evolutionary-overshoot

HURDLE NUMBER 44. THE “EVOLUTIONARY OVERSHOOT” HURDLE.

Many biological features, especially the human brain, seem to be “over-evolved”, ie:- to have evolved far far beyond the requirements of survival. The problem is that, according to The Darwinian hypothesis, features can ONLY evolve if they provide a survival benefit of some kind. The (supposed) “evolution” of the human brain provides no practical survival benefit, but rather actually provides a NEGATIVE SURVIVAL BENEFIT! Here are some quotes from authoritative sources that substantiate this statement:-

These two quotes are from the book Why Us. How Science Rediscovered The Mystery of Ourselves, by James Le Fanu (Medical doctor), published by Harper Press, 2009:-

Pages 50 to 60:- The author explains that the human’s larger brain (apparently affording minimal survival benefit) carries a heavy price. “The chimpanzee can give birth on her own, without breaking stride.” The author describes a human birth as “the most traumatic of all human experiences” (due to the larger head size, and the smaller human pelvis, due to walking on TWO legs, rather than four).

Page 57:- The riddle of the Ascent of Man how - - - - species of hominid should have undergone that wholesale anatomical transformation required for standing upright, and then - - - - acquiring THAT PRODIGIOUS SIZED BRAIN, WHOSE POTENTIAL TO COMPREHEND THE WORKINGS OF THE UNIVERSE APPEARS SO DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE NEEDS OF - - - A HUNTER GATHERER - - - - - WHY THE BRAIN SHOULD COME WITH - - -THE CAPACITY - - - TO SOLVE MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS THAT ARE NOT OF THE KIND TO BE REWARDED BY NUMBERS OF DESCENDANTS - - - - - THE MASSIVELY ENLARGED BRAIN WHICH, BY RIGHTS, SHOULD HAVE SO GRAVELY COMPROMISED THE SURVIVAL PROSPECTS OF THOSE DISTANT ANCESTORS.” (My capitals and highlighting.)

The next quote is from the book The Panda’s Thumb, by Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard University promoted him to Professor of Geology and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the institution's Museum of Comparative Zoology.), published by Penguin Books, 1990, pages 47 to 50:-

Gould discusses the writings of Alfred Russell Wallace (Co-founder, with Charles Darwin, of The Theory of Evolution):- “Our intellect - - - - - Wallace argued could not be the product of natural selection, and therefore, since natural selection is evolution’s only way, some higher power, God, to put it directly - - - - must have intervened to construct this latest - - - greatest of organic innovations. - - - - - Wallace’s dilemma - - - - all savages - - - had brains fully capable of - - - - appreciating all the finest subtleties of European art, morality, and philosophy, yet they used, in the state of nature, only the tiniest fraction of that capacity. - - - Natural selection can only fashion a feature for immediate use. THE HUMAN BRAIN IS VASTLY OVER-DESIGNED FOR WHAT IT ACCOMPLISHES IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY; THUS NATURAL SELECTION COULD NOT HAVE BUILT IT. - - - - - - LAWS OF EVOLUTION - - - - LEAD TO A DEGREE OF ORGANIZATION EXACTLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE WANTS OF EACH SPECIES, NEVER BEYOND THOSE WANTS. - - - - - Natural selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a few degrees superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to a philosopher.” - - - -

Gould then quotes Wallace’s comments on the human voice:- “The wonderful power, range, flexibility, and sweetness of the musical sounds produced by the human larynx, especially in the female sex - - - - The females (in savage tribes) seldom sing at all. Savages certainly never choose their wives for fine voices, but for rude health - - - - and physical beauty. Sexual selection could not therefore have developed this wonderful power. IT SEEMS AS IF THE ORGAN HAD BEEN PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE PROGRESS OF MAN, SINCE IT CONTAINS LATENT CAPABILITIES WHICH ARE USELESS TO HIM IN HIS EARLIER STATE. If our higher capacities arose before we used them, then they cannot be the product of natural selection. And if they originated in anticipation of a future need, then they must be the direct creation of a higher intelligence.” (My capitals.)

