Originally posted by DarfiusIt's obvious. So we could learn to play chess!
Also, why do humans have such huge brains? Brains use up ~60% of newborn's energy.
Evolutionists, help me out, what was the purpose of huge brains even before we had agriculture and reliable sources of food?
On a more serious note, brain size isn't something we developed and the took in use, you're thinking in creationist ways here. It's a trial and error process. The brain size developed alongside with our needs, and involves many factors, including social strutures, anatomical features (e.g. opposable thumps), and geographical circumstances.
Look at this website for further information: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007B7DC-6738-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322
Originally posted by DarfiusLarge brains probably gave us adaptability to different environments and situations, the ability to use fire and make and use tools, and to cooperate with one another, at least. Isn't it obvious that intelligence is an extraordinarily powerful thing?
Also, why do humans have such huge brains? Brains use up ~60% of newborn's energy.
Evolutionists, help me out, what was the purpose of huge brains even before we had agriculture and reliable sources of food?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe product doesn't explain the process, Thousand. Our "common ancestor" (what apes and us supposedly branced off from) had ridiculously small brains.
Large brains probably gave us adaptability to different environments and situations, the ability to use fire and make and use tools, and to cooperate with one another, at least. Isn't it obvious that intelligence is an extraordinarily powerful thing?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBiology puts the most likely date for the first modern humans at 50,000 years ago, with a maximum upper limit of 100,000 years ago.
It depends on what you define "human" as. Homo sapiens sapiens probably evolved from Homo sapiens (archaic) which evolved from Homo erectus.
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
If Homo sapien (archaic) died out 200,000 years ago, where does that leave us?
I will remind you that Neanderthals are nearly as distant from us as chimps.
I'd also like to add that in Genesis, two different words are used for 'make'. The first implies that God molded Adam (using dust) in the shape of something already existing on earth (Neanderthals), and the second implies God created something out of nothing and put it in Adam (soul).
That would explain the first religious expression which occurred 25,000-50,000 years ago, and was something Neanderthals did not do.
Originally posted by Darfius"Ridiculously small"? Chimps, our closest relatives, have pretty big brains.
The product doesn't explain the process, Thousand. Our "common ancestor" (what apes and us supposedly branced off from) had ridiculously small brains.
The process probably involved the ASPM gene. This gene and homologous genes in other organisms has a repetitive structure and there is a correlation between how many times it repeats and how large the nervous system is between species as well as within the Homo sapiens species. When this gene gets shortened, microencephaly is the result.
http://pharyngula.org/comments/225_0_1_16_C
There is also a phenomenon called allometry in which mutations in regulatory genes can increase or decrease the rate of growth of part of the body relative to the whole. This explains the differences between the skull shapes of humans, chimps, and baboons; the human's cranium grows much faster than the facial bones compared to the chimp, while the baboon is the opposite. The result is three skulls which are very similar except for the proportions.
http://pharyngula.org/comments/249_0_1_0_C/
Now, let's hypothesize a "common ancestor" or CA for chimps and humans. This ancestor would be a tree dwelling ape of some sort. Mutations would provide genetic variability which would give variability to the cranium size and the brain size.
Some of these apes would continue to live in the forest and would evolve into chimpanzees. Others might be forced out of the forest, or might simply find resources available in nearby plains that there was no ape competition for. These latter apes would succeed if they were adaptable and had the other benefits a larger brain would provide. Natural selection would select for larger brains up to the limit of the skull's volume, and then mutation would provide more genetic variability in cranium size, and those with larger craniums would be able to handle larger brains that would later evolve, etc. Mutation would allow the cranium and brain to increase and decrease in size, and natural selection would allow those with larger brains to thrive, because larger brains provide the benefits that they do.
Originally posted by DarfiusBiology puts the [b]most likely date for the first modern humans at 50,000 years ago, with a maximum upper limit of 100,000 years ago.[/b]
Biology puts the [b]most likely date for the first modern humans at 50,000 years ago, with a maximum upper limit of 100,000 years ago.
If Homo sapien (archaic) died out 200,000 years ago, where does that leave us?
I will remind you that Neanderthals are nearly as distant from us as chimps.
I'd also like to add that in Genesis, two different wor ...[text shortened]... us expression which occurred 25,000-50,000 years ago, and was something Neanderthals did not do.[/b]
Where are you getting these numbers from? The website I gave the address for claims Homo sapiens sapiens have existed for 200 thousand years.
"Ridiculously small"? Chimps, our closest relatives, have pretty big brains.
We didn't come from chimps.
Now, let's hypothesize a "common ancestor" or CA for chimps and humans. This ancestor would be a tree dwelling ape of some sort. Mutations would provide genetic variability which would give variability to the cranium size and the brain size.
Why would the ancestor be a tree-dweeling ape? Why couldn't it be a plain roaming ape?
Some of these apes would continue to live in the forest and would evolve into chimpanzees. Others might be forced out of the forest, or might simply find resources available in nearby plains that there was no ape competition for. These latter apes would succeed if they were adaptable and had the other benefits a larger brain would provide. Natural selection would select for larger brains up to the limit of the skull's volume, and then mutation would provide more genetic variability in cranium size, and those with larger craniums would be able to handle larger brains that would later evolve, etc. Mutation would allow the cranium and brain to increase and decrease in size, and natural selection would allow those with larger brains to thrive, because larger brains provide the benefits that they do.
How exactly would larger brains help a plain dwelling ape rather than a tree dwelling one? I would think the ape would be more concerned with speed than intelligence in the open plains.