Which evolved first, the skull or the brain?

[Jose Fly]

Indeed.
That and many of them seem to think that because they read a YEC essay on a topic that they now possess irrefutable knowledge on that topic that their YEC source more than likely distorted or even lied about. So frustrating.

It is frustrating to a degree, but for me it's more fascinating from a human behavior standpoint. It's like someone going on and on about how "cars don't exist", and then watching their reactions upon being shown a car lot.

In the 20 or so years I've been doing this, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen a creationist say "I guess I was wrong on that".

 

[FearGod]

You are now either purposefully misrepresenting me or you have a hard time understanding things.

I never said anything about dwarfism = evolution.

I presented that as evidence that your naive notions regarding evolution of the skull/brain are just that - naive. No before/after changes in dwarfism, no 'first the limb bones get shorter, then the blood vessels and muscles get shorter, then...'.

That was the point.

You were unable to make that obvious connection.

How you can't understand, you say that you know evolution isn't the same as
growth and still comparing 2 different things to be treated as the same.

The brain was evolved, which means that the brain has been changed not only
by growth but have different connections and different functions, the same thing with
the skull that have a different shape and a different design for both.

You are either trolling or way out of your league (or both).

No I'm not, but you aren't able to understand

What about it? One need not have preceded the other, which was my point.

That was silly, evolution doesn't match your silly point.

Indeed it is - and your memorized mantras really do not do a very good job hiding the obvious fact that you do not understand anything about evolution.

Try to use your mind

 

[tas8831]

In the 20 or so years I've been doing this, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen a creationist say "I guess I was wrong on that".

Me, too - but closer to 30 years. Admitting error is anathema to the typical creationist. I have always felt that this is in part due to the implicit notion that if they admit error, even on something trivial, that means that they are fallible, and that means they might be wrong about the Big Things (like God). So the denialism and refusal to admit error starts at the simplest of issues.

Had a creationist on another forum claim (for YEARS) that "allele" was spelled "allie." Would not admit it was spelled wrong. Eventually, after he could not deny it any longer, tried to minimize the fact that he had been spelling a term that he had used in arguments (in which he, of course, claimed ultimate knowledge despite being demonstrably wrong on nearly everything) for years by claiming that my only argument against his claims was a spelling error.

Also had a guy who, after being exposed as a phony for years, finally claimed that he had purposefully made all those errors over the years because when evolutionists called him out and corrected him, it somehow made US look bad. At least he admitted his errors, in a pathetic attempt at saving face.

Interesting psychology, I suppose.

 

[Jose Fly]

Me, too - but closer to 30 years. Admitting error is anathema to the typical creationist. I have always felt that this is in part due to the implicit notion that if they admit error, even on something trivial, that means that they are fallible, and that means they might be wrong about the Big Things (like God). So the denialism and refusal to admit error starts at the simplest of issues.

Had a creationist on another forum claim (for YEARS) that "allele" was spelled "allie." Would not admit it was spelled wrong. Eventually, after he could not deny it any longer, tried to minimize the fact that he had been spelling a term that he had used in arguments (in which he, of course, claimed ultimate knowledge despite being demonstrably wrong on nearly everything) for years by claiming that my only argument against his claims was a spelling error.

Also had a guy who, after being exposed as a phony for years, finally claimed that he had purposefully made all those errors over the years because when evolutionists called him out and corrected him, it somehow made US look bad. At least he admitted his errors, in a pathetic attempt at saving face.

Interesting psychology, I suppose.

That's a great story.....positively hilarious!

I'll try and remember when I get back to my work computer tomorrow to send you an article on fundamentalists and the psychological factors that drive them. One thing that stood out to me is their need for absolute certainty. We definitely see that play out in these forums.

 

[tas8831]

This one never gives up...

Last reply of the day.

How you can't understand, you say that you know evolution isn't the same as
growth and still comparing 2 different things to be treated as the same.

OMG....

No, it is not growth...

You tell me to 'go read' yet here you are actually thinking that dwarfism is just a growth thing...

