Gigantic Mind Chasm Between Prehumans and Man

[teddyaware]

Many will reject out of hand the author’s assertions because of his background and point of view. Nevertheless, it’s apparently widely understood, even among organic evolution’s most ardent proponents, that there is indeed an inexplicably wide gap that exists between the level of intellectual development and prowess of human beings and the degree of intelligence said to have been possessed by the prehumans from whom we humans are said to have evolved. Organic evolution is, by very definition, an exceedingly slow process of gradual change through adaptation, so it is important for evolutionists to provide some reasonable explanations as to how this tremendous change happened with such great relative rapidity.
 

This unsolved riddle in the theory of organic evolution is analogous to Darwin’s incorrect assumption that simple, one-celled animals were, in fact, just that, simple. As a consequence, it’s my understanding that Darwin thought it wasn’t such a great leap for primitive plant life to morph into simple living creatures that, at least at a very rudimentary level, have the power to process within a mind and act. But modern science has  now demonstrated that even supposedly simple paramecium are, in reality, mini-universes of astonishing, multi-leveled complexity. 
 

 So I’m honestly and uncritically wondering if any of the defenders of organic evolution and natural selection on this board might be able to provide reasonable explanations as to how the incredibly great chasm of intelligence between prehumans and humans was bridged at such breathtaking speed.

 

P.S. If you want to read the rest of the article, search under the author’s name and the article title and it will pop up right away.
 

April 28, 2020 | Jerry Bergman

The Origin of Human Consciousness Stymies Darwinists

Recent Research Confirms the Gap is Real

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

One of the most significant gaps, actually a chasm, between modern humans and their putative common ancestor is mind, often generally called human consciousness. The research reviewed here reveals an unbridgeable chasm exists between animal and human minds. Some animals have certain senses that are superior to humans, such as eyesight, but no animal can work algebra or trigonometry problems, write poetry, monographs, or even a short thoughtful letter to a friend. Nor can any animal calculate a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC), let alone understand the meaning of statistical results.

Nor can they calculate stress loads on bridge trusses, or a thousand other problems that are a common part of school, business, and life, in spite of the fact that the lower primates have allegedly had a lot of evolutionary time to achieve some of these skills. The most recent estimate by evolutionists is that “modern humans appeared quite abruptly in eastern or southern Africa sometime between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago and went on to conquer the world.”[1] We can compare bones and make assumptions about human evolution, but

Paleoanthropologists increasingly recognize this transition [from ape to human] as indicating the dawn of the modern mind, when people who looked like us also began to think like us. It wasn’t just a technological revolution but a cognitive one too.[2]

This universally recognized cognitive chasm between animals and humans has stymied evolutionists from Charles Darwin’s day to today. In the first edition of On the Origin of Species (1859),  while Darwin claims creation cannot explain this chasm, Stephen Jacyna notes that Darwin Origin claims that natural selection can explain this gap. Ironically, Darwin’s Origin “contains only one reference to the brain in the form of the rhetorical question: ‘Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone?’”[3]

Darwin’s Second Attempt

In Darwin’s 1871 book, The Descent of Man, the term brain and its cognates were mentioned over 50 times, but Darwin did not even attempt to explain the chasm between the most intelligent ape and the average human. He did rank human races and apes, claiming that the superior races of mankind will eventually replace the inferior races, causing them to become extinct.[4] This comment is now considered racist and incendiary, fomenting eugenics and the social Darwinism that followed.

