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

[cheddarsox]

abcdefg:

Mutations that can change the DNA of an individual don’t happen easily (good or bad).
if you move to Africa from Europe, your skin become darker. you can call this a mutation, however it doesn’t affect your DNA, and while your skin can’t be any darker, you’re unlikely to bear a child even has the slightest color. while I don’t know how eating Chinese food instead of Western food affects one’s health, one thing is certain, criminals can’t get away from police DNA identification by doing this.

**I am referring to mutations as they occur from generation to generation, not a person’s DNA mutating and turning them into something else during their own lifetime.

Yes, diet and environment do affect DNA as the individuals own germ cells (egg and sperm)are formed. So yes, genetic changes occur when people move from place to place, not in themselves, but in future generations.

**
Scientists prefer taking plants to space in the hope of a good mutation caused by space rays(?). they don’t feed plants different fertilizers to encourage DNA mutations.

**My husband and many of our friends are plant scientists. They do all sorts of things to encourage mutations. And, a little thing called selective breeding as well, which takes advantage of the naturally occuring mutations that are already in the genetics, and rather than letting “nature” choose what is passed onto the next generation, the people choose which plants to “mate” to one another.

Mutations occur all the time. They are part of genetics. Things do not have to be zapped with space rays for them to occur. The natural process, which we refer to as natural selection or, over a long period of time evolution, is slower than selective breeding that people do with plants and animals to develop organisms with the characteristics we desire. These processes are dependent of the natural variation within a species and the mutations that occur.

It is unclear to me if you understand how genetic information is passed on, or how mutations occur.

cheddar
**

 

[abcdefg]

PLP:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that a new feature in a species, such as a big brain, happens because of a single mutation. This is not the case. The central tenet of scientific Evolution is that new features arise by accumulating many variations (of which mutation is only one type of variation), each of which confers a small selective advantage.

Plain wrong. each mutation makes the brain a little larger, according to ET, one need to accumulate good mutations to develop large brains.
brain gets larger due to natural growth of a person. a child’s brain is smaller than that of adult. however if someone bear a child at 14 years old, her children’s brain is no where bigger if she’s pregnant at 24 years old.

PLP:

The mutations and variations are also often indirect. In humans, our big brains are the result not of variations that just make the brains bigger, but rather of variations that greatly extend the natal and juvenile body development plan; since primate neonates and juveniles have a higher brain to body ratio, extending this development plan has the effect of creating bigger brains.

No other species differentiated from our cousins after we did because (as mentioned earlier) we ourselves already filled the ecological niche best filled by walking-upright-big-brained organisms. Any later, small variation which would make this niche available would be selected against because the niche was already filled by our own ancestors.

no need to play word games here.
brain size: size of whatever part that controls intelligence. while brain has to control muscles. a larger brain generally means it has more to deal with intelligence since human and ape’s musles are almost identical.

Every evolutionist said lamarckism is wrong. yet every one of them said motivation of individual animals plays a part of evolution.
If you’re an evolutionist, tell me, do you support Darwinism or Larmackism? no need to switch between darwinism and larmackism back and forth just for the purpose to oppose me.

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

Eugenics is not “natural selection”. it is intelligent (Not! ) design.

humans are part of nature, not part of God.
However I admire your sence of humor.

zian:

I take it you mean “molecular”, not atomic.

Many species are threatened, through poaching and loss of habitat; I think they “know” something is different.

Apes at the brink of forest know they’re threatened so according to some of you, they have the motivation to evolve.
Apes live deep in the forest don’t know the existence of humans and their role, so according to some of you, they also have the motivation to evolve.

zian:

“Yet they still don’t develop”? You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evolution suggests that species must develop or progress. This is incorrect. There is no “forward arrow of progress” or development in evolution.

like it or not, good or bad. mutations have to occur, just like someone has to suffer cancer. according to ET natural selection can pick out those with a good mutations. Do you evolutionists believe humans in the future will have a larger brain than we’re now?

 

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

Plain wrong. each mutation makes the brain a little larger, according to ET, one need to accumulate good mutations to develop large brains.

Please give a citation that claims that every mutation makes the brain larger.

no need to play word games here.

That I can agree with. Your question has been answered and you keep playing word games. No need for that.

brain size: size of whatever part that controls intelligence.

You don’t know?