For the third time, my whole point was to demonstrate that your "question" re: which evolved first, the skull or the brain, was premised NOT in a cleverly designed gotcha based on your supreme knowledge, but on your obvious ignorance of all things biological.

I demonstrated (maybe you didn't know that the blue-colored text is a link?) that a single mutation can cause alterations in limb proportions, bone shape and development, facial feature changes, joint changes, etc. - and it all happens AT ONCE. I demonstrated this to point out the ignorance of asking the question you did, but that simple demonstration was lost on you.

Because you do not understand how these things work.

The brain was evolved

First correct thing I have sen you write!

which means that the brain has been changed not only
by growth but have different connections and different functions, the same thing with
the skull that have a different shape and a different design for both.

Wow..... Those brains look TOTALLY different....

You are either trolling or way out of your league (or both).

No I'm not, but you aren't able to understand

Right. I've only been teaching things like anatomy and evolution at the college level for decades. What do I know about this...

What about it? One need not have preceded the other, which was my point.

That was silly, evolution doesn't match your silly point.

Great comeback!
But do go on and explain how the skull has to get larger via evolution first, then later, the brain evolves to fill it up.

I mean golly, that sounds totally like a scientific position to hold, presented by a total expert on the subject.

Indeed it is - and your memorized mantras really do not do a very good job hiding the obvious fact that you do not understand anything about evolution.

Try to use your mind

I did - that is how I came to the most obvious conclusion - you do not do a very good job hiding the obvious fact that you do not understand anything about evolution.

Or biology.

 

[tas8831]

That's a great story.....positively hilarious!

I'll try and remember when I get back to my work computer tomorrow to send you an article on fundamentalists and the psychological factors that drive them. One thing that stood out to me is how their need for absolute certainty. We definitely see that play out in these forums.

Cool - looking forward to it.

 

[Polymath257]

Was the brain never working well enough?
Is it working well enough now?

In some individuals, it doens't work well enough for survival. Such genes don't get passed on. In other individuals, the brain works very well. And it may well be that their genes don't get passed on either.

 

[Gridiron Man]

In some individuals, it doens't work well enough for survival. Such genes don't get passed on. In other individuals, the brain works very well. And it may well be that their genes don't get passed on either.

I was referring to 2 legs vs 4 legs. I read it as we haven't evolved 4 legs because 2 legs work well enough. In that comparison our brains must haven't work well enough in the past or they wouldn't have evolved to be larger. We have one of the largest brains in the homo line, do they now work well enough?

 

[FearGod]

This one never gives up...

Last reply of the day.

OMG....

No, it is not growth...

You tell me to 'go read' yet here you are actually thinking that dwarfism is just a growth thing...

Restricted growth, sometimes known as dwarfism, is a condition characterised by unusually short height.

There are 2 main types of restricted growth:

• proportionate short stature (PSS) – a general lack of growth in the body, arms and legs
• disproportionate short stature (DSS) – where the arms and legs are particularly short

Restricted growth (dwarfism)

For the third time, my whole point was to demonstrate that your "question" re: which evolved first, the skull or the brain, was premised NOT in a cleverly designed gotcha based on your supreme knowledge, but on your obvious ignorance of all things biological.

I demonstrated (maybe you didn't know that the blue-colored text is a link?) that a single mutation can cause alterations in limb proportions, bone shape and development, facial feature changes, joint changes, etc. - and it all happens AT ONCE. I demonstrated this to point out the ignorance of asking the question you did, but that simple demonstration was lost on you.

Because you do not understand how these things work.

Again, you have made a stupid parallel between skull and brain with limbs and arteries
in genetic disorders, the skull is a protection for the brain, so it has to be fixed and rigid,
the shape and the size of the skull has been changed through long long period of
time due to mutations, the skull mutations has nothing to do with mutations occurring
in another tissues of the species, now if the brain evolved and the skull remained fixed
as in chimpanzee then that won't work, so mutations should have occurred for both the
brain and the skull to evolve simultaneously in order to work, this is how luck works

Wow..... Those brains look TOTALLY different....

