Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 240 (228452)
08-01-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
quote:
Yes, but chimps can't charge racism in our courts of law.
Neither can Neanderthal Man or Homo erectus.
I'm getting lost. What's your point again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 5:27 AM jcrawford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by brainpan, posted 08-01-2005 1:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 240 (228504)
08-01-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
08-01-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
quote:
Chiroptera wrote:
I'm getting lost. What's your (jcrawfords) point again?
To troll, endlessly. You will never get an honest discussion out of this critter, he does the exact same thing at libertynewsforum.com Notice he has still failed to answer the challenges offered. You will be doing yourself a huge favor if you can simply have that idiot banned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 08-01-2005 12:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jcrawford, posted 08-04-2005 12:33 AM brainpan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 93 of 240 (228515)
08-01-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
So you don't actually know what "neo-Darwinist definitions" you are talking about. So why exactly did you raise the issue ? And why are you asking me to tell you what you meant ?
As for the rest if your answer is serious it confirms that your definition of "racism" is so far from the usual definition that there is really no point in discussing it. Indeed there's no point in using it except if you want to be misleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 5:27 AM jcrawford has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 1:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 94 of 240 (228547)
08-01-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 3:23 AM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
You summerized the book. I took your summary at its word. In your summary you claim that the authors of "Bones of Contention" accuse evolutionists of "scientific racism". It is disingenuous of you to now say, "But did you read the book?" Are you now saying the authors are not charging racism on the part of evolutionists?
By the way - no I haven't read the book. But I have read reviews of it and your review pretty much fit in with the other reviews.....
If I had raised the topic on my own you might have a point. But you invited discussion of the book by giving a summary of it and opening the topic, so you ought not to now say "Did you read the book?" I am sure if my post had agreed with your opinion on the merit of this book you wouldn't be asking me that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 3:23 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 95 of 240 (228587)
08-01-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John Ponce
07-26-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Brain Size...
If I may ...
Intelligence is related to brain power which would be a function of interconnectedness: the more interconnections, the more "bits" can be processed in the same time.
We have seen this with the development of computers etc., but in brains we have to distinguish between chemical exchanges not involved with thoughts (directly anyway) and those that are.
As I understand it, the evidence is that the thought interconnections are all on the surface of the brain, and the more surface area that is available, the more interconnections are possible (though they may not be realized in practice).
Thus a larger head could correlate with more surface area, however the variation would not be direct, due to the convolutions of the surface accounting for most of the area and because {of the unknown degree to which} the brain inner mass {expands\contracts} to fill the available void without changing the surface area.
Thus variation in head size within a species does not necessarily relate to variation in intelligence between individuals, while variation in surface area should. (and there is some evidence for this, especially for those with low surface areas).
Variation between species however {could\should\would} be a different matter, especially if the two were closely related, as on a species average the one with the {larger average} head size would have the opportunity to have a {larger average} surface area (that expands or contracts within the species variation on head size) and thus more {average} available brain power, and this would especially hold true IF the reason for {evolving\selecting} the larger head size is actually selecting for {larger average} surface area: the head is bigger because the selection was for more intelligence and greater surface area.
Remember that individuals are selected, not species.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John Ponce, posted 07-26-2005 10:41 PM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by deerbreh, posted 08-01-2005 9:59 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 105 by John Ponce, posted 08-02-2005 11:49 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 96 of 240 (228593)
08-01-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Ponce
07-28-2005 11:51 PM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
John Ponce writes:
Is this not taught as the driving force that critters supposedly evolved into mankind — slowly acquiring larger brains and higher intelligence?
Nope. The driving forces are (1) natural variation within a population due to random mutation, (2) individuals surviving long enough1 to breed and (3) those individuals being succesful in having offspring.
Intelligence may or may not assist in that endeavor. The overwhelming evidence of all life is that even sub-average human intelligence is not needed.
The rest of your argument based on this false premise is invalid.
The remainder of your argument appears to be based on incredulity and other false premises, and is equally invalid.
Enjoy.
1 word added by edit
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*01*2005 09:34 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 11:51 PM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by John Ponce, posted 08-03-2005 12:17 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 240 (228610)
08-01-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jcrawford
07-22-2005 11:59 PM


the point?
jcrawford, msg #1 writes:
Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to discuss, debate and defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to discuss, debate and defend evolutionist theories to the contrary.
