How do Darwinists explain the Human brain!!!

[Mark70]

If you look at the Human brain you will notice that the Cerebrum is convulated. Apes have convulated brains also, but the brains of the nearest living relatives to the supposed common ancestor of Monkeys/Primates are relatively smooth. If you look at the brain of a Bushbaby or Tarsier you will notice that the cerebrum is smooth and does not nearly resemble that of a humans. Also the brain of a Monkey or Lemur barely resembles a Human brain. If you look at the brain of a Horse, Dog, or a pig you will notice that the brain looks very similar to a Human brain. If you look ah the cross sections of a Human and Dog brain you will notice that they are almost identical. The convulations in a Human and Dog brain are almost identical. If you will look at the cross sections of a Human and Dog brain you will see that the cerebrum branches out and is organized in a very similar fashion. But if you look at the cross sections of a Lemur or Monkey brain you will see little resemblance with the Human brain. How do Darwinists/mainstream Evolutionists explain the human brain looking almost identical to a Horse or Dog brain, while barely resembling a Monkey brain? According to Evolutionists the last common ancestor between a Human and a Horse was probably some small primitive mammal with a shrewlike or rodentlike brain. How would convergent evolution according to darwinist/mainstream evolution make the Human brain look almost identical to a Horse or Dog brain. Doesn't this show that current theories on the origin of man are flawed? Here are some pictures so you can see for yourself:

 

Horse brain: http://www.google.co...s:0&tx=24&ty=67

 

Human brain: http://www.google.co...s:0&tx=44&ty=69

 

Horse brain: http://i156.photobuc...ia/DSC_0029.jpg

 

Dog brain: http://www.brainmuse.../Beagle6clr.jpg

 

Dog brain: http://www.shutterst...orm#id=71338525

 

Dog brain cross sections: http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v16/n5/extref/mt200841x2.jpeg

 

Human brain cross section: http://www.google.co...rontal_(coronal

 

Bushbaby brain cross section: http://www.brainmuse...hby_61686_6.jpg

 

Tarsier brain: http://www.brainmuse...Tarsier6clr.jpg

 

Rhesus Monkey brain: http://www.brainmuse...Rhesusmonk6.jpg

 

Lemur brain: http://www.brainmuse...gooselemur6.jpg

Edited August 12, 2011 by Mark70

[Ringer]

If you think that through all the years of evolutionary theory no one noticed species that are not at all closely related have common trait and never gave an explanation you need to actually read evolutionary theories. After you do that and read up on evolutionary developments of brains and brain regions you should see if this question still holds any ground.

 

[edit]

Figured I would help you get started. [/edit]

 

Edited August 12, 2011 by Ringer

[Mark70]

Ringer, I studied and researched evolutionary theories for a long time, and I came to the conclusion that it is nonsense. The problem is that scientists are always changing and rewriting their theories and their theories are full of holes. Ringer, none of your links talk about how the Human brain is so similar to supposedly distant mammalian relatives while it looks so different from the brain of a Monkey. Really, how would convergent evolution make our brains almost identical to the brains of Horses and Dogs while so different from the brain of a Monkey. Saying the brain similarities are the result of chance is preposterous. It is important to look at our brains if we want to understand our origins. This is because the brain changes very little over the course of time. Many body structures are very plastic and changing in response to environment, climate, e.t.c, but the brain usually stays the same for many years. We have structures in our brains that are identical to those found in amphibians and reptiles. This shows that the brain doesn't just change overnight. Think about it the brain is the most complex organ, so any changes in it would take many years to occur. Our brains prove that we did not descend from Monkeys or Monkey like creatures because they are so different. Try to explain why our brains are more similar to the brains of Horses and Dogs and other mammals than to the brains of monkeys. Our brains are simply too different from the brains of Monkeys for us to have come from them. How can evolutionists explain our most complex organ, the brain being like a horses brain but not a Monkeys. Scientists always point out us being so similar to Monkeys because we have many anatomical similarities like opposable thumbs, flat nails, similar teeth e.t.c, but they don't point out our brains being so similar to a horses brain or a dogs brain, when the brain is the most important thing to look at if we want to understand our Dna and origins, since the brain is the most complex structure and it remains relatively unchanged for a long period of time. Any homologous organizations and similar traits in the brain that we share with Horses, Dogs, e.t.c. cannot be due to convergent evolution or chance, due simply to the simple fact that the brain is to complex. Our brains do not look or function like a Monkeys brain, so as a result, from common sense and logic, you should see that we did not come from Monkeys. Anyone who believes in Darwinism/mainstream evolution needs to do some real research and not exclude any evidence and facts that go against their theories. Todays scientists are controlled by the elites and the illuminati so they are not allowed to tell us the truth. Todays theories brought forth on our origins e.t.c. are meant to dumb us down and keep us from the truth. People need to stop listening to the phony scientists with their phony theories and do some research themselves.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Mark70

