It is said the soft heads we have at birth allow brain devellopement. The Apes do not have this. Some like to think of a tree of life where we and apes are branches. People who support Evolution Theory still see the tree of life concept as weak and seek to improve it. I would liken this to science on popular TV shows which tells enough to get one interested. Unlike most things there is little extra to the picture than that which one might tell in 30 minutes. Some say the number of bones that might give us the picture of hominids would fill a large dinner table. It's so very little to make a clear picture from. That's going back to central Africa and the suspected origine point. One question that interests me it what human types did from 200 000 BC until 6000 BC. The drawing skills circa 30 000 BC are at least equal to any of today. The 6000 BC is my best guess as to when building skills advanced.
Don't know this is what you mean, but the soft brain allows a relatively large head to pass the birth canal by being slightly deformable.
Edit: This is the reason newborns have a slightly elongated head which will become more round with time.
IF we are to further evolve towards a bigger brain, it would need a parallel evolving larger birth canal, i.e. wider and more expandable hips and related parts. Evolution is wonderful!
Jan
Last edited:
I think you are contradicting yourself in calling the apes of today evolved and retarded at the same time.
The fact is that both have the same ancestor but evolved in different directions due to different survival pressures.
There are many things contemporary apes can do we cannot. I think we got the short stick - ever see an ape stressed out from 9 to 5 at an office? ;-)
Jan
https://www.livescience.com/47536-ancient-child-skull-brain-growth.html
The analogy I was making here is evolution is passing from it's Flat Earth time or " say what you see " time. Often the best science says what you can not see. The tree of life idea is not going very far. Many do not need it too. It is like a jig saw puzzel where that piece that fitted nowhere which you tried a dozen times fits. You were sure it was the wrong shape and it wasn't. That's often how real science is.
I had a neighbour who was convinced that lead acid batteries could not be charged on concrete. His brother had told him so and his brother was very smart. This guy serviced F111! He often told me what the good book said when not what I wanted. Having a catalogue brain I was able to tell him other stories from that same book that said different. When he left to go home he said he had checked every one to them. He also said I reminded him of his neighbour Stephen King back home. The other neighbour at the same house had Roy Rogers as his back home neighbour and his girlfriend knew Margret Thatcher as mother's friend. Funny old world.
The analogy I was making here is evolution is passing from it's Flat Earth time or " say what you see " time. Often the best science says what you can not see. The tree of life idea is not going very far. Many do not need it too. It is like a jig saw puzzel where that piece that fitted nowhere which you tried a dozen times fits. You were sure it was the wrong shape and it wasn't. That's often how real science is.
I had a neighbour who was convinced that lead acid batteries could not be charged on concrete. His brother had told him so and his brother was very smart. This guy serviced F111! He often told me what the good book said when not what I wanted. Having a catalogue brain I was able to tell him other stories from that same book that said different. When he left to go home he said he had checked every one to them. He also said I reminded him of his neighbour Stephen King back home. The other neighbour at the same house had Roy Rogers as his back home neighbour and his girlfriend knew Margret Thatcher as mother's friend. Funny old world.
I understand the passing phase of evolution and science. Reminds me of Paulo Coelho 'Cats in Meditation' Story. But Flat earth has nothing to do with it as it is proven centuries ago.
Regards.
Regards.
"Science is the history of mankind learning to disregard the evidence before the physical senses and to accept the evidence before the minds' eye."
Forgot who said it.
Jan
A simple transistor is like a black box. Nobody actually saw electrons flowing in it. So we just believe they work as we were thought and not lil' aliens sort electrons inside.😀
My point would be do no harm to maintain beliefs. Religion moving to science moving to truth. All I ever came up with is that solid matter is a less complex lifeform as it is made of much the same stuff. It seems to have willfulness. This is a creative force in itself. It needs no other observation and makes all possible. Oxygen and Hydrogen usually make water. It is reliable. The Universe seems a similar machine which needs no other explanation also. It just is and has endless things to look at. Hawkin says Black Holes are not 100 % black. That's what I like to know. I have always speculated they make the very heavy elements and not the Super Nova as described. Even though a Black Hole is what it is, is might not be able to swallow forever. I got this thought from Super Conductors that whilst zero ohms do have current limits. I had a time making scanners and was the only one doing it who wanted to know more.
I can understand why people wish to think transistors are not of this world. However a 1908 text I read was mostly semiconductors and no concept of vacuum tubes.
I was going to finish a PCB today. Instead it will now be two PCB's. That's far better than working. It also will be better as the design can be used for other things. I was so bored so gave it a rest. That's evolution I guess.
I can understand why people wish to think transistors are not of this world. However a 1908 text I read was mostly semiconductors and no concept of vacuum tubes.
I was going to finish a PCB today. Instead it will now be two PCB's. That's far better than working. It also will be better as the design can be used for other things. I was so bored so gave it a rest. That's evolution I guess.
