⚠ CORRECTION!!! In this video, I said "this video is brought to you by the Diamond Mind Foundation." Well, as of December 2022, that is no longer the case. Sense of Mind is now 100% dependent on viewers like you. So if you value this content, please go to www.patreon.com/senseofmind. For less than $5 a month, you'll get exclusive content and the satisfaction of knowing you're helping to keep Sense of Mind alive! 🧠
There are 2 types of evolution: "micro" & "macro", micro-evolution is small changes within a specific species but never evolves into a different kind; macro (apes into humans) doesnt exist! Evil-ution is a theory-tale for grown ups! it is unproved, unproven, and unproveable! it is only taught because the only alternative is special creation; and that to the sinners mind is unthinkable!
Hey man, this channel is going to go very far if you keep presenting information in this way. Your ideas are so well thought through and presented that makes understanding easy. Your ideas are thoughtful and interesting. Keep up the good work.
I'm slightly embarrassed.. Just wanted to correct myself and clarify that I mentioned in my clip that the Locus Coeruleus was the brain region in the midbrain responsible for orienting us to danger and it is actually the Superior Colliculus. Just wanted to make sure I set the record straight!
Mammals did not evolve fr reptiles but instead are synapsids, a large group that included several orders more closely related yo mammals than reptiles. Reptiles on the other hand are saurapsids, and the synapsids and saurapsids diverged from more basal amniotes which evolved from early amphibians during the Carboniferous.
0:15 Brain originally used probably to coordinate organs 1:30 bodys preceed the brains 5:00 brain stem = oldest part of the brain 6:45 PFC is especially developed in humans. It's what allows us to engage in cognitive control, executive functions. Translate intentions and goals into action.
This is so well done! Props on the video editing skills and the overall flow and structure of the content. The gut brain stuff at the beginning and the connection that you made to the cnidarians was fascinating. I'm a little biased because its my favorite brain region but I really enjoyed the PFC stuff too. Can't wait to see what else you have coming down the pipeline. Thanks again too for the shoutout for my channel!
Interesting topic. I like the way you present complex topics in a way that is clear and accessible to a layperson such as myself. Keep up the good work.
Great video, is there sketched out tree or flow diagram of the evolution of abilities from single cell to human brain? For example, ability to absorb nutrients, to ability to move, to ability to control direction, to ability to sense light, this may the wrong order... Neurologically, is there a map/tree for what changes between eukaryotes to bilateria to vertebrates to tetrapods.... to the human brain?
Well, this is an article rather than a flow chart, but I think it provides the information you're looking for: www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2015.15 Thanks so much for you comment!
While the evolutionary biology of gender behavior makes sense, I would be a little cautious on jumping all the way from evolutionary biology to modern human behavior. There are a few caveats. 1. A lot of modern gender behavior being referenced refers to post-agricultural societies. Post-agricultural societies represent a relatively slim subset of human behavior, despite being the populous majority. Hunter-gatherers have widely varying behavior that diverges. 2. In terms of the "selfish gene" trying to optimize its reproduction , it isn't quite as straightforward in social species as in loner species. For a loner species, it is all about the individual competing with other individuals to spread its individual genes. But in more social groups, genetic competition may be more emphasized at the group level. Instead of emphasizing individual selection, it would have emphasized tribalism. 3. Bonobos were glossed over, here. But they are an important piece of the puzzle. For bonobos, the "sexual narrative" presented here is more or less reversed. The females insist on mating with as many individuals as possible and with each other. This completely obscures paternity certainty, reducing the benefits of a strong male hierarchy. It dissolves male hierarchy by not limiting sexual access to a select few males. This drastically reduces competition, murder, and infanticide within the group. The priority is to reduce infighting. Bonobos share genes associated with empathy and bonding that are present in the Human, but missing in the Chimp, indicating our common ancestor had these genes, and Chimps are the odd ones out. Likely because they are in direct competition with Gorillas for the same resources and territory. Creating a need for stronger hierarchies and more aggressive behavior. 4. In terms of women having restricted, selective sexuality and men wanting multiple partners, think about ancient societies. They had to create intense laws and extreme enforcement to PREVENT women from sleeping around. If women biologically mostly did not want to sleep around much, such laws would not need to be so extensive. Maternity is known, Paternity is impossible to prove until recently, unless the woman was forced to be loyal to one man. So take some hunter-gatherer behavior into consideration: - In several groups, the social "father" of the children is actually their uncles, rather than their biological father. - In many groups around the Amazon, they believe women must sleep with multiple men to create a baby, so they "make the rounds". - Resources don't generally go: Specific Hunter -> That hunter's children. Instead, an entire hunting group came back and the food was shared. in fact, they are pretty assertive about this. Look up "Fierce Egalitarianism". - Hunters didn't provide the bulk of the food nor the most consistent food. It was important for sure. But whether or not you eat wasn't determined by who your husband was. So this challenges a few notions: - That women had to choose the best provider to survive - That the survival of a man's biological children depended on his specific hunting ability A lot of these tasks would have been diffused throughout the group. "A man's hunt" didn't provide for "his children", but that "the men's hunt" provided for "the children". So a lot of the social pressures that lead to our modern behavior may have instead "resurfaced" with the advent of agriculture, rather than being there the whole time.