[Ringer]

So you disbelieve scientific theories because they are willing to change when new evidence comes to light that disputes current thinking? That makes sense.

 

You say you have researched evolutionary theory for a long time, if that's true then your post shouldn't contain any misconceptions about evolution. So let's take a look at your post. (I'll just bold things that are blatant misconception about how science and evolution work)

 

 

 

Ringer, I studied and researched evolutionary theories for a long time, and I came to the conclusion that it is nonsense. The problem is that scientists are always changing and rewriting their theories and their theories are full of holes.

That is something that happens to all scientific theories. So with this premise all scientific theories are rubbish.

Ringer, none of your links talk about how the Human brain is so similar to supposedly distant mammalian relatives while it looks so different from the brain of a Monkey. Really, how would convergent evolution make our brains almost identical to the brains of Horses and Dogs while so different from the brain of a Monkey. Saying the brain similarities are the result of chance is preposterous.

It is also preposterous to think that endothermic animals could have evolved twice by chance. It is also insane to think a 4 chambered heart could evolve more than once. So birds and mammals must be more closely related than birds and alligators. Never mind the vast anatomical, historical, and molecular data; I choose to use an argument from incredulity. That is the long winded version of saying you are using a logical fallacy.

It is important to look at our brains if we want to understand our origins. This is because the brain changes very little over the course of time. Many body structures are very plastic and changing in response to environment, climate, e.t.c, but the brain usually stays the same for many years.

The first sentence I agree with, but the rest is plainly wrong. Do you truly believe your brain takes a long time to change? Have you read a book about brain plasticity? How about dendrites forming and being pruned in minutes. But the main thing is that it doesn't matter, for the most part, what happens to change in our lifetime. What matters is what changed in the progeny of a species.

We have structures in our brains that are identical to those found in amphibians and reptiles.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying we evolved from the same ancestors of amphibians and reptiles? That just blew my mind.

This shows that the brain doesn't just change overnight.

. . . and what in evolutionary theory says that species change overnight?

Think about it the brain is the most complex organ, so any changes in it would take many years to occur.

Again I need more than your personal opinion on this. Why don't you think changes in the brain occur often and fairly speedily?

Our brains prove that we did not descend from Monkeys or Monkey like creatures because they are so different.

No it doesn't. What about hooves? Does that disprove the evidence for common ancestry of dogs and horses? Or is it believable because you can personally believe it and your logical fallacy doesn't extend that far? Do you really believe that cortical folding is so uncommon in mammals?

Try to explain why our brains are more similar to the brains of Horses and Dogs and other mammals than to the brains of monkeys. Our brains are simply too different from the brains of Monkeys for us to have come from them. How can evolutionists explain our most complex organ, the brain being like a horses brain but not a Monkeys.

Convergent evolution? How about that some things may be discarded in an evolutionary time scale? What is your evidence that neither of these can happen and only whatever explanation you are trying to push fits all the evidence we have?

Scientists always point out us being so similar to Monkeys because we have many anatomical similarities like opposable thumbs, flat nails, similar teeth e.t.c, but they don't point out our brains being so similar to a horses brain or a dogs brain, when the brain is the most important thing to look at if we want to understand our Dna and origins, since the brain is the most complex structure and it remains relatively unchanged for a long period of time.