My comment:- Humans are the most intelligent species on Planet Earth. If high intelligence provides a genuine survival benefit, then it might be plausible that natural selection produced it. If highly intelligent people “out-bred” people of low intelligence, then the natural selection explanation of human intelligence might be plausible. However, if stupid people breed faster than highly intelligent people, then this fact would very seriously undermine the “natural selection” explanation of human intelligence. To outbreed is effectively to outcompete. In that case, it would tend to support Wallace’s supposition that “some higher power” is responsible for human intelligence. With this in mind, check out the following quote:-

This next quote is from the book Uses and Abuses of Psychology by H.J. Eysenck. (Professor Eysenck has a Ph.D. in Psychology, and was Professor of Psychology at The University of London, and has written some 300 articles in technical journals), published by Penguin Books, 1971, pages 94 to 95:-

“We must now turn to - - - the alleged difference in fertility between the bright and the dull. I shall only quote one study, carried out by R.B. Cattell (When the G. Stanley Hall professorship in psychology became available at Clark University in 1938, Cattell was recommended by Thorndike and was appointed to the position.) on 3734 children - - - - In the families of children with tested IQ of above 130 there were on average 2.35 children (in the town) and 1.80 children (in the country) - - - - - - Children of IQs - - - between 90 and 100 came from families having 3.60 and 3.72 children respectively - - - - Among the 70 to 80 IQ group, the number of children per family is 3.93 (in the town) and 4.72 (in the country). Summarizing the figures, we may say that THE VERY DULL FAMILIES HAVE A REPRODUCTIVE RATE ALMOST TWICE AS HIGH AS THE VERY BRIGHT.” (My capitals.)

My comment:- In that case, high intelligence reduces reproductive success. Darwin insists that biological features (of an organism) can only “evolve” if they promote a high rate of reproductive success. In that case, human intelligence, and abilities of abstract reasoning cannot come about by natural selection.

The next quote is from the book Beyond Natural Selection, by Robert Wesson, published by MIT Press, 1993, page 69:-

The author discusses Marsh Wrens (birds). He tells us that the male marsh wren knows some 200 songs, with which it regales the female. The feature has apparently evolved beyond strict necessary requirements. One song would suffice.

The next quote comes from the book Science Frontiers; Some Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature, complied by William R. Corliss, published by The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, MD., USA, 1994, page 308, digest of article “Numbers Whiz Takes Delight in Beating Computers”, by Luther Young, Baltimore Sun, January 21st, 1988, page A1:-

“In 1977 Ms Devi (a calculating prodigy) beat a UNIVAC 1108 computer to the 23rd root of a 201 digit number. The machine - - - - took more than a minute to solve the problem. She took 50 seconds - - - She never attended school or had any formal mathematical training.”

Comment (by Corliss):- “Why does evolution produce such TALENTS THAT FAR EXCEED THE NEED OF THE SPECIES?” (My capitals.)

My comment:- It actually seems silly to suggest that a brain capable of such calculations could be the product of natural selection. No reasonable person would go along with such a suggestion.

There is a further mention of the talents of Ms Devi in the book – The Great Mental Calculators, by Steven B. Smith, published by Columbia University Press, New York, 1983, page 97:- “The 1982 UK edition of The Guiness Book of Records contains the following:-“Mrs Shakuntala Devi of India demonstrated the multiplication of two 13-digit numbers 7,686,369,774,870 x 2,465,099,745,779 picked at random by the Computer Department of University College, London 18 June 1980, in 28 sec. her correct answer was 18,947,668,177,995,426,462,773,730”

This book provides many similar examples of prodigious calculators, and their feats of mental computation.

The next quote is from the book Nature’s Destiny, by Michael J. Denton (who has a degree in Molecular Biology), published by The Free press, 1998, page 363:-

The author quotes Professor John Barrow (A Professor at Cambridge University):- “Why should our cognitive processes have tuned themselves to - - - - understanding of the - - - universe? - - - None of the sophisticated ideas involved appear to offer any selective advantage to be exploited during - - - evolution.”

The next two quotes propose “The Expensive Brain Hypothesis” – the suggestion that possession of a large sophisticated brain tends to be counter-productive in evolutionary terms, reducing the survival prospects of its “owner”. On this basis our highly developed cognitive processes could not have come about by “evolution”, because mutants with larger brains would have been “out-competed” in the struggle for existence, and would have “gone extinct”.

This quote comes from the book Bad Ideas? An Arresting History of Our Inventions, by Robert Winston (Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London), published by Bantam Books, 2011, page 36:-

“The brain is an extremely “costly” organ – taking up 2% of the body’s space, but up to 20% of its resources.”

The next quote is from New Scientist (magazine) 11th August, 2018, page 7. Article:- Don’t Hibernate if You Want a Big Brain, by Michael Marshall:-

“Sandra Heldstab at The University of Switzerland and her colleagues - - - argued that - - - it takes a lot of energy to grow and run a large brain, an idea called The Expensive Brain Hypothesis.”