It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
I wonder, have you ever heard the theory that our ability to speak intelligible words & phrases evolved as the direct result of our domestication of dogs, perhaps up to 30,000 years ago..?
There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. ... Fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals [whereislogic: as in the ape to man evolutionary storyline]. Then, too, there is a total absence of reference to any subhumans in man’s earliest records, whether these be written documents, cave drawings, sculptures, or the like.
The view generally accepted by scholars is expressed by P. J. Wiseman as follows: “All the real evidence we have, that of Genesis, archaeology, and the traditions of men, points to the Mesopotamian plain as the oldest home of man. Far Eastern civilization, whether Chinese or Indian, cannot compete with this land in the antiquity of its peoples, for it can easily sustain its claim to be the cradle of civilization.”—New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
I tend to think that humans getting smarter had a lot to do with our ancient ancestors figuring out how to farm. So instead of eating meat all the time, they also had a chance to boost their diets with concentrated carbohydrates from grains and sugars -- also beer and wine. Carbohydrates make for quick energy boosts to body and brain, which may have stimulated early humans to think a little harder about cool stuff like their place in the universe.
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
Based on your theory, other animals also would have had this same experience and many did not (not to the same degree as humans anyway - except maybe dolphins?
originally posted by: montybd
I believe the biology of the human brain first had to provide the means for the "chemicals" to affect the brain. The receptors had to be available to allow the brain to interact with the chemicals in the mushrooms or other naturally occurring stimulants. So where did / or how did the receptors come about.
If other species / animals have the receptors then they as well could have been affected. Otherwise the chemicals may be present in the systems of the animals but would not affect the animal.
originally posted by: AllisonV
a reply to: 3n19m470
The idea that early humans brains grew larger because of eating cooked meat was mentioned in a documentary that I watched recently (I believe it was The History Channel's [Mankind: The Story of All of Us](www.history.com...) FWIW).
“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.
THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
The idea that early humans brains grew larger ...
DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE
Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.
Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?
Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”48 Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49
What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? ...
Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?
48. The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.
49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.