Large Head size in human species - new theory.

[Technosoul]

I believe that humans evolved larger head sizes then those found in other primates because of trate in primitive humans to abuse women,.

Because males are stronger they used to drag women off to a cave for mating by their hair, and those cave men types would hit women over the head with clubs. Also such clubs were used for tribal wars (conflicts) as a weapon.

Now we know in fact that if you hit someone the injured part will swell up and get larger. But that is not the whole of this theoretical explaination.

Cracked skulls basically endangered the survival of the human race, because of the violence of primative peoples towards one another. So for protection the body evolved larger skulls in an attempt to insure the survial of the spiecies, especially the the female gender of the pre-human primates. In other words the body attempted to evolve helmet like skulls to protect people during clubing conflicts.

[The Dunedan]

Techno, you do realize, do you not, that the relevant comparison between humans and other primates is not head/skull size but the size of the brain? Other primates, most noteably Gorillas, have -MUCH- larger skulls than we do, and feature large bone "keels" to which the powerful Facio-maxillary muscles attatch. These also serve to protect the brain.

Before you start slinging these "theories" around, you might want to do some research, or maybe talk to someone who is knowledgeable in the field. I myself hold a degree in Physical Anthropology, so I'm quite familliar with the anatomy, morphology, and development of the human skull. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask...preferably before posting something of this kind again.

[gallo]

The depth and breadth of Techno's scientific knowledge is stunning, is it not? He seems to have learned his anthropology from Ally Oop comic strips. I'm getting the feeling that we are dealing with a troll from this post and his other one about the origin of the earth since I find it so hard to believe that anyone could be so oblivious to reality.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Dunedan Techno, you do realize, do you not, that the relevant comparison between humans and other primates is not head/skull size but the size of the brain? Other primates, most noteably Gorillas, have -MUCH- larger skulls than we do, and feature large bone "keels" to which the powerful Facio-maxillary muscles attatch. These also serve to protect the brain. Before you start slinging these "theories" around, you might want to do some research, or maybe talk to someone who is knowledgeable in the field. I myself hold a degree in Physical Anthropology, so I'm quite familliar with the anatomy, morphology, and development of the human skull. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask...preferably before posting something of this kind again.

Gorillas have larger head sizes but also have larger body sizes then do humans, they got larger everything because they are bigger then most humans. I did not mean to denote size by simple measurments. But size relative to the rest of the body and also in particular the forehead area.

When the evolutionist digs up old bones they look at the shape of the skull to determine if it is human or not, most primates have smaller (slanted) foreheads other then human types. If Gollias have larger skulls then they should have larger brains also, or do you suggest the shull is filled with empty space?

Humans have hands simular to that of a racoon and less fur then most animals and that hairlessness plus close mathing DNA would put humans in the same "box" with earthworms. But I am not posting a post about why humans are different then other animals, but rather, about the "cause and effects" for evolution in referrence to the human head size.

A human woman has trouble giving birth because of our larger head size (relative to our body size), causing the woman pain and sometimes death.
I doubt if a Gollia suffers the same kinds of labor pains as do human females, and it is the enlarged head size that causes that difference.

Again I am not posting about why humans are different the Gollias but why humans evolved a larger head size as compared with the "missing link" pre-human primate. My solution for that problem that science is unable to solve is logical enough.

The only other logical answer would be that humans were re-created from primates as a thinking workforce for aliens and the genetic experiment (crossing the genes of a primate with those of an alien) went a bit koo koo and so sex was thought to be taboo until Eve proved it could be done with success.

The latter idea did not recieve much welcome from the scientific community.

But if Aliens did use primates in an attempt to clone a intelligent workforce in their own images then that would be the answer to the puzzle. I guess you could try to test that in your own labortory by attempting to clone a human but using a Ape to give birth to the infant. But you might have to wait until humans are more knowagable about genes, DNA, and all factors concerned first, so that corrections could be made to get a decent match.