Wow, what an absolute gem of a channel I've stumbled upon! This video was both fascinating and comprehensive, yet provides a perfectly detailed overview of the topic. I found it very interesting to consider that our bodies preceded our brains -- it makes sense! I also appreciate the discussion of a more holistic view of the brain, rather than breaking the neocortex away from the more stereotypically primitive parts. I too am guilty of viewing the brain hierarchically, but will try to adopt a more integrated view, as this does seem much more true to life. Thank you for this great video!
I have heard a theory of how trauma can effect DNA, specifically the DNA described here, that predisposes a person to have a very "reactive" brain leading to anxiety and a propensity for ptsd, as well as neurodivergence and the whole spectrum. So, it's always your DNA that you are passing down, but over time, the trauma you experience can alter which DNA gets copied and to what extent. So your first child could be quite normal, then if you experience quite a bit of trauma, the child you have much later in life would be more likely to have a brain "wired for stress". It's also theorized that in times of great stability, the brains of the population get less and less reactive, while times of great chaos and upheaval produce more offspring wired for stress. I haven't seen any numbers to back this up, but it's an interesting theory.
Great point! This touches on epigenetics, where trauma doesn't change DNA sequence but can influence how genes are expressed. However, it's complex and not yet fully understood. The idea of passing these changes to future generations is still a subject of ongoing research and debate. It's also key to remember that many factors, not just genes, contribute to behaviors and mental health conditions. A fascinating field indeed!
Robert Sapolsky talks about this a lot, and its called the grandmother effect, as it was studied in female rats exposed to different stress levels. High stress rats were shown to breed rats vulnerable to stress and they also have thinner cortexes.
Thanks so much for your kind words! But actually, I'm no longer supported by any outside funding, so your support is more important than ever. Thanks for watching! By the way, if anyone reading this wants to help keep this channel alive and thriving, go to www.patreon.com/Senseofmind
I am very positively impressed by the quality and insight of this video. The very fine and well focussed selection of citations and excerpts from leading researchers is outstanding. And the causal flow of evolutionary events proposed in the common thread of this production is very thought-provoking and certainly enriches our evolutionary awareness. Thank you for producing such a valuable knowledge contribution!
Fantastic! I have sooo much to say, but it's supper time! Brain function, consciousness, and the implications of qualitative experience have been all I've been thinking about for the last 30some years. I'll be back!
i have a question on cognitive control. do we really have control?? i mean it feels like we change our minds, but is it really us? or does it just happen like heartbeats or breathing
Great question! I've wrestled with this issue of free will (the ability to willfully control one's thoughts and actions) for a long time. Personally, I think it's hard to see how mental activity could be anything but a process in the brain that is governed by the laws of physics, and therefore can't be under our conscious control. However, I think the truth may be more nuanced. Or perhaps we're just not cognitively equipped to understand how it works. Regardless, it's clear that our brains have a capacity for cognitive control, whether or not we as the conscious agents are actually in control. My video on the PFC and cognitive control explains more: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-p04xZjZUl2o.html
You talking about ol' 'Dewy Duodenum?. pffft, dude's a pinko commie. Loot distribution fruitcake's like Dewy have egressed purpose; Chat-GPT prolly perform that function for like five bucks. 😅
I've always believed that morality is based on evolutionary success. The most successful species are those that practice a mix of altruism and selfishness.
Of course morality came from evolutionary success, we humans are a social species we formed groups to help us better survival, it wouldn’t really be great for evolutionary survival if weak creatures don’t cooperate wouldn’t it? These traits can also be found in spider crabs who’ve huddled together in order to protect the weaker ones from stingrays.
