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

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

don’t distort my words.

No distortion. Your words. You said:

Plain wrong. each mutation makes the brain a little larger

So I repeat my request. What is your source for this statement?

I don’t deal with personal attacks.

What personal attack? If you can’t answer the questions, don’t. Come to think of it, I know your answers, so you can just ignore the questions (like you do most other questions).

Peace

Tim

 

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

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

Peace

Tim

you said you’re a Catholic in your profile. now you said you’re an atheist. :whacky:

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

You’ve missed the point (yet again!)

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

Good find EnterThe Bowser.

What’s wrong with my words, if feature can’t be passed onto offsprings then there’s no change/effect in species. everyone will die anyway.

not very scientific using sarcastic “smileys”

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

Back to the OP -

What makes you think that
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??

as far as I learned ancient apes have disappeared totally. current apes are not ancient apes.
You have to explain why they won’t. since they still keeps mutating.

zian:

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

Reasoning is a kind of evidence.

 

[abcdefg]

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.

intelligence is more important doesn’t mean they will develop intelligence more easily. otherwise it’s lamarckism.
the possibility of developing intelligence equals that of on the trees.
and being smart more likely means having more knowledge instead of having a larger brain. having more knowledge isn’t a genetical feature and can’t pass on to offsprings.

 

[zian]

Morton's Demon link:

But unlike Maxwell’s demon, Morton’s demon doesn’t expend any energy–he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

    The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

    **Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate.** After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

Since you seemed to miss it, here is the gist of the Morton’s Demon link. Check the link out again and read it through - carefully. It is not about Lamarckism. If you were trying to make a joke - well, sadly, you failed.

Drinking with chopsticks is hard!

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

Originally Posted by abcdefg
evolution is about passing acquired traits to offsprings.

Good find EnterThe Bowser.

If acquires traits can’t be passed, then maybe you’re human but your children will be monkeys/apes.

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

as far as I learned ancient apes have disappeared totally. current apes are not ancient apes.

correct.

You have to explain why they won’t. since they still keeps mutating.

(a) No, I don’t. This is your thread where you were going to present the evidence. By asking this question, it seems you believe that they will (if evolution is true). Is that correct?
(b) I didn’t say that they (apes) would not evolve larger brains. In fact, as I just said,

There is no reason why they can’t. That does not mean that they will.

There is good reason to think that the same (or a very similar) set of mutation and selection events that occured with human evolution is not going to happen in the present day simply because the world environment is very different that it was 10 to 2 million years ago, when humans and apres were differentiating from their common ancestors.
(c) as you’ve already pointed out, “current apes are not ancient apes”. Hence the starting material for evolution now is different from the starting material several million years ago.

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

(a) No, I don’t. This is your thread where you were going to present the evidence. By asking this question, it seems you believe that they will (if evolution is true). Is that correct?

“they would certainly develop better brain if evolution were true.” that’s the point I’m trying to prove. or you can put it in another way “they would **have **developed better brain…” It’s the same.

zian:

(b) I didn’t say that they (apes) would not evolve larger brains. In fact, as I just said, There is good reason to think that the same (or a very similar) set of mutation and selection events that occured with human evolution is not going to happen in the present day simply because the world environment is very different that it was 10 to 2 million years ago, when humans and apres were differentiating from their common ancestors.

apes wouldn’t develop better brain can be verified the fact scientist failed to make one animal smarter. all animials used in militaries, fire brigades still have their original intelligence. and we have all materials that can induce mutation and we have CT to select apes with larger brains right? It’s much better than natural selection which can’t distinguish knowledge and large brain.

also given the long history evolution “theory” claims, apes have been given enough opportunity to develop large brains. but they simply wouldn’t develop.

zian:

(c) as you’ve already pointed out, “current apes are not ancient apes”. Hence the starting material for evolution now is different from the starting material several million years ago.

There’s no gene/DNA to prevent the development of larger brains in apes. right? and radiation, chemical in the environment didn’t change much to reduce mutations right?

 

[RobbyS]

cathologos:

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.

 

[RobbyS]

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

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

Why?

Why?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

Explain what?

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.

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.