Yes, it's only anatomical differences that evolutionary biologists look at. We don't have a ridiculous amount of molecular evidence supporting the theory.

On a side note why do you only capitalize the D in DNA, not trying to be a grammar Nazi but it bothers me for some reason.

Any homologous organizations and similar traits in the brain that we share with Horses, Dogs, e.t.c. cannot be due to convergent evolution or chance, due simply to the simple fact that the brain is to complex. Our brains do not look or function like a Monkeys brain, so as a result, from common sense and logic, you should see that we did not come from Monkeys.

Again, according to your proposition, neither could a four chambered heard, being endothermic, eyes, wings, etc. This is an empirical question not a logical one, so you need to provide some evidence on why evolution is wrong and how cortical folding couldn't have evolved multiple times.

Anyone who believes in Darwinism/mainstream evolution needs to do some real research and not exclude any evidence and facts that go against their theories.

So you start with saying that the theories always change so they can't be right, then end with scientists refuse to see when they are wrong and will not challenge the theories that are now held. . . doesn't that strike you as a little contradictory?

Todays scientists are controlled by the elites and the illuminati so they are not allowed to tell us the truth. Todays theories brought forth on our origins e.t.c. are meant to dumb us down and keep us from the truth. People need to stop listening to the phony scientists with their phony theories and do some research themselves.

 

 

 

Really? Conspiracy theories now? So what are you proposing as an alternative, although I can probably guess.

 

 

[Arete]

Anecdotal observation of a singular phenotypic trait does not counter the empirical observation of thousands to millions of other traits which statistically support evolutionary theory.

 

Can you propose a hypothesis test by which you can probabilistically support the conclusion that cortical folding in humans, horses and dogs cannot be due to convergent evolution of phenotype?

 

People need to stop listening to the phony scientists with their phony theories and do some research themselves.

 

Pot, kettle, etc.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Arete

[Fuzzwood]

Sorry, I was afk. I had to answer the door for a few Illuminati people. Do you have any idea how absurd your preposition towards all scientists being controlled is? Or is that something YOU would try to do?

[Essay]

If you look at the brain of a Bushbaby or Tarsier you will notice that the cerebrum is smooth and does not nearly resemble that of a humans. Also the brain of a Monkey or Lemur barely resembles a Human brain.

 

If you look at the brain of a Horse, Dog, or a pig you will notice that the brain looks very similar to a Human brain. If you look ah the cross sections of a Human and Dog brain you will notice that they are almost identical. The convulations in a Human and Dog brain are almost identical.

 

How would convergent evolution according to darwinist/mainstream evolution make the Human brain look almost identical to a Horse or Dog brain.

 

So mammals that have evolved more-- adaptation to domestication and changes in habitat --over the past ten thousand to several million years have very convoluted brains...

 

...and mammals that haven't changed much for many more millions of years have smoother brains.

 

That's very interesting... and suggestive of a convergent influence, perhaps?

 

~

Edited August 13, 2011 by Essay

[pantheory]

If you look at the Human brain you will notice that the Cerebrum is convulated. Apes have convulated brains also, but the brains of the nearest living relatives to the supposed common ancestor of Monkeys/Primates are relatively smooth. If you look at the brain of a Bushbaby or Tarsier you will notice that the cerebrum is smooth and does not nearly resemble that of a humans. Also the brain of a Monkey or Lemur barely resembles a Human brain. ........

Animal brains in general may be the most complicated things that we know of in the universe. Evolution in general including natural selection, are probably the best supported theories that man has. Maybe the second best supported theory is plate tectonics. It is well know that brain form and size in general, is unrelated to an animals intelligence. Birds such as crows, ravens, and parrots, are some of the smartest animals in the animal kingdom, language recognition, some are able to speak and understand over 200 words, tool makers, problem solvers, etc. yet they only have bird brains concerning size and form. Their particular brain configuration may be the most efficient of all brain configurations of animals since they can do an awful lot for their small brain size.