Darwin wanted a seamlessly materialistic view of life. He claimed that “The brain, the most important of all the organs, follows the same law… the brain of man has its analogy in that of the orang.”[5] Even here Darwin did not attempt to explain the chasm between the two primates, except to note that “their brains do not perfectly agree for otherwise their mental powers would have been the same.”[6] Jacyna notes that

Darwin recognized the need to incorporate man into his theory. In particular, it was necessary to show how human mental powers could be explained in terms of an evolutionary theory. If the human mind was deemed to be a special, unique divine creation then the thoroughgoing naturalism at which Darwin aimed would be fatally undermined. Darwin, therefore, sought evidence for what he called a ‘materialist’ understanding of the mental powers that would erode the distinction between human mental capacities and those found in the lower animals. This ‘materialism’ also entailed that mental faculties be shown to have a bodily basis.[7]

Darwin was aware that many people would be scandalized by the idea that human minds came from ape brains. In fact, his co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, could not accept it. Because “man differs so greatly in his mental power from all other animals,” Darwin knew that this chasm created big problems for evolution.[8] He felt obliged, therefore, to at least attempt to

show how the human mind could also be viewed as something that had evolved from more primitive types. To achieve this goal, Darwin relied on his previous contention that the growth of mind was dependent on the progressive development of its material substrate.[9]

This was a conclusion Darwin had no evidence for, nor has anyone since him.

His feeble and racist explanation, which will not hold water today, is as follows. After proposing the notion that the size of the brain is strongly correlated with intelligence (assuming larger brains indicated higher intelligence), Darwin went on to browbeat those who disagree. He said, no one “doubts that the large size of the brain in man, relatively to his body, in comparison with that of the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers.”[10] Another tactic was to simply brush aside any objections. As Stephen Jacyna explains further, with reference to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species:

Darwin tried to address the question of why, if greater intelligence was of obvious advantage in the struggle for life, all organisms had not evolved the mental powers enjoyed by man. He concluded that a definitive answer ‘ought not to be expected, seeing that no one can solve the simpler problem why, of two races of savages, one has risen higher in the scale of civilization than the other; and this apparently implies increased brain-power.’[11]

It’s clear that Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory by natural selection, purported to explain progress from simple cells to man, could not explain the chasm in between ape brains and human minds. Can the 160 years of intensive research on the question by scientists since Darwin explain it today?

Attempts to Differentiate Between Ape Intelligence and Human Consciousness

Tool Use       

One way to judge human cognitive skills is to evaluate tools made by long dead human craftsmen. In the search for ancient tool use, one of the best places to look is the Eastern Rift Valley in southern Kenya, specifically in an ancient lake bed in Olorgesailie, Kenya, that contains a treasure trove of stone tools. The transition between the most primitive tools and the next level of tool complexity is stark. As Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. observed after his work excavating the area, “We have layer after layer of hand axes then” what is found instead are far more sophisticated tools.[12]

The gap between the primitive tools and the more advanced ones can be explained in several ways, but the gap that needs explaining is that one between the so-called tools made by apes (at most a rock smashed against a much larger rock with a nut in between) and an obvious human constructed hand ax, such as those found in Olorgesailie. Potts, the Smithsonian paleoanthropologist, had no doubt that he had found progress in hand axe technology, indicated by increasing sophistication of tools compared to the earlier ones; this was likely due to experience and training from previous generations of human tool makers. Ape “tools” showed no progress despite longer times to invent them.

Artwork

Another way to judge mental sophistication is to evaluate artistic creations attributed to early man and compare the results to chimps. In this area no shortage of examples exist. For example, evaluations of the earliest known cave paintings, such as at Chauvet, France, dated at 30,000 Darwin years old, indicate artistic sophistication universally acclaimed by artists. The cave paintings of Chauvet remind me of one artist in particular, namely the French painter Paul Cézanne (1839-1906). The caption to a cave painting in the Lawton article notes, “Human creativity must long predate these 30,000-year-old cave paintings” because of the high quality of the art, but he implies that he accepts it, nevertheless, as the end stage of a long evolutionary process in humans.[13]

Edited May 1, 2020 by teddyaware

[longview]

Another approach is to ask the question of whether the human brain is large enough and sophisticated enough to enable sentience.  Many animal lovers will agree that pets show emotion and varying level of intelligence.  But animal brains do not reach the capacity of human brains.  What is it that enables humans to have consciousness and perform such incredible feats?  I would say that it is the spirit mind that has the enormous sophistication.  The human brain is merely a physical interface that allows the spirit mind to operate the physical body (clay tabernacle).  Animals also have spirit bodies that make it possible to show emotion and some degree of intelligence.