Or you could test my theory and hit your old lady on the head and see if a bump appears. ( okay, that was in fact a joke and has nothing to do with the evolutions of skulls).

But you are correct about the ability of the human brain to think things out, a Gollia is not much of a thinker. And the most intelligent of primates within the so-called animal kingdom has limited thinking abilties compared with humans, a chimp might know how to communicate with hollers and grunts but they cannot write profound poems nor anything close to the Consitution of the United States.

The thinking brain was perhaps the end result of diets where they ate mind expanding mushrooms (whatever?) and that triggered the growth of glands that produced the imagination and other human qualities of thinking. Where as other animals did not have receptors in their brians to gain the same effects that humans now enjoy having.

Here is a webpage for supportive data

Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley & Eugene Dubois

[The Dunedan]

My solution for that problem that science is unable to solve is logical enough.

Nope. Wrong. The size of the human brain increased because early hominids began to consume a protein-heavy diet which included meat. This permitted the brain to grow large enough to accomodate habitual bipedalism and abstraction. This is also why Chimpanzees and Bonobos, the two Apes for whom meat is the largest component of their diet, are the Apes which most closely mimic human behavior.

A human woman has trouble giving birth because of our larger head size (relative to our body size), causing the woman pain and sometimes death. I doubt if a Gollia suffers the same kinds of labor pains as do human females, and it is the enlarged head size that causes that difference.

Utter ballocks. Human -brains- are larger/heavier in relation to body-size. Have you ever -seen- a baby Gorilla? Their heads are nearly as outsized as our own. The reason women experiance so much pain is because, unlike Gorillas and people in other parts of the world, Western women give birth lying down. Female physiology is designed for delivery in a semi-upright position, with gravity to help out. The death from childbirth which you reference usually results or resulted from either blood-loss accompanying a torn uterine lining or vaginal canal, or to infection in the aftermath of delivery. Unless the baby is Hydrocephalic, head-size is not an issue unless the woman is extremely small (ie young).

The thinking brain was perhaps the end result of diets where they ate mind expanding mushrooms (whatever?) and that triggered the growth of glands that produced the imagination and other human qualities of thinking.

I have no idea where you pulled this dreck from. Again, the "thinking brain" was the result of a shift to a protein-heavy diet. Get your bloody facts straight.


You also seem to have -zero- understanding of how Evolution works. Physical events which do not kill the victim have zero bearing on Evolution. You're thinking like Lysenko, for Christ's sake! Nobody is going to evolve three-jointed arms if you go around breaking everyone's arm for a few generations. Evolution occurs when a random addition, deletion, or shift in genes causes a physical change, ie a mutation. If the mutation is beneficial, it will increase (however slightly) that individual's chances of survival. If the individual organism lives long enough to reproduce (thereby perpetuating at least the -possibility- that the mutation might be repeated), Evolution is happening. If the mutation is beneficial enough, eventually it is simply bred into the population, as with Sickle Cell Anemia.

I would suggest that you actually know what you're talking about before posting things of this kind.

[Technosoul]

we agree that intelligence might possibly have somethng to do with diets. You say meat and I repeated the idea of mind expanding mushrooms (as they moved from the forested areas into the open grasslands in search of food sources). The mushroom idea for intelligence came from Terrance McKenna and his book "Food of the Gods" where he presented chapter after chapter of scientific and historical evidence.
Amazon Online Reader : Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution

Ouote from book -
Terence McKenna Quotes - Literary Quotes About Terence McKenna and Practically Everything Else

Terence McKenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meat eating explanation also sounds reasonable enough. A meat eating fox would have to be smarter then the bunny in order to out fox the bunny, but the bunny would not need much intelligence to out fox a blade of grass.
So that makes sense, but I do not think the meat made creatures smarter but rather the need to develope better hunting skills. Gathering plant food takes less thinking then tracking down and skillfully capturing some meat to eat, in many cases. Also we would need to ask "what kind of super meat did humans eat that the chimps did not eat?" in order to make us so much smarter? What is the difference between Chimp meat and human meat diets that would cause such a difference in our intelligence status from a evolutionary standpoint? Did the scientists really think this through to the end? As I could go on with some more (perhaps unanswered) questions about the meat eating survey.