Of course they're different, otherwise your head will be like a monkey, are you?

Right. I've only been teaching things like anatomy and evolution at the college level for decades. What do I know about this...

Many teachers and many doctors were stupid, so what

Great comeback!
But do go on and explain how the skull has to get larger via evolution first, then later, the brain evolves to fill it up.

By plan and design, by science and not luck

I did - that is how I came to the most obvious conclusion - you do not do a very good job hiding the obvious fact that you do not understand anything about evolution.

Or biology.

It's really sad that you're a teacher, but good that you weren't a doctor otherwise many will
lose their life.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why do you think that all of these are separate mutations? It is often the case that a single mutation in a regulatory gene can produce exactly this type of coordinated change.

Once again, the genes tend NOT to code for specific sizes, specific placements, specific connections, etc.

Instead, they code for 'grow until you find this, then stop' or 'branch until you find that, then change growth patterns'. The genes code for overall growth patterns NOT for specifics.

So, as an example, blood vessels are NOT programmed in detail where they will grow. Instead, they are programmed to grow into certain types of tissue until a certain mark is reached. That means that if the tissue grows larger (from use or from a new gene), the blood vessels can still reach everything *even when they have the same code as before*. No new genes are required for blood vessel growth.

This is quite correct the genes code for signaling systems that control the growth not separate genetic codes for skull and brain.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Maybe this will help you understand better and have less "Silly" explanations and this is but a basic explanation with many more details that can be provided. Just do not know how much cell membrane, embryology and genetics you are familiar with.
The brain originates from ectoderm tissue in the early development of the embryo. The skull is made up of individual bony elements from neural crest- and mesoderm-derived tissue. It is the interaction of signaling systems between these two tissues that develops the correct brain to skull connection and not a predetermined genetic code. The genes families for these signaling systems are ancient in origin having homologs in metazoans such as sponges. The number of these genes are increased in vertebrates and are responsible for the active brain and skull development.

They include signal systems such as hedgehog signaling system that regulate cell specification, cell proliferation and are required for osteoblast differentiation. Wnt signaling system is ancient and highly conserved and activate gene cascades in early development critical to brain and skull formation. Notch signaling pathway is also composed of conserved genes that are for transmembrane receptors coordinating cell interactions, differentiation and control bone formation as well as neural crest production and neurogenesis. TGFB signaling pathway is fundamental in development and organogenesis. FGF family are also signaling factors involved in development.

It is the integrated development of these signaling systems that coordinate the brain and skull development as seen in the frontonasal ectodermal zone controlling the facial skeleton with the nervous tissue.

These two tissues are also controlled with the networks of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters which have a negative regulation of osteoblast proliferation during development. In addition, there are diffusible molecules that developed gradients across tissues affected by expanding tissue thus a communication of the enlarging brain tissue with an expanding skull tissue.

The signaling pathways coordinate connection between the skull, meninges and brain development thus minor changes in these pathways enabled rapid evolution of cranial phenotypes and would not require large numbers of mutations and explains why brain and skull are so well coordinated. Again. the basic genetic makeup of these signaling gene families is very well conserved throughout vertebrates. This makes for a more plastic system to allow for large variations between vertebrates.

 

[Bear Wild]

Restricted growth, sometimes known as dwarfism, is a condition characterised by unusually short height.

There are 2 main types of restricted growth:

• proportionate short stature (PSS) – a general lack of growth in the body, arms and legs
• disproportionate short stature (DSS) – where the arms and legs are particularly short

Restricted growth (dwarfism)




Again, you have made a stupid parallel between skull and brain with limbs and arteries
in genetic disorders, the skull is a protection for the brain, so it has to be fixed and rigid,
the shape and the size of the skull has been changed through long long period of
time due to mutations, the skull mutations has nothing to do with mutations occurring
in another tissues of the species, now if the brain evolved and the skull remained fixed
as in chimpanzee then that won't work, so mutations should have occurred for both the
brain and the skull to evolve simultaneously in order to work, this is how luck works





Of course they're different, otherwise your head will be like a monkey, are you?