[filovirus]

A correct mutation at the the correct time, in a species that multiplies rapidly (humans), can create quick bursts of evolution.

[strappinglad]

To use a phrase  , evolutionists don't believe in miracles  …. but they rely on them. 

I remember the " hopeful monster " theory that went the rounds decades ago. I thought it was rejected. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

To use a phrase  , evolutionists don't believe in miracles  …. but they rely on them. 

I remember the " hopeful monster " theory that went the rounds decades ago. I thought it was rejected. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/463864a

Quote

Suggestions to the contrary were met with ridicule: geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, in 1940, envisioned subtle developmental mechanisms producing great leaps of adaptation, but his use of the phrase "hopeful monsters" was misrepresented as extreme saltationism (perfection in one jump), and equated with belief in miracles. But through fish in the murky depths of a British Columbia lake and through bacteria in the flasks of a Michigan lab, the monsters have returned. Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap.

Single-gene changes that confer a large adaptive value do happen: they are not rare, they are not doomed and, when competing with small-effect mutations, they tend to win. But small-effect mutations still matter — a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow. As the molecular details unfold, theory badly needs to catch up.

 

[The Nehor]

Ah, good old Bergman. His PhD came from a non-accredited correspondence college (cough) diploma mill (cough) that was shut down for its egregious shortcomings. He is a prolific publisher but last time I read up on him he had never once published in a peer-reviewed publication. His grasp of science is probably too weak.

Add in his insane vendetta against Darwin claiming Darwin’s motives were religious and that Darwin admitted his goal was to murder God. Check his source on that and Bergman is clearly either a deceptive hack or he is functionally illiterate:

Quote

At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.

How he determined that is about God is a question best answered by another lunatic.

He definitely goes for the scientifically sound hot takes on things though:

Quote

Evolution and racism are the same thing.

Yeah, it is a shame. Before Darwin brought in evolution tribalism and racism didn’t exit. Then Darwin brought up evolution and we all turned on each other.

[katherine the great]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Organic evolution is, by very definition, an exceedingly slow process of gradual change through adaptation, so it is important for evolutionists to provide some reasonable explanations as to how this tremendous change happened with such great relative rapidity.

Mutations in structural genes--yes. Those produce slow, gradual change. However, mutations in regulatory genes can cause very rapid change.

 

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

So I’m honestly and uncritically wondering if any of the defenders of organic evolution and natural selection on this board might be able to provide reasonable explanations as to how the incredibly great chasm of intelligence between prehumans and humans was bridged at such breathtaking speed.

Which prehuman species are you specifically referring to?  Neanderthal? Denisovan? Red Deer Cave people? Homo erectus? Homo heidelbergensis? Australopithecines? Paranthropus? (etc.) The number of hominin groups is vast. And these all occurred after the split of our line from the great apes--at least 6 million years ago. Size does matter somewhat, but development of particular regions of the brain are extremely important. For instance, in order to have language, the Broca's area must be well developed. We don't see an increase in this area until the appearance of Homo habilis. Language also requires our version of the Fox P-2 gene and a U shaped hyoid bone in a particular configuration.

Another section of the brain that is especially well developed in modern humans is the frontal lobe section (decision making, abstract thought, planning, reasoning, etc. reside here). This would cause us to think and behave differently than say Neanderthal who had a more well developed occipital. Putting energy in that part of the brain would enhance their vision and movement detection which they needed for their environment and lifestyle-a good fit for them. I don't see any reason to believe that there was not enough time for these subtle changes to take place in the brain.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by katherine the great
spelling

[teddyaware]

53 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Mutations in structural genes--yes. Those produce slow, gradual change. However, mutations in regulatory genes can cause very rapid change.

