In article <71gj2i$76k at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>In <3639c986.0 at ns2.wsg.net> "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>>- -- - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>I do suspect that because of the way in which DNA constructs the body
>>the brains of identical twins would resemble each other in the same
>>hair color, height, and body proportions resemble each other. But that
>>just idle speculation on my part. I repeat: idle, idle, idle
>>>>- - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>>>>>By happy coincidence, I was at the NYU Center for Neural Science last
>week, for a talk by Michael Gazzaniga (listed in the NYNG fall
>calendar, bytheway...), in the course of which he showed a series of
>slides of brain MRIs, identical twins paired with each other (side by
>side) and of course looking down the series of paired twins one could
>compare each with unrelated cases. He flipped through them fairly
>quickly (they not being the main point of the talk),
First of all, you need to look at it real slow.
> but evenso the
>similarities between each of the identical twin siblings and their
>dissimilarity from others was striking,
Well, on what basis there are ANY dissimilarities then,
if DNA is a rigid program for development?
> just at the gross level of
>size, shapes of various structures, gyral convolutions, etc.
>Obviously (as Ray points out), experience fine tunes even the gross
>shape and size, to say nothing of the shaping beyond neuroimaging (e.g.
>underlying one twin speaking English and another speaking Italian if
Just the very term reared is ugly.
Just like farting out those children from your output hole.
And even the scientists use it.
What does it mean - reared?
> but the extent to which DNA interacting with its
>environment (internal, external) achieves such an orderly outcome is
Yep, looks like another walking dna on a pair of leggies.
You see, at the moment, dna is the only thing you see,
so, being as blind, as you are, you blame everything
on dna, because you just can't feel at rest if you
don't know something, as you have no limit to your
You need to control everything.
You need to concure everything.
If something remains unknown, your ego feels hurt,
and yet that very unknown is a forever impetus to
your very existance.
It is not known that drives you, but unknown,
Why do you need to know everything?
And if you don't know something, can you just admit it?
Instead of saying:
Yes, we found an amazing mechanism, facilitating
growth of the physical body, but the joury is still
out as WHAT is the very cause of what,
you just come here, and perpetuate the same ideas,
we have heard many times already.
You refuse to address the blind spots in this
"dna is all there is" theory.
You fail to comprehend that dna does not explain
love, intuition, feeling, creativity and many other things
that are on the level of the very essense of it all.
And all your talk is not a final judgement on the matter,
as you have not even begun to comprehend the most
essential aspects of it all.
>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group