Let's begin with "neo-Darwinism" -- from Wikipedia:
Essentially, the modern synthesis (or neo-Darwinism) introduced the connection between two important discoveries; the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (selection). It also represents a unification of several branches of biology that previously had little in common, particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany and paleontology.
According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be due to mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated by geographic barriers.
In other words, differences between individuals are selected, with those individuals who survive to reproduce passing on their particular genes to their particular individual offspring.
Over time there is an accumulation of non-lethal variations within any population, which are then coupled with new mutations and that lead to new differences between individuals within the populations.
But not every individual within a population aquires most (to say nothing of all) of the variations, and it is still the individuals that are selected for {survival\mating} fitness.
Fitness does not equal "better" or "superior" because what is fit today can be unfit tommorrow and vice-versa: a drought causes individual birds with heavier beaks to be selected as they can more easily crack the dried seeds to eat. When the drought ends the individual birds with the finer beaks have an easier time getting the seeds from the plants.
Selection doesn't discriminate based on species wide traits, but based on individual variations within a population.
There is also some argument that the whole concept of "species" is an artificial construct, because we are all part of {LIFE} with some remote common ancestor and the variation that you see is only {minor variations between individuals}n, where n is just the numbers of generations that the variations are measured over.
This aspect is particularly cumbersome when dealing with the past, as a {parent} and {child} are always of the same "species" but you can extend each {modern species\extinct species\etc} back in time to common ancestors with generation after generation of {the same "species"}.
Distinctions are arbitrary, and based on an accumulation of differences. One "species" is different from another, because there are enough differences between the {population of individuals} within one group that they can be distinguished from the {population of individuals} within the other group, and not just by us, but by the {population of individuals} of both groups: the differences between the populations is more {noticeable\distinctive\measureable} than the differences within the populations.
Selection based on temporary fluctuating, individual fitness cannot, by any definition, be racism.
The implication of racism is due, rather, to the poor understanding of evolution as being involved with species as a whole evolving into "better" and "more highly" evolved species that is typical of the creationist view, and not the science itself, and as such devolves into a (poor) strawman argument.
Now, I will say some "intellectualist" comments:
(1) Creationist Marvin Lubenow is not a "professor" properly speaking, unless he has a doctorate degree in the field he is (supposedly) teaching or "professing" and claiming otherwise is snake-oil selling.
(2) A book is not a peer reviewed science paper.
(3) Anyone who takes such work from such a source as being equal to the science in peer reviewed papers, has a poor understanding of the rigors of science as opposed to popular fiction, particularly ones published by "vanity" presses.
(4) Anyone who can go 80 some odd posts without either being (a) interested (b) able or (c) willing to learn how to use something as simple as quote boxes cannot be expected to be (a) interested (b) able or (c) willing to learn something in the process. The information is there, it is just a question of what you do with it.
Enjoy.
corrected typo
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*01*2005 09:38 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jcrawford, posted 07-22-2005 11:59 PM jcrawford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:55 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 100 by deerbreh, posted 08-01-2005 10:15 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 122 by John Ponce, posted 08-03-2005 11:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 240 (228618)
08-01-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
08-01-2005 9:31 PM


Re: the point?
(1) Creationist Marvin Lubenow is not a "professor" properly speaking, unless he has a doctorate degree in the field he is (supposedly) teaching or "professing" and claiming otherwise is snake-oil selling.
What? Say it isn't so?
Biography for Professor Lubenow

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 9:31 PM RAZD has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 99 of 240 (228619)
08-01-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
08-01-2005 7:39 PM


Re: Brain Size...
RAZD writes:
Remember that individuals are selected, not species.
Well yes, and this is where many are tripped up. The other concept that seems hard to fathom for the novice is that evolution is not directed yet it is not random either. "Selection" is of course the opposite of random. People tend to get confused because we talk about random mutations but of course random mutations do not imply random evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 7:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 100 of 240 (228621)
08-01-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
08-01-2005 9:31 PM


Re: the point?
RAZD writes:
A book is not a peer reviewed science paper.
Do tell. Particularly when it is published not by an academic press but a Christian publishing company. Check out how Baker Books, the publisher of "Bones of Contention" describes their publishing goals:
Baker Books publishes resources for pastors and church leaders, concentrating on topics such as preaching, worship, pastoral ministries, counseling, and leadership. We also publish titles for discerning lay Christians who want to stimulate their thinking. Topics include the intersection of Christianity and culture, discipleship, spirituality, encouragement, relationships, marriage, and parenting.