Every evolutionist said lamarckism is wrong. yet every one of them said motivation of individual animals plays a part of evolution. If you’re an evolutionist, tell me, do you support Darwinism or Larmackism? no need to switch between darwinism and larmackism back and forth just for the purpose to oppose me.

What do you, an evolution denier, say?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

Apes at the brink of forest know they’re threatened so according to some of you, they have the motivation to evolve.

That statement says a lot about your understanding of evolution.

Apes live deep in the forest don’t know the existence of humans and their role, so according to some of you, they also have the motivation to evolve.

I haven’t seen anyone talk about motivation except you. Why would apes evolve if they are successful in their environment?

like it or not, good or bad. mutations have to occur, just like someone has to suffer cancer.

Like it or not, mutations occur all the time.

according to ET natural selection can pick out those with a good mutations. Do you evolutionists believe humans in the future will have a larger brain than we’re now?

Once again, you demonstrate what your understanding of evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[abcdefg]

steveandersen:

Sigh, I’m not going to respect myself in the morning but…

That’s not quite right
(1) Monkeys aren’t hominids
(2) the process doesn’t necessarily need mutation. Natural variance and isolated populations work just as well

1. don’t play word games, won’t you? whether monkeys are hominids doesn’t affect the expression of the idea.
2. natural variance like skin becomes darker if often exposed to the sun doesn’t pass to future generation and doesn’t contribute to evolution.

steveandersen:

I’m not sure I’d phrase it that way but in general terms, yes climate change is a big way to isolate populations and to put them under selective stress.
But of course not the only way

selective stress doesn’t encourage mutation! it accelerates “natural selection” at best.
are we under severe selective stress now? yes. we face losing jobs, traffic accidents etc which ancient apes doesn’t face. does that mean we evolve or mutate more often than apes?

steveandersen:

Why?

only DNA affects offspring. your skin maybe darker than that of a black living in Europe if you live in Africa. but he produces black children, you produce white children.

steveandersen:

Why?

Simply because Lamarckism is wrong. (any contention?) you won’t develop wings just because you move your arms up and down every day.

steveandersen:

As some have already pointed out the idea of passing on acquired traits is an old discredited theory that was superceded by evolution

then why can’t you bear a few monkeys/apes? evolution is about passing acquired traits to offsprings. if it can’t be passed, then it’s not about evolution (like knowledge, no one is born to know some science)

steveandersen:

I’m not sure what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that there must be some radiation damage for evolution to take place?
You’re joking right?

Radiation damage contributes to DNA change most. chemical damage also have effects but much smaller.
by comparing the cost of taking plants into space and put them in some chemical solution, one can work out the approximate odds of mutation caused by radiation and chemicals.
There’s no DNA change by marrying one’s sister and bear idiotic children. some combination produce bad results. no new DNA/gene appears in the process.

steveandersen:

Once again not quite right
Evolution can work just as well by not purging some traits and thus making them more common.

You’re right and it’s exactly my opinion(under the assumption, ET were right of course). the passage you’re replying to an extention of EnterTheBowser’s idea to show the absurdity.

See how evolutionist contradicts evolutionist?

steveandersen:

Remember evolution is not about making something “better” just different.

but a mutation for the worse means extinction.

steveandersen:

Well I suppose they could, given the right conditions
First of all they would have to become bipedal or otherwise change the size of the birth canal to support larger brains. That is where we really began to differ.

Larger birth canal offers no advantage if no one has large brain. larger brain first followed by larger birth canal then even larger brain…

steveandersen:

What is this preoccupation with radiation and damaged cells
What do you think evolution is some sort of cheap Sci-Fi movie effect?

Ad hominem attack. I’ve shown you the effective of radiation compared with chemical damage. Scientists don’t even bother to try other method.

steveandersen:

Explain what?

the title. you have given an answer and I’ve refuted you in this post.

steveandersen:

Evolution only states that isolated populations will diverge. This divergence can be due to many things from natural selective pressures, to mutations, to plain old genetic drift.

selective pressure is about mind, divergence is about body. mind can’t affect body. again Lamarckism fallacy here.

I would think that due to human encroachment the isolation of ape populations is greatly increased so it is possible that there is more evolution occurring in those populations now than previously

Just assumption. no need to refute.