 

Which prehuman species are you specifically referring to?  Neanderthal? Denisovan? Red Deer Cave people? Homo erectus? Homo heidelbergensis? Australopithecines? Paranthropus? (etc.) The number of hominin groups is vast. And these all occurred after the split of our line from the great apes--at least 6 million years ago. Size does matter somewhat, but development of particular regions of the brain are extremely important. For instance, in order to have language, the Broca's area must be well developed. We don't see an increase in this area until the appearance of Homo habilis. Language also requires our version of the Fox P-2 gene and a U shaped hyoid bone in a particular configuration.

Another section of the brain that is especially well developed in modern humans is the frontal lobe section (decision making, abstract thought, planning, reasoning, etc. reside here). This would cause us to think and behave differently than say Neanderthal who had a more well developed occipital. Putting energy in that part of the brain would enhance their vision and movement detection which they needed for their environment and lifestyle-a good fit for them. I don't see any reason to believe that there was not enough time for these subtle changes to take place in the brain.

 

The specific prehumans I’m wondering about are the ones the proponents of organic evolution believe to be the actual ancestors of the human race, from whom we can all trace our DNA..

Do you believe all the prehuman species you mention in your post are the direct line progenitors of the human race? If not, which?

Is there fossil record evidence that verifies the gradual change from prehumans with well developed occipital brains to the well developed frontal lobe brains of humans?
 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

from whom we can all trace our DNA..

We don’t have DNA from any species thought to be direct ancestors of modern humans but do have DNA from “cousin” species. 

 

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

 

Is there fossil record evidence that verifies the gradual change from prehumans with well developed occipital brains to the well developed frontal lobe brains of humans?
 

Neanderthals are not the direct ancestors of our species although all non Africans have some of their DNA. (interbreeding occurred)

[katherine the great]

For a great example of a "transitional" fossil: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco

It's important to understand that evolution is rarely a linear process. Species isolate and side branches pop up and then often some interbreeding. So rather than look for a common ancestor, I often look for common "ancestors". Hybridization can result in unexpected changes.

[pterosaurs]

The story of human evolution is quite interesting, and I wish I knew more about it—but I guess the short answer to the OP question is environmental changes caused natural selection to make really smart hominids. There was a supernova close by that somehow caused more lightning than usual. The increased lightning started more forest fires, which took advantage of the cooling and drying climate and made bigger and bigger grasslands. With more grassland, our ancestors needed to come down from the trees more often and walk upright. Those smart enough to do so and not get eaten survived better and passed their smartness on. Walking upright frees their hands for took use, which helped them defend themselves and catch more prey (meat) to eat. Meat was good for their brains. As fires continued, our ancestors probably eventually learned how to master fire and use it to cook. Cooking was a game changer. This allowed for them to eat more meat, which better supported those with larger brains. And with cooking came the ability to not just eat more meat, but to eat more calories, which helped fuel bigger brains. Bigger brains meant bigger intelligence and better tools, which allowed more kills and even bigger brains. It kind of grew exponentially after that. And then eventually, you had hominids (humans) domesticating animals and plants and starting civilizations.

If you read Abraham 4, it says that the Gods “cause” the humans to have dominion. To me, when I read that, I can’t help but think of the beautiful story of evolution, where supernovae, lightning, fire, grass, plate tectonics, and everything else combined to “cause” our ancestors to be smart.

 

[Dan McClellan]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Origin of Human Consciousness Stymies Darwinists

Recent Research Confirms the Gap is Real

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

This is a rather outdated and misguided screed. There are plenty of evolutionary accounts of the development of the human mind in neuroscience and the broader cognitive sciences. The three biggest keys were the development of human language, the development of a complex theory of mind (or the ability to hypothesize in detail what is going on in the minds of others, including what they might think is going on in your mind), and the "symbolic faculty" (the ability to reduce complex concepts to simpler symbols). The three likely developed roughly in tandem around 50,000 years ago, coinciding with climate changes and generations and generations of increased access to brain-building protein, which allowed for an exponential increase in the development of intelligence. The development of speech would have increased the ability to stay informed about circumstances and mental states, which would have demanded a more advanced symbolic faculty to communicate about increasingly complex circumstances, which would have increased the complexity of the theory of mind, which would have led to an increased sense of empathy (imagining what's going on in others' heads makes us more likely to empathize with others), which would have led to a greater capacity for cooperation, which would have allowed group cohesion for increasingly large group sizes, which would have placed increased pressure on mental capacities once those groups increased beyond Dunbar's number, increasingly selecting for those with more a more complex theory of mind and symbolic faculty, and now the human mind is off to the races. Brain size is not really determinative here (Neanderthals had roughly the same sized brains as us). The density of brain matter and the number of synapses is probably more important, though changes in the sizes of certain constituent portions of the brain are thought to coincide with certain faculties.

