Human evolution News

Just use more of your brain and you’ll evolve? Says movie.

Spread the love

Further to Neuromyth: We only use 10% of our brain, at Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin reviews a film Lucy that depends on that mythic claim:

Morgan Freeman plays a professor who has conceived hypotheses about what might happen to a person if she started to use more than 10-15 percent of her brain. Lucy confirms and surpasses his predictions. Here’s where the evolutionary connection comes in, starting with the parallel between Johansson’s Lucy and Lucy the famous australopithecine.

The film opens with a scene of the ancient Lucy, drinking water from a river. In another early scene, the boyfriend of Johansson’s Lucy tells her that he went to a museum and found that Lucy was the name of the first woman. Just as that Lucy was supposedly a step in our evolution, in that she purportedly used more of her brain than her ancestors did, so Scarlett Johansson’s Lucy is a further evolutionary step. Lucy the australopithecine makes additional artsy appearances throughout the movie.

This is the main message: that transhumanism is a reality, and humans will be able to continue their prior evolution and entirely surpass our current stage of intelligence. Human technology — in this case through drug use – might be the key to enable humans to reach their maximum intellectual potential.

Or not.

You’d never know it from Mr. Besson’s treatment of the subject, but it’s a complete myth that humans only use 10 percent of our brains. From Scientific American:More.

Scarlett Johansson also making heads here, if the name rings a bell.

See also: Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Just use more of your brain and you’ll evolve? Says movie.

  1. 1
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Hey guys, it’s just a movie. Get over it. The scene at the beginning of 2001 a Space Odyssey was also full of symbolism with an evolutionary theme, but I don’t hear anyone in the Creationist community criticizing it. Could it possibly be because there was a serious supernatural theme to it?

    I’m surprised that Luskin didn’t try to stretch the link between this movie and the much hated idea of evolution. After all, The Lucy fossil was discovered by Donald Johanson, only one letter off from Scarlett Johansson’s name (a random mutation perhaps?). And in the movie, her powers come from a mind altering drug. Lucy the fossil was named after the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, commonly believed to be a reference to LSD, another mind altering drug.

    Maybe Luskin should wrap the tinfoil a little tighter.

  2. 2
    JGuy says:

    In one scene: Lucy the [super]human is time traveling and meets “Lucy” the australopithecine. There is then a moment where Lucy (the human) reaches out her hand to the Lucy (the australopithecine) and they touch finger – a’la’ Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam

    And in the final scene, Lucy has disappeared/evaporated into dust it seems. One of the characters asks where she went. Then he receives a text which reads “I’m everywhere”. Wow, really?

    Casey’s review is accurate enough. I’d say it is pro transhumanism and pro evolutionism.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    No one here hates evolution. What we hate are false ideas trumpeted as true facts.

  4. 4
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Mung: “No one here hates evolution. What we hate are false ideas trumpeted as true facts.”

    Like intelligent design and irreducible complexity? For once, you and I agree.

    But, it’s still just a movie.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    Lucy the [super]human is time traveling and meets “Lucy” the australopithecine. There is then a moment where Lucy (the human) reaches out her hand to the Lucy (the australopithecine) and they touch finger – a’la’ Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam

    And in the final scene, Lucy has disappeared/evaporated into dust it seems. One of the characters asks where she went. Then he receives a text which reads “I’m everywhere”. Wow, really?

    Casey’s review is accurate enough. I’d say it is pro transhumanism and pro evolutionism.

    and AB’s flippant reply

    “But, it’s still just a movie”

    Actually this flight of unrestrained, evidence-free, imagination is much more than ‘just a movie’. This type of unrestrained imagination is actually typical of materialistic thought,,,
    To illustrate this point, this following video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote:

    “So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they’re atheists basically, there’s no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That’s what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler’s solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don’t have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves.” –
    Michael Strauss PhD. – Particle Physics
    Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss PhD. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr9q_2sSxs

    Contrary to Barrow and Tipler’s beliefs, at the time they wrote their book (Tipler has subsequently converted to Christianity), of man having a very long time to evolve into some universe creating super-beings, the actual reality of the matter is far more humbling than their grandiose delusions:

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and Anthropic Inequality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8494065

    If that was not enough to dampen any delusions of man evolving into some type of universe creating super-being (i.e. god with a small g), it is now found that, instead of humans evolving to greater and greater heights of intellectual prowess, humans have been, in fact, DE-volving instead of E-volving:

    Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years,
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....arter.html

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    Study suggests humans are slowly but surely losing intellectual and emotional abilities – November 12, 2012
    Excerpt: “Human intelligence and behavior require optimal functioning of a large number of genes, which requires enormous evolutionary pressures to maintain. A provocative hypothesis published in a recent set of Science and Society pieces published in the Cell Press journal Trends in Genetics suggests that we are losing our intellectual and emotional capabilities because the intricate web of genes endowing us with our brain power is particularly susceptible to mutations and that these mutations are not being selected against in our modern society.”
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....l.html#jCp

    Is Human Intellect Degenerating? – February 19, 2013
    Excerpt: A recent study of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, although incomplete, indicates that about half of all human genetic diseases have a neurologic component, [6], frequently including some aspect of [intellectual deficiency], consistent with the notion that many genes are required for intellectual and emotional function. The reported mutations have been severe alleles, often de novo mutations that reduce fecundity. However, each of these genes will also be subject to dozens if not hundreds of weaker mutations that lead to reduced function, but would not significantly impair fecundity, and hence could accumulate with time…
    – per UncommonDescent

    Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014
    Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.
    Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
    And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller.
    The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development.
    The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years.
    http://thetruthwins.com/archiv.....and-weaker

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    Thus, as is usual, when one looks at the actual scientific evidence, one finds that the evidence itself sharply contradicts what Darwinists claim, and imagine, to be true.

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 82:6-7
    I have said, “Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”
    But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.

    Tenth Avenue North – No Man Is An Island – Islands
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t8ORnWNSfQ

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    bornagain77 wrote

    Thus, as is usual, when one looks at the actual scientific evidence, one finds that the evidence itself sharply contradicts what Darwinists claim, and imagine, to be true.

    Geeze, get over it! It’s only Darwinism. It’s not as if it were true or anything. 😉

    Neo-Darwinism is simply supposed to provide a plausible materialistic mythology that lets people feel comfortable as they overconsume beyond sustainable levels, justifies their self-indulgent lifestyle while the majority of the world starves, or anesthetizes their conscience for whatever reason.

    Now granted that many people feel that they don’t have any reason to doubt what they were taught in school or what the Darwinian experts continually insist must be true, anyone with even a basic understanding of the overwhelming complexity of life and how probability works, can quickly see through the baloney for what it is—a 19th century pseudo–scientific philosophical relic that can explain absolutely anything but has never successfully been able to predict something.

    -Q

Leave a Reply