Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> We  both agree to this statement taken from  a review article on development of the human CNS (our whole central nervous system:
> 
> "Information about fossil hominin brain evolution is not limited to the hard-tissue fossil record. Natural endocasts are a form of trace fossil that record, often in unusual detail, the endocranial morphology of an individual. Archeologists also claim that artifacts reveal information about the evolution of the hominin CNS. [b]Tools, art, and other artifacts found in association with hominin remains provide direct evidence of the capacity of a species for specific behaviors, [/b]something that fossils cannot reveal. The combination of paleontological and archeological evidence provides more insight into the brain function of fossil hominins than either of these two lines of evidence could generate on their own."
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/2942385/The_hominin_fossil_record_and_the_emergence_of_the_modern_human_central_nervous_system?email_work_card=title
> 
> We agree the article  makes no attempt to tell us how the larger brain arrived. That is never the point of the article or any article like it. Evolution is assumed as the underlying process.
> 
> What the quote says is in the bold: the existing brain created the concepts that made those artifacts. There can be no other interpretation. Nowhere in any article like it is an attempt made to equate any of these artifacts with a previous earlier form of hominins.
> 
> Anyone can invent a theory from wishful thinking with some slight degree of reference to a logical thought or a tangential fact. dhw's proposal, plain and simple, is a preceding form with a smaller brain uses current info to finally conclude a new concept. This forces a brain enlargement from hard thought, and that enlargement allows the brain to think of how to build the new artifact. It is a totally discontinuous process, in contract to what we all experience with our brains if we have designed and made anything we thought of. If I can think of it I can create it. If our brain carries any attributes as evolved from previous brains, why shouldn't it work in similar fashion. Yes it is different: much more complex, and doesn't need to expand. With dhw theory  previous brains recognized a need to expand. Really? I'm still with  God did it.