Archaeologica.org

They place the evidence in full view for everyone to see, whereas those claiming that they are not human tracks only give their theories without presenting any evidence.

That sounds like Arch talking about his goddamn bible.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200700 ... _sys.shtml

The human brain underwent explosive growth after we split from our chimp cousins, but the pace of evolutionary change among the thousands of genes expressed in brain tissue has since slowed, says a new study in PLOS Biology. The researchers involved speculate that the higher complexity of the biochemical network in the brain places strong constraints on the ability of most brain-related genes to change.

From: The Daily Grail

I don't know whether that is correct or not Beag but I tend always to be interested less in the nuts and bolts and more in the 'why'?
Darwinism stands on the basis that useful, at that perticular time, traits will spread through the species. Fine, so what use was a larger brain to us compared with a Chimp?

ooh there you go with the darwinism again
you just dont get it do you Roy

That's correct.

ok then last time i will try to explain it
Darwin died on the 19th april 1882 thats 125 years ago
he laid the foundations for at what was in his time a revolutionary concept
i.e. that god didn't do it
he didn't know anything at all about :-
genes
chromasones
dna
to him evolution was much simpler

since then scientists have discovered that Evolution takes place on the genetic and not the observable level
so basically everything that Darwin said was not so much wrong but as correct as he could be without knowing in the detail

when you refer to Darwinism you are taking your argument back to the mid 1850s level
it is like discussing modern jet aeronautics by saying
"the montgolfier brothers has this theory about heavier than air flight"

using Darwinism in part of a discussion is a usual trick of creationists
they set Darwin up as the great example of science
and then prove that in certain areas he was wrong
we know that
we have moved on
you understand yet ?
pleasepleasepleaseplease

Sounds like fun. What's it got to do with why we have big brains?

Digit wrote:Sounds like fun. What's it got to do with why we have big brains?

Look...






It's not everyone, okay?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 165229.htm

In the ancestors of humans, having bigger and more complex brains appears to have carried a particularly large advantage, much more so than for other mammals. These traits allowed individuals with "better brains" to leave behind more descendants. As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity.

we're special
well
some of us are

Look...

As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity.

Mutations are magic!

using Darwinism in part of a discussion is a usual trick of creationists
they set Darwin up as the great example of science
and then prove that in certain areas he was wrong
we know that
we have moved on
you understand yet ?
pleasepleasepleaseplease

The ol' strawman argument.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

using Darwinism in part of a discussion is a usual trick of creationists
they set Darwin up as the great example of science
and then prove that in certain areas he was wrong
we know that
we have moved on
you understand yet ?
pleasepleasepleaseplease

The ol' strawman argument.

What's this? I can see a discussion of evolution and Darwinian theory may be in order here.

What's this? I can see a discussion of evolution and Darwinian theory may be in order here.

Quote:
As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity.


Mutations are magic!

I've always had a hard time buying into the notion that mutations could be responsible for increasing the complexity of anything.

However, a strawman argument does little to advance the case for the impossiblity of macro evolution.