Conundrums and Inconsistencies

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    • #18419

      One always hears about the "evolution" of modern man, centered around his/our increased cranial size and bigger brain.
      Oh yes, it makes us SOOO much smarter than the little-brained hominids.

      Why then:

      1. Is there no correlation between brain size and I.Q.?

      2. Why is the blue whale, with the largest brain ever, not even smart enough to communicate with relatively small-brained humans?

      3. How are animals with unimaginably small brains, like the Monarch butterfly, able to find their way from Mexico to Northern California, when humans need road maps, street signs, and GPS navigation to go across town?

      4. Why is the African Gray Parrot known to be one of the smartest animals known to man, while its brain is clearly small relative to that of a cow?

      [Please, don’t try to make the speculation that large bodies, e.g. whales, need huge brains to "maintain their system." It does not follow in any sense.]

      Now this is simply the opening conundrum of very many. I’m sure many in the audience can posit their queries that evolutionary biologists will struggle with mightily. I once asked a biology professor why there were no one-eyed animals on earth. His starry-eyed answer: "Because two eyes are better." Likewise it would "be better" if humans synthesized our own vitamin C, but we do not, and scurvy has killed more sailors than all the ancient battles did.

    • #116243

      And another thing……

      What could whales do IF they were far smarter than humans?
      What could elephants do if they were far smarter?
      How about hippos?

      Do you think it was simple coincidence that humans have optimal body forms, size and shape, to so profoundly utilize our intellect? What are the odds that we just happened to have the optimal size and shape, housing the best, most powerful brain on earth, and probably anywhere in the universe?

    • #116246

      Male emperor penguins spend the winter in Antarctica, with their egg cradled on their feet, maturing.
      When the young is born, each father regurgitates a milky substance

      The mother meanwhile spends months at sea, feeding. She just HAPPENS to return, find her mate and chick perhaps 120 miles inland, among thousands of others, and takes over the rearing, remaining there for months herself, regurgitating food to her offspring daily.

      That this complex, interrelated system somehow "evolved" is something that needs, in the spirit of Richard Dawkins, to be explained.

      1. Their "evolution" of a nesting site 120 or more miles from the ocean.
      2. The "evolution" of a male producing a nourishing milky food, months after leaving the ocean.
      3. The "evolution" of the female leaving for the winter, to feed.
      4. The "evolution" of the female returning successfully.
      5. The "evolution" of finding the right brood.
      6. The "evolution" of the female’s ability to continue regurgitating for months while fasting.
      7. The chick’s ability to swim and gather food without the slightest bit of experience, in water it has seen for the first time.

      All concurrently, of course, for survival depends on each separate stage.

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.