1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 16:31
    I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/26/humans-see-brains-shrink-with-age-research-shows/
  2. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    27 Jul '11 17:06
    I'm not sure if you're actually serious or not.

    You think that this research somehow contradicts evolution?
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Jul '11 17:35
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/26/humans-see-brains-shrink-with-age-research-shows/
    There is a more extensive report at

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8669721.htm

    quotes:

    "As a result, the researchers concluded that the brain shrinkage seen in human aging is evolutionarily novel and is the result of an extended lifespan."

    “What’s really unusual for humans is the combination of an extremely long life and a large brain,” said Dr. Sherwood. “While there are certainly benefits to both of these adaptations, it seems that more intense decline in brain volume in the elderly of our species is a cost.”

    So, my friend, if humans whose brains don't shrink when they get old are reproductively more successful, then someday the typical human's brain won't shrink by the time they reach the ages studied (up to 88). But then if they live longer because of it, their brains will probably just shrink later, and some future Creationist will ask the same question about, say, 120-year olds. 😉
  4. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51444
    27 Jul '11 18:43
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/26/humans-see-brains-shrink-with-age-research-shows/
    😞
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 18:52
    I knew you guys would show up. 🙂
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species and if we are truly from apes, then why did we not keep this interesting trait that apes as well as all other life seems to have?
    So would it be safe to say they just might have it a little better then us in not having this brain schrinkage that we superior humans have when we age?
    Why do ours do this and at this point in study no other life has this problem?
    I would think this would have been a fantastic and needed trait to pass on to the next in line in this evoltionary progression that supposedly exist.
    What happened?
  6. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51444
    27 Jul '11 18:591 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I knew you guys would show up. 🙂
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species and if we are truly from apes, then why did we not keep this interesting trait that apes as well as all other life seems to have?
    So would it be safe to say they just might have it a little better then us in not having this brain schrinkage th ...[text shortened]... on to the next in line in this evoltionary progression that supposedly exist.
    What happened?
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species.

    So the question is: how can someone who has studied evolution all his life present such an erroneous question?!

    To start with what exactly is the 'purest form' of evolution?
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Jul '11 19:11
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I knew you guys would show up. 🙂
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species and if we are truly from apes, then why did we not keep this interesting trait that apes as well as all other life seems to have?
    So would it be safe to say they just might have it a little better then us in not having this brain schrinkage th ...[text shortened]... on to the next in line in this evoltionary progression that supposedly exist.
    What happened?
    You didn't go to the link I suggested, or didn't get the point of it.

    The study compared humans up to age 88 to chimps up to age 51. Human brains are about 3 pounds, chimps about 1 pound. The study found that "Furthermore, the effects of aging in humans were only evident after the maximum age of chimpanzees."

    Humans have longer lifespans than chimps. If chimps had evolved bigger brains and lived longer lives, their brains would shrink too.

    It's quite likely that all primate brains will shrink if their owners live as long as we do. Get it?
  8. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2436
    27 Jul '11 19:541 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I knew you guys would show up. 🙂
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species and if we are truly from apes, then why did we not keep this interesting trait that apes as well as all other life seems to have?
    So would it be safe to say they just might have it a little better then us in not having this brain schrinkage th ...[text shortened]... on to the next in line in this evoltionary progression that supposedly exist.
    What happened?
    We did not descend from "apes." Modern primates are theorized to have a common ancestor. The use of the term "ape" is often used by mendacious creationists as a kind of "poison pill" that is administered to the evolutionists at the outset of a debate in an attempt to weaken them in the eyes of public opinion. Other times it simply reveals a fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory.

    Natural selection mechanisms change a given animal species over time by increasing the probability of successful procreation among those individuals of the species that have a slightly greater degree of beneficial inherited traits (or a beneficial trait stemming from a genetic mutation), and this has the incidental effect of increasing the probability of perpetuation of the species (i.e. the population) as a whole. Brain shrinkage largely occurs, as I understand it, after the prime reproductive years of humans, and so will not be selected against by natural selection mechanisms and gradually "weeded out". Moreover, as I understand it, brain shrinkage does not in itself result in decreased mental capacity, and so it cannot even be viewed as a "negative trait" that needs weeding out to begin with. Brain size varies among modern humans by quite a bit and has little correlation with intelligence.