Nary a word about scientific peer review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 9:31 PM RAZD has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 240 (228727)
08-02-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
08-01-2005 3:24 AM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
PaulK writes:
Evolutionary trends are dominated be selection pressure. Modern humanity seems to be at a balance point when the birthing difficulties caused by large heads in babies are counterbalanced by the advantages of a large brain. The fact that brain size is not on a downward trend can be seen as a trace of the past trend.
Why do you suppose selection pressure could not have overcome the balance point when the special advantage of a larger brain was supposedly counterbalanced by the birthing difficulties caused by "larger heads in babies"? The problem of the "big head" would not necessarily have to be overly pronounced at birth.
After all, random mutation and natural selection have supposedly solved much more difficult problems than this one to help create new species — controlled flight in birds, sonar in dolphins, etc!
Alternatively, why wouldn’t the selection pressure (for highly successful larger human brains) have selected women with mutated larger birthing canal structures or possibly a mutated pouch combined with thumb sized birth and infant growth like kangaroos? Not enough "time" for randomly mutated pouches, I suppose.
The gallery can form their own conclusion on the validity of the balanced big headed evolutionary progress limitation proposal.
Again, I believe there are no distinguishing intellectual features among races today. That firm belief is based both on my professional experience and my confidence that the concept of human evolution from smaller brained critters is the biggest hoax ever heaved on mankind.
PaulK writes:
Intelligence is partly a function of brain structure and organisation but size relative to body size plays a large part.
So you believe the slowly developing larger brain played a large part and was highly successful under selection pressures so as to completely supersede all other supposed hominid evolutionary cousin strains and branches - except all the varieties of apes, monkeys we see today?
PaulK writes:
So far as I know there is no reason to believe that there were any major reorganisations of the brain in human ancestry - a chimp brain has a similar organisation to a human brain, although some parts of a human brain are proportionally larger.
Are you saying that not very many (millions-trillions) "random mutations" were needed for the critter brain to slowly evolve to produce smarter and bigger heads?
Any neuroscience folks in the gallery?
Well, if you are correct, the Nazis were measuring all the wrong human head dimensions in their effort to weed out the inferior people and proliferate the superior race!
It’s too bad the Nazis didn’t see alleged pictures of a captured "Area 51 Alien" before the war was over. Unfortunately, the alleged UFO hadn't crashed yet. They may have realized how important relatively big heads really were! (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Is there any evidence?
PaulK, do you also believe that this phenomenal big headed evolutionary development has produced human beings in such a short order (relatively speaking) but that all distinguishing evidence of this supposedly super successful and relatively fast evolutionary platform has disappeared among present populations?
There’s no trace of this phenomenal development today?
If you back off this implication like Arach and NosyNed, then you will claim the remaining lineage of all humans today is COMPLETELY homogenous with respect to intelligence — not enough time to make any real differences.
If this forum is consistent in human evolutionary thought, you will assert that the competitive field was absolutely leveled very recently — no distinguishable relative differences and no similar ongoing measurable mutations of intellectual benefit according to relative brain size. That would be convenient for the theory of human evolution.
Suddenly, there is nothing to observe and measure as relative evidence among billions of individuals???
If that is the position you take, then I would understand. Otherwise, we could potentially validate the theory today by analyzing the evidence.
Does this seem a bit counter-intuitive to you? I would not want to be required to defend the human evolutionary thesis based on remnant brain trait evidence among ancestors or even current mutational advantages - because I believe there is no evidence.
Again, we’ll let the gallery decide what seems more logical from the inferences of the human evolutionary theory and the antithesis - versus the evidence.
PaulK writes:
The surprise expressed in the wikipedia article refers to the relatvely recent date - from the next paragraph
Yup! That is likely why they named her the Mitochondrial Eve - one woman with a relatively recent date. Of course the average rate of accumulation in mitochondrial evidence is also debatable as some direct measurements have been observed at approximately 20 times the rate inferred by comparing modern human to gorilla mitochondria — placing Eve at a much more recent date! But that is too far off topic for this thread.
PaulK writes:
In other words the article does not deny that convergence will happen, it simply states that if there had been a large human population the covergence would almost certainly not be at that point in time.
