Above: THE FUTURE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION!
Evolutionists ask some pointed questions but cannot answer them. Answers that are given are not relevant to the question. And the hard questions about the mechanism of evolution or the evidence for it are no longer asked. Here are a few questions asked and answered. Note none of the answers are relevant to the question, they are related but not relevant.
Why did we grow large brains? There is no question that our large brains have provided humans an extraordinary advantage in the world. Still, the human brain is an incredibly expensive organ, taking up only about 2 percent of the body’s mass yet using more than a fifth of the body’s energy, and until about 2 million years ago none of our ancestors had a brain larger than an ape’s when compared to body size. So what kicked off the push for a larger brain? One possibility is that increased smarts helped our ancestors make better tools. Another is that larger brains helped us interact better with each other. Perhaps radical changes in the environment also demanded that our ancestors deal with a shifting world.
D: So, did this evolutionary explanation answer the question?
We know that our big brains help us to make better tools than other apes and all other animals. But, that is not why we got bigger brains, is it? We know our brains allow us to communicate with others but this is not why we grew bigger brains. This is the effect of having a big brain. In addition, “radical changes in the environment” does not explain why we have big brains. With all we actually know in science all that we can honestly say is that we have big brains, and this makes us human. There is obviously no answer to why we grew big brains. We did not grow big brains. We are big-brained creatures. These are the facts. The benefits of having a big brain are not the reasons we grew a big brain. Though this kind of
linguistic trick makes evolution sound plausible, even amazing, no explanation that is given is an answer to the question. The trick is to fool the reader into believing evolution is true and then support this assumed truth with positive answers indirectly related to the question. A used car salesman can come up with all sorts solutions to your interest in cars if you answer this question, “How much money were you looking to spend?” When you answer this question, he will obligate you to spend that money and look at you as if you are crazy if you don’t try to spend that amount of money. By asking ‘why did we grow large brains’ the evolutionist does not have to prove to you that our brains grew large and this is really the correct question that should be asked and answered first. What proof is there that we grew larger brains?
Such a dumb question and dumber answers!
Why do humans walk on two legs? Our ancestors evolved an upright posture well before our large brains or stone tools even appeared. The question, then: Why stand and walk on two legs when our ape cousins get by on four limbs? Walking as bipeds might actually use less energy than movement on all fours does. Freeing up the arms might also have enabled our ancestors to carry more food. Standing upright
might even have helped them control their temperature better by reducing the amount of skin directly exposed to the sun.
D: Did this evolutionary explanation answer the question?
If it takes less energy to move on two rather than four legs how does this help explain why we walk on two legs? If the dramatic conditions that supposedly formed our body from a quadruped to a biped were so powerful, why don’t giraffes, elephants, dogs, cats, horses, cattle and a thousand other mammals also walk on two legs? This is not an answer either. It is not even insightful.
Freeing up the arms to carry more food is an effect of walking on two legs. Why do humans walk on two legs; to carry more food! Is this an answer? We walk on two legs so that we can push a shopping cart! That is why we walk on two legs? Apes, lions, leopards, dogs and squirrels all carry their food and even store it away in some cases. Why don’t they walk on two legs? As for skin and body temperature, this too is an effect of walking on two legs, not an explanation for why we walk on two legs. By the way, how does walking upright reduce the amount of skin exposed to sunlight? Why didn’t we keep our fur if this was a problem or grow a shirt out of feathers? If it was worth studying, this one could be objectively assessed but it is not a reason why we walk on two legs. Even if temperature regulation were a
concern, why would not all land animals have found the same solution to heat?
What a dumb question!
What happened to our hair? Humans are unique for looking naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. So why did this nakedness evolve? One suggestion is that our ancestors shed hairiness to keep cool when venturing across the hot savannas of Africa. Another is that losing our fur coats helped free us parasite infestations and the diseases they can spread. One unorthodox idea even suggests human nakedness developed after our ancestors briefly adapted for a streamlined life in the water, although most aquatic mammals of roughly human size actually possess dense fur.
D: Did you get an answer in this explanation?
Again, lions, zebra, all the apes, and giraffes should also be naked since they share the savannas too. Again, keeping cool and free of parasites really is not a reason why we supposedly lost our fur. These might be the benefits of not having fur but even here, we are hard pressed to prove this is true. Most wild animals are covered with parasites, inside and out. Most primitive tribal people are filled with parasites as well. Seems this idea does not really work. These ideas certainly do not explain why we lost hair. What we do know is
that we do not have fur because we are humans! The real question is “did we lose our hair?”