Many teachers and many doctors were stupid, so what



By plan and design, by science and not luck




It's really sad that you're a teacher, but good that you weren't a doctor otherwise many will
lose their life.

Stupid parallel? You clearly do not understand human biology. Calling people stupid and ideas silly without any accurate information on your part is a clear sign you do not understand what you are talking about. Your knowledge of genetics, developmental biology and evolution are so limited that you use derogatory statements to make up for what do not know.

 

[gnostic]

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?

There is no such thing as “perfect” or “perfection”.

At each stage of human evolution, the brains optimally fit inside the respective skulls.

We don’t know in the future, if we continue to evolve that the size of the skull and brain get bigger or smaller.

I am not a biologist, so I haven’t been paying that much attention of what biologists might have predict about the future evolution for humans.

The Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, the modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have been around 45-50,000 years now.

Anatomically, modern varied in shapes and sizes (eg tall and short people, fat and skinny), different colour skins, hairs and eyes, and so on. Even head sizes and shapes may vary some what, but on the whole and on average, the size of the skulls are pretty much uniform or static, and don’t exhibit much differences from skulls found 45,000 years ago.

Will our descendants have bigger skulls and bigger brains? We don’t know.

Will it be smaller than today? We don’t know.

What biologists, particularly paleontologists, have been doing, have been making predictions, based on what they are like today, and what they were like in the past (including other earlier Homo species), and give estimates of what the size could be like in the future.

 

[gnostic]

There is a big difference between working perfectly and working 'well enough'. Evolution works 'well enough' and does so by adapting whatever is available to do the job, even if not perfect for that job.

Our brains fit inside of our skulls because our skulls grow around our brains. Have you ever seen the head of a newborn?The skull plates have not yet merged together. In the development, the skull gets the message on where to grow from the underlying tissues surrounding the brain.

That’s probably why you shouldn’t drop babies on their heads.

Oops! Sorry.

 

[FearGod]

Maybe this will help you understand better and have less "Silly" explanations and this is but a basic explanation with many more details that can be provided. Just do not know how much cell membrane, embryology and genetics you are familiar with.
The brain originates from ectoderm tissue in the early development of the embryo. The skull is made up of individual bony elements from neural crest- and mesoderm-derived tissue. It is the interaction of signaling systems between these two tissues that develops the correct brain to skull connection and not a predetermined genetic code. The genes families for these signaling systems are ancient in origin having homologs in metazoans such as sponges. The number of these genes are increased in vertebrates and are responsible for the active brain and skull development.

They include signal systems such as hedgehog signaling system that regulate cell specification, cell proliferation and are required for osteoblast differentiation. Wnt signaling system is ancient and highly conserved and activate gene cascades in early development critical to brain and skull formation. Notch signaling pathway is also composed of conserved genes that are for transmembrane receptors coordinating cell interactions, differentiation and control bone formation as well as neural crest production and neurogenesis. TGFB signaling pathway is fundamental in development and organogenesis. FGF family are also signaling factors involved in development.

It is the integrated development of these signaling systems that coordinate the brain and skull development as seen in the frontonasal ectodermal zone controlling the facial skeleton with the nervous tissue.

These two tissues are also controlled with the networks of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters which have a negative regulation of osteoblast proliferation during development. In addition, there are diffusible molecules that developed gradients across tissues affected by expanding tissue thus a communication of the enlarging brain tissue with an expanding skull tissue.

The signaling pathways coordinate connection between the skull, meninges and brain development thus minor changes in these pathways enabled rapid evolution of cranial phenotypes and would not require large numbers of mutations and explains why brain and skull are so well coordinated. Again. the basic genetic makeup of these signaling gene families is very well conserved throughout vertebrates. This makes for a more plastic system to allow for large variations between vertebrates.

Some researchers don't agree with you, if any

Researchers have proposed an answer to the vexing question of how the human brain grew so big. We may owe our superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles, they suggest.