When I mention the "birthing pain" problem in humans I was going by what Carl Sagan wrote on this topic (what what has become this topic). Not sure just what page in what book - but as I recall this one might be it

The Dragons of Eden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However the squating position in giving birth makes things easyer as you noted, it is used in older Native American cultures and they report it is much better then laying down. I would tend to agree. But Sagan's points are also well outlined and backed with collected data from nature. Not being a woman I cannot say for sure that it is painless or not when in a upright position. According to Sagan the hip parts of the woman are too small for the head size of the infant and that would indicate a lack of evolutionary conformity for the female role. Sagan is a bit of a radical scientist at times so not sure if he fits your expectations for "real science".

Your outline about the internal workings of evolution are correct but they might be only part of the whole story. A turtle shell would be for protection and that had to evolve as an effect of some environmental cause. We build houses but other animals came up with all kinds of ways to protect their self and according to some of the Darwin related concepts that had to do with evolution. A turtle shell, a sea shell, the hard casing around a nut, and so forth, are all simular to the human skull relative to self protection. Sort of like a horse growing longer legs to try to outrun the mountian lions,.

[Technosoul]

Although a bit off topic I will add to my above comments the following ideas.

The body can change somewhat due to changes in the gene pattern. The other poster suggested this is caused by "random addition or deleted" gene mutations. Random meaning what? That is anyone's guess. Now the term "random" might work for an overall blanket perception. But when you get down to each single alteration in a gene we could likewise a particular cause for that change. Even if accidental it is still a particular cause for the effect taking place.

Example: if fish is brain food then eating fish might improve one's ability to think, but do genes effect the brain or the other way around? Or both ways.

Are people in Japan who eat a lot of fish smarter then cowboys who eat a lot of hambugers? Hmm?

But that is not my point anyway.

My question is "what causes those seemingly ramdom changes in our genes or DNA"? Or do those changes occur for no particular reason at all?

A Rattlesnake evolved the use of posion fangs where as other snakes living in the same enironmental locations did not. Hmm? Why some and not all?

Were those differences created by gene pool mutations or not? Do we wish to believe in limited evolution or do we wish to go "all the way" by thinking that each kind of snake evolved and alternated from one common ancestor?

That the tiny domestic kitty and the lion both had common roots, all somehow united as a "family" with their own original "Eve cat" way back then?

Now you can have tiny cats and big cats living in the same environments for thousands of years and so adaptation to the environment would leave open some room for doubt.

However the word "random" as a cuase tells us nothing, it is nearly useless.

And so I came up with another idea that I cannot prove. Here it is.

Some evolutionary changes are caused by a natual factor called "yearning".
Yearning is like wishing upon a star but does not demand thinking. Without even knowing that they are doing it creatures can yearn for this or that so that can have some advantage, security, or ability. Need generates that yearning. Once an eel was in rough waters and yearned for some help and at that moment the principle of electrical currents was unused, so the eel was able to adopt that principle and it became an electric eel. Somehow the yearning could manifest a principle such as electricity in the animals body.

For such events to happen the world (nature) had to have "fomulative stages" like those of young children. As nature became mature those drastic changes slowed down because it was no longer in that formuative stage of evolution.

If the yearning did not effect such internal manifestations (alterations) then the "crying out for help" was answered by a larger memory bank in nature, as discribed by Peter Russell. (book - the Global Brain). I will not suggest "God" becuase this is not a religious debate forum. Although we do have evidence of praying humans that evolved higher then the Chimps and so forth, they also ate more fish - like smart Dolphins do.

