brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
cary at afone.as.arizona.edu
Fri Oct 4 15:16:07 EST 2002
In article <c6mn9.105561$S32.7281513 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
<"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
<news:3d9cd904.1067573 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
<> cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<> >In article <Q_Gm9.97994$S32.6621126 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<<jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
<> ><any more than it
<> ><would be a "theory" to speculate that dump trucks "evolved" from
<> ><just because they both have 8 cylinder engines.
<> >Of course they haven't. They've both "evolved" from a common ancestor.
<> >They're hardly totally unrelated. Engineers work by making changes to
<> >the current model, and then keeping what works.
<> >And so does natural selection.
<> >-- cary
<> What is this... pick on John week or something? Look, I've been
<> gone for months only to return and find that John is still whipping
<> everyone into a frenzy. It's obvious you guys are incapable of
<Actually, cary just admitted that "natural selection" is a design process,
<which makes him a traitor to hard core "evolutionists".
I did in fact just admit it was a process of selection -- cars
evolve by means of selection by human beings, organisms
evolve by selection too -- if they're better at something than
their peers, they get to leave more kiddies. Your "God" is the
simple fact that the less ept starve or die early at the hands
of other organisms. Your "God" is brainless, but very very efficient.
<At least cary recognizes that "natural selection" is statistically
<impossible unless there's intelligence behind the design process--read: God.
At least cary has read a book or fifty on the subject, as opposed
to making up a cartoon version, and then proceeding to rant against
my own homebrew "theory". You are right on this point: "evolution",
as you understand it, is farcical.
At least cary has read about computer simulations designed to
see if evolution of such things as the eye are statistically
likely or not. Interesting results: given a small handful of
simple genes and some very conservative assumptions about the
advantages conferred by such genes, the answer is: amazingly likely.
Try Dawkins "Unweaving the Rainbow". Ignore his own silly
computer simulations; they're parlor games. Look at the
the information on Nilsson and Pelger's simulations.
Unless you prefer your own bald and unsupported assertions, that is.
More information about the Neur-sci