ETA: A selection of good literature if you'd like to research for yourself:

Merlin Donald, Origins of the Modern Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

Steven W. Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson, eds., The Evolution of Mind (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007).

R. I. M. Dunbar and Susanne Shultz, "Evolution in the Social Brain," Science 317.5843 (2007): 1344–47.

Chet C. Sherwood, Francys Subiaul, and Tadeusz W. Zawidzki, "A natural history of the human mind: tracing evolutionary changes in brain and cognition," Journal of Anatomy 212 (2008): 426–54.

Johan J. Bolhuis, Gillian R. Brown, Robert C. Richardson, and Kevin N. Laland, "Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology," PLoS Biology 9.7 (2011): 1–8.

Ian Tattersall, "The Great Leap Forward," The Contemporary West 3 (2011): 38–45.

Henry M. Wellman, Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

Malcolm Jeeves, ed., The Emergence of Personhood: A Quantum Leap? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015).

Karenleigh A. Overmann and Thomas Wynn, "On Tools Making Minds: An Archaeological Perspective on Human Cognitive Evolution," Journal of Cognition and Culture 19.1 (2019): 39–58.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[katherine the great]

50 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

The three likely developed roughly in tandem around 50,000 years ago, coinciding with climate changes and generations and generations of increased access to brain-building protein, which allowed for an exponential increase in the development of intelligence.

I agree with most of what you have written-especially connecting the environment of the Pleistocene to our “ intelligence” (there’s quite a bit of evidence that Neanderthals had a type of language as well as our own species).  But I can’t agree with this date. These changes must have occurred before humans left Africa. There’s plenty of evidence for complex, abstract thinking by 100-70 kya in Africa. Blombos cave in South Africa is a great example. 
I think many of the  behaviors people connect to “intelligence” are really products of human culture that arose from a species- wide, preformatted brain interacting with changing environmental factors. 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, filovirus said:

A correct mutation at the the correct time, in a species that multiplies rapidly (humans), can create quick bursts of evolution.

But would the mutation have to be "random" and caused by environmental factors only?

Suppose a group of space travelers from planet Kolob showed up and did some tweaking?

Or not. I wasn't there but some think I'm old enough to have been

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I agree with most of what you have written-especially connecting the environment of the Pleistocene to our “ intelligence” (there’s quite a bit of evidence that Neanderthals had a type of language as well as our own species).  But I can’t agree with this date. These changes must have occurred before humans left Africa. There’s plenty of evidence for complex, abstract thinking by 100-70 kya in Africa. Blombos cave in South Africa is a great example. ............................................

You are right to challenge the date he used.  However, current evidence puts Homo sapiens first coming out of Africa at least by 210 kya (Apidima Cave, Greece, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9), which likewise dates the developments in Africa to a much earlier horizon.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/1/2020 at 10:29 AM, teddyaware said:

Many will reject out of hand the author’s assertions because of his background and point of view. Nevertheless, it’s apparently widely understood, even among organic evolution’s most ardent proponents, that there is indeed an inexplicably wide gap that exists between the level of intellectual development and prowess of human beings and the degree of intelligence said to have been possessed by the prehumans from whom we humans are said to have evolved. Organic evolution is, by very definition, an exceedingly slow process of gradual change through adaptation, so it is important for evolutionists to provide some reasonable explanations as to how this tremendous change happened with such great relative rapidity.................................................

