Why modern non-human apes can't develop large brain now?

[abcdefg]

note: word “ape” in this post means “non-human great-apes”
Biology books taugh evolution “theory” like this: through mutation ancient hominids develop into humans, monkey and apes and extincted species.
History books: Due to environmental change, primarily recession of forest, ancient hominids split into a tribe prefer to live on land and later became humans. a tribe still prefer to live on tree and developed special skills to suit the new environment which became modern monkeys/apes etc and some extincted tribes. during the use and production of tools, brains of members of the tribe became larger and turns into modern human brain eventually.

The 2 accounts are conflicting: Humans have a larger brain than apes because of DNA difference. DNA can only change during mutations. while the use of tools or other experience of living on the ground can accumulate knowledge, it by no means encourage DNA mutations. in other words, you can move your arms up and down everyday and get a feeling of how birds move their wings, but you’re not more likely to develop wings than other humans. factors contributing to mutations are radioactivity, extreme hot/cold that can damage cell structures and they have never been spotted by historian. According to ET natural selection only help to purge the unfit then why modern monkeys/apes can’t develop a brain as big as humans’? radioactivity from space is no weaker than before. no extreme weather to damage cells both now and then. only no recession of forest to purge the unfit. so modern apes/monkeys still can develop large brain just those who don’t won’t be purged. Can evolution “theory” explain this?

 

[cathologos]

abcdefg:

Can evolution “theory” explain this?

Yes.

But let us be realistic here. You would reject any explanation provided, no matter how logical, no matter how credible. It’s perfectly clear from your other 57-odd threads on this subject that you have no interest in real exchange of ideas.

You reject clear scientific discussions provided by biologists. You reject clear teachings provided by Popes. You reject anything that doesn’t fit with your pre-existing view.

This is not discussion.

Best to let this thread die a quick death. It will just be more of the same.

 

[abcdefg]

cathologos:

Best to let this thread die a quick death. It will just be more of the same.

Thanks for the bump. I know you can’t answer

 

[Ahimsa]

abcdefg:

so modern apes/monkeys still can develop large brain just those who don’t won’t be purged. Can evolution “theory” explain this?

Can evolutionary theory explain what, exactly?

 

[abcdefg]

Ahimsa:

Can evolutionary theory explain what, exactly?

the title of this topic

 

[Ahimsa]

abcdefg:

the title of this topic

Evolutionary theory would state that modern apes could develop larger brains, if conditions support such evolution.

 

[abcdefg]

Ahimsa:

Evolutionary theory would state that modern apes could develop larger brains, if conditions support such evolution.

Read my first post. conditions encouraging mutations doesn’t change. radioactivities, extreme weathers etc.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

By conditions I imagine Ahimsa meant environmental conditions that favored an increase in brain size.

 

[Ahimsa]

EnterTheBowser:

By conditions I imagine Ahimsa meant environmental conditions that favored an increase in brain size.

Correct.

The earth’s climate is certainly not static, just to pick one obvious environmental variable.

 

[abcdefg]

EnterTheBowser:

By conditions I imagine Ahimsa meant environmental conditions that favored an increase in brain size.

Read my post. brain size is dictated by DNA and mind temperature changes like moving one from Africa to Siberia or vice versa won’t encourage DNA drift. The recession of forest doesn’t encourage mutations either. Radioactivity can. but so far no one can claim any evidence there used to be a nuclear explosion or what at that time.

Brain size doesn’t increase just because you keep using it.

 

[thistle]

Wow!! abcdefg is going for the record in opening up threads about the same subject but in all of them has rejected the scientific evidence presented and has still come up with no scientific arguments of substance to try to refute the evidence.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

abcdefg:

Read my post. brain size is dictated by DNA and mind temperature changes like moving one from Africa to Siberia or vice versa won’t encourage DNA drift. The recession of forest doesn’t encourage mutations either. Radioactivity can. but so far no one can claim any evidence there used to be a nuclear explosion or what at that time.

Brain size doesn’t increase just because you keep using it.

Ummm… let’s imagine the following situation: I’ve got a large number of rats. I’m a sadistic sort of person, so I make them run mazes and hunt for food, and each time I kill off the worst 5%. I’m a long-lived sadist too, so I do this for about fifty thousand generations. Is it reasonable to expect that the population of rats at the end of my “fun” will be better at running the mazes than the population at the beginning?

Simply put, the environment changed such that intelligence became a crucually important trait. The more intelligent survived and had more children than the less intelligent. Language, large social groups, and tool use all create an environment where intelligence is strongly favored (over mere physical strength and instinct, perhaps).