It’s also noted from the video that the PFC has a large part of how anxiety is externalized. Some people can have a lot of anxiety from the core limbic system of their brain, but with a strong PFC, it can executively “dampen” those feelings to be more externally, socially acceptable. On the contrary, people with large spikes of anxiety and a weak PFC are at a bit of a double whammy situation with little executive say in how those emotions are externalized, making them more “raw” which may not be fitting in every situation especially social ones. Video is very informative and enjoyable.
Thanks, nice talk. Your take on male sex genetic wiring to spread many seeds, through many partners, doesn't overtly account for a generalized cultural idea of father's being "fiercely protective," which might require less spreading, and greater focus on small numbers. What do you think?
Very very scientific explanation, with the “Male want more offsprings” it is absolutely true, and if combine with “anxiety” quote then these can also explain why with human this can be a exception.
Would have been more interested in the development of brains both comparitively and primitively. How development of prostomes might differ from deuterostomes etc. as well as, say, the differences between nematodes and annelids
recently I was wondering about what evolutionary change in human brain leads to the invention of writing, which appears around 4000 yrs ago in western civilizations and also in mesoamerica, as it where some kind of covergent evolution since these groups splitted appart over 14000 yrs ago, and so far there weren't no communication among continents at that time.
I think the number of partners for males and females are largely a cultural thing. In fact it would make sense for a female to have children with different males to lower the risk of genetic disease and inbreeding. This was even practiced by many isolated tribes because they observed that inbreeding was bad in their animals.
When he said subscribe a rainbow color zoomed around the perimeter of the Subscribe button. Is that AI voice recognition activated from within the RU-vid video as a standard built in function?
Rodolfo Llinãs, in his "i of the vortex", talks about a worm that is mobile until it finds a good place to live, and once it roots itself it consumes its own brain. From this and the observation that plants and such don't have brains he argues that the brain evolved for locomotion. I leverage the notion of homeostasis and suggest that the brain evolved as a comfort finder. It started as a comfort finder and is in us becoming a coherence detector. And i think there's reason to believe that coherence detection is... somehow a collective cognition of some sort: i had a meditative experience that lasted one full week, and it felt normal and sensical and physiologically grounded. Just the once, on and off like a tap.
The first mammals evolved on Earth during the early Jurassic period approximately 200 to 175 million years ago. These early mammals evolved from a common ancestor they shared with reptiles 4:30
The whole “brain isn’t developed until 25” is a myth that refuses to die no matter how many times it is debunked because it is useful in reinforcing the status quo. Structural change in the brain happens throughout life.
It's hard to imagine how depression could be naturally or sexually selected for. It would be more plausible to say that it hasn't been completely deselected yet. Manic depression is a different issue, as it may give rise to great bursts of creativity, cf Van Gogh.
Depression and many other mental issues are most likely a result of living in modern society. People in Hunter gatherer tribes are noted for their happiness.
What makes humans unique is their sense of self, the ability to observe and manipulate the model of the world in the brain with an inner eye. Lower organisms have at most attention but not imagination. This means that Homo sapiens draws many more conclusions and has more fantasies to remember. The size of the neocortex is therefore a consequence of our unique capabilities, not the cause, I think.
I wouldn't necessarily say mammals descended from reptiles but to be fair its very contentious, and i don't blame people for oversimplification of early permian amnyote diversification.
@@AMC2283 yeah it's almost more accurate to say we are the most distantly related of the reptillia. "The hagfish of reptiles" as a certain biology youtuber would say lol.
The brain, or the CNS is so complex. Hard to really know if the brain evolution has maxed out, law of use/disuse should still apply, no doubt the sulci/gyri is more important than just the mass itself, we need lots of time meaning next several generations to answer; unicellular creature B was injured by A, leaking its content while swimming away and repairing its disrupted cell wall in flight, what control B's fright/flight impulses to do so, love to learn more from you.
I see what you mean, although it’s quite an influential servant if so. Maybe it’s more of a business partner arrangement, rather than servant-master relationship.
@@senseofmindshow I only say that not because we have free will but because of the programming of our life long desires all centred around what happens to your DNA, your DNA is only serving itself and it programs your lives rewards around it, having sex, having kids, eating, sleeping, raising your children, its all just to serve the DNA's survival. Yes we destroy our bodies all the time through dangerous behaviours like drugs, violence, suicide but thats a tiny proportion of the population and that is just the modern equivalent of random chance and also natural selection. I really dont think we have come as far from our primal days as people think we have. Im not disagreeing with you i think it is very buisness partner, we get to experince the universe and be rewarding for doing this everyday, i only have this more extreme opinion as our consciousness never got consent to be a part of it, our DNA chose that.