 

The theory of evolution concerning natural selection is supported by large volumes of evidence, but as to the evolution of the human brain, their are a number of hypothesis, but to call any of these "theories" might be stretching the meaning of the word theory. How things have evolved will never be totally known because the history of evolution in general is far too complicated, but we can make educated guesses which will probably improve over time with more and better evidence. The process of how things evolve concerning genetics, is well understood in general with ever increasing knowledge including/ concerning epigenetics. The natural selection processes proposed by Darwin, may be one of the simplest, most logical, and best understood aspects and basis for evolution in general.

/

Edited August 13, 2011 by pantheory

[Mark70]

So mammals that have evolved more-- adaptation to domestication and changes in habitat --over the past ten thousand to several million years have very convoluted brains...

 

...and mammals that haven't changed much for many more millions of years have smoother brains.

 

That's very interesting... and suggestive of a convergent influence, perhaps?

 

~

 

Domestication does not necessarily make animals more evolved. It actually makes them less fit. For instance Domesticated Dogs and Pigs have brains around 30% smaller than their wild counterparts. Wolves for example are much stronger than Domestic dogs, and have bigger paws, much larger brains in proportion to body size, and bigger and stronger bones. So do not say that domestic animals are more adapted or evolved than their wild counterparts.

 

Also try to explain thoroughly why our brains are so similar to supposedly distant mammalian relatives, while so different from the brains of Monkeys. Why are the convolutions in Horse and Dog brains pretty much identical to ours in how they are organized and structured. Look at a cross section of a Dog brain and then look at a corresponding cross section of a Human brain and you will see that nearly every convolution of a Human cerebrum has a similar or analogous convolution in a Dog cerebrum. There is no way that this is due to convergent evolution. Most likely the similarities of a Human brain to the brains of Horses, Dogs, e.t.c. are because we have the same DNA that makes the brain the way it is. But the brains of Monkeys and Monkey-like animals do not resemble ours so that shows that the DNA in them that makes the brain is different from ours. This shows that we did not come from Monkeys, and therefore Darwins theory is flawed.

 

Scientists try to validate their theories by showing how similar we are to Apes, like Chimps genetically. Sometimes they say our DNA is 96% similar to theirs and other times they say the similarity is 99%, depending on how they analyze the DNA, for instance only looking at coding DNA or genes or looking at the entire Genome. These scientists can't even make up their minds, so how can they be believed? Also saying we are so similar to Monkeys is nonsense because we have traits that we share with other animals that we do not share with Monkeys. We are similar to Monkeys and Apes but we are also similar to all mammals, sharing around 96-98% of our DNA with every other Mammal. Also similarities in DNA are not as important as how the DNA works or codes. For instance we share about 50% of our DNA with bananas. We may share similar DNA to bananas but our DNA works differently from theirs. This similarity is due to all life-forms on this planet having the same Guanine, Thymine, Adenine, and Thymine sequence in DNA. So no matter what their will always be at least around a 25% similarity in DNA. If we are so close to Monkeys why can't we get skin transplants or heart transplants from them while we can get them from Pigs. Also we share DNA and traits with Pigs and Cats, that we do not share with Monkeys. It is a fact that the cat brain works the most similar to a Human brain. The parts of a cat brain responsible for intelligence and emotions are identical to ours. How can evolutionists explain our brains being much more similar to a Cats brain than a Monkeys brain? Their is no way that this similarity is due to chance. It is most likely due to similar DNA. Current mainstream scientific theories are pure baloney and full of holes and believing in them is not much better than believing a fairy tale. People need to grow up and not believe everything the phony scientists say.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Mark70

[Essay]

Domestication does not necessarily make animals more evolved. It actually makes them less fit. For instance Domesticated Dogs and Pigs have brains around 30% smaller than their wild counterparts. Wolves for example are much stronger than Domestic dogs, and have bigger paws, much larger brains in proportion to body size, and bigger and stronger bones. So do not say that domestic animals are more adapted or evolved than their wild counterparts.

Whoops, sorry about that.

 

I should have said "undergone more evolutionary pressures" or "evolved more,"

...instead of "more evolved."

 

I wasn't trying to use the word "evolved" to mean "better," but rather to mean simply "change over time."

