Evolution or Devolution?

quote:

---

Also there had been some published work by Professor John Lorber, professor of paediatrics at Sheffield, England which looked at hydrocephalics who had merely a sliver of their cerebral cortex intact and yet had no demonstrable functional deficit. Some had even been high achievers academically. One of the students at Sheffield who had an IQ of 126 and was awarded a first class honours degree in mathematics for example was a hydrocephalic who had virtually no detectable cerebral cortex on a CT brain scan.

---

Can you please provide citations to the published papers, and also citations to the other scientists who did the follow up work?So far in my search of the medical literature, the general trend seems to be even the hydrocephalics who are diagnosed as infants and have shunts implanted still experience cognitive deficits and adverse affects.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-27-2005 09:51 AM

quote:

---

With all due respect what gave you the impression that i thought that tidying one's house disobeys the second law?

---

You did, when you wrote

quote:

---

Everything breaks down from order into chaos given time unless subjected to an ordering influence (such as you tidying your house). Our bodies, the houses we live in, everything is subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Living things are not exempt. We are all subject to ageing and death.

---

You appear to be implying that aging, death and mess are all examples of the operation of the 2LOT. They're not, any more than birth, growth and cleaning are. If you're not saying that, then I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

quote:

---

I have never claimed that evolution violates the second law or denied that adaptive evolution takes place. I am merely questioning the direction of that evolution and examining what i believe to be clues which were elaborated on in more detail by Kerner in his book that perhaps the direction of that adaptive change might be such that our species might evolve into one with less functional brain capacity and that perhaps this has already happened to some extent.

---

Kerner says that the 2LOT means that a "positive" direction to evolution is "absurd". He is indeed claiming that the evolution of humans from small-brained apes is a violation of the 2LOT. Do you agree with him here or not? If you don't agree, why did you quote him?As for the direction of adaptive change, it's entirely possible for brain size to decrease as an adaptive change: brains are expensive things to maintain, biologically speaking, and there would be an obvious advantage to having a smaller one. All the evidence we have, however, indicates that brain size and functional capacity have gotten steadily larger over the last several million years.

quote:

---

I'm just going from memory, but I believe Homo erectus is the only human ancestor we know of that had a larger average brain capacity.

---

No, erectus had a smaller brain than sapiens.

It is very difficult to read your posts and adding a line break between paragraphs would help.For additional help on formating and content, check the links below.

---

Perhaps I have unwittingly given the wrong impression about what Kerner says about the redundancy of 95 percent of the human brain. He mentions this point in relation to the work of Professor John Lorber who identified several hundred people some of whom he describes as having 'almost no detectable brain' yet are still able to score up to 120 on IQ tests and in one case graduate with a degree in mathematics. Kerner simply makes the point that if it is possible for some people to manage with all human functions, including abstract thought, with a sliver of brain tissue then why do we have such a large brain capacity? He asks if this might indeed suggest that our large brains are a leftover from the past.The misunderstandings based on this one point presented out of context are I think based on the fact that it is not really possible to understand Kerner's theses from a few extracts or summaries. The book builds up a cohesive, inter-related set of ideas which cannot really be viewed in isolation from eachother. It is for obvious reasons impossible to present all these ideas in this forum. He provides copious evidence for his positions especially his surmise about alien interception of the human genome. I have chosen not to present that evidence here because it is firstly too voluminous and secondly not strictly necessary for the discussion of the topic that I have introduced.

You might want to read through the rest of the thread before posting any more replies. Lorber and more have already been discussed, rebuttals have been posted. Book recommendations can be done in [forum=-16], but if you want to discuss Kerner's views then we can only discuss what you can present here in the forum. Debaters normally present evidence and arguments within their messages, using links and references in only a subsidiary role.--Percy

Homo erectus did not have a larger brain capacity than modern humans but Homo neanderthalensis did have a larger brain capacity than us. This is in fact one of the points Kerner makes in the book. He postulates that there are several different devolutionary lines that have run their course on this planet. Some of these have run concurrently and the fossil record may actually be presenting us with artefacts representing specific types of hominid (homo erectus, homo habilis etc) who were examples of the ends of these different lines. However, this is far too complex a discussion to present here and you would have to read the book to really get to grips with it.

quote:

---

Perhaps I have unwittingly given the wrong impression about what Kerner says about the redundancy of 95 percent of the human brain. He mentions this point in relation to the work of Professor John Lorber who identified several hundred people some of whom he describes as having 'almost no detectable brain' yet are still able to score up to 120 on IQ tests and in one case graduate with a degree in mathematics.

