Human brain still evolving?

[Sunstone]

I'd say "none" Do you believe the people who tend to have the largest families are generally the best examples of the paradigm of intelligence in humanity?

I honestly don't know whether size of family correlates with the intelligence of the parents. I've seen no studies on that.

 

[JerryL]

I've seen studies which show it as inversely proportionally to income, education, and careed. Which is to say that the least educated, and least fiscially successful of us *tend* to have the most children.

 

[Unedited]

Well, if the size of the human neocortex were to at least double within the next thousand years, there would almost certainly be a marked and truly extraordinary enhancement in some ways, I would think, especially given the timeframe. However, the effect of the neocortex doubling in size would not be terribly significant to our total brain weight. Also, an increase in size isn't always accompanied by an increase in function because there are other factors such as connective tissue, energy efficiency and so on and so forth. Also, the neocortex does very specific things, and having a more powerful neocortex wouldn't enhance our mechanical skill or short term memory. In fact, a more powerful neocortex would only be more powerful at what the neocortex does.

Well, what does the neocortex do?

 

[Flappycat]

Well, what does the neocortex do?

I'm a writer, not a doctor. I dunno, I think it has something to do with cognition, and it's supposed to be a very important aspect of our intelligence. The funny thing about dolphins, though, is that they lack a true neocortex. They're missing a layer, but this doesn't seem to significantly diminish their overall intelligence, merely changes its nature. Anyway you look at it, it's both illogical and unfair to dolphins to judge their intelligence in relation to ours.

 

[painted wolf]

oop... found one of the things I saw recently on evidence that the human brain is continuing to evolve...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4222460.stm

and on the neocortex...
from wikipedia

In the anatomy of animals, the neopallium or neocortex is a part of the telencephalon in the brain. It corresponds to the isocortex.

Often seen as the hallmark of human intelligence, the role of this structure in the brain appears to be involved in conscious thought, spatial reasoning, and sensory perception. It works in a complementary way with the hippocampus.

hope this helps.


wa:do

 

[lilithu]

Of course the human brain is still evolving. Humans are still evolving. Every living species is still evolving. Evolution is a continual, ongoing process.

 

[CMIYC]

The human brain is still evolving according to some recent research:

“Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still going on. If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today.”

http://www.rxpgnews.com/research/neurosciences/article_2340.shtml

I don’t know, are we any smarter today then we were 4,000 years ago? Or is it due to better communication, storage of information and availability to information. What are we comparing intelligence to-farmers, home makers, Einstein or ancient Egyptians, maybe money in the bank. If we only use 10% of our brain, is there any reason for our brain to grow? I think its more along the lines of too much antibiotics in our foods give a wrong perception of evolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evolution is a continual, ongoing process.

As a big Eldridge/Gould Punctuated Equilibrium fan I'd prefer to say that selection is a continual, ongoing process, as is the change in allele frequency over time, but neither argue against relative statsis for extended periods.

 

[Sunstone]

Why should we assume that the evidence the human brain is evolving is necessarily evidence that we are getting more intelligent? There are many ways the brain could be evolving that have little or nothing to do with intelligence.

 

[painted wolf]

the key being relitive statsis... most changes are not the sort you can see.
big changes certenly go in fits and starts.

Cmiyc- WE use all of our brain.. the 10% figure is a myth. We are compairing our brains to pre-agricultural revolution brains... A mutation in a gene that controls brain size and complexity, that is now found in 70% of the worlds population. This mutation happined somewhere around 35,000 years ago. Something fundimental changed in the way we think about the world around us.

wa:do

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi PW,

Interesting thread. I don't have the exact stats here, but there was a study that showed that cab drivers had actual physical growth in their brain due to the type of mental activity that goes along with learning where everything is in a particular city and accessing this information readily. If anyone cares I can research it and provide more information.

What this discussion comes down to is learning to use more or our brains. The tired adage of only using 10% is all too evident sometimes. My personal experience in the area of analysis and repair is that while intensely studying a subject seems to physically hurt when we grow older, it produces very noticeable results in how the brain functions and how we access information from our "hard drive" so to speak.

As to physical size of the brain, I don't think that this is really a necessary evolutionary development at this point, even though more is better sometimes.

 

[michel]

I saw a Program on the TV recently where a guy did some remarkable 'tricks' in memorising extroardinary data.


One of England's finest (Sir Robert Winston (Professor)) was talking about the ability that this chap had developed, and was saying that our brains are very much more powerful than we believe. We are leaving abilities untapped. He said the brain was much like a muscle - use it or lose it; excercises in various disciplines have shown that we are capable of much more than we realize, at the present time.

 

[Quiddity]

So brains changing in structure means we are evolving into something more advanced. Intersting. I'd be curious to see how they measure this.

~Victor

 

[michel]

Hi PW,

Interesting thread. I don't have the exact stats here, but there was a study that showed that cab drivers had actual physical growth in their brain due to the type of mental activity that goes along with learning where everything is in a particular city and accessing this information readily. If anyone cares I can research it and provide more information.

What this discussion comes down to is learning to use more or our brains. The tired adage of only using 10% is all too evident sometimes. My personal experience in the area of analysis and repair is that while intensely studying a subject seems to physically hurt when we grow older, it produces very noticeable results in how the brain functions and how we access information from our "hard drive" so to speak.

As to physical size of the brain, I don't think that this is really a necessary evolutionary development at this point, even though more is better sometimes.

I like the reference to "our hard drive"; my wife and son hate my singing nonsense words to songs - they always refer to it as "Oh heck, he's defragmenting again"!:biglaugh:

 

[Sunstone]

So brains changing in structure means we are evolving into something more advanced.

"Advanced" is a loaded word. There is nothing in evolution that requires an organism to evolve in a way or direction that humans would consider "advanced" in the sense of being better than what came before.

 

[lilithu]

As a big Eldridge/Gould Punctuated Equilibrium fan I'd prefer to say that selection is a continual, ongoing process, as is the change in allele frequency over time, but neither argue against relative statsis for extended periods.

Namaste, Jayhawker Soule.

I agree. There are clearly long periods of relative stasis, or else we would not even be able to recognize what a "species" is. What I was trying to emphasize in my last post is that we are not a "finished product." No living species is a finished product (until it goes extinct); all are subject to continual change.

(btw, you do realize don't you that your new moniker is going to get shortened to Jayhawker, or Jay, or Soule, or JhS... )

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(btw, you do realize don't you that your new moniker is going to get shortened to Jayhawker, or Jay, or Soule, or JhS... )

Gee, thanks thu.

 

[Quiddity]

"Advanced" is a loaded word. There is nothing in evolution that requires an organism to evolve in a way or direction that humans would consider "advanced" in the sense of being better than what came before.

Ok, so what is bringing about the change? What need is there from an evolutionary standpoint?

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

Adaptation to environment, among other things. Our environment does not necessarily require us to be any more intelligent than we are - humans of average intelligence are breeding just fine. We, as a race, aren't going to evolve into a race with more 'advanced' intellectual capabilities until everyone below a certain IQ starts to die for some reason.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok, so what is bringing about the change? What need is there from an evolutionary standpoint?

~Victor

Evolution is not the driving force for change but the consequence of change.