I've seen a 12 year old that could handle adult responsibility(taking care of mentally ill mother-cooking/cleaning etc.) and known quite a few 30 somethings that should never be allowed to cross the road by themselves. Has less to do with intelligence I think then simply responding to what is needed. The 30 somethings have been taken care of their entire lives and the 12 year old was mostly on her own when her mom was 'out of it.' Back in the old days here in Texas 12 year old girls were already raising sisters and brothers and washing and cleaning and churning butter etc. 12 year old boys were herding cattle or goats and mending fences and breaking horses. We have become soft. To be more specific; I have become soft. I don't even change the oil in my car or clean my house anymore. It's easier to pay someone else to do it.
dj On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes- it is the fontanel. Perhaps it allows the fetal skull to survive > the birth canal by squeezing the skull up a bit.// And yes- newborns > are completely dependent on adult care. But so are young children and > even later as they venture forth. Maybe by their mid-20's children are > starting to settle down and use their heads. But I wonder if parental > concern ever vanishes? What can you do about it? Be quiet or try to > give good advice and pray for their safety, health and happiness. > > On Jul 21, 7:26�am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think I remember my mother pointing out a "soft spot" on the head of >> a newborn. I think the plates can deform during birth and it isn't >> till after that they "solid up". >> >> One thing for sure. A newborn stands no chance alone. >> >> On Jul 20, 7:22�pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The birth canal can handle 14 pound infants whose bones are still soft >> > therefore I disagree with you. >> >> > On Jul 20, 1:42�pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Jim, >> >> > > Yes, 1,400 cubic centimetres is the average volume a fully adult human >> > > brain. I should have made this distinction. >> >> > > However, human beings have larger brains than their ancestors did at >> > > all stages in life. So which an infant's brain isn't quite 1,400 cubic >> > > centimetres, it is still a hell of a lot larger than those of our >> > > ancestors at the time of birth. >> >> > > The baby's head is usually the widest part of its body at the time of >> > > birth. You are right to propose that the shoulders would also cause >> > > considerable difficulties, but it may be interesting to note that one >> > > of the physiological changes that would be necessary to accommodate a >> > > larger head, heavier head (which is necessary to accommodate a larger, >> > > heavier brain), is wider shoulders. >> >> > > Regards, >> >> > > Garrie >> > > On Jul 20, 5:57�pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Garrie - again, many thanks for your thoughtful, thorough reply and >> > > > observations. >> > > > � � �I think the only one I would question is the brain size - I >> > > > believe you are citing the size of the adult brain. An infant's brain >> > > > size is much smaller. So delivery of the infant at birth might not be >> > > > nearly the problem you think. Also, at birth is the head the largest >> > > > object, or is it the shoulders or the hips? >> > > > � � �You are quite right about natural selection preferring nothing - >> > > > it has no preference. It just describes the result of a natural >> > > > process, as you point out. Jim >> >> > > > On Jul 19, 12:52�pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Jim, >> >> > > > > In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your >> > > > > genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival. >> > > > > Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in >> > > > > evolutionary terms. >> >> > > > > So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than >> > > > > survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in >> > > > > fact. >> >> > > > > You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to >> > > > > prey >> > > > > that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. >> >> > > > > Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent >> > > > > conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism to >> > > > > make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. >> > > > > Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They do >> > > > > not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if evolution >> > > > > and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep >> > > > > would >> > > > > have been abolished long ago. >> >> > > > > It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why haven't >> > > > > we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to the >> > > > > organism to be a sleep. >> >> > > > > Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only phenomenon >> > > > > of >> > > > > living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to individual >> > > > > survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own >> > > > > species: >> >> > > > > 1) The human brain. >> >> > > > > Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a >> > > > > volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it bloomed >> > > > > to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it jumped >> > > > > to >> > > > > 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years >> > > > > ago, >> > > > > when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it jumped >> > > > > to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. >> >> > > > > But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the >> > > > > brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions of >> > > > > women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises have >> > > > > been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this massive >> > > > > organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. >> >> > > > > Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire human >> > > > > energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found themselves >> > > > > having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their >> > > > > brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. >> >> > > > > Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering from a >> > > > > broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. >> >> > > > > 2) Walking on 2 legs. >> >> > > > > Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they >> > > > > could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice among >> > > > > the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to >> > > > > assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with >> > > > > chronic >> > > > > back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single >> > > > > human >> > > > > will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. >> > > > > Going >> > > > > back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more daunting >> > > > > than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our >> > > > > chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between escaping >> > > > > predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between >> > > > > catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our >> > > > > brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from >> > > > > starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually >> > > > > attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die without >> > > > > ever passing on their genetic codes. >> >> > > > > So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these burdens? >> >> > > > > Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural >> > > > > selection >> > > > > is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. Natural selection has no >> > > > > inclination to remove the characteristics which cause us great pain >> > > > > and discomfort. Natural selection doesn't care if we live or die. >> > > > > Because natural selection isn't capable of caring, or thinking, or >> > > > > realising what characteristics are beneficial, and which are >> > > > > burdensome. >> >> > > > > The reason we continue to sleep, walk on 2 legs, and have massive >> > > > > brains is the NET effect they have on us, as a species, is a >> > > > > beneficial one. So although, if you look at sleep from one angle, it >> > > > > seems to be a great disadvantage, if you look at it from another >> > > > > angle, you see that the benefits we gain from it far outweigh the >> > > > > disadvantages. >> >> > > > > Afterall, sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 >> > > > > third of our lives, but it keeps us fresh and awake and able to >> > > > > escape >> > > > > predators and catch prey for 2 thirds of our lives. If we never >> > > > > slept, >> > > > > the nature of our physiology would make us vulnerable for 100% of our >> > > > > lives (and short lives they would be!). >> >> > > > > In conclusion: >> >> > > > > Yes, many organisms have died from being asleep at the wrong time, >> > > > > having massive brains, and attempting to walk on two legs. But many >> > > > > more organisms have USED their brains to aid their survival, have >> > > > > USED >> > > > > their walking habits to benefit their survival, and used a good >> > > > > night's rest to make them must more 'fit' for an overwhelming >> > > > > majority >> > > > > of their lives. >> >> > > > > On the whole, these characteristics have been beneficial enough to >> > > > > allow the majority of the organisms that have these characteristics >> > > > > to >> > > > > survive, reproduce, and hand those characteristics down to their >> > > > > offspring. And the humans who refused to walk on two feet, didn't >> > > > > have >> > > > > as big brains, or didn't get enough sleep perished in the competition >> > > > > of their smarter, faster, and more energised rival humans. >> >> > > > > Natural selection doesn't refine us until we are perfect. It just >> > > > > gets >> > > > > rid of the specimens whose genes do not allow them to survive to pass >> > > > > them on. >> >> > > > > Regards, >> >> > > > > Garrie >> >> > > > > On Jul 19, 7:51�pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Garrie - on further reflection, is seems to me self-evident that >> > > > > > sleep >> > > > > > makes the sleeper vulnerable to a �predator that isn't sleeping. So >> > > > > > since virtually all living forms sleep, sleep must be needed for >> > > > > > some >> > > > > > reason more important than survival. Does that sound right? �Jim >> >> > > > > > On Jul 18, 10:24�am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > Garrie - Excellent point. Thank you. Jim >> >> > > > > > > On Jul 17, 4:45�am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > If sleeping was dangerous enough to kill all animals that need >> > > > > > > > lots of >> > > > > > > > sleep, then indeed, those animals would have died out. But they >> > > > > > > > didn't. >> >> > > > > > > > The fact of the matter is that most animals who sleep did NOT >> > > > > > > > die out, >> > > > > > > > and therefore they WERE able to survive and reproduce. >> >> > > > > > > > So rather than thinking that the theory of evolution is wrong >> > > > > > > > based on >> > > > > > > > your hypothesis that sleep isn't compatible with naturally >> > > > > > > > selected >> > > > > > > > highly evolved beings, I would tend to think that your >> > > > > > > > hypothesis that >> > > > > > > > sleep isn't compatible with naturally selected highly evolved >> > > > > > > > beings >> > > > > > > > is flawed. >> >> > > > > > > > There are many examples of features and characteristics that >> > > > > > > > have >> >> ... >> >> read more �- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
