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:

> > dhw: [i][b]The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.[/b][/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I knew about erectus expansion, but it didn't develop much aesthetic or analytical thinking as evidenced by the small change in lifestyle during their existence. The huge advances in lifestyle came only because of the appearance of an oversized-for-current-needs prefrontal and frontal regions that allowed for much more complex ideation. The stasis period only represents learning to is use it. You don't deny that it took lots of time.[/i]
> 
> > dhw:  ALL brain expansions (including sapiens) came about because of an immediate requirement, after which the WHOLE brain was used until its capacity for complexification was exhausted, and (with the exception of sapiens) more cells were needed in response to new requirements.
> 
> This is the natural, no God argument. It does not answer why the enlargement had to include a huge expansion of 200 cc in the mostly unused prefrontal and frontal conceptual areas.
> 
> > dhw: I keep reminding you that even early sapiens did not change his lifestyle, because lifestyle until modern sapiens consisted mainly of improving methods of survival. Example repeated ad nauseam: the hunter with a new spear remained a hunter.  
> 
> Of course this advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe. My thought is not that not many  additional neurons were needed for that advance compared to current use for advancements
> 
> > dhw: Your objections to this proposal have been 1) that the sapiens addition was too huge (it was the same as all the other expansions).
> 
> Volume use, yes, but specified areas of frontal lobe enlargement totally ignored.
> 
> 3) dhw: that it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?
> 
> Mainly frontal expansion, and the main point of my argument is the ability to conceptualize new concepts there, with help from temporal area with language development putting ideas into words starting roughly 70,000 years ago, 250,000 years after the initial enlargement. Stasis! Temporal lobe has sensory, visual, auditory and some memory coordination uses, not conceptual thought origination! Why do you persist in ignoring specificity of area enlargements?
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense. 
> 
> What are you smoking to confuse my answer that way?
> > 
> > [b]Survival[/b]
> 
> > dhw: […] [i]This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I'll repeat: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Survival IS the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to new species (as per Darwin), whether God designed them or not!
> 
> Without survival, life disappears. It must happen to continue evolution.  I'll repeat again: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.[/i]