What bothers me about the evolution of Man

Do those quotation marks actually mean you are quoting someone, presumably Dawkins or Crick, or are they just there to give the impression that you are? That quote you just gave us is substantially different from the previous quote you provided, which didn't have the word 'random' in it once.

TTFN,

WK

portlilo writes: So if Cricks and Dawkins theories are "nothing more than random behaviour of nerve cells and molecules", why should we listen to them?

I don't think you should take particular notice of either Crick or Dawkins, they really have no knowledge of their own about neuroscience, but if you're genuinely interested in how our brain actually works, you should listen to those who work in the field.

You should also drop the 'nothing more than' phrase - it belittles what the brain accomplishes.

No it wasnt a quote from Crick or Dawkins.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

No it wasnt a quote from Crick or Dawkins.

Who were you quoting?

Overpowering human brains

According to my theory (www.sleepgadgetabs.com) neural system and brain is the functual extention of DNA. As information man has to cope with, is increasing all the time, he has to have a growing brain in size and ability.There is no limit in it, except the bone structures. This is an indication that our evolution is not just an issue only of surviving, but also of amount of information we are accepting, although this relates to survival .

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Is this yet another idea of yours that you will freely admit you have no evidence for?

Hi Zi Ko,

Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

Hi Percy,
what is your problem?

Is this yet another idea of yours that you will freely admit you have no evidence for?

Is it so bad?
Anyway you may be interested to read the views o Jablonca About neural system.
“, we regard the emergence of the nervous system as a major transition. The evolution of a nervous system not only changed the way that information was transmitted between cells and profoundly altered the nature of the individuals in which it was present, it also led to a new type of heredity—social and cultural heredity—based on the transmission of behaviourally acquired information.”
"The evolution of information in the major transitions". Journal of Theoretical Biology 239 (2): 236–246.

Yes it is so bad.

Cultural and social heredity? Only possible via learning.

We all knew that.

...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Zi Ko writes: Anyway you may be interested to read the views o Jablonca About neural system. quote: ...social and cultural heredity...

OMG!
Parents teaching children; seniors teaching juniors; society teaching society!

Why has no-one mentioned this before??!!!

Cultural and social heredity? Only possible via learning. We all knew that.

So you accept that there are different about heredity wiews from those of current theory in serious scientific community.

OMG! Parents teaching children; seniors teaching juniors; society teaching society! Why has no-one mentioned this before??!!!

Jablonca and others are offering much needed new ideas. It willtake time before they are entirely formulated and widely accepted. To me it is hopeful that these exist.It means that that simplicit idea of DNA alone being randomly mutated is the only mechanism responsible for the present and past world is at least cracking .

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

It means that that simplicit idea of DNA alone being randomly mutated is the only mechanism responsible for the present and past world is at least cracking .

Yes thank goodness we can at last see the back of that ludicrous bloated strawman that no-one in the world has ever suggested to be the case. If only the same could be said of your hollow plaintive cries, spreading from thread to thread, that we should pay attention to your nonsensical assertions.

TTFN,

WK