Of course the article would not deny that convergence will happened — because it evidently did happen!
If Mitochondrial Eve was such an expected event, were there any published (or even unpublished) predictions of this by evolutionary theorists before the evidence was uncovered?
Perhaps it was just common sense - after the fact.
PaulK writes:
As for competition with other hominids, given the date of 150,000 years ago quoted in the Wikipedia article, which hominid species were still extant ?
If you are asking me, no hominids were ever living! The supposed shards of evidence is either extinct monkeys, fully human, hoaxes, or just plain old mistakes, widely acclaimed, like Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki (Nebraska Man).
Regardless, according to the common human evolutionary theory, there were many branches of critters progressively growing bigger heads and brains over millions of years. Why so many branches supposedly died out is a bit of a puzzle.
These "evolving" big headed strains supposedly could not survive as successfully as their contemporaries, the pure old smaller brained monkeys and apes still hanging around the planet!
After all these millions of years of progressive larger brained critters, we supposedly arrive at relatively recent Mitochondrial Eve in a relatively small group in a restricted geographic location — and, by golly, no other successful transitional relatives to pass on their genetic lineage anywhere else on Earth!
Any other humanoids who were geographically distant from that particular mitochondrial bottleneck were wiped completely out of the human gene pool according to the theory as it is applied to the evidence!
Again the Wekipedia summary indicates there is some disagreement in the Mitochondrial Eve scenario — as I would expect.
PaulK writes:
To the best of my knowledge, only Neanderthals and perhaps the "hobbits" were around (and the Neandertals may be a subspecies of Sapiens).
Monkeys and apes were still covering a broad range of real estate during Eve’s supposed era, right? So foreign lands must have been inhabitable distant from Eve? But the Mitochondrial Eve scenario seems to indicate there were no other human like creatures — of any type - anywhere other than where Eve lived. At least no others whose descendents ultimately survived to modern times. No?
I’m sure the gallery can draw their own conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2005 8:43 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2005 8:56 PM John Ponce has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 102 of 240 (228748)
08-02-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by John Ponce
08-02-2005 8:15 AM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
By definition the "balance point" is where selection pressures balance. A net pressure of zero cannot drive change either way. And my understanding is that developmental constraints mean that the brain has to be largely formed in the womb. Likewise modifications to the female bodily structure would also have detrimental consequences.
And if human evolution is a hoax, then why are there so many hominid but non-human fossils. Are they ALL fakes ? Qutie frankly the evidence is quite sufficient to show that suhc a view is not rational.
However it happened it appears that the greater intelligence of modern humans allowed our ancestors to escape the extinctions of the many other species. There is no other factor that appears likely to be decisive.
As to the mutations required for the human brain to develop from our common ancestor with chimps I have no idea why you come up with "millions-trillions" - especially when I am pointing out that the differences are relatively straightforward.
quote:
PaulK, do you also believe that this phenomenal big headed evolutionary development has produced human beings in such a short order (relatively speaking) but that all distinguishing evidence of this supposedly super successful and relatively fast evolutionary platform has disappeared among present populations?
The time period isn't that short (millions of years). Speciation involves replacing genes and the replaced genes MUST have been wiped out from our lineage (by definition). If there were other hominids surviving then their lineage would show some of the earlier stages of our evolution - but they're all gone. So really I don't see what evidence you would expect to find.
As for Mitochondrial "Eve" the study itself indicates that they expected to find a single common ancestor. That is what the analysis attempts to find. And to the best of my knowledge the "Out of Africa" model was already dominant at the time, so yes - a single mitochondrial line stemming from Africa was the expected result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John Ponce, posted 08-02-2005 8:15 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 240 (228984)
08-02-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John Ponce
08-02-2005 8:15 AM


aPerplexed John Ponce
John Ponce writes:
Why do you suppose selection pressure could not have overcome ...
After all, random mutation and natural selection have supposedly solved much more difficult problems than this one to help create new species ...
Alternatively, why wouldn’t the selection pressure (for highly successful larger human brains) have selected women with mutated larger birthing canal structures ...
... possibly a mutated pouch combined with thumb sized birth and infant growth like kangaroos ...
Each one of these shows a (rather common) misunderstanding of the basics of evolution and perhaps betrays a desire to have it be a directed process ....
