Log in

Sep. 5th, 2007 (UTC)

One interesting argument I've heard is, roughly, "Evolution would never have favored something as smart as man, or advances that cause us to live as long as we do, because evolution only favors traits that get you to reproductive age and help you reproduce."


Stable society, lots of food stores, lots of infrastructure, medicine, etc.... That all favors lowered infant mortality. And let's face it: Generational continuity helps.

Smart communities are more successful and thus have more successful offspring. The "excess" capacity of the human mind enabled it to adapt its environment to suit its needs as much or more than the human needed to adapt to the environment.

This argument was particularly interesting to me, because it came from my highly educated Uncle, who was a Master's in psychology. I still wonder where that disconnect is. I couldn't write his argument off as ill informed, but I still don't think it's sound. (His argument specifically was that the human brain could not be the result of evolution, because it was too well organized, and far beyond what evolution might favor in any sort of incremental approach.)

Comment Form

No HTML allowed in subject


Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs your IP address when posting. 

(will be screened)