However most everything eats fish and not everything is as smart as I is.

But in fact people did and do yearn to know everything, and that yearning which started back just before recorded history has spearheaded us on towards our present day intelligent status. I guess those chimps just yearned to monkey around.

Now back to the background data for this concept. The DNA strand is like an informational collective antenna and it can recieve and download info from out of the blue - from that memory bank surrounding the planet. Morphic Field? That DNA stand is like a tree of knowledge that programs the rest of the body in co-operation with the brain. And becomes a generational communicator of knowledge due to reproduction. That is - knowledge in use - not book knowledge.

The yearning ties in with that informational highway called our DNA - data base.

If a monkey in Africa learns a new way to crack open shells then in the next generation the monkeys in South America will "know the same trick". That is because the DNA antenna of the South American monkey can pick up that info from that global memory bank.

Yearning works like a gravity force that pulls data from out of that cosmic like memory bank, so that it can be used or manifested into being by the creature yearning for some sort of help.

Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Morphic Resonance - Morphic Fields

The Global Brain

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Although a bit off topic I will add to my above comments the following ideas.

Oh, goody. More fantasy.

Quote by: Technosoul The body can change somewhat due to changes in the gene pattern. The other poster suggested this is caused by "random addition or deleted" gene mutations. Random meaning what? That is anyone's guess.

No it's not. Random means random, i.e., stochastic. There are several kinds of mutations, point mutations, insertions, deletions (indels, both of which cause frame shift mutations if they occur in the coding section of a gene), crossovers, inversions, and so on. Mutations aren't a change in pattern so much as a change in the sequence of the bases in the DNA. It is impossible to predict when or where in the genome a mutation might happen. Mutations are random.

Quote by: Technosoul That is anyone's guess. Now the term "random" might work for an overall blanket perception.

Actually it works quite well as a description for any changes in the genome of an organism. It isn't a "perception", blanket or otherwise. It is a descriptive term used in reference to changes in the genome of an organism.

Quote by: Technosoul But when you get down to each single alteration in a gene we could likewise a particular cause for that change. Even if accidental it is still a particular cause for the effect taking place.

Random does not mean uncaused. Even though we may be aware of the cause for a particular change, it still occurs randomly. But, what exactly does it mean to "likewise a particular cause?"

Quote by: Technosoul Example: if fish is brain food then eating fish might improve one's ability to think, but do genes effect the brain or the other way around? Or both ways. Are people in Japan who eat a lot of fish smarter then cowboys who eat a lot of hambugers? Hmm?

Bad example since eating fish offers no advantage to the brain over any other kind of protein. You see, your premise is invalid and therefore your argument is nonsense. Fish isn't brain food. You're a superstitious sort too, aren't you?

Quote by: Technosoul But that is not my point anyway.

Good, because so far you don't seem to have a point.

Quote by: Technosoul My question is "what causes those seemingly ramdom changes in our genes or DNA"? Or do those changes occur for no particular reason at all?

First of all, do you even understand the distinction between genes and DNA? And I have already explained that even though mutations have causes, they are still random. Random does not mean uncaused. In fact, there are many causes for mutations.

Quote by: Technosoul A Rattlesnake evolved the use of posion fangs where as other snakes living in the same enironmental locations did not. Hmm? Why some and not all?

What's a "posion fang?" What's an "enironmental location?"

Quote by: Technosoul Were those differences created by gene pool mutations or not? Do we wish to believe in limited evolution or do we wish to go "all the way" by thinking that each kind of snake evolved and alternated from one common ancestor?

I wonder what your point is. What is "limited evolution" and why would that logically mean that snakes do not descend from a common ancestral population?

Quote by: Technosoul That the tiny domestic kitty and the lion both had common roots, all somehow united as a "family" with their own original "Eve cat" way back then?

Way back when?

