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:

> > [b]Brain expansion[/b]
> 
> > dhw: [i]Don’t you think enhancement means improvement?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] [b]No[/b], it means new networks for new uses with existing neurons which is an obvious improvement.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Enhancement means new networks for new uses with existing neurons which is an obvious improvement, but apparently that means it is not an improvement.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I've just agreed, as above. What is your misinterpretation? New networks are an improvement.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So why did you say no? (Bolded)
> 
> The problem is my interpretation that by improvement you implied enlargements. It seems you didn't. 
> > 
> > dhw: [i]We have already switched from the savannah theory to brain expansion, and now you want to switch to the pelvis. We’ve been over that problem. Please stick to the subject. You keep harping on about God designing all previous brains (as well as our own), and I am asking what part of each new brain he designed, apart from the mechanisms for enlargement and complexification – the latter being autonomously responsible for improvements[/i].
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You know the answer: the key enlargements were frontal and prefrontal cortex which were given the ability for complexification[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: You have agreed that the ability for complexification was present in all early brains, and enlargement is enlargement, no matter which section of the brain is enlarged! Are you now saying that your God had to specially design all the cells that were added to earlier cortices and give them a special new ability for complexification?
> 
> Of course.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]And you have offered no answer for the pelvic problem as before[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: I asked about special designs for the brain other than the mechanisms for complexification and enlargement. It seems that you can’t think of any, and so you are trying to change the subject, which is the dodging tactic you keep using during our discussions of your illogical theories of evolution. You know my theory concerning the “pelvic problem”, which is precisely the same as my theory about all the problems posed to all species by changing conditions: intelligent cell communities learn to adapt. No doubt there would have been many instances of death in childbirth until those pelvises which adapted to the new requirements became the norm.
> 
> Or in my view, God arranged it so new heads fit into new sized brains all at once, without all those messy deaths you prescribe. God's designs are gentler than your natural approach