Ah well, Texas...plenty of children in large families up North did the same and may be doing it again with working moms.
On Jul 21, 12:46�pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
