“There is popular common belief that man uses only 10 to 15 % of the brain. But from an natural selection evolutionary viewpoint you would not evolve something that is not used. One or the other should not be true”
And the popular common belief is the one that’s not true: Humans Already Use Way, Way More Than 10% of Their Brains - The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/you-already-use-way-way-more-than-10-percent-of-your-brain/374520/
(Actually, it’s not really true that you wouldn’t evolve something that’s not used. It appears that some traits just “come along” with other useful ones—i.e., if you evolve the useful A, you get the meaningless B.
It appears that some traits just “come along” with other useful ones—
that would not fit in to Darwinian evolution theory which I believe favors gradual mutation to a form...not spontaneous new fully functional forms occurring....
You’re saying basically that an animal could randomly sprout fully functional wings just because.....
Or a monkey, could randomly be born the next Einstein ?..
I think you would agree Darwinian evolution has to have a range or scope limitation of the viable mutation there can any given generation?
Else Darwinian evolution would have to encompass the remote possibility of self aware man spontaneously rising from dirt in one step..
And your back to the story of Adam being viable inside Darwinian evolution theory...
So given the atlantic article.. just how much of a brain capacity change is viable within evolutionary theory vs. What they think we use and dont use...
It appears that some traits just “come along” with other useful ones—
that would not fit in to Darwinian evolution theory which I believe favors gradual mutation to a form...not spontaneous new fully functional forms occurring....
You’re saying basically that an animal could randomly sprout fully functional wings just because.....
Or a monkey, could randomly be born the next Einstein ?..
I think you would agree Darwinian evolution has to have a range or scope limitation of the viable mutation there can any given generation?
Else Darwinian evolution would have to encompass the remote possibility of self aware man spontaneously rising from dirt in one step..
And your back to the story of Adam being viable inside Darwinian evolution theory...
So given the atlantic article.. just how much of a brain capacity change is viable within evolutionary theory vs. What they think we use and dont use...