 

[zian]

“they would certainly develop better brain if evolution were true.” that’s the point I’m trying to prove. or you can put it in another way “they would **have **developed better brain…” It’s the same.

Evolution would not predict that “better brains” must evolve. It would suggest that if change manifested a “better brain”, and if the “better brain” conferred enhanced reproductive success, then this change would pass on to future generations. **Where is your evidence to show that evolution says that “better brains” must evolve! Please be specific!! **

apes wouldn’t develop better brain can be verified the fact scientist failed to make one animal smarter. all animials used in militaries, fire brigades still have their original intelligence. and we have all materials that can induce mutation and we have CT to select apes with larger brains right? It’s much better than natural selection which can’t distinguish knowledge and large brain.

Nice strawman. This is a pointless argument (why am I not surprised…) Since the time frame you’re referring to is at best in the hundred years or so range, evolution agrees with you that what science would consider to define as a separate species would probably not arise in that time span.

 

[zian]

RobbyS:
I know.

sigh

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

Evolution would not predict that “better brains” must evolve. It would suggest that if change manifested a “better brain”, and if the “better brain” conferred enhanced reproductive success, then this change would pass on to future generations. **Where is your evidence to show that evolution says that “better brains” must evolve! Please be specific!! **

statistically mutations are not directional, some lead to larger brain, some lead to smaller brain, some lead to higher body heights, some lead to shorter body heights. if you think mutations are directional then you’re a lamarckist.

zian:

Nice strawman. This is a pointless argument (why am I not surprised…) Since the time frame you’re referring to is at best in the hundred years or so range, evolution agrees with you that what science would consider to define as a separate species would probably not arise in that time span.

you can make plants and seeds of plants mutate by taking them into space, what’s the time frame?

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdefg
evolution is about passing acquired traits to offsprings.

Good find EnterThe Bowser.

I consider this a kind of personal attack after reading an English version of Lamarckism (I haven’t read it before as I’ve learned evolution and lamarckism in my native language and it’s not English)

Lamarckism’s “passing acquired traits” to offsprings ignores of the existence of DNA mutation (like stretching necks) and it’s pretty inaccurate to call stretched neck a trait. and what I’m sticking with in this topic is traits acquired through DNA change/mutation. it’s quite clear with context. your intentionally distortion of the meaning of my words just for the purpose of ridiculing me is unacceptable. I demand an apology from you, zian and EntertheBrower

 

[abcdefg]

To those who said already success species doesn’t evolve: why according ET human brains keep growing since the appearence of man. even with a brain half the size it is now. it’s successful enough.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

I consider this a kind of personal attack after reading an English version of Lamarckism (I haven’t read it before as I’ve learned evolution and lamarckism in my native language and it’s not English)

Lamarckism’s “passing acquired traits” to offsprings ignores of the existence of DNA mutation (like stretching necks) and it’s pretty inaccurate to call stretched neck a trait. and what I’m sticking with in this topic is traits acquired through DNA change/mutation. it’s quite clear with context. your intentionally distortion of the meaning of my words just for the purpose of ridiculing me is unacceptable. I demand an apology from you, zian and EntertheBrower

Are you going to apologise to all the posters you insulted in the other threads??

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

Are you going to apologise to all the posters you insulted in the other threads??

I don’t insult others. evolutionists insult themselves by being defeated by me.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

I don’t insult others. evolutionists insult themselves by being defeated by me.

Well now! That sounds like the sin of arrogance to me!

 

[siamesecat]

abcdefg:

To those who said already success species doesn’t evolve: why according ET human brains keep growing since the appearence of man. even with a brain half the size it is now. it’s successful enough.

Human society is most dependent on high intelligence, much more so than other species. Brain size or intelligence or whatever the trait is that makes us smarter helps a lot in our society and as you can observe around you, the smarter people advance further. If we didnt live in a society that supported the mentally ill etc. they would die because they wouldnt be able to fend for themselves and they would have no children to pass the gene on to, if it was an hereditary mental illness. Also, in human society, I would say that the educated have less children because of careers and other things, so since the natural aspects of our life have been removed and we now dictate how to behave (contraception etc), evolution wont work because today the unintelligent (which can often mean poor)'s children dont starve to death, and the educated people have less children.