It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could Intellect be the result of anti-evolution?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:33 AM

I heard a little while back that people living on the Himalayas (Mount Everest) have a higher lung capacity as the air at higher altitudes is much thinner (less oxygen). This is the result of evolution over a large period of time.

One hundred and forty million people live at altitudes above 2,500 metres (8,200 ft). Studies have found that these populations, especially people living in the Andes and in the Himalaya, have ways of compensating for the lower oxygen levels that are different from people living at sea level. Compared with acclimatized newcomers, native Andean and Himalayan populations have better oxygenation at birth, enlarged lung volumes throughout life, and a higher capacity for exercise.

Now let’s say a person who lives at sea level decided to go to live at the Himalayas. This person would find it difficult to breathe at a higher climate so they create a device (breathing apparatus) to help them breathe.

This would then result in anti evolution as this person’s lung capacity would not evolve but instead would be relying on his intellect and technology to help him to survive.


Now let’s say I take it back a few millennia. we have apes which have not yet evolved into modern day humans.

Imagine that one of these apes is eating from a dead carcass. As he is eating, a leopard approaches him. He really has one option. He relies on his instinct and bolts to a large tree located behind him. We can see the result of evolution through the physique of the ape as he easily escapes up the tree from the leopard.

But this is where something special happens. As he legs it up the tree, his instinct allows him to launch a bone which he was holding from the carcass, towards the leopard.

The ape processes an original thought. As the bone is hurling towards the leopard, He sees the leopard flinch and flee a few yards.

The ape realises that the leopard is scared of the bone.

A few hours later, the ape is back at the carcass resuming his meal when the leopard approaches again. This time before the leopard get close, the ape launches another bone which again results in leopard fleeing. This time, as the bone is hurling through the air, the bone knocks a beehive down from a tree.

The ape feels protected and has a luxurious meal thanks to the bone.

From this day forth, the ape realises the bone has much potential and uses his intellect to progress which would result in a change of evolution.

The evolution that was helping him survive had now changed to intellect that is helping him survive. The ape would now mainly evolve anthropometrically (basically evolution now had begun to refine him rather than think for him).

As the ape’s intellect began to increase, evolution began to decrease as he became more reliant upon his intellect. Anti-evolution.

To the ape, Intellect meant instant change, instant control whereas evolution brought around changes over a large period of time.


To clarify, I do not follow any religions but in religious terms, let’s say God created evolution. What would anti-evolution (intellect) be?


Are you beginning to see the light?

Lucifer represents intellect in the mystery schools.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:03 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by toocoolnc

OK, you seem to have some pretty basic misunderstandings about what the word "evolution" means. The most basic yet comprehensive definition I can give is that evolution is change over time in response to environment. Please note that there's nothing in there about being alive or getting "better" or genes or anything like that. It's simply a description of what happens to a system over time as it interacts with its environment. Languages can evolve. Programs can evolve. Corporations can evolve. Evolution becomes a lot faster when you are dealing with something that replicates and reconfigures its base code in response to its environment at every replication. The most obvious example of that is the 4 billion year old chemical reaction we call "life"; especially the kind that reproduces sexually. The only thing that would correspond with the idea of "anti-evolution" would be stasis in the face of a changing environment.

The fact is that when you talk about the evolution of a conscious species, you need to talk about the evolution of its technology and ideas, its "memes" if you will, as well as the evolution of its genes. This becomes especially important when the species develops the means of directly instantiating its memes in its genes through genetic engineering. But even before that, cultural evolution can be a strong driver of biological evolution. For example, all of our best evidence says that prior to the development of agriculture, the average male human height was between 5'10" and 6'2". With the invention of the idea of farming 6000 years ago, people became MUCH shorter. It's only now, 60 centuries later that genes for thriving on a farmed diet have become common enough that prosperous cultures have that height again. Or look at the ability to digest lactose as an adult: once incredibly rare, the cultural imperatives of expansion, colonialism, and conquest lead to this rare gene being spread across a large proportion of the human populace. Which lead directly large swaths of land being given over to dairy farming. Which changed the environment in which people exist.

Ideas change our response to the environment and they change the environment itself. Your ape with the bone now exists in an environment with significantly less predatory pressures upon him and his progeny. That changes the selective pressures upon his and their genes. It's not "anti-evolution" -- it's "evolution+".

new topics

log in