What would cause a brain to grow?

[Ceritus]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

 

[Vagabond]

Hmmm, I think you are asking the wrong question. Earlier species of man actually have larger brains than we do in just pure size.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

Perhaps it is better to consider what prevents a brain from growing. Consider early man (as I sit here watching the National Geographic channel's Ultimate Survivor show). Lack of available nutrients, how those nutrients are masticated, and other environmental factors limit how much energy can be devoted to expaning the cranium.


re Vagabond: Link with info? My familiarity with pre-homo sapiens is that they all had smaller brain capacities than ours. I would be interested in reading on ones that are outside this mold.

 

[Iacchus]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

A continuous exposure to consciousness perhaps? Of course in this sense I mean consciousness which is pre-existent. You know, sort of like the way light had to exist first, before the existence of eyes?

 

[CaptainManacles]

I heard at some point that are heads grew for some sort of evolutionary purpose, like disapating head, and then our brains grew to fit our heads for obvious reasons.

I don't know if I'd put to much stock in that though. Thinking about it, there are much larger brains then ours out there, and they aren't really smarter then us. It's not really the size, it's the structure. So I guess it would have to be a specific adaption to the need to puzzle solve, and our early days certainly gave us that. We basically came from a creature that was adapted to live in an enviroment where getting enough food was hardly an issue, and had basic tool using skills, and then was forced to live in a desert with tons of things trying to kill them all the time when they had nearly no natural defenses.

 

[Mercutio]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

Here's one place to start on your specific question.
Or this book, if you are really interested.

 

[Mercutio]

A continuous exposure to consciousness perhaps? Of course in this sense I mean consciousness which is pre-existent. You know, sort of like the way light had to exist first, before the existence of eyes?

This statement of yours is so incredibly ignorant I may have to nominate it for some sort of award. First, it shows that you have not learned from the constant refutation of your "consciousness waves" notion. Second, it shows an utter ignorance of evolution, both theory and fact. Thirdly, it posits that a non-physical "thing" has had an effect on a physical one, in defiance of all that is known about matter. Lastly, it does so without the slightest concern with support by evidence; there is, of course, no evidence to support your silly notion.

Why suggest such a thing? Why not do the least bit of work researching the question before you propose this bit of idiocy?

 

[Mercutio]

Of course, there is also the opinion that it all comes down to sex.
More here.

Any given sexual ornament, including the human mind, probably evolved through some combination of runaway sexual selection, sexual selection for fitness indicators, and psychological biases that happened to favor certain details of ornament design. The interaction of these three sexual selection principles also helps to explain the mechanisms of speciation, the proliferation of biodiversity, and the origins of evolutionary innovations. Sexual selection works like venture capital, extending a line of reproductive credit to potentially useful evolutionary innovations before they show any ecological profitability. This may help to explain hominid encephalization before significant signs of any cultural or technological progress. The obsession with survival selection is analogous to the early 20th century corporate obsession with production as opposed to marketing and advertising. Business had its 'marketing revolution' in the last half century; it is time for evolutionary psychology to recognize that creative social behavior is to the opposite sex what products are to consumers.

So, yeah...our brain is a peacock's tail.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hmmm, I think you are asking the wrong question. Earlier species of man actually have larger brains than we do in just pure size.

I think you're thinking of Neanderthals. They aren't ancestral to Hom. sap., they're a sister species.

 

[Mercutio]

Perhaps it is better to consider what prevents a brain from growing.

In our case...bipedalism. Walking and running are much more efficient with a narrower pelvis. Narrow pelvis = smaller birth canal. Big brain = big skull. We already are born prematurely in comparison to other species, arguably as a partial solution to this problem. But there is a natural limiter to our brain size, as any mother can tell you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

Recent evidence has located 2 genes which have mutated recently causing brain growth:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

 

[Beerina]

Solving puzzles does not directly alter genetics any more than a giraffe stretching his neck up alters the genetics of his neck.

However, solving more puzzles (which in evolutionary terms, means figuring out how to get food better, and how to get more mates better) does indirectly benefit intelligence as expressed genetically the same way any other feature evolving does.

Furthermore, learning involves physical changes to the brain, and there's plenty of evidence for "use it or lose it" in terms of any particular individual's brain and ability to think. Of course, this mechanism, like exercise builds muscles, also evolved.