---

Do you know how wierd and socially retarded a person can be and still have a high IQ, and even get a Mathematics degree?Even with a fully-functioning brain?Just because people can do OK on IQ tests doesn't mean that they are normal.They could have severe deficits in making choices that do not require logic, or in reading non-verbal body language, or in success in social interactions, to name just a few.

quote:

---

Kerner simply makes the point that if it is possible for some people to manage with all human functions, including abstract thought,

---

But do they really have ALL human functions, or just the ones which allow abstract thought? How do they do in social interactions, or how do they fare when aked to make a choice among 10 different breakfast cereals?

quote:

---

with a sliver of brain tissue then why do we have such a large brain capacity? He asks if this might indeed suggest that our large brains are a leftover from the past.

---

Well, technically, all of our morphological factors are "leftovers from the past".

quote:

---

The misunderstandings based on this one point presented out of context are I think based on the fact that it is not really possible to understand Kerner's theses from a few extracts or summaries. The book builds up a cohesive, inter-related set of ideas which cannot really be viewed in isolation from eachother. It is for obvious reasons impossible to present all these ideas in this forum. He provides copious evidence for his positions especially his surmise about alien interception of the human genome. I have chosen not to present that evidence here because it is firstly too voluminous and secondly not strictly necessary for the discussion of the topic that I have introduced.

---

You said that Lorber published his work. What is the citation to the professional literature, and who did the follow up studies?

Below is a link to an abstract of one of Lorber's papers I hope this is useful
Pub Med Article
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1992 Jul;34(7):623-32
The professor also published some of his findings in an article in the (UK) Nursing Mirror (Nurs Mirror. 1981 Apr 30;152(18):29-30)
Roger Lewin discussed his work and presented some of his findings in the journal "Science" (Science. 1980 Dec 12;210(4475):1232-4)
In the UK there was also a television documentary about his work made by Yorkshire television entitled "is your brain really necessary?"This message has been edited by Admin, 02-28-2005 09:42 AM

quote:

---

Homo erectus did not have a larger brain capacity than modern humans but Homo neanderthalensis did have a larger brain capacity than us.

---

Neandertals, however, are not in the direct lineage of anatomically modern humans. All the ancestors that we have evidence for had smaller brains than we do.

In explaining that the second law suggests that everything tends towards states of greater disorder unless subjected to an ordering influence. I am not saying or implying that such an ordering influence refutes, invalidates or breaks the second law. If I can make a distinction between what I have said and what you seem to be reading in what I have said with an analogy then perhaps I could do it as follows:
In one of my earlier posts I was referring to different ways in which one could explain how gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree. In fact, one could see that generally an apple suspended above the ground will always fall unless it is subject to force countervailing the gravitational force of the Earth. The fact that the branch and the twig holding it to the tree are still intact preventing it temporarily from falling would not be seen as a refutation of the law of gravitation. In the same way the temporary presence of an ordering influence doesn't of itself contradict the second law of thermodynamics. I apologise if my original explanation was ambiguous or unclear and I hope this clarifies my position.
For the record I do agree with Kerner that a spontaneous "positive" direction for evolution of man from small brained creatures is absurd.

I have recently read Nigel Kerner’s book Song of the Greys, and I have been interested in the arguments put forward in this forum regarding the 2LOT and devolution: a thread started by Donald Thomas. I think that, although Mr Kerner refers specifically to a devolutionary process, it is as a consequence of a much bigger claim he makes. From my understanding of his book he states that at the origin of the Universe there was a state of complete order, which, through the 2LOT is gradually increasing in entropy (Universe wide). This is consistent with current cosmology. However, Mr Kerner places the origin of the living process at this point. Indeed, so do those who believe in a spiritual component to life. This is the life-essence, non-physical because it exists (existed) before the creation of matter. The life-essence (for want of a better term) is what drives, or encodes life, and is the template upon which living things base themselves. In a Universe which is (physically) increasing in entropy with time, Kerner asserts that it becomes more difficult to arrange this ordering principle within a molecular body. Since both the life-essence and the molecules are part of the same universe (as in observer and observed), the observer can dynamically alter the state of order within its confines. However, as entropy increases, and observation is made further from the pole of total order, the potential for the observer to influence molecular behavior decreases until it equals the influence of entropy on the system. At this point no further choice can be made, and the sentient being is left as an observer in a continually devolving animal, vegetable and mineral system.
Whether you believe Kerner’s theory or not, he has been very successful in bringing together many of the conflicts surrounding evolution and creationism. In my opinion, Kerner explains a spiritual origin for life in a cogent way, as an ordering potential, rather than as an omnipotent, anthropomorphic, God creating life for no other purpose than his own satisfaction. On the other hand, this theory shows a rational and logical origin for life, which is consistent with the observed laws of physics, and which overcomes the major hurdle in the evolutionist religion, that of the origin of life (let alone its evolution). In science, an effect must be demonstrable and reproducible. The origin of life from simple chemical model has not yet been demonstrated, let alone reproduced. As such the theory of evolution towards more complex species remains , like religion, a faith based theory.
I think Kerner’s theory is novel and refreshing, and merits a serious study. With all such new theories, many refinements will have to be added to explain the questions which will be raised. I look forward to examining this further.