Quote by: Technosoul Now you can have tiny cats and big cats living in the same environments for thousands of years and so adaptation to the environment would leave open some room for doubt.

You're making that up. Why would you ever believe that a domestic cat lives in the same environment as a lion or a tiger? You don't think much before you speak, do you?

Quote by: Technosoul However the word "random" as a cuase tells us nothing, it is nearly useless.

It tells anyone who actually understands English words a lot. What's a "cuase?"

Quote by: Technosoul And so I came up with another idea that I cannot prove. Here it is.

Of course you can't prove it. Like all of your other ideas, you can't even offer evidence. You just have these tooth fairy sort of fantasies that you spew out mindlessly.

Quote by: Technosoul Some evolutionary changes are caused by a natual factor called "yearning".

Oh! Lamarckism. Debunked over 100 years ago. By the way, what's a "natual factor?"

Quote by: Technosoul Yearning is like wishing upon a star but does not demand thinking.

Well, that's good for you. No thinking involved.

Quote by: Technosoul Without even knowing that they are doing it creatures can yearn for this or that so that can have some advantage, security, or ability. Need generates that yearning. Once an eel was in rough waters and yearned for some help and at that moment the principle of electrical currents was unused, so the eel was able to adopt that principle and it became an electric eel. Somehow the yearning could manifest a principle such as electricity in the animals body.

What does rough waters have to do with helping an eel, and why aren't all eels electric?

Quote by: Technosoul For such events to happen the world (nature) had to have "fomulative stages" like those of young children. As nature became mature those drastic changes slowed down because it was no longer in that formuative stage of evolution. If the yearning did not effect such internal manifestations (alterations) then the "crying out for help" was answered by a larger memory bank in nature, as discribed by Peter Russell. (book - the Global Brain). I will not suggest "God" becuase this is not a religious debate forum. Although we do have evidence of praying humans that evolved higher then the Chimps and so forth, they also ate more fish - like smart Dolphins do. However most everything eats fish and not everything is as smart as I is.

Certainly not. Just the great apes and the whales and dolphins are smarter than you are.

Quote by: Technosoul But in fact people did and do yearn to know everything, and that yearning which started back just before recorded history has spearheaded us on towards our present day intelligent status. I guess those chimps just yearned to monkey around.

You would understand a chimps mentality better than I.

Quote by: Technosoul Now back to the background data for this concept. The DNA strand is like an informational collective antenna and it can recieve and download info from out of the blue - from that memory bank surrounding the planet. Morphic Field? That DNA stand is like a tree of knowledge that programs the rest of the body in co-operation with the brain. And becomes a generational communicator of knowledge due to reproduction. That is - knowledge in use - not book knowledge. The yearning ties in with that informational highway called our DNA - data base.

What tripe. When you say that the DNA can download info from out of the blue, do you mean that it can mutate randomly?

Quote by: Technosoul If a monkey in Africa learns a new way to crack open shells then in the next generation the monkeys in South America will "know the same trick". That is because the DNA antenna of the South American monkey can pick up that info from that global memory bank.

Have you ever heard of learning? Try it some time.

Quote by: Technosoul Yearning works like a gravity force that pulls data from out of that cosmic like memory bank, so that it can be used or manifested into being by the creature yearning for some sort of help.

Most of your babble is pure nonsense. What isn't pure nonsense was debunked over 100 years ago.

[Zhavric]

The reason women experiance so much pain is because, unlike Gorillas and people in other parts of the world, Western women give birth lying down. Female physiology is designed for delivery in a semi-upright position, with gravity to help out.

Ridiculous. Support this or retract it.

Human beings have enormous heads, a relatively small pelvis, and brains capable of highly complex feeling and sensation (along with color vision, we get really keen types of pain). It's a recipe for THE most painful childbirth in the animal kingdom regardless of how the woman is standing (or laying).