One need not appeal to, or attack Darwin (as Bergman does), in order to believe in evolution of some sort.  After all, even Pres David O. McKay believed in evolution (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 46).

However, we may be making the gap between us and our simian cousins wider than it actually is.  In fact, we have much in common with chimpanzees.  See my "Comparison of Human & Chimpanzee Behavior,” 2013, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/154253285/Chimpanzee-Human-Behavior .  Chimps are extraordinarily similar to humans.

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I agree with most of what you have written-especially connecting the environment of the Pleistocene to our “ intelligence” (there’s quite a bit of evidence that Neanderthals had a type of language as well as our own species).  But I can’t agree with this date. These changes must have occurred before humans left Africa. There’s plenty of evidence for complex, abstract thinking by 100-70 kya in Africa. Blombos cave in South Africa is a great example. 
I think many of the  behaviors people connect to “intelligence” are really products of human culture that arose from a species- wide, preformatted brain interacting with changing environmental factors. 

Yeah, there was definitely abstract thinking going back that far, but the advent of speech would have significantly accelerated the complexity, and vice versa. I should probably be more clear about 50,000 being the terminus ante quem for the rise of speech. Some date it as early as 100,000 (but I think that's pushing it). 

[cacheman]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are right to challenge the date he used.  However, current evidence puts Homo sapiens first coming out of Africa at least by 210 kya (Apidima Cave, Greece, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9), which likewise dates the developments in Africa to a much earlier horizon.

The funny thing is that Dr* Bergman's paper said this: 

The most recent estimate by evolutionists is that “modern humans appeared quite abruptly in eastern or southern Africa sometime between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago and went on to conquer the world.”[1] 

The citation leads to an article discussing the new developments you mentioned. Lol.  Either he didn't understand what he was reading,  or he was counting on people not checking his sources. 

 

*doctorate not valid in all 50 states. 

[Dan McClellan]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are right to challenge the date he used.  However, current evidence puts Homo sapiens first coming out of Africa at least by 210 kya (Apidima Cave, Greece, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9), which likewise dates the developments in Africa to a much earlier horizon.

I would say the initial appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens and the rapid acceleration of their mental capacities well beyond those of other species are quite distinct events.

[katherine the great]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are right to challenge the date he used.  However, current evidence puts Homo sapiens first coming out of Africa at least by 210 kya (Apidima Cave, Greece, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9), which likewise dates the developments in Africa to a much earlier horizon.

True and true. I agree that there is robust evidence that there were many small scale migrations out of Africa long before "the big one". However, many (if not all) of the early migrations almost surely did not lead to the modern humans we have around today. I personally think (because I'm an anthropologist) that all modern humans today descend primarily from a small "bottleneck" population of humans who lived in Africa before the main dispersal. I think this is probably the time period when our brains truly became modern in every sense. Of course I'm always open to new evidence. I didn't used to accept the fact that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals either. 😃

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yeah, there was definitely abstract thinking going back that far, but the advent of speech would have significantly accelerated the complexity, and vice versa. I should probably be more clear about 50,000 being the terminus ante quem for the rise of speech. Some date it as early as 100,000 (but I think that's pushing it). 

I know you get this but to explain to others about how quickly it can make a change, speech of course enables language and sharing of "ideas", automatically generating social, community intelligence. A single discovery by a single person suddenly can be shared by all, and then advanced by all seeking solutions for the same problem, perhaps, or multiple solutions for multiple problems popping up all at once.

Virtually overnight a kind of hive intelligence emerges, creating an exponential leap in social progression and making a world created through human eyes and intelligence, all through the "Word".

 

[katherine the great]

42 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

 I should probably be more clear about 50,000 being the terminus ante quem for the rise of speech. Some date it as early as 100,000 (but I think that's pushing it). 

Why? The origins of language is a hotly debated topic in my field (Biological anthropology). But since Neanderthals are found to have all the physical adaptations needed for language and our line split from theirs several hundred thousand years ago, why would we not have language until so recently?

