November 30, 2009
Take that, Darwin!
Somebody made a comment today that I hadn't really thought of before. We've all heard statistics about how little of our brains we use. In fact, the percentage seems lower every time they publish a new study. He (the commenter) basically said that how much (or more accurately, how little) of our brain we use disproves evolution. Well, disproving is probably the wrong word as I don't consider it ever having been proven, but you know what I mean. To me, the idea makes sense because an evolutionary process should result in exactly what's needed, and nothing more. Assuming evolution to be a logical process, where's the logic in "over-evolving" a brain that is capable of much more than we can possibly throw at it? Assuming evolution is (to some degree) a response to environment, how is it possible to "over-respond" so drastically? In almost every way, we're capable of much more than could ever be considered necessary. That's just not how evolution works.