What a dumb question and a dumber answer!
Why did our closest relatives go extinct? Roughly 24,000 years ago, our species, Homo sapiens, was not alone in the world — our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, (Homo neanderthalensis) were still alive. The so-called ‘hobbit’ found in Indonesia might also have been a member of the genus Homo, and it apparently survived until as recently as 12,000 years ago. So why did they die and we survive? Did infections or radical shifts in their environments kill them off? Or did our species do away with them? Some evidence exists for both scenarios, but no conclusion is agreed upon.
D: Neanderthals still live and so do dwarfs (hobbits). Any relations we have had now or in the past never went extinct or we would not be here to talk about it. There are much better questions concerning the fossils and archaeological remains of these people that need to be addressed. So even to ask this question is not only
premature it is setting up a straw man to knock it down! Assuming evolution is true, you can ask ridiculous questions about evolution without dealing with evolution. Whatever answer you like, evolution seems true. It is like asking the preacher if he still beats his wife. Either way he answers, he is a wife beater. The question is rigged to win support for evolution.
Is human evolution accelerating? Recent evidence suggests that humanity is not only still evolving, but that human evolution is actually accelerating, speeding up to 100 times historical levels after agriculture spread. A number of scientists challenge the strength of this evidence, saying that it remains difficult to ascertain whether or not certain genes really have recently grown in prominence because they offer some adaptive benefit. Still, if human evolution is accelerating, the question becomes why? Diet and diseases may be some of the pressures that caused humans to change.
D: Again, to ask a question about things that are not confirmed is baiting the argument. It is useless to ask questions about things that have no basis in fact. Are you are still a pervert? Answer yes and you should be ashamed and imprisoned. Answer no and you admit you were once a pervert. There is no winning here and no science just the propagation of myth and misinformation. The facts are that since humans first stepped
on the stage of history we came with agriculture, civilization, written language and culture. What is considered evolution in humans today is actually the deterioration of the genome, not evolution. The acceleration of the evolving genome is actually the increased number of mutations that we find. They are not detrimental or if they are they show a changing genome for the worse; but this is not what evolution is supposed to be doing. It is supposed to be improving us. If there were evidence of actual evolution occurring we would not be counting mutations but improvements in our outward appearance and improvements in our abilities. No improvements are known, though by asking this question, it sounds like we must be evolving and someone have discovered evolution is accelerating. Ha!
Why did modern humanity expand past Africa about 50,000 years ago? Roughly 50,000 years ago, modern humans expanded out of Africa, spreading rapidly across most of the world’s lands to colonize
all continents except Antarctica, reaching even the most remote Pacific islands. A number of scientists conjecture this migration was linked with a mutation that transformed our brains, leading to our modern, complex use of language and enabling more sophisticated tools, art and societies. The more popular view suggests hints of such modern behavior existed long before this exodus, and that humanity instead had crossed a threshold in terms of population size in Africa that made such a revolution possible.
D: According to evolution, anatomically modern humans have been around for at least 350,000 years and possibly as many as 2 million years. Why didn’t we migrate earlier, invent civilization earlier, or invent the car, the elevator, the space shuttle and football earlier than we did?
A mutation transformed out brains? And what? This made us into wanderers? Maybe a mutation transformed our skin and we just got the itch to move on!! But in fact most experts in the field of anthropology admit that civilization began around 3500 BC in Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq. From this place, humanity expanded around the globe. There is very little evidence for culture, writing, farming, the formation of cities before this time. Amazingly, (or not) the Biblical narrative independently places Eden and the first humans in the region of present day Iraq; in the Tigris River Valley.
Yes, it is a dumb question but even the answer is not intended to be honest. Why?!
Did we have sex with Neanderthals? Did we interbreed? Does our species possess any genes leftover from our extinct cousins? Scientists have suggested that perhaps the Neanderthals did not die out, but instead were absorbed into modern humanity.
D: This is very embarrassing for a biologist to ask. Not because it mentions sex but because it first suggests that there were two different species of humans and that we were able to breed beyond our own species. The very definition of species is a population of interbreeding organisms that are reproductively isolated – ie., we cannot breed with other species successfully. We are Neanderthals! Like those of us living today, these people had art, musical instruments, practiced religion and believed in eternal life, made complex tools, worked in cooperation with each other, treated their wounded and cared for the lame. They sound human to me. Were Neanderthals different? That is the real question. The answer has been known for a decade and a half. Neanderthals had marginally different bone structure and much of the population seems to have suffered vitamin deficiency. They were completely human.
What a dumb question!
