Which evolved first, the skull or the brain?

[FearGod]

No, what we have *works* for us. There is a difference between working and being perfect.

Which would be perfect for us as humans, 1 leg , 2 legs or 4 legs?

 

[shunyadragon]

Who goes against science, your role in this forum that theists are against
science and Bahai love science, eh

Response with a derogatory and meaningless attack on the Baha'i Faith, which is not constructive.

I would like an intelligent response. Proposing hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design' is not science, because it cannot be falsified by scientific methods. ID carries too much Biblical Creationist belief baggage as in the Discovery Institute, and AIG.

The Baha'i Faith believes in the Harmony of Science and Religion but makes no effort to falsify a hypothesis that is not science. Creation by God is a simply fact of belief, and bad science is not necessary.

Intelligent Design friends of science?!?!?!
Hint: 97%+ of scientist regardless of religion reject Intelligent Design.

 

[Polymath257]

Which would be perfect for us as humans, 1 leg , 2 legs or 4 legs?

Once again, perfection isn't a reasonable thing to discuss. Working well enough is. And two legs work well enough for us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Silly explanations doesn't work with me, it may work with you and with some others.

You appear to have that backwards. Silly explanations do work for you. That is why you reject reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, perfection isn't a reasonable thing to discuss. Working well enough is. And two legs work well enough for us.

Yep, evolution runs on "works well enough". Perfection is never a goal. That is why the theory of evolution can explain such abysmal "design" as the recurrent laryngeal nerve and creationists cannot.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do you really understand that evolution takes millions of years, small brains won't get bigger
in the next direct generation along with a bigger skull and such tiny change won't have any effect in the term of few years, so to work, the skull and the brain with other factors should evolve all together all the long way through millions of years, it isn't if it worked for this generation then it passed for the next generation, it's a journey of millions of years according to the TOE.

But they can and they have. First for you to understand this you need to understand the important aspects of evolution that have been discovered and explain what you ask. Do you understand the concept of variation and its connection with the genetic code were the variations occur. It seems that this is one of first problems for so many arguing against evolution. Once this is established then we can look at how natural selection is the driving force. Taking one thing at a time is much better than starting with a complex question of how the size of the brain and the skull size developed in what seems to be so coordinated when it is far more complicated than that in that it is also influenced by embryology in the developing human with the interaction of nerve disuse and skeletal tissue.
So lets discuss variation and the genetic code first before going to you much more complicated question.

 

[Shad]

what about you make a better human as you're smarter than the stones.

Stones have no brain. Intelligence, ergo "smart", is a measurement of a brain's capabilities. There is no comparison to be made to someone that is using RF as this is well beyond a stone's capabilities.

 

[Gridiron Man]

I don't agree. It seems obvious that the genetic coding that indicates that the skull for an animal with a brain should not harden prior to the brain stopping its growth and shouldn't continue to grow at a significant rate after the brain has stopped growing had to have been established with the emergence of the first animals with brains and skulls. Any animal that did not have such genetic coding established would never survive to pass on its genetic material.

Now, if at a later date a mutation occurs in a particular species that causes an increase in neural activity and blood vessels and a corresponding increase in the size of the brains, there would be no need for an additional mutation to cause the skulls of this species to increase in size as well. That the skull grows to accommodate the size of the brain would have long been established in their genetic code from their ancestors that first possessed brains and skulls.

The fact that human skulls continue to grow at a measurable rate as people age though interesting, certainly isn't significant. Since obviously the rate of growth isn't enough to prevent the skull from serving its function, to protect the brain long enough for people to survive and pass on their genetic material.

It comes down to we don't know but lets go with this because it seems plausible.
Its no different than saying what came first...blood, or the viens to carry it, arteries to return it or the heart to circulate it, then what parts of the blood came first...
We don't know but we can make many assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It comes down to we don't know but lets go with this because it seems plausible.
Its no different than saying what came first...blood, or the viens to carry it, arteries to return it or the heart to circulate it, then what parts of the blood came first...
We don't know but we can make many assumptions.

No, creationists make assumptions. That is no allowed in the sciences. In the sciences one must form a testable hypothesis and then try to refute it. Here is just one article on how the circulatory system evolved, but even if we did not have an answer what you just did is called "moving the goal posts". It amounts to an admission that everything after the evolution of the circulatory system is explainable (and it is). It is an unwise debate tactic to use, but when one has no evidence the slimmest of straws looks welcoming:

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium

 

[tas8831]

Human evolved with bigger skull that can be better deformed and allowing for the brain to get bigger,
compared to other primates.

Did the skull evolved first to get bigger and next the brain?
Did the brain evolved first to grow bigger then next the skull?
Did both evolved simultaneously؟

Do you think that both were designed to be fixed in place or it just happened
that both evolved simultaneously and it was perfect?

It would be awesome if people could take the time to learn a little bit about the subject they want to discuss, or ask sincere questions about such topics, BEFORE they start threads or post naive things like this.

