the final conclusions are tough to test. So, all you do, by limiting yourself to ideas that have been vetted (through being considered scientifically "respectable"), is put your trust in others' judgement, of what is reasonable, in place of your own. You may be fine with that. I have more confidence in my own ability, to objectively assess ideas & evidence.
Exactly. It's religion. More religion with a huge side of ignorance of science. Evolution is probably the most supported scientific theory we have. Nothing has ever "discredited" it. Your ideas of what the science explains are misinformed.
There's much more to matter than sub-atomic particles; you've completely ignored energy, and the post makes no sense. Of course "life" and fishing sinkers aren't composed of the exact same sub-atomic particles. It's an absurd "question."
There has been research suggesting that the earliest human ancestors may have interbred with chimpanzees. Bonobos and chimpanzees can cross-breed, and their DNA similarity is only a couple points higher than our similarity with chimps. I would think the difference in number of chromosomes would present a barrier.
I understand the attraction of this thinking, but nature is perfectly capable of "creating" us without "intelligent" help. Such a hypothesis crumbles as "turtles all the way down" is beyond our understanding. Who created the creator is a question on the meaning of infinity, which we cannot process logically. Our larger brain physiology is what separates us from other hominids. The brain itself is a genetic adaptation, as well as the skull that holds it. How this occurs is well understood and predictable. Brain size from chimpanzee on the left (1), A. africanus (2), through various extinct species of the genus homo ending with neanderthalensis (10) and us, sapiens sapiens (11) History Module: The Expansion of the Hominid Brain (mcgill.ca)
No offense, but I see no point in your SNIP. First, it didn't tell me any relevant information that I didn't already know. Secondly, merely stating the theory that our tripling in brain size was a result of diet & environment, is not proof of that conventional theory. This is especially true, as, thirdly, there is no analogous example of this same phenomenon, they can point to, in any other animal. Yet, other animals have experienced changes in the quality of their diets, without it resulting in bigger brains. Bears forage; are you trying to tell me, if we supplemented their hunting grounds with additional food, their brains would enlarge? To spell it out: unless one's genes ALLOW FOR, larger brain size (and so have adequate cranial area for that brain to expand into) an animal's brain does not typically multiply in size, with an improved food supply. So you are putting the cart, before the horse: humans had to FIRST, have the genetic blueprints for a larger brain; then they needed the nutrition to support it. I was about to treat the author's argument about environmental factors (i.e., challenges, for which a larger brain bestowed an advantage), but looking back, I see that this argument was not included at all! So this, at least in the fragmentary way that it here, stands, is ridiculous tripe! Just giving something better food does not make the brain grow-- that is, beyond whatever deficit in growth it had, due to insufficient nutrition. As presented here, it is as if we just kept eating more, & more, and our brains & skull cases complied. Wrong. Our brains got bigger because our genetic programming told them to. Of course, this then necessitates the individual satisfying all the nutritional requirements, to maximize that genetic potential. But that potential, is also it's limit; if you feed a creature beyond what is required for its DNA blueprint, it makes the animal fatter, not smarter. So what you posted, in no way dealt with the mechanism of natural selection which both mainstream science and myself, regardless of how the trait originally came into the gene pool, accept as the way that trait would become dominant, by bestowing an advantage which results in a greater number of offspring, from members with that trait. Note the part from your post, that I highlighted in red. This is the important part: "The neocortex( perception, decision-making and language.) volume has grown out of all proportion to the rest of the brain during the course of primate evolution. In small animals, the volume of the neocortex increased from only 16% of the volume of the whole brain, to 74% in Hominoidea..." Do you think diet is what made the difference, in what parts of the brain added the most fat? Again I am only repeating accepted evolutionary theory, by saying that this was the result of genetic mutation. Though I feel I must be seeing the quotes you provided, out of context, it is they that seem to be propounding some radical new food theory. Food is important, in support of genetic potential. But nutrition, at least according to any science I've ever heard, does not initiate new traits, in an organism. P.S.-- The first big boost to our ancestors' mental faculties, from diet, when they ventured out onto the savannah, was adding meat. This first came by way of carrion. The leopard of that day, like now, stashed its kills up in trees, where they were safe from the other predators who might try to steal them, or the scavengers, against whom they would need endlessly defend them. When we arrived, a short tree climb was nothing to stop us from sharing in the spoils.
Did you read my full post. When I replied "I cannot even begin to address this" I was talking about the assertion aliens created humans. Unless something has changed since I was in school I don't think there were any peer reviewed research papers on Aliens creating humans. You say it is only speculative but where do you expect this discussion to go? We went from talking about scientific work based on decades of fossil evidence to totally speculative theory about Aliens? When I said I cannot address this it means I have no info for you at all on this subject. I have seen no evidence of aliens and have no theory about why aliens wanted to do this beyond my imagination. What can I add other than more pure speculation? If you say I should be open minded on the idea, how would the conversation go? You: Aliens introduced some changes to human DNA? Me: OK, that is and interesting theory. Do we have any physical evidence? Do we know what changes they made? Do we know why they did it? Do we know when they did it? Unless there are some answers to these question it is pretty hard to discuss beyond saying something like, "One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation was "The Chase" where ancient aliens scattered their DNA across the galaxy. That explains why Humans, Vulcans and Klingon are so similar". Maybe something like that really happened millions of years ago in real life too".