Of course, an interesting phenomenon is under way, though it may be hundreds of years before it expresses itself. Intelligence has grown so much that it has taken on the ability to care for other, less intelligent people. Now given genetics is constantly re-rolling the dice on everyone every generation, some people are a little smarter, others a little dumber. The evolutionary pressure on dumbness that was so useful to hew away an intelligent human over the eons now no longer functions -- dumb people aren't starving to death. Hence, while the average intelligence may not change much, smarter and dumber people will continue to evolve, with the dumber not being culled because of the existence of the smarter people. Throw into the mix the knowledge that the more earning power people have, the fewer children they have, and the "dumbo bulb" of people may grow even larger, skewing average intelligence.

Of course, there are a million things besides (lack of) intelligence no longer being culled evolutionarily thanks to intelligence. No escape for humanity? Of course there is!

Long before humanity devolves into a handful of super-geniuses and a bunch of lazy blobs a dumb as a bag of hammers, the super-intelligent will boostrap away from genetics. The transhumanist Omega point is almost here!



(ducks and runs)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Of course, there is also the opinion that it all comes down to sex.
More here.
So, yeah...our brain is a peacock's tail.

Aw c'mon... That means the geeks should have all the hot babes..

Doesn't seem to have worked out that way...

 

[Iacchus]

This statement of yours is so incredibly ignorant I may have to nominate it for some sort of award. First, it shows that you have not learned from the constant refutation of your "consciousness waves" notion. Second, it shows an utter ignorance of evolution, both theory and fact. Thirdly, it posits that a non-physical "thing" has had an effect on a physical one, in defiance of all that is known about matter. Lastly, it does so without the slightest concern with support by evidence; there is, of course, no evidence to support your silly notion.

Some folks deem consciousness to be physical. Do you deem energy to be physical? What about the light that strikes our eyes? Is that physical?

Why suggest such a thing? Why not do the least bit of work researching the question before you propose this bit of idiocy?

It makes perfect sense to suggest that there were a set of instructions prior to the development of anything. Now, just because I may not be able to furnish this set of intructions, does not mean they don't/didn't exist. It only stands to reason that things -- especially a whole Universe -- should not come about on the fly. It doesn't explain in the least, the nature of order nor, how it got here.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
It makes perfect sense to suggest that there were a set of instructions prior to the development of anything. Now, just because I may not be able to furnish this set of intructions, does not mean they don't/didn't exist. It only stands to reason that things -- especially a whole Universe -- should not come about on the fly. It doesn't explain in the least, the nature of order nor, how it got here.

ID claptrap. Look up the anthropic principle in its various forms.

 

[Freethinker]

That's not the way natural selection works. There is a normal variation in characteristics among the offspring of a species. Lighter hair, darker hair. Taller, shorter. Bigger brain, smaller brain. Etc., etc.. Perhaps for generations, developing the larger brain was a disadvantage, maybe because of energy needs, or maybe because of birth and development issues. At that time, smaller brained offspring would outproduce larger brained offspring.

But then, something changed. Maybe food became more available reducing the disadvantage that the larger brain presented, or maybe food became less available, increasing the advantage that the larger brain had in figuring out how to get food. The larger brained people then began to outproduce the smaller brained people. After a few generations, larger brained people are the norm. You still have the natural variation in brain size, and the process may repeat.

 

[Iacchus]

ID claptrap. Look up the anthropic principle in its various forms.

And what makes you so objective? Are you telling us that cause-and-effect only applies to certain things?

 

[Dogdoctor]

There are many genes present in a gene pool (gene pool is the collective genes in the breeding population of a species). Some probably for larger brains and some for smaller brains some for all kinds of things. These develop over years of mutations. Most mutations are not functional so the genes do not accumulate but the ones that allow a functional member of the species persist (some of these may be harmful). In the case of a larger brain it probably allowed greater survival for those who possessed the trait and so it gradually built up within the species until it became the norm. Is that what you are wondering?

 

[rharbers]

I've always noticed that large people with large heads tend to think slower than smaller people. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[Mercutio]

Aw c'mon... That means the geeks should have all the hot babes..

Doesn't seem to have worked out that way...

Speak for yourself; Mrs. Merc is gorgeous.