I will answer with this -

There is a condition called achondroplasia - most people know it as dwarfism.
Dwarfism is characterized by such things as disproportionate limb length, characteristic facial features, reduced interphalageal joint number, etc.

Tell us - which of those was created first?
The shortened limbs? The shorter muscles and blood vessels need for shorter bones?

The facial features?


We could ask such vacuous, naive "questions."

Or we could just understand that a single point mutation in a single gene for a cell surface receptor can cause ALL of these things by interfering with normal development.


You ask which came first, the bigger brain or the bigger skull.

The answer is neither - they evolved simultaneously because that is how development works.

 

[tas8831]

The skull and the brain in humans evolved from the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees and it's bigger in humans than in Chimpanzee.

Repeating the questions regarding the evolution of humans from the common ancestor.

Did the skull evolved first to get bigger and next the brain?
Did the brain evolved first to grow bigger then next the skull?
Did both evolved simultaneously؟

Do you think that both were designed to be fixed in place or it just happened
that both evolved simultaneously and it was perfect?

I wish there was a head-shaking smilie. These are truly very uninformed "questions."

 

[tas8831]

Do you think that the brain isn't perfectly set in place?
If not then what do you think the best design for the brain in the skull should be?

Do you not think that the basin that Lake Michigan in was created to hold lake Michigan, perfectly so?

 

[FearGod]

Do you not think that the basin that Lake Michigan in was created to hold lake Michigan, perfectly so?

Which came first the basin or the water inside the basin?
What if there was a basin and there was no water, what if there was water and no basin?

 

[FearGod]

It would be awesome if people could take the time to learn a little bit about the subject they want to discuss, or ask sincere questions about such topics, BEFORE they start threads or post naive things like this.

I will answer with this -

There is a condition called achondroplasia - most people know it as dwarfism.
Dwarfism is characterized by such things as disproportionate limb length, characteristic facial features, reduced interphalageal joint number, etc.

Tell us - which of those was created first?
The shortened limbs? The shorter muscles and blood vessels need for shorter bones?

The facial features?


We could ask such vacuous, naive "questions."

Or we could just understand that a single point mutation in a single gene for a cell surface receptor can cause ALL of these things by interfering with normal development.


You ask which came first, the bigger brain or the bigger skull.

The answer is neither - they evolved simultaneously because that is how development works.

, better if you don't try to think.

Evolution doesn't work similar to dwarfism, it's very very tiny changes that may take millions of years.

 

[tas8831]

Which came first the basin or the water inside the basin?
What if there was a basin and there was no water, what if there was water and no basin?

And there we have it.

This one is not here to actually discuss.

 

[FearGod]

And there we have it.

This one is not here to actually discuss.

Don't you see how silly your example in comparing the basin and water to skull and brain

 

[tas8831]

, better if you don't try to think.

Evolution doesn't work similar to dwarfism, it's very very tiny changes that may take millions of years.

Amazing...

I had attempted to demonstrate that the notion that one thing had to 'evolve' first is, frankly, a rather stupid position, seeing as how a genetic disorder that alters phenotype can alter things like limb length (which necessitates shortening of the bones, but also the blood vessels, nerves, etc.) without one thing having to change before the other. But I guess that simple understanding is above your pay grade.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that people that are clearly out of the league, knowledge-wise, are so deluded by the Dunning-Kruger effect that they will actually imply that others should 'not try to think.'

 

[tas8831]

Don't you see how silly your example in comparing the basin and water to skull and brain

No, it was to prove a point (went over your head).

You are, as shown by your questions, exceptionally ignorant of how genotype-phenotype operate, how developmental processes are not bound by one thing having to happen first, then something else.

Your naive 'just so storyism' is devoid of scientific rationale, and you either cannot see that, or do and are just trolling.

 

[FearGod]

Amazing...

I had attempted to demonstrate that the notion that one thing had to 'evolve' first is, frankly, a rather stupid position, seeing as how a genetic disorder that alters phenotype can alter things like limb length (which necessitates shortening of the bones, but also the blood vessels, nerves, etc.) without one thing having to change before the other. But I guess that simple understanding is above your pay grade.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that people that are clearly out of the league, knowledge-wise, are so deluded by the Dunning-Kruger effect that they will actually imply that others should 'not try to think.'

Please don't try to think.

Growing is different than evolving, is't really hard to understand.

the length of blood vessels of a child isn't the same when becomes young, similarly
is the length of his bones, no need even to mention dwarfism.

 

[FearGod]

No, it was to prove a point (went over your head).

You are, as shown by your questions, exceptionally ignorant of how genotype-phenotype operate, how developmental processes are not bound by one thing having to happen first, then something else.

Your naive 'just so storyism' is devoid of scientific rationale, and you either cannot see that, or do and are just trolling.

How evolution of the brain and the skull is related to the genotype and the phenotype of the
evolution of humans from the common ancestor.