Debunking Some Shits About Evolution

In my last science post, we looked at the comparison between the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens. But clearly, there are things that happened behind the scene as regards evolution. What if a vast majority of what you were told about evolution isn't true? Or maybe there's something that's shielded from the eyes of people... We’ll find out soon.

Like I said in my last post; and I feel the need to reiterate it here again; the concept of evolution is one that is heavily reliant on the judgment gotten from the analysis of fossils, which enables us to make assumptions on some of these evolutionary parameters. But in this post, we will only be considering the parts of evolution that have been misrepresented by many; and provide some proofs as to why they shouldn't be the way we've been made to believe. We will only focus on the trail of human evolution down the line to our ancestors. The other species can wait for their brothers to come and debunk their own bullshit.

We've been made to believe that evolution follows a pre-defined pathway from unicellular organisms (through billions of years), and keeps adding complexities with the passage of time; so much so that the subsequent generation is an improvement on the previous generation; maybe like a forward-ever-backwards-never kind of scenario. But have you ever stopped for a moment to think of the possibility of evolution taking some steps backwards or even returning to where it all started? Considering the fact that evolution itself is seen as series of changes (both adaptative and structural) within an organism, which is usually in response to alterations within its immediate environment - that means; evolution's sole purpose is to ensure the survival of species, but then, over an estimated 99% of the entire population of the species that have existed prior to now have all been extinct, and that includes the grandpas of modern man _[ref] - isn't this in opposition to the purpose of evolution?

This brings me to the concept of de-evolution (backwards evolution). That is; species moving from a higher to lower life form. Let's take the case of the "Trilobites" (yeah I know they are not part of the grandpas of modern man, but it's just to buttress a point). Trilobites are now extinct, but during the course of their existence; and observing their trail using fossil analysis; it was discovered that as they evolved (or I should say; de-evolved), there was a remarkable increment, followed by a decrement, and an increment in the number of their ribs _[ref]. That means that at some point in history, the trilobites moved from a higher level to a slightly lower level and then back to the higher level of evolution. If that wasn't de-evolution, what would you call it?

Coming to the aspects of man, there are some pointers to the fact that evolution is not always a "forward" process. Let's look at the area of our height. Way down the linage, the Australopithecus had an average height of 3.5feet _[ref] - Okay, a modern man with that kind of height would definitely be considered as a dwarf right? But as they moved up the line to the next generations, there were remarkable increases in height overtime.

Like the Homo habilis, which stood at an average of 4.3feet, then to the subsequent generation; Homo erectus; that was at 5.8feet _[ref] - impressive; you would say (at least the Homo erectus were fully bipedal and upright, so there's expected to be an elongation in their spine to support increase in height). But looking at this holistically; there were transitional fossils in-between the aforementioned species; which included the Homo ergaster, but the weird part of it is; the ergasters had an excess of a whopping 6.2feet, which is absolutely weird. So by inference; the evolution in height moved (on the average) from 3.4feet to 6.2feet, then down to 5.8feet... doesn't this swing in the average height of species suggest to you that the evolution in height has not followed a straitjacketed pattern?

Even some new excavations have proven that some gigantic dinosaur-sized men have walked this planet - humans with an excess of 8feet and more _[ref] - but here we are in this extant form with an average height of 5ft9'' for men, and 5ft4'' for women _[ref]. Do you still believe that evolution is forward-only? Okay let's take another point to clear some doubts.

If you're asked how many years you would like to live here, your answer might probably be from "70years" upwards... well, that's because you've seen people live and surpass that age. But what if the average life expectancy was somewhat of 33years, would you have chosen 70years? Just to shock you; 33years was about the benchmark of the hominid species that existed in the Paleolithic era (that's the Homo habilis and their siblings). But contrary to what many might think, on advancing into the Neolithic era, there was a remarkable dwindle from 33years to 20years, but it picked up again on progressing to the medieval era to somewhat of 35years _[ref], and ever since then, there has been a toss in life expectancy.

Remember what I told you earlier; one of the purposes of evolution is to ensure that species survive. So if the life expectancy dwindles back, is evolution still ensuring the survival of species? That's why "de-evolution" would suffice for the description. So still thinking that evolution can't move on either side is an insult on "nature". That being debunked, let's look at another misconception on evolution.

Humans have been considered as the most successfully evolved species, as this can be evidenced in the creative acumen being embedded in humans, which has made people to believe we have attained a level of apex in evolution. But I'm here to prove to y'all that we're still going through structural and adaptative changes - which can be remotely called evolution. And these structural and adaptative features that are being picked up have been seen to be passed on to subsequent generations.

Just to prove to you that we haven't quit evolving - we all know that the world has been known to have increased in the level of noise pollution, particularly around the heavily industrialized areas. And this noise pollution can alter the level of concentration among the dwellers of those regions. But just as you would expect with the humans bodies; it would always figure out ways to adapt - and that is the reason people living around these heavily noise-polluted areas have developed a kind of hearing mechanism that will enable them to selectively filter the silly noise from these pollutants, while consolidating on only the sound they desire. If "selectively hearing ability" is not seen as a continuation in the evolutionary processes, I wonder what it is.

And remember this; evolution does not only cover the physical and observable features, but also the adaptative features that make a specie to survive and circumvent the threats of extinction.

Asides the selective hearing, there are some other anatomical and physiological changes in us to prove that we're still evolving. Maybe this would give you another insight: the temperature of the earth has been seen to increase over the years, and this can be directly queried on human activities; like the excessive release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels and stuffs. So how did humans respond to this increase in temperature?

Our ancestral grandpas had some massive hair (or I should say; fur), and of course, it was needed to ensure their survival through the ice ages and the brutally cold periods; having neither winter jacket nor heater. But in this era of increased temperature, it is not surprising that humans are shedding off these excessive hairs. If you take a comparison of people staying in this part of Sub-Saharan Africa (with the blazing heat of the sun) and the people staying in the polar caps, you would agree with me that they are more hairy than us.

This didn't make much meaning to me until very recently. A friend of mine whose twin brother got separated from at a very tender age - his twin had to travel with their uncle to Greenland because of the poor condition of his parents to take care of both of them. After about 15years, the twin brother came back to Nigeria; and there were very remarkable and obvious changes that he had undergone. He got excessively more hairy than his brother in Nigeria. What do you think could be directly queried for this? Obviously, Greenland is among the coldest countries on this planet, and his body needed some covering to keep him insulated, and that's how the hairs grew a lot more than his brother. And also, his brother that stays in the scotching heat here wouldn't need much of the hair, because it wouldn't be advantageous to him, particularly when it comes to perspiration - no wonder he lost some of his own hairs to compensate for the heat. That shows you that our bodies never cease to evolve.

Really? Who even believes that the extant modern humans evolved from the extant modern apes? Here's the point; both the present day apes and the present day humans shared a common ancestral linage - so we're more like cousins.

Maybe this little diagram on the right would give you a clearer picture of what happened way back - there was a break-up, which gave rise to the appearance of ape-men, and everyone began to trail their own lane down to their extant subspecies. That is the reason you still have apes and the humans in this present day. That means; Monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, you, and you all shared the same ancestral linage.

That's about the much we can debunk in this post, and I'm so glad you were able to survive the length of the post, lol. If there's other bullshits to debunk, I'll let you know in due time.

Because the process of evolution has been heavily theorized has led to some people misrepresenting some basic concepts of evolution, but we've extensively debunked those shits with proofs. So when next an argument like this is raised, you would know what to respond.