But evolution is not a directed process, it is a reactive process, and it reacts to problems with the tools at hand. No tools available, no solution. Only a hammer available, and all problems look like nails. You may be able to {remove\replace} a screw, but the results will not be pretty.
The "much more difficult problems" that have been "solved" are post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, and logically false.
Evolution did not set out to develop birds that fly.
The gallery can form their own conclusion on the validity of the balanced big headed evolutionary progress limitation proposal.
You mean they can pick one that fits the evidence rather than one based on your misconceptions? Can you spell strawman argument?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John Ponce, posted 08-02-2005 8:15 AM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by John Ponce, posted 08-02-2005 11:18 PM RAZD has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 240 (229004)
08-02-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
08-02-2005 8:56 PM


Re: aPerplexed John Ponce
RAZD writes:
But evolution is not a directed process, it is a reactive process, and it reacts to problems with the tools at hand.
OK, so we are to believe evolution is very capable of elaborately clever design solutions provided by randon mutations and natural selection, e.g. bat flight and pinpoint sound wave navigation (among thousands of other eloquent designs). But you claim evolution is the "wrong tool" to provide marginally larger birth canals to accomodate the supposedly highly successful selective trait of alleged bigger hominid brains and higher human intelligence??? I am confident the gallery can reasonably determine which of the antithetical schemes are fallacious logic.
RAZD writes:
You mean they can pick one that fits the evidence rather than one based on your misconceptions?
Ahhh yes! The LACK of REAL evidence - both in the fossil record and in the current population - for human evolution is what convinced me that it is bogus! A discussion of evidence is what I prefer, quite frankly! Thank you for bringing that up.
RAZD writes:
Can you spell strawman argument?
RAZD, your appeal to intellectual superiority may be judged by the gallery as a weakness. I am confident that people can decide for themselves when given the actual lack of evidence for human evolution.
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2005 8:56 PM RAZD has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 240 (229006)
08-02-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
08-01-2005 7:39 PM


Re: Brain Size...
RAZD writes:
If I may ...
But of course!
RAZD writes:
Intelligence is related to brain power which would be a function of interconnectedness: the more interconnections, the more "bits" can be processed in the same time.
Also, the more beneficial Mega Mutations are required to provide the additional circuitry and system to process the "bits"!.
RAZD writes:
We have seen this with the development of computers etc., but in brains we have to distinguish between chemical exchanges not involved with thoughts (directly anyway) and those that are.
Do you suppose random processes could EVER be responsible for the development of computers - even the most simple 8088 microprocessors?
RAZD writes:
As I understand it, the evidence is that the thought interconnections are all on the surface of the brain, and the more surface area that is available, the more interconnections are possible (though they may not be realized in practice).
That is an overly simplistic assessment, but go ahead.
RAZD writes:
Thus a larger head could correlate with more surface area, however the variation would not be direct, due to the convolutions of the surface accounting for most of the area and because {of the unknown degree to which} the brain inner mass {expands\contracts} to fill the available void without changing the surface area.
Are you guessing or is there evidence?
RAZD writes:
Thus variation in head size within a species does not necessarily relate to variation in intelligence between individuals, while variation in surface area should. (and there is some evidence for this, especially for those with low surface areas).
Evidence? This is what I’ve been looking for. Could you share it with us please? This evidence may be precisely what the Nazis were missing when they were measuring heads to breed a superior race!
RAZD writes:
Variation between species however {could\should\would} be a different matter, especially if the two were closely related, as on a species average the one with the {larger average} head size would have the opportunity to have a {larger average} surface area (that expands or contracts within the species variation on head size) and thus more {average} available brain power, and this would especially hold true IF the reason for {evolving\selecting} the larger head size is actually selecting for {larger average} surface area: the head is bigger because the selection was for more intelligence and greater surface area.
IF? But aren’t random mutations and natural selection based on intelligence what common human evolutionary theory teaches? What other selection criteria would you surmise RAZD?
RAZD writes:
Remember that individuals are selected, not species.
And this selection of mutated individuals is the assumed platform for new species. No?
Others here believe that Sapiens "species" was essentially selected because all the distant relative transitional mutated hominids between critters and man died out and, unfortunately, left no trace of there gene pool among humans today. Supposedly, for unexplained reasons, only one branch of mutated hominids survived to produce Mitochondrial Eve (possibly with a little Neandertal genes mixed in). No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 7:39 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 11:03 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024