@@senseofmindshow Agreed, without the brain the stomach wouldn't be able to gather any food, without the stomach the brain wouldn't be able carry out it's functions. and so on
Really, gentleman? Sentient beings evolve to advance data acquisition for advanced survival. The brain is a processor of manifold taxis/sense data that is acquired via a body that has evolved to acutely hear, see, smell etc. The body exists to feed the brain-- including the stomach. Sustaining the life of the brain, of consciousness, is why bodies exist as they do. Every sentient species is possessed of a body that specializes in forms of taxis that advantages survival of sentience. Freewill? When it is time to feed the brain and its supporting organs, your gut tortures you until you obey or die. Addendum: The greater curiosity is why so many forms of sentient life fight to remain of taxis consciousness.
I think there was a slight error when talking about the great apes and PFCs, at least it sounded like it. Humans are actually also part of the great ape category. It sounded like you were saying that the chimpanzee, bonobo, gorillas, and orangutan are our cousins, but they are in a different category called The Great Apes, which would be incorrect. The Great Apes is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae) of which humans are also part of. Believe it or not, we all have ape brains.
5:45 Ah yes, a cellular architecture, just like a CPU(actually more like a GPU except even more specified on a specific task) Basically a perception but way bigger, more intertwined and complex
14:42 another example i would like to say is that ADHD and autism have traits that might be selected for in hunters but less useful in agricultural civilization. ADHD has impulsivity, tendency towards short-term rewards and hypersensitivity, and a dislike of stagnation and sameness that would lead someone to be nomadic and great at foraging and hunting. Autistic people have some of the same traits, but prefer familiarity and routine, are generally even more sensitive to changes in their surroundings, keen eyes for detail which are good for tracking and also serve a similar role to anxiety in evolution. Further, autistic people and people with ADHD more easily get into flow states and develope fixations and obsessions, perfect for persuit and for paranoia. The above is just repeating reasoning i have heard before and that could also apply to autistic people and people with ADHD. I think this goes further though, with the way that different neurotypes socialize being an important factor. Many autistic people are hypersexual or have very little interest in sexual activity, and communicate very directly and prefer very consistent social order and rules, whereas the neurotypical population has less or a problem breaking minor rules (while preffering social norms instead), small dishonesties and in general have lower social openmindedness and lower consideration of rules and others. People with antisocial personality disorder, (formerly dubbed psychopathy and sociopathy) are thought by some to be an extreme expression of aggressive traits and an adaptation for social parasitism and highly competitive and dangerous environments. I think that due to autistic people's tendency for consistency, conscientiousness and the like that autism is partly a selection towards to in-group interactions, while the typical population is more inclined to outrgoups comparatively.
Wow, thank you for this very thoughtful comment! I really like the idea that interpretation and I heard a similar take from the scientist (who as autism) Temple Grandin about the possible evolutionary advantages of autism (e.g. attention to detail).
@@senseofmindshow you're welcome Also i want to add that OCD would have a similar selection to anxiety, and is very common in both autistic people and people with ADHD, and autistic people without it are also likely to display traits of it notably rumination, anxiety, can have keen eye for detail, and dislike of change. People with OCD also may be extremely anxious of breaking social, religious and moral taboos, which is also a form of high conscientiousness. It's reasonable that autism and OCD also share in-group oriented selection. Also people with OCD are often more repulsed by dirt, germs or really any potential contaminants, which is especially useful for preventing the spread of disease if you stay in large groups or live in confined spaces. Disinterest in sexual activity or strongly homosexual attraction has been noted by evolutionary biologists to be a way of trying to ensure survival of other individuals young, which helps to ensure a wider gene pool and continuation of your own genetics in K selected species. Autistic people often being disinterested in sexual activity also adds evidence to in-group selection in my opinion. It also helps to reduce the spread of disease. Inversely, autistic people tending towards hypersexuality might pick up on reproductive slack or help the proliferation of genes into other groups, perhaps even to help proliferation of autism itself but that is a bit far, just a place my mind ran with it. Also there was a meta-analysis done that says that autistic people have a higher likelihood of being queer, which again i am going to say hints at selection for in-group interactions. This hypothesis that autism is naturally selected for ingroup and allistic (non autistic) minus possibly OCD is selected for outgroups is my own.
