Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 5:23 AM
391 online now:
(391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,689 Year: 10,295/21,208 Month: 3,382/2,674 Week: 798/961 Day: 1/109 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   What bothers me about the evolution of Man
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 136 of 142 (650137)
01-28-2012 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Larni
01-27-2012 3:18 AM


Re: Brain is a functual extension of DNA
So in your opinion new ideas are bad. Very interesting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Larni, posted 01-27-2012 3:18 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Larni, posted 01-28-2012 6:49 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 137 of 142 (650138)
01-28-2012 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Wounded King
01-27-2012 11:30 AM


Re: Not every topic is your topic
I had never expected my ideas to be treated otherwise by fanatic followers of an obsolete theory with suspicious motives.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Wounded King, posted 01-27-2012 11:30 AM Wounded King has acknowledged this reply

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 138 of 142 (650140)
01-28-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by zi ko
01-28-2012 2:16 AM


Re: Brain is a functual extension of DNA
New ideas are not bad.

Shit ideas are just that: shit ideas.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by zi ko, posted 01-28-2012 2:16 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 139 of 142 (650143)
01-28-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by zi ko
01-27-2012 1:12 AM


Zi Ko has lost posting privileges in this forum
Hi Zi Ko,

I have removed your posting privileges in the Human Origins and Evolution forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2012 1:12 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 140 of 142 (713605)
12-14-2013 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-02-2011 7:48 AM


Good Questions
Most biologists and anthrologists (?) believe that our brains got so large so that we could better understand and communicate with each other. This has obvious advantages, especially back when it first began to evolve. The cons began to outway the pros eventually, and our brain size caps off at about 1400cc (cubic centimeters). Other aps probably did not need it and it may have something to do with the fact that we are bipedal. Many late bipedal apes did have relatively large brains, as a matter of fact.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-02-2011 7:48 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2013 7:45 PM PlanManStan has not yet responded
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:44 PM PlanManStan has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5663
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 141 of 142 (713612)
12-14-2013 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PlanManStan
12-14-2013 7:36 PM


Re: Good Questions
Most biologists and anthrologists (?) believe that our brains got so large so that we could better understand and communicate with each other.

When I was in grad school some years ago my physical anthropology professor things larger brain size was a side effect.

He was of the opinion that the change to H. erectus involved a number of things, including more grassland adaptation, more bipedalism (and running), tool use, family structure, and that much of this came about in conjunction with persistence hunting.

Also included were loss of heavy body hair (for better cooling), much better memory and spacial sense (for tracking an animal and then remembering where you left the family after the hunt), and, to a lesser degree, communication (for the hunt and for explaining to the family if you were gone for days and didn't come back with anything).


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 7:36 PM PlanManStan has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 142 of 142 (713628)
12-14-2013 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PlanManStan
12-14-2013 7:36 PM


Re: Good Questions
And then there is sexual selection for creativeness in mates where brain size is a secondary effect of the selection.

Evidence today is that this selection is still in effect in humans. Look at who are considered sexy icons -- pop musicians or nobel prize winners?

That this also explains apparent bareness where skin hair halts at the vellus stage in women so that they appear younger.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 7:36 PM PlanManStan has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017