I Have Logic That Evolution Is Probably A Mythi!

a reply to: MissSmartypants
Interesting, but why go to all that trouble when a baseball bat to the head would accomplish that and much more? Or better yet flood the tubes with backstreet boys or other such pop songs, and politics, and watch IQs drop like snow in Alaska.

a reply to: Vector99
You can also while driving a car, steer with your feet and hit the gas and brakes with a 3 foot long stick in either hand. It can be done.

But why do that? The dude had no business being up there. And now he is not up there any longer.

originally posted by: childoffather
Think about this. Evolution requires no creator and would be self-evident. I see no mystery if I came from monkeys, I would be able to communicate with monkey's no?

You claimed to have Logic, well I'm here to tel you logic isn't on your side. In fact you're so far from logic it's unbelievable. I think it's you who only uses 10% of your brain, otherwise you'd have done some research before starting this nonsense....

a reply to: childoffather

We do use all of our brains all the time....

That we only use 10% of our brains is the real myth.

a reply to: childoffather


Maybe do some research. You will find that we use all part of our brains. Check out research using FMRIs and you will even see pictures of our brains in action. Fascinating stuff that brain of ours.

Let me flip this on it's head a little. If the OP is trying to imply that we are creatures of some god then why would they give us a full sized brain then only allow us to use only part of it? What kind of sloppy god does that?

And what god would put our sex organs right next to our waste drainage?



We are definitely amazing creatures, but I could think of a few design element improvements if I was asked to.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yet the average life expectation just 100 Years ago was 20 years less than it is nowadays, more in some countries.

I must have missed the memo about only using 10%. I don’t believe that.

originally posted by: violet
I must have missed the memo about only using 10%. I don’t believe that.

Most people in the 21st century don't believe it either as it isn't true.

However, I'm positive those using only 10% of their brain got that memo...

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Vector99
You can also while driving a car, steer with your feet and hit the gas and brakes with a 3 foot long stick in either hand. It can be done.

But why do that? The dude had no business being up there. And now he is not up there any longer.

I was just adding nonsense to a nonsense thread.

At least my post involved physics.

Person with a Neuroscience BSc [hons] here.
The 10% myth has long been debunked. Even back in 1999 we learned that it is absolutely illogical. They probably meant only 10% is used at any time you do something or think about something. However that's not correct either even though it could explain the confusion.

There are no unused neurons in our brain. If they are unused, they shrivvel up and lose their connections. Only those that are in constant use thrive. Considering this alone should show you that most of your brain is busy or you'd end up with a pea sized bit of grey matter.

YOu also have to understand how brains work. Whilst we have designated areas for our senses for example [occipital lobe for sight, temporal lobes for speech/hearing, language recognition and some memories, and the frontal lobes for social understanding etc., other areas are like a road network.

I simplified this drastically.

However we still don't understand at all how our brain works exactly but we do understand that thoughts and remembering things make your brain light up everywhere. We can't map our thoughts. We can see that certain areas light up when you are happy or angry but thinking, the act of solving a problem or trying to remember something sees your whole brain involved as it scours the whole cerebral cortex for clues.
Paths that are often used will strengthen, those that are ignored will fade.

So you could say that everytime we think only 10% are used as only a small part would light up if we scanned you. But the truth is that whilst you consciously may only use a tiny amount, the rest is quite busy processing billions of visual inputs, sorts the important ones from the unimportant ones [which your consciousness will never know about].

Your brain will also be bombarded with far more other sensory noise, including what you hear, feel, your balance, so many things that happen without the 'master observer' ever being aware of. This takes a lot of processing power [we as yet have to match it via computers].


In short: There is conscious thinking and unconscious inputs, the former doesn't take very much space, the latter does. If you don't understand how brains work, its all a mystery made by a god out of clay. If you do, you'll realise what an amazing organ it really is and that every space in the brain is used, some more than others.

The 10% is an old, outdated and long proven wrong myth that some people just don't want to let go because someone once said it a lot of years ago. [Just like their jesus really]. Time moves on, new things are found and real scientists move with the changes, religious folk and pseudo/orthodox scientists stick to their fake guns until they die.

originally posted by: childoffather
If we are evolving, shouldn't we be using most of our brains by now? What happened that we aren't able to? It appears to me that we have de-evolved, not moved forward by this logic. Also, since we only use ten percent, we are all just a bunch of pea brains.

It's not "overlooked", it's just not true. The "10%" is a myth that was rapidly debunked once we figured out how to measure brain activity.

In the absence of a brain injury, most people will use almost every part of their brain through the course of the average day - just not all at the same time.