 

[abcdefg]

cheddarsox:

…

Select breeding just produce new combination of chromosomes(?). no new species.

for example people in an area have single eyelids. this indicate they have a combination of aa. by breeding with those who have double eyelids (AA or Aa) one can produce some off-springs with double eyelids. but there’s no B or b chromosomes appears. by exposing humans to radiation there’s a chance, though small, of developing B or b. etc

a friendly note. next time post your opinion out of the quoted area. it’s easier to read.

 

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

Please give a citation that claims that every mutation makes the brain larger.

don’t distort my words.

some mutation make brain smaller. it’s ideal for evolution that either every mutation makes brain bigger or those with a mutation making brain smaller are extincted. otherwise one risk breeding with a person with a smaller brain and end up producing a small brain child.

Orogeny:

That I can agree with. Your question has been answered and you keep playing word games. No need for that.You don’t know?What do you, an evolution denier, say?

Peace

Tim

I don’t deal with personal attacks.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Just as a friendly note, I will no longer be posting on this thread, as I have detected the corrupting presence of Morton’s Demon. It’s presence should be readily apparent to a rational observer.

 

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

Why would apes evolve if they are successful in their environment?

reptiles(dinosaurs apart) are successful. yet some develop into birds some into mammals. the rest is unchanged.

Orogeny:

Like it or not, mutations occur all the time.

that’s right. and? some are good, some are bad. and natural will pick out the good ones.

 

[abcdefg]

Discussion shows evolutionists can’t deal with this question without resorting to Lamarckism.

 

[abcdefg]

EnterTheBowser:

Just as a friendly note, I will no longer be posting on this thread, as I have detected the corrupting presence of Morton’s Demon. It’s presence should be readily apparent to a rational observer.

If Morton’s Demon is about evolution. that’s it only allows good mutations occur and prevents the bad ones from inside the individual. in other words: Lamarckism

 

[abcdefg]

If successfulness decides whether or not one would evolute. then we’re all virus,bacteria, ameba today. can’t be killed easily, can’t catch many diseases, can breed much faster and don’t need a mate.

 

[PLP]

abcdefg:

If successfulness decides whether or not one would evolute. then we’re all virus,bacteria, ameba today. can’t be killed easily, can’t catch many diseases, can breed much faster and don’t need a mate.

Amazingly enough, bacteria make up an enormous percentage of the biomass on the planet. Compared to bacteria, all the other organisms on the planet fill extremely narrow niches.

 

[abcdefg]

PLP:

Amazingly enough, bacteria make up an enormous percentage of the biomass on the planet. Compared to bacteria, all the other organisms on the planet fill extremely narrow niches.

I know that. and according to ET what’s the conclusion? so when bacterias evolve into more vulnerable, less reproductive life forms. it’s a bio failure? or do you think since bacteria is so successful they can’t evolve at all?

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

If Morton’s Demon is about evolution. that’s it only allows good mutations occur and prevents the bad ones from inside the individual. in other words: Lamarckism

You’ve missed the point (yet again!)

None of the those who accept evolution in this thread had promoted Lamarckism. Evidence:

abcdefg:

evolution is about passing acquired traits to offsprings.

Good find EnterThe Bowser.

 

[siamesecat]

It could still happen. An isolated group of apes lives in an area where intelligence is more important maybe food is harder to get, requiring use of tools, or something…so as stated before, the more intellgient ones survive better, and have more offspring which inherit this larger brain or intelligence. This keeps going over millions of years and eventually that isolated group could evolve into people. A group of apes in another area did not have these conditions and therefore did not involve on a large scale. Its probably less likely to happen now because if apes became significantly smarter people would probably start taking them to study or whatever; there would not be the natural process. The environment where apes can live now is more concentrated because of human expansion, and therefore these mutations may not have an extreme affect on the survival of a particular group of apes.

 

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

Discussion shows evolutionists can’t deal with this question without resorting to Lamarckism.

Discussion shows that abcdefg doesn’t understand evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

that’s right. and? some are good, some are bad. and natural will pick out the good ones.

Really? Isn’t that what us athiests call natural selection?

Peace

Tim

 

[zian]

Back to the OP -

What makes you think that

abcdefg:

then why modern monkeys/apes can’t develop a brain as big as humans’?

is true? There is no reason why they can’t. That does not mean that they will. Or is this the argument that says that since humans evolved (not “evoluted”) “from apes”, then why are there still apes??

btw - I thought this thread was going to be where you would present your scientific evidence that evolution is false …