Layers of feedback systems. I was hoping for more at the first multi cell level. How big can a bunch of single cells get before they have to specialize and become dependent on each other. That requires a " brain ". The chemical brain must have started before the nervous brain. So what prompted some cells to become neurons?
In discussing male and female sexual roles, on needs to go no further than the plumbing. Males have a sexual parts that emphasize a short-term contribution, while females have a reproductive apparatus that’s more labor intensive and requires a more lengthy temporal contribution.
This offers some really valuable clarifications, I think. Especially the idea that the neocortex is NOT completely nonexistent until humans come along, meaning that all the species that led to H sapiens were not merely steps of additive intellectual improvement, with little discrete anatomic improvements. Makes those lampreys a little anxiety-inducing. And doesn't my edification around columnar neural architecture potentiating the storied human impulse to modify the world seem like a dangerous moment of meta-apprehension in potential service of limbic euphoria nurturing a delusional megalomania? Suddenly I'm obsessing on winning the GOP nomination. Whaddya mean, for what office? For any office. Or wait--every office! Say, that Lukashenko sure cuts a dashing figure. Hmm, does Erdogan need a VP, I wonder . . . . ?
Thank you for your comment! I'm glad you found the video valuable and enjoyed the clarifications. And I'll have to think a little more about your speculations regarding megalomania, etc. Thanks again :D
@@senseofmindshow Thank you for noticing my comment! My megalomania quip was meant as a joke, but I do wish more people in our time would appreciate their capacity for critical inquiry, and pursue humble individuation instead of arrogant conformity. I really think if all education placed the principles of evolutionary biology at the core of all academic studies, then our disciplines of ethology, Paleolithic psychology, neurology, linguistics and psychiatry could really enrich history, sociology, philosophy, critical theory, government and economics more than they do currently.
I feel the entreic system has a consciousness. While there is not exactly direct communication it can signal to the brain with various signals that can cross the brain/blood barrier ir even possibly directly thru the spine. I have hypoglycemia and i can tell ta something sometimes its like a voice thats not exactly in my head and it gets extremely aggressive. Was reading about some people that took some drugs like LSD and noticed their "gut' was kinda doing something. I dont mean to sound like someone whos mental, ive had hypoglycemia since childhood and i swear its a voice in your head thats not exactly you.
you have animals today that dont have brains. sea sponges are most basal animals we have alive today. they dont have any organs, no true tissue, no nervous system. they basically rely on water flow for food and respiration coming in and excrement going out.
The 747 Jetliner evolve from the Cessna plane? Did the semi truck evolve from the go Kart? Of course not! These merely show a common designer not a common ancestor; there are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution - microevolution has been scientifically proven to be small changes within a specific species and kinds but never from one kind to another kind; macro evolution superimposed from the imagination upon microevolution by extrapolating the scientific concept from microevolution which has been observable and proven, and then superimposed upon a false theory in order to disprove a creator and to make supreme science overall: which leaves no room for the supernatural
1. Classic fallacious analogy which compares things that can't evolve with things that can evolve. This analogy has been disproved every time someone brings it up. 2. The classic distinction between micro and macro evolution that actual biologists use less often than people who are denying evolution. There's no actual difference between the two besides scale, and there is absolutely no reason why micro evolution can't be extrapolated up to macro evolution. From people who I've seen use these terms, none managed to explain why macro evolution is impossible when micro evolution is real.