Funny personal anecdote, I have a fairly limited taste in classical music but am particularly fond of Sibelius. My sister ran our DNA last month and we were both shocked that there was 5-6% Finnish that we have no idea about.
I dare say that's me also. Nigel is a name from places like that. I dare not say it's origines as now thought to be not PC. The French got it wrong when listing things. Neil is mostly the same name and may also be the River Niger's origine in naming.
No I am not contradicting my self, what I am saying is why didnt the apes evolve similar to us if we came from the same ancestor its like only humans evolved and the apes stood still in time......No its not a fact that humans came from the same common ancestors as apes.
What can apes do that we humans cannot?.....short end of the stick because some humans get stressed out working a 9-5 job? LMAO
When a ape gets stressed out and confrontational they will bite and mutilate others genitalia including the breasts and face. Imagine humans doing that on a normal basis.LOL
As a child when I first heard we were descended from apes, I thought, why are they still here then?
I still find that a strange one. Education isn't what it should be, I suppose. The common ancestor should be common knowledge.
This is a common misconception. We did not descend from apes. Rather, we and apes have a common ancestor. Some of those evolved into the present apes, others into humans.
The diverging evolution of groups stemming from a common ancestor is a well-documented phenomenon and can even be observed real life at this moment, both in nature as well as under lab conditions.
Why are they still there? Why not? As long as the birth- and survival rate exceeds or keeps pace with deaths, why should they not be there? If they manage to evolve and adapt, long-term, with the evolving environment where they are living (or move to anther environment), there is no reason why they should go extinct. Who knows how they (and we!) will look in another few million years.
Jan
It is called the tree of life. Branches rather than linear. The tree of life concept fails as the tree has missing sections if using "say what you see". Hence we have to discard a very helpful idea. Tree of life could be likened to a Flat Earth. This doesn't mean building houses level is a waste of time. We use concepts that work for this, but not for that. When very lucky we use a universal concept.
Where Darwin took us too far was fruit flies. Adaptation is not exactly Evolution. What we can say is elements seem to like to form useful building blocks and that's the very big deal. I call it willfulness. Below is an interesting Round Earth view and it is far from what many might think. It's not the good book if wondering. Vegatarians be warned.
Fish differ more than one might guess when DNA. However there is a lake in Africa where they are many very different fish. They are not ( over simplification ) . They have one DNA ( again overly simplified ). It seems they differentiate into looking different and only breading with the look alike. DNA is a better tree of life except like Quantum Theory it needs a very open mind to see the next leap. Poor Darwin had to make a stab at it. He was being caught by others. I suspect he wasn't really ready. A proud boast of mine is I stood next to Desmond Morris at Oxford Speedway once. Whilst I have no idea if his ideas were right, he made me think ( The Naked Ape ).
My lady always says she is her dogs Mummy. I protest the DNA will say no way. Then I think perhaps 84% the same. 25% an exact match. Like the tree of life has problems some DNA sections as yet have no known function. One day we will know why they must be silent. Perhaps it is like a FM pilot tone to say what is what.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8219062
Heredity - Phylogeny of African cichlid fishes as revealed by molecular markers
Where Darwin took us too far was fruit flies. Adaptation is not exactly Evolution. What we can say is elements seem to like to form useful building blocks and that's the very big deal. I call it willfulness. Below is an interesting Round Earth view and it is far from what many might think. It's not the good book if wondering. Vegatarians be warned.
Fish differ more than one might guess when DNA. However there is a lake in Africa where they are many very different fish. They are not ( over simplification ) . They have one DNA ( again overly simplified ). It seems they differentiate into looking different and only breading with the look alike. DNA is a better tree of life except like Quantum Theory it needs a very open mind to see the next leap. Poor Darwin had to make a stab at it. He was being caught by others. I suspect he wasn't really ready. A proud boast of mine is I stood next to Desmond Morris at Oxford Speedway once. Whilst I have no idea if his ideas were right, he made me think ( The Naked Ape ).
My lady always says she is her dogs Mummy. I protest the DNA will say no way. Then I think perhaps 84% the same. 25% an exact match. Like the tree of life has problems some DNA sections as yet have no known function. One day we will know why they must be silent. Perhaps it is like a FM pilot tone to say what is what.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8219062
Heredity - Phylogeny of African cichlid fishes as revealed by molecular markers
The only purpose a strand of DNA has is to copy itself. The opportunities arise when there are errors in the copy. Most will be maladaptive and disappear but very occasionally an error confers survival advantage. A quite small benefit can become the new normal in a modest number of generations. Then there are the mega-catastrophes that wipe the slate fairly clean and set the table for new adaptive advantages to be revealed.
I don't think the purpose is to copy. The purpose is to express itself and thus direct the 'construction' and maintenance of the organism. In that process, it is copied over and over again.
Adaptions can occur due to copy errors, but also due to changes by other causes for instance radioactivity.
There is even some (weak) evidence that life styles can 'back-annotate' to the DNA making life-style effects inheritable. Seems that Lamarck wasn't entirely wrong after all.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.