Hi Dr. Silverman,Bookkeeping first. I'm not sure whether you missed Message 29 or just thought a reply unnecessary. Now, on to your post. Unlike entropy, 2LOT isn't usually expressed in terms of order and disorder. Though I see nothing explicitly wrong with your definition, because of your reluctant to distance yourself from Kerner's definition of 2LOT, which incorrectly interprets order and disorder, we're concerned that your use of the words order and disorder includes the same misunderstanding. If it does, then your definition is wrong because thermodynamics does not deal with disorder in any familiar sense of the word. 2LOT addresses thermal and chemical disorder.The traditional ways of expressing 2LOT are not open to the same misinterpretation of order and disorder. There are many places on the web that correctly define 2LOT. Go to No webpage found at provided URL: this article on thermodynamics at Wikipedia. Or go to Answer.com and read their article on thermodynamics. Or go to Britannica Online and read their very brief article. Or go to any of many other places on the web that accurately describe thermodynamics. I think if you can make yourself comfortable with more traditional ways of defining 2LOT that our uncertainty about whether you understand it will disappear. But Kerner's thermodynamic objections are wrong becasue he misunderstands 2LOT, so on what grounds do you conclude this?--Percy

quote:

---

In explaining that the second law suggests that everything tends towards states of greater disorder unless subjected to an ordering influence. I am not saying or implying that such an ordering influence refutes, invalidates or breaks the second law. If I can make a distinction between what I have said and what you seem to be reading in what I have said with an analogy then perhaps I could do it as follows:
In one of my earlier posts I was referring to different ways in which one could explain how gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree. In fact, one could see that generally an apple suspended above the ground will always fall unless it is subject to force countervailing the gravitational force of the Earth. The fact that the branch and the twig holding it to the tree are still intact preventing it temporarily from falling would not be seen as a refutation of the law of gravitation. In the same way the temporary presence of an ordering influence doesn't of itself contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

---

I have a couple of concerns with your treatment of thermodynamics in this thread. One has been pointed out by Percy: you are using "order" and "disorder" without defining them precisely, while in thermodynamics they have precise definition. Your examples are not reassuring. Cleaning a house, for example, may result in a system that has either higher or lower thermodynamic order. Similarly, aging has nothing to do with thermodynamic notions of a tendency towards disorder (which is a good thing, since otherwise it would be hard to explain why most organisms don't age). Mentioning the 2LOT in this context can cause nothing but confusion.Precise definitions here are important, because the first thing you have to do, assuming you actually want to apply thermodynamics to large-scale evolution, is to determine how the state of the system changes during the course of evolution. To put it simply: which has more thermodynamic disorder (e.g. entropy), 200 pounds of bacteria or 200 pounds of human? That's the only kind of disorder that thermodynamics is concerned with.Your gravity analogy brings up a second concern. In your analogy, the branch prevents gravity from causing the apple to fall. There is an analogous situation with living things and thermodynamics. Living organisms really do stay far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and there must be something that permits them to do so. That force is the energy input from the sun. I think we're all in agreement that were the sun to go out, all living things would eventually. What I don't see is why you think any other force is required here.

quote:

---

For the record I do agree with Kerner that a spontaneous "positive" direction for evolution of man from small brained creatures is absurd.

---

Why?

In the Britanica Online definition of 2LOT it is written."The second law states that, in a closed system, the ENTROPY of the system does not decrease."If entropy is expressed by terms of order and disorder and the 2LOT makes reference to entropy then surely 2LOT is expressed in the same terms.