    One of the biggest conceptual problems, I think, among those who deny the theory of evolution is the fact that evolution is not driven by a conscious intelligence, which I suppose is why creationism spin-offs such as "intelligent design" gain so much traction. "How can a blind man create a watch?" In short, creationists cannot envision how an incremental, purely stochastic process that operates over vast spans of time among vast numbers of individual organisms can result in speciation and their grandmothers. The fact that humans can plan, use language, and fashion tools, is undoubtedly conducive to the survival of the species; but that selfsame cleverness has also handed humans the capacity to utterly annihilate themselves. Amoral evolutionary mechanisms gave rise to intelligence, but even intelligence is a double-edged sword. Evolution does not, necessarily, deliver only "good" traits or "improvements"; indeed, it is not even a causal agent. It is an effect of statistical processes and probabilities writ large, and little else. That is, it is a process that needs no god or guiding intelligence in order for it to function, and it is not a guiding intelligence itself.

    Why fixate on brain volumes? Do you see the mortality of man as a design flaw? Do you propose to say that evolution is bunk because we grow old and eventually die?
  9. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 20:44
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    We did not descend from "apes." Modern primates are theorized to have a common ancestor. The use of the term "ape" is often used by mendacious creationists as a kind of "poison pill" that is administered to the evolutionists at the outset of a debate in an attempt to weaken them in the eyes of public opinion. Other times it simply reveals a fundamental ...[text shortened]... propose to say that evolution is bunk because we grow old and eventually die?
    I'm not fixated on the human brain but as one who see's the many, many problems with life "just happening" and with little tidbits of info that we find out about humans as opposed to the rest of the creatures on this planet, it just raises another red flag as to the problems with evoluton being anything close to a fact.
    And no flaw with the design of man. The problems man has, we have brought upon ourselves by disobeying God. If man had stayed loyal to him, we would be in the physical and mental conditions we were originaly created in.
  10. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 20:45
    Originally posted by JS357
    You didn't go to the link I suggested, or didn't get the point of it.

    The study compared humans up to age 88 to chimps up to age 51. Human brains are about 3 pounds, chimps about 1 pound. The study found that "Furthermore, the effects of aging in humans were only evident after the maximum age of chimpanzees."

    Humans have longer lifespans than chimps. If ...[text shortened]... e likely that all primate brains will shrink if their owners live as long as we do. Get it?
    Some animals live longer then man does and their brains do not shrink...Get it?
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    27 Jul '11 20:50
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I knew you guys would show up. 🙂
    So the question is: If evolution in it's purest form improves the species and if we are truly from apes, then why did we not keep this interesting trait that apes as well as all other life seems to have?
    So would it be safe to say they just might have it a little better then us in not having this brain schrinkage th ...[text shortened]... on to the next in line in this evoltionary progression that supposedly exist.
    What happened?
    That's all well and good but who is being driven to extinction right now? What does your vaulted superiority in brain shrinkage do to stop that?

    If they go extinct and I for one surely hope not, who is the superior species?
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Jul '11 21:17
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Some animals live longer then man does and their brains do not shrink...Get it?
    Citation, please.
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Jul '11 21:23
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I'm not fixated on the human brain but as one who see's the many, many problems with life "just happening" and with little tidbits of info that we find out about humans as opposed to the rest of the creatures on this planet, it just raises another red flag as to the problems with evoluton being anything close to a fact.
    And no flaw with the design of m ...[text shortened]... oyal to him, we would be in the physical and mental conditions we were originaly created in.
    We know that is your underlying belief but it seems to drive you to make unsupported claims and draw unsupported conclusions. It makes you look simply unintelligent. You don't need to argue against evolution on this forum. Everyone who agrees with you will continue to agree, and everyone who disagrees with you will continue to disagree.
  14. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 21:39
    Originally posted by JS357
    We know that is your underlying belief but it seems to drive you to make unsupported claims and draw unsupported conclusions. It makes you look simply unintelligent. You don't need to argue against evolution on this forum. Everyone who agrees with you will continue to agree, and everyone who disagrees with you will continue to disagree.
    Unintelligent huh? Well I'm not the one who believes in life being here by mere chance.
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jul '11 21:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That's all well and good but who is being driven to extinction right now? What does your vaulted superiority in brain shrinkage do to stop that?

    If they go extinct and I for one surely hope not, who is the superior species?
    Without God's help we'll all be extinct someday.
Back to Top