Who was the first hominid? Scientists are uncovering more and more ancient hominids all the time — here meaning bipeds including humans, our direct ancestors and closest relatives. They strive to find the earliest one, to help answer that most fundamental question in human evolution — what adaptations made us human, and in what order did they happen?
D: “More ancient hominids being discovered all the time” is a complete over statement. No one in the scientific
community agrees on most of the fossils that look ape-like. Those few discoveries are either fully ape or fully human and it is only the supposition of evolution that adds doubt to any of these. We are so completely removed from the animals that we cannot explain the differences.
For starters, we have no known instincts. We must be taught everything we know in life. Unlike animals, we are not born with an ounce of knowledge. We have opposable thumbs but, according to evolution, we left our opposable toes with the chimpanzees. Why would we have lost such an advantage as having two spare hands in life? We have hair but not fur and give birth to live offspring – we don’t lay eggs even if your brother told you that you were hatched. We have mammary glands to suckle the young, use language, and are omnivorous though some of us have returned to our vegetarian roots. We have bifocal vision but 100% of us will need reading glasses by age 50. We have comparatively poor hearing, no real protection from the heat or cold except for the clothes or the homes we make.
Evolution does nothing to help us understand who we are as creatures. We make art, enjoy music, worship God, raise children and work for a living. Some of us invest in the stock market and most of us love our car.
Where do modern humans come from? The most bitterly debated question in the discipline of human evolution is likely over where modern humans evolved. The out-of-Africa hypothesis maintains that modern humans evolved relatively recently in Africa and then spread around the world, replacing existing populations of archaic humans. The multiregional hypothesis contends that modern humans evolved over a broad area from archaic humans, with populations in different regions mating with their neighbors to share traits, resulting in the evolution of modern humans. The out-of-Africa hypothesis currently holds the lead, but proponents of the multiregional hypothesis remain strong in their views.
D: Wrong answer!
The most bitterly debated question in the fantasy of human evolution is where is the evidence to prove evolution is true. As for humans, we came out of Eden. (The Tigris-Euphrates river valley saw the birth of civilization and from this place most of the agriculturally important fruit trees were dispersed).
In summary, not a single answer given to these many questions makes sense. Evolution is not only ignorant of the “natural selective pressures” that should work in the theory but evolutionists do not know how to investigate these questions in order to prove that humans are a product of evolution.
Why do humans have only two eyes? Why are we made on the same general body plan as all mammals (four appendages, head at one end, tail at the other, genitals dangling in front of the waste elimination system)? Why do humans have 5 fingers AND five toes? Why do we have no inborn instincts of hardwired knowledge like the other animals? Why are we generally defenseless if we evolved from the wild?
If evolution were true how did the first animal come to be? How did the first plant come to be? Where did fish, worm, whale, oak tree, mushroom, bird, flower, insect, reptile, frog and dinosaur come from? How, through evolution did the immune system develop? How did the circulatory system evolve? How did the nervous and digestive systems evolve? If evolution were true how did anything evolve? Amazingly, like the answers above, no one knows! How is it that this idea holds such weight as a scientific fact when it answers absolutely nothing about life? If there were legitimate answers to these questions asking the “why” questions might have meaning.
Nothing in evolution makes sense. Why believe in evolution?
Pertaining to the interbreeding of humans and neanderthals. There is not a correct definition for species. Camels and llamas produce fertile hybrids. As do hybrid falcons, hawks, buzzards…. There are even golden eagle X harris hawk hybrids! All fertile.
Food for thought.
I do understand your point. But a simple textbook definition of species, a question I was asked at my dissertation defense, is what I am using in this article. There are as many definitions of species as there are men on a football team. I know of at least 26 definitions. By fundamentals, a true species is so unique it cannot interbreed with other ‘kinds’ to give fertile offspring… it must be genetically isolated to be a true species. I like this definition and so did my committee (as do the textbooks). If camels and llamas produce fertile young then by definition they are not different species. They are the same species since they are not genetically isolated from each other.
Just as schnauzers, poodles, beagles, great danes and german shepherds successfully breed to give “hybrid” dogs of heterozygous genetics, apparently many birds can do the same. A hawk may only be as distant from a falcon as a dane is to a beagle. If they give fertile offspring, they are not a genetically isolated life form- hence, they do not truly represent a species.
The Galapagos finches were thought for 160 years to represent individual species. Not until 2013 was it shown that no speciation had taken place since, in fact, they interbreed. What this has shown to the Darwinian is that far too many presumptions go into field work and not enough technology or observation.
Thanks for the comment