Originally posted by Azat:
1.Wouldn't this be exactly Darwin's Theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest? (smartest, strongest)?
2.Does this not mean that people in the 1940 were smarter and all that to be able to invent the bomb?
1.Darvin's theory of evolution is one of the basic scientific researches in ths list of similar reaserches in different sciences "proving" that the universe or at least the Solar System started from the Big Bang. Survival of the fittest is one of his points. His reaserach as well as the reaserches of his followars were ment to prove the origination of human being from the animal. If I remeber right, the Biology book in our schools started from the "ameoba" thing (the first bio-unit that was water originating unisex cell), than there was "infusoria" (unisex mutiple-cell organism), than there were different kinds of mutiple cell organism. On one stage they devided into two sexes (I don't know the reason). Than they came out of the water developing into different kinds of organisms and animals, one of which, the monkey trasformed into human being.
This theory was stating that the evolution of monkey into human being was taking place because of the natural surroundings, wildlife etc. which forsed the monkeys (I'm calling them monkeys but they have scientific classification by historic time and origination territory) to be more smarter (attention!: "smarter" this is the part I don't believe).
Now, let's talk about this "more smarter" thing. First let me give you an example of retrospective comparison of the so called smartness. Question: Who is smarter Bill Gates or Albert Einstain? My answer is, their inventions are different. Bill Gates invented only a tool, a mechanical tool. Now, we must make a jump to the bread invention.
The cultivation of wheat by different ploughs which developed in time, the milling of corn by different kinds of mills are inventions similar to the invention of Bill Gates: inventions of tools. These inventions are a result of human effort to make the life easier. These inventions presume a certain amount of human brainpower and immagination.
The "weight" of the human brainpower used during the invention of bread must have been much much "heavier" than during the invetions of any kinds of mechanical tools, beacuse the inventor (or the inventors) could not possibly know what problem he was solving. Or, to put it right, there wasn't a problem to solve. They could continue to eat the corns without milling them. The only prolem would be how to produce more corns.
To be continued.