[teddyaware]

21 hours ago, longview said:

Another approach is to ask the question of whether the human brain is large enough and sophisticated enough to enable sentience.  Many animal lovers will agree that pets show emotion and varying level of intelligence.  But animal brains do not reach the capacity of human brains.  What is it that enables humans to have consciousness and perform such incredible feats?  I would say that it is the spirit mind that has the enormous sophistication.  The human brain is merely a physical interface that allows the spirit mind to operate the physical body (clay tabernacle).  Animals also have spirit bodies that make it possible to show emotion and some degree of intelligence.

You make a excellent point. If you are correct — and I believe you are — for those Latter-Day Saints who believe in the teachings of the Church regarding the preexistence of spirits, it’s not really possible to understand the tremendous intellectual power and creative capacity of the human mind without first acknowledging its functions are the product of a dynamic fusion of an earthly human brain, and, if you will, a preexisting spiritual human brain.

It’s crucial to understand that, unlike the brain of the mortal body, the ‘spiritual brain’ is capable of thinking, making decisions, and acting on its own in total isolation from the earthly brain. So I’m wondering how Latter-Day Saint proponents of organic evolution will ever be able to understand how the evolutionary process actually works without understanding how the all-important and indispensable spiritual component of life interacts with the mortal?

Many Latter-Day Saints of scientific bent might say understanding the spiritual dimension isn’t necessary in order to understand how the process of evolution works, but my guess is when God finally reveals how all things work our scientists will humbly admit the process of the development of life on earth cannot be adequately understood unless one gains a thorough comprehension of how the spiritual dimension of life interactions with the mortal dimension.

It would be interesting to know if there are any Latter-Day Saint advocates of organic evolution who’ve attempted to demonstrate how the fusion of the earthly with preexisting spiritual might work. After all, the scriptures testify that “the body without the spirit is dead.” Which means that without the ignored spiritual dimension of life nothing would exist that could evolve into something else.

Edited May 2, 2020 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, longview said:

Another approach is to ask the question of whether the human brain is large enough and sophisticated enough to enable sentience.  Many animal lovers will agree that pets show emotion and varying level of intelligence.  But animal brains do not reach the capacity of human brains.  What is it that enables humans to have consciousness and perform such incredible feats?  I would say that it is the spirit mind that has the enormous sophistication.  The human brain is merely a physical interface that allows the spirit mind to operate the physical body (clay tabernacle).  Animals also have spirit bodies that make it possible to show emotion and some degree of intelligence.

I agree in general but I would be careful about attributing emotions to animals. We do not know if they feel emotions as we understand them. They seem to and in domesticated animals this is most obvious, primarily in dogs. We are not sure though if these are actual emotions or whether they are instincts that were selected for to enable them to better coexist with humans. The emotions in a human brain and a dog brain are similar but until we can ask a dog what it is like we cannot tell if it is instinctual mimicry or emotion. I have exotic animal pets (see my avatar for one of them as a joey) and despite the cooing of owners who adore them I do not think they love humans. Mine seem to associate my scent with safety and stimulation and they run and jump on me at times when they assume there is danger or they are in an unfamiliar environment but that is probably not emotion as we understand it. To me it seems telling that the only animals that seem to display what we see as emotional reactions in a similar manner to humans are those we have associated with for millenia (dogs and some herd animals) and our relatively close cousin species.

As I said I agree in general. I can picture animals of intelligence even surpassing ours but there is something unique in human sentience. It is a pity (or perhaps a mercy) that due to the veil our only experience of this state is seeing such sublime beings in a fallen state mated to corrupting and limiting fallen flesh.

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”

[katherine the great]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have exotic animal pets

You are dead to me.

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To me it seems telling that the only animals that seem to display what we see as emotional reactions in a similar manner to humans are those we have associated with for millenia (dogs and some herd animals) and our relatively close cousin species.

I kind of agree. I do know that hormones we associate with "love" like oxytocin have been measured in dogs and cats when they reunite with their human. So far, dogs love us much more than cats do! (no surprise there!)