To go back to the evolutionary point, however, it would actually be reversed. The brain is a very expensive piece of meat to keep running, completely disproportionate to any other organ. If we were only using 10% of our current capacity, people with smaller brains would have a significant evolutionary advantage and so evolution would trend towards us having smaller brains.

The actual scientific evidence (based on assessment of skull capacity) shows that our brains have been getting bigger - by multiples - since our early ancestors, which demonstrates that brain size did provide some evolutionary advantage. If we're only using a tiny portion of our brain, what evolutionary advantage would "increased size" have offered over "increased usage"? No advantage at all, especially when you consider the significant biological cost that comes with feeding a bigger brain. Doubling the size just to get a small increase in usage (10% of 500l instead of 10% of 1000l) would be an insanely bad evolutionary step. Evolution would have trended towards increasing usage first, as this would have provided a radically better advantage to those born with higher usage with no real increase in biological cost.

The fact that the evolution of the brain trended towards increasing size suggests that usage was already optimal.

a reply to: Hecate666

This is ATS - based on fear, conjecture and what someone's mum's cousin's dog groomer said that one time.

Not science and education.

Please, take your highly qualified, scientifically backed up opinions elsewhere.

Logic has NO place here.

originally posted by: Hecate666
Person with a Neuroscience BSc [hons] here.

There's your problem. This is ATS; it's well established that going to university means you have been brainwashed by "the man" to believe only falsities and untruths. Smart people eschew an education because only a mind unencumbered by knowledge, facts, an understanding of science or history, or training in logic or formal thought ordering, can truly comprehend "the truth".

In fact, without even bothering to read the entire thread, I shall bet a whole shiny penny that someone has already made a post to this effect at least once.

a reply to: EvillerBob

You know what? You are very right, I just thought if enough people [including those with some credentials, I didn't want to show off but that degree must be good for something damnit...] tell them, they will listen...however I won't hold my breath.
That's why I wrote the sentence about listening to jesus and old fashioned/orthodox scientists that will never change their opinions

a reply to: lordcomac

you should probably watch the documentary "idiocracy"

beh.... again someone that starts pimping his documentary

originally posted by: childoffather
If we are evolving, shouldn't we be using most of our brains by now?

Why?

What happened that we aren't able to? It appears to me that we have de-evolved, not moved forward by this logic. Also, since we only use ten percent, we are all just a bunch of pea brains.

If you actually understood how evolution works, you'd know that devolution would be impossible. Because, in order for a species to de-evolve, the child would have to have traits of its grandparents. Which is logically impossible.

Why do you think we only use so little and don't you think that at some point we possibly were able to use all our brain?

You do know that the idea of humans only using 10% of their brain is a myth stemming from our lack of understanding on how the brain works right?

That is what I believe the case to be.
This is a real hypothesis that is overlooked or never discussed.
We ignore this because we are just pea brains.

No. You just asked an ignorant question that wouldn't exist if you bothered to study and learn what Evolution actually says on the matter.

a reply to: childoffather

I guess I am unable to see the implications.

Implication recognition requires 15% of the brain. I am stuck at 10%.

originally posted by: JameSimon
a reply to: rickymouse

Yet the average life expectation just 100 Years ago was 20 years less than it is nowadays, more in some countries.

Do more research into that before speaking. I actually looked at what raised the life expectancy up. That was done back in the forties. The great depression change in diet back to more natural actually increased life expectancy too, the gay 20's lifestyle actually reduced life expectancy because most people were eating junk food.

The big life expectancy jump came from babies surviving, the evidence is all messed up. Go into the old graveyards, we did, to verify this. lots of babies died, lots of people in their eighties or nineties, and times like when the nineteen eighteen flu broke out have younger people in the mix. Also during the wars there were more deaths at young ages. Looking around you will also see that lots of mothers died from childbirth issues, the kids born about the time their mothers died. Those issues with mothers and babies are now way better, that is the main driving force for life expectancy increases.

Also, the conditions of work are way better now than before. Modern medicine takes credit for this in life expectancy, but that is something totally different than is being insinuated by the medical industry.

Read up on what I say and go look in the graveyards at the age on tombstones. Remember, lots of farmers died and sometimes they were buried on their land and there were lots of farm accidents back then, but accidental death was not considered as part of life expectancy then or now. Bad health issues from poor work conditions, like asbestose or dust from grains, did cause lots of lowering of life expectancy. Both black lung and farmers lung were common. Lots of farmers also died from pesticide use in the sixties and seventies. So, we shifted things around.

This too is a myth

originally posted by: JameSimon
a reply to: rickymouse

Yet the average life expectation just 100 Years ago was 20 years less than it is nowadays, more in some countries.[/quot