[The Dunedan]

Zhavric,
When you have known a pair of board-certifid Midwives for six years, sometimes you pick things up. When women from cultures in which babies are delivered from a semi-upright position report less pain and shorter periods of labour, and this is backed up by Anthropological fieldwork, and you research in that fieldwork, you pick up on it.

Try reading Mad Dogs, Englishmen, And Errant Anthropologists to start. This was the first of my sources that specifically mentioned this, though I'll have to dig through my notes to make sure of the rest. My bibliography for that thing was 3.5 pages, so I wanna make sure I get it right.

Please note that I never said that childbearing was painless. I simply stated that one of the reasons it's such a painful process for most women is that the position employed is not terribly efficiant. I know two women who have used both methods (one of them being the elder of those two Midwives I mentioned) and both reported significantly less pain and shorter labour. Mrs. B, who only stands 5' tall, delivered her last daughter (at 8lbs, 3oz) in less than half an hour.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric Ridiculous. Support this or retract it.

Any good child-birthing prep from your doctor will tell you that birth is easier upright, even standing if possible.

It's the way it was done a couple thousand years ago.

And I only know this because of all the doctors I talked to when my wife was pregnant.

Besides, think about it.

The painful and excessive pushing is to compensate for what gravity does normally. This doesn't mean childbirth isn't painful, it just means that pelvis separates easier when it's in it's natural, upright position with the child's head down and the weight of the head to assist.

EDIT

The Dunedan posted just before me and along the same lines.

[Technosoul]

Hmm, I may have to redesign my theory, Perhaps instead of Ally Oop clubing his mate or other men for combat purposes the body evolved a larger skull because the babies fell on their heads during birth, due to primitive cultures giving birth will standing up, perhaps even while picking corn or fruit from trees.

But at least we know the source of the "no pain" program, a midwife. hmm? sounds like a real scientific source for factual information.

My cat laid down and gave birth to six kittens and did not mummer a single noise to indicate pain.

Anyway Carl Sagan the scientist said that humans can suffer pain in childbirth but that this is not the case for other animals. Three midwives said otherwise. So I guess scientists are dummies.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Technosoul My cat laid down and gave birth to six kittens and did not mummer a single noise to indicate pain.

Cat's can't spread their legs into a squatting position the way humans can.

Nor can they stand up for the gravity-assisted birth.

Can't really compare bipeds with quadrapeds.

[Technosoul]

Good point about the cats.

Human beings are mainly the only upright animals ( having excluded birds) as most of the apes prefer to touch ground with their hands when running around on the ground. But I guess if they are hanging from a tree limb they are in a upright position.

Being that apes prefer to walk around on all fours and we are the only two-legged animals I would assume that apes do not need gravity (as stated) to give painless birth, like my four legged cat.

The fact still remains however that if humans had smaller foreheads then women would not suffer chirldbirthing pains - no matter what position they selected to be in while in labor. Like my cat.

And so I do not think the "monkey see monkey do" (giving birth like a monkey does) has anything to do with this at all.

However men can conduct one experiment. Next time you have trouble passing dung and it is painful to do so try the squating position. It is less painful then sitting, laying down, or standing upright. Just put you feet on the tolet seat and squat while pressing your tummy on your legs - and grunt.
You will be amazed how that position can ease pain while shitting those hard ones. Sorry about the somewhat graphic example but it makes a point relative to this ( sidetracked) topic about less painful childbirthing. Yep - I in fact did that experiment and some Arabs do it all the time so watch out for toe jam when using a public restroom.

[Fonceai]

That also has to do with the way your internal structure compresses when squatting. It creates pressure on your abdomen from every direction but down, so that whatever is in goes out.

Other quadapeds are capable of squatting, however.

It's just that the joint-structure in certain types of legs can't rotate out to squat.

Watch the birth of a larger quadraped and you'll see they drop their behinds down a bit.

As for the smaller foreheads, I'm sure it's already been addressed that it's in relation to brain development and would be detrimental in other ways?