 

Whether it is judged as good or bad, "evolved" just means changed or adapted; and the mammals you mentioned with convoluted brains have been adapting a lot during the past few million years, whereas the smooth-brained ones haven't been....

===

 

I'll try to read the other two long paragraphs later, but this was an important clarification....

~

 

p.s. plus I don't think "wild" horses or wolves would differ much (in brains convolutions) from their domesticated counterparts; they were "adapting" a lot, even before domestication, compared with the lemurs, monkeys, and other smooth-brained mammals that you mentioned. It'd be interesting to compare dogs and wolves though; and see if dogs had more convolutions, even if their brains might be smaller or less fit than wolves by other measures.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Essay

[Mark70]

We did not come from Monkeys or Apes. Monkeys and Apes were Created/Engineered just like us. You have to admit that the idea that we just got here by chance is pretty stupid. Also we are not the first advanced beings. Their are other civilizations out their that have existed for many millions of years. We were guided by Advanced beings as well as spiritual beings/forces. I do believe in a supreme being/force that religious people refer to as God, but I dont agree with everything creationists teach. Pure Creationism and pure Evolution/Darwinism are both bull. Creationists as well as Darwinists cover up the facts about our existence to make their theories seem right.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Mark70

[Essay]

You have to admit that the idea that we just got here by chance is pretty stupid. Also we are not the first advanced beings.

What do you mean "by chance?" Who says humans got here by chance?

 

Creationists as well as Darwinists cover up the facts about our existence to make their theories seem right.

Wait! What?

 

Ummmmm, well all of that was interesting. So what are these "facts about our existence" to which you refer?

===

 

Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia....istopher_Langan

...or read what he says about ID?

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible." -C.Langan

===

 

BTW, theories don't have to be "right;" they just need to be consistent and work, or to be explanatory and predictive. IMHO, Reality is more complex than any scientific theory or creationist ideology can convey, so probably neither should be confused with reality.

 

~

[John Cuthber]

"How do Darwinists explain the Human brain!!!""

Probably without the use of three exclamation marks.

[Mark70]

It is more likely that Apes descended from Human-like beings, rather than Humans descending from Apes. Read this thread: http://www.godlikepr...sage1483967/pg1

 

Also, Monkeys were probably just pets of the Annunaki upgraded with Human Dna, hence why they are so similar to us. Mon-Key means key to the mon. Mon is the root word for Monarch. The Monarchs are the Reptilian overlords. Notice that the word Monkey is similar to the word Money. Money is a control tool of the elites/Monarchs. The elites/illuminati control mainstream science and keep the truth about our origins hidden from us.

 

http://www.wiolawapr...om/humandna.htm

 

http://www.wiolawapress.com/nin.htm

 

http://www.wiolawapress.com/dog.htm

Edited August 13, 2011 by Mark70

[John Cuthber]

Mark,

just to let you know, it's possible to post in green ink here.

Though it's damned hard to read.

[Realitycheck]

The Annunaki were demolished in their collision with Jupiter, long before they ever reached Earth. Elliptical orbits in and out of the solar system have been proven to be extremely dangerous, not to mention cold. Unless their planet was a brown dwarf, but then the radiation would be just a bit weird, causing numerous hideous mutations, not griffins, and minotaurs, and pegasi, oh my.

 

Notice how the disclaimer on his linked site explicitly states, "Don't believe a damn thing you read on this website."

[Mark70]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=211572

[Ringer]

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=211572

 

Well that anthropologist apparently doesn't realize that neither evolved from each other. Rather they evolved from a single common ancestor. Like I said in my first post, read up on evolutionary theory before trying to challenge it.

 

[edit] If you don't have a subscription to Science Here's a link to the study, which does not say that apes evolved from humans. Rather our common ancestor may have had more bipedal and hominid like than previously thought [/edit]

Edited August 14, 2011 by Ringer

[ewmon]

The brain's cortex contains the processes of perception, judgment, memory, etc. An increase in the cortex's size results in an increase in the processes of perception, judgment, memory, etc. Science has generally concluded that the cortex became convoluted to allow the skull to pass through the birth canal.