The argument is this: The ancestors of modern humans moved around a lot. They left Africa and the tropics for many varying regions and environs and were forced to find other means of survival. With opposable digits and walking upright, a marvelous ability to manipulate objects in the surrounding environments developed that no other species ever acquired. When tools came into the equation and fire and novel tactics for hunting and survival, the added complexities forced an excelerated enlargement of the brain. This enlargement was further hastened by the fact that humans are carnivores, unlike their African cousins, and high protein diets made larger brains possible. Ultimately language was invented for communication, coordination of activities and keeping everything straight, and with that, the evolutionary leap of early humans excelerated radically bringing us to where we are today.
That this might happen over millions of years seems plausible to me and best supported by the evidence. I've heard all the Creationists' arguments against evolution and I'm not impressed. That said, I will remain open to any realistic possibility for what brought the singular miracle of humanity into the world.
That said, I will remain open to any realistic possibility for what brought the singular miracle of humanity into the world.Do you mean realistic or materialistic? It is two different things. The argument of necessity is totally bogus. Since supposedly both humans and monkeys arose from the same ancestry, why did not the same necessities operate on both? Further, the differences between the abilities of man and monkeys are huge in spite of the small genetic differences. The question that evolutionists need to answer is not whether there are material differences between man and other species, but how those differences could have arisen. This paper makes answering the question even more difficult.