A mutation 2.4 million years ago could have left us unable to produce one of the main proteins in primate jaw muscles, the team reports in this week's Nature1. Lacking the constraints of a bulky chewing apparatus, the human skull may have been free to grow, the researchers say.
Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution : Nature News

I wonder of some people in this forum when writing without knowing what they're writing about.

 

[FearGod]

Stupid parallel? You clearly do not understand human biology. Calling people stupid and ideas silly without any accurate information on your part is a clear sign you do not understand what you are talking about. Your knowledge of genetics, developmental biology and evolution are so limited that you use derogatory statements to make up for what do not know.

I rely on science and not on your stupid ideas.

 

[exchemist]

I rely on science and not on your stupid ideas.

It does not sound like it.

It has already been explained to you, as early as post 7 of this thread, that the factors that control skull size are the same set that control brain size. So the issue of which changed first simply does not arise.

Why can you not understand this? (rhetorical - I think we know by now.)

 

[exchemist]

Some researchers don't agree with you, if any

Researchers have proposed an answer to the vexing question of how the human brain grew so big. We may owe our superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles, they suggest.

A mutation 2.4 million years ago could have left us unable to produce one of the main proteins in primate jaw muscles, the team reports in this week's Nature1. Lacking the constraints of a bulky chewing apparatus, the human skull may have been free to grow, the researchers say.
Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution : Nature News

I wonder of some people in this forum when writing without knowing what they're writing about.

Wild Fox is explaining the mechanisms that ensure that skull and brain size are coordinated in development, so that the issue of which grew first does not arise.

You are talking about something different, namely ideas about what caused the size - of both - to change.

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

 

[FearGod]

It does not sound like it.

It has already been explained to you, as early as post 7 of this thread, that the factors that control skull size are the same set that control brain size. So the issue of which changed first simply does not arise.

Why can you not understand this? (rhetorical - I think we know by now.)

Wild Fox is explaining the mechanisms that ensure that skull and brain size are coordinated in development, so that the issue of which grew first does not arise.

You are talking about something different, namely ideas about what caused the size - of both - to change.

Did you even understand my OP.

I didn't discuss how both coordinated in development but how both evolved during
long period of time, how the skull mutated and got bigger while the brain also
got bigger in humans, not by development but through evolution.

If all of you can't understand then i have always to repeat this one study done by researchers
we have a proverb which says repetition teaches even a donkey.

Researchers have proposed an answer to the vexing question of how the human brain grew so big. We may owe our superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles, they suggest.

A mutation 2.4 million years ago could have left us unable to produce one of the main proteins in primate jaw muscles, the team reports in this week's Nature1. Lacking the constraints of a bulky chewing apparatus, the human skull may have been free to grow, the researchers say.
Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution : Nature News

I wonder of some people in this forum when writing without knowing what they're writing about.

 

[exchemist]

Did you even understand my OP.

I didn't discuss how both coordinated in development but how both evolved during
long period of time, how the skull mutated and got bigger while the brain also
got bigger in humans, not by development but through evolution.

If all of you can't understand then i have always to repeat this one study done by researchers
we have a proverb which says repetition teaches even a donkey.

Researchers have proposed an answer to the vexing question of how the human brain grew so big. We may owe our superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles, they suggest.

A mutation 2.4 million years ago could have left us unable to produce one of the main proteins in primate jaw muscles, the team reports in this week's Nature1. Lacking the constraints of a bulky chewing apparatus, the human skull may have been free to grow, the researchers say.
Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution : Nature News

I wonder of some people in this forum when writing without knowing what they're writing about.

You seem to be trying to invent a problem that does not exist. Evolution proceeds by the reproduction and growth of succeeding generations. So if one individual has a bigger brain it will have a bigger skull to go with it and if it has more offspring they may inherit these features. The issue of one coming before the other does not ever arise. I find it incredible that you seem unable to grasp that. We have a proverb: you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

If what you mean is whether it was the growth of the skull or the growth of the brain that provided the original evolutionary advantage, that is a different question. Is that what you mean?