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

Biology books …
History books: … during the use and production of tools, brains of members of the tribe became larger and turns into modern human brain eventually. The 2 accounts are conflicting …

(a) history books are occasionally not very good science books. Since you have failed to provide a cite to a specific text, hard to comment further on this.

(b) are you saying that tool use caused human brains to become larger? This smacks of Lamarckism , which is a discredited theory. Please clarify.

 

[abcdefg]

quote=zian history books are occasionally not very good science books. Since you have failed to provide a cite to a specific text, hard to comment further on this.

(b) are you saying that tool use caused human brains to become larger? This smacks of Lamarckism , which is a discredited theory. Please clarify.
[/quote]

history books don’t teach “using tool make brain larger” they just said “during the use and production of tools, brains become larger” they can also say “during eating, brains become larger” without contradicting Darwinism. and I’m so glad I don’t have to refute lamarckism here since everyone thinks it’s discredited.

just answer the question, " why modern non-human apes can’t develop large brain now?"

post #1 gives you an idea what to expect from me AFTER you’ve answered the question.

 

[abcdefg]

EnterTheBowser:

Ummm… let’s imagine the following situation: I’ve got a large number of rats. I’m a sadistic sort of person, so I make them run mazes and hunt for food, and each time I kill off the worst 5%. I’m a long-lived sadist too, so I do this for about fifty thousand generations. Is it reasonable to expect that the population of rats at the end of my “fun” will be better at running the mazes than the population at the beginning?
…

you’re saying you can make a group of ape having human given enough time?
If they don’t mutate much then, they still don’t mutate much no matter how you kill them.
it’s also makes no difference to state this way: you make smart ones only breed with smart ones to produce smart offsprings and dump the rest. this is pure pseudo science of eugenism

 

[abcdefg]

more irony. under so-called “natural selection” smart ones are more likely to survive. however a rat(or ancient ape) with a small brain but more knowledge appears to be more wise than those with a large brain but less knowledge. knowledge isn’t inheritable during reproduction. so when one thinks he/she married a smart spouse. his/her spouse may be of inferior quality but with more uninherentable features. (knowledge for smartness, nutrition for height etc). How about when brain is full? while I don’t know if brain can be filled, supposed it’s now full, when you want to learn something new and important, the most useless knowledge is dumped (this is the procedure of “forgetting”). Have anyone experienced when learning something new, he forgets something affect his survival? for example when learning math for an exam, one suddenly forgets how to put on his clothes?

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

more irony. under so-called “natural selection” smart ones are more likely to survive. however a rat(or ancient ape) with a small brain but more knowledge appears to be more wise than those with a large brain but less knowledge. knowledge isn’t inheritable during reproduction. so when one thinks he/she married a smart spouse. his/her spouse may be of inferior quality but with more uninherentable features. (knowledge for smartness, nutrition for height etc). How about when brain is full? while I don’t know if brain can be filled, supposed it’s now full, when you want to learn something new and important, the most useless knowledge is dumped (this is the procedure of “forgetting”). Have anyone experienced when learning something new, he forgets something affect his survival? for example when learning math for an exam, one suddenly forgets how to put on his clothes?

???

 

[abcdefg]

???

In short, if one sees a superior individual(apes, rats also apply), he can’t know for sure the superiority is inherentable or uninherentable.

to put my previous post in another way:
you(suppose you’re male) find a girlfriend, you feel she’s smart and want to marry her to produce smart kids. however her smartness may because she simply has learned a lot instead of having a larger brain. she can appear superior even if genetically she’s inferior.
the 2nd part shows:
the advantage of having a larger brain within the same species is the owner can remember more useless things.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

In short, if one sees a superior individual(apes, rats also apply), he can’t know for sure the superiority is inherentable or uninherentable.

to put my previous post in another way:
you(suppose you’re male) find a girlfriend, you feel she’s smart and want to marry her to produce smart kids. however her smartness may because she simply has learned a lot instead of having a larger brain. she can appear superior even if genetically she’s inferior.
the 2nd part shows:
the advantage of having a larger brain within the same species is the owner can remember more useless things.

I know you are just giving an example but are you implying that some humans are genetically inferior to other humans?

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

I know you are just giving an example but are you implying that some humans are genetically inferior to other humans?

if one has a smaller brain. then yes, he/she’s genetically inferior in this aspect. what’s surprised about it? at least ET teaches this.

genetically inferior (even in all aspects) doesn’t mean one enjoys less dignity. you keep confusing genetical quality with human dignity. that’s called Social Darwinism.