Good compilation of ideas. It takes time to research for that amount on information. I would like to comment on a couple of ideas. On sexual behaviour, it makes sense to think that the genes of males have interest in spreading as much as possible by having as much intercourse as possible. It fact, this is the strategy of male chimps. But the reverse of the coin is that female chimps have interest in getting the protection of as many males as possible for the baby, because all these males that have copulated with this female know that the baby might be theirs. This is also why male chimps have large testicles, bigger than human ones, as they need to copulate more frequently with more females. On the contrary, their glandes are not as impressive as in humans. Also, sexual dimorphism is more accentuated than in humans. However, in the humans case, with lesser testicles and bigger glandes and smaller dimorphism, there are other influences at play. It seems that humans have evolved differently during the last 7 million years and in a way that favours more stable couples. It seems that the smaller testicles in humans indicate that there is no such a need to go about having intercourse regularly as fewer production of sperm still ensures the passing of the genes which it would indicate, that there was more couple stability as the females had 1 only protector of their babies. This in turn would mean, that there was in the past some kind of social stability in the group to allow for this to happen. Then, less sexual dimorphism in humans would mean that evolution has favoured males that are not so bigger than females, which would point to less violence between males and between males and females: "I don't need to be much bigger than the female and I still pass on my genes". This is because there are other factors at play than male size and strength hierarchy. Then, the bigger glande might have to do with female selection and preference. Other primates don't need such big glandes. In gorillas, they are very small. Why the glande is so big and the testicle to small in relation to the human body in humans? Also, human culture has universally evolved in a way that strongly penalises men over-spreading their genes to multiple females because it destabilizes the group and generates lineage insecurity over the resulting babies. This at least since the Neolithic, human social stratification and private property. However, 12,000 years is not enough for such spectacular sexual organ differences from chimps, we need to understand better the human behaviour over the last 2 million years, including that of over humans of the past, Homo Erectus, Neandertal, Denisovans, Homo Longi. We all know that some men engage in this chimp sexual strategy of gene spreading. The question is then, why this behaviour has persisted in natural evolution?, why has it not been rooted out by deselection?. It seems that this behaviour, like other seemingly anti-social behaviours, might have a function in modern humans. Because humans have not always lived in an era of bounty and refrigerators at home. Only 25,000 years ago, humans were almost rooted out of Europe by the last glacial peak. It looks as if in periods of gene pool stress and extinction, it might be sensible to keep some male individuals in the species that adopt this strategy engage in multiple intercourse to ensure the continuation of the species. This is only an assumption, a hypothesis. In fact, there are societies and cultures nowadays that still favour this schema of one super-reproduction male by allowing some rich men to have different legal women. Again, this is associated with poverty within those societies. Because women only accept to share a man in cases of scarcity of resources, by associating themselves with other women to share a powerful, nurturing man capable to providing for their offspring. If there are enough resources and men available, women and cultures do not go down the path of polygamy.
You're right about that (although I think the evolutionary influence is real as well). I tried to get at that point by talking about the fact that it's more of an average outcome than an ironclad rule, but it's something I wish I would have explained in more detail more in this video.
I have a question for you: What university degree do you have? I find your statement that male and female brains evolved differently quite interesting. I agree that men and women (thank God) are not the same, but to say that our brains evolved differently... almost as if men and women are different species.
@@OakenTome, so - why did he use the word evolution? I figured it out, of course, that he doesn't mean we're two species. However - there's a more nuanced way to portray a difference among the sexes than using the word evolution. For example, a word like development captures our shared humanity while acknowledging differences. It's possible to discuss how members of both sexes compete for opportunities to procreate. This is part of the overall progression of humanity. The dynamics between the sexes represent an aspect of how our species has adapted and changed over generations. My question aims to understand the perspective and motivation behind sharing this viewpoint on such a public platform.
Great question 😆 I haven't researched this specifically, but no, definitely not... On the other hand, if you were starving and your brain was degenerating because of the lack of sustenance, then, yes, eating anything (including brains!) would make you smarter than if you continued to not eat anything (in which case your brain would shut down entirely).
@@brandonEAgnew2002 how so? Fact is many too a fairytale and ran with it. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science"-Darwin
@@jaysmith6863 the theory of evolution was vindicated within Darwin’s lifetime. The discovery of archaeopteryx was exactly what Darwin predict we would find. You can quote mine Darwin all you want, I know it’s you creationists favorite thing to do. It’s like when you all take the eye line out of context
@@brandonEAgnew2002 Your information is a little outdated. Read the study on Xiaotingia zhengi.. They now say the archaeopteryx is not a bird or transitional species, but rather a Velociraptor.
@@jaysmith6863 uhuh.. and how likely is that when I investigate this source of yours that it’ll turn out that you’re misrepresenting this? Cuz you guys love doing that with everything. You guys misrepresent Mary Schweitzers work with the T. rex femur, you misrepresent Darwin’s work, you misrepresent embryology, etc.
Most ofnthe second most intelligent animals on this planet have NO Cerebral Cortex at all. And yes I am talking about Birds. Odd enough, you didn't ONCE mention them. Their social lives, their tool use, their planning for the future. This is a profound ignorance on your part and makes me wonder what else you're getting wrong.
@@mitchelljacky1617 - I say that in large part due to Philip Ball and Michael Levin asserting that "life has cognition all the way down to the individual cell." I'm merely inferring that the cause of that cognition involves an element of mind.
