Odd how that scientific study seems to correlate with Noah (1), his three sons (3) and their respective wives (4). 1 + 3 + 4 = 8.
Feel free to ignore the seeming coincidence. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:29:11 -0400 > >That's true, but in hard times, (and there have been a lot of hard >times), something as anti survival as a resource hungry giant brain, >that hasn't yet reached real survival value, (and the brain is very >resource hungry), would be very anti-survival. I don't remember exactly >where I've read this but, I seem to recall that at one point the >progenitors of current humanity were down to 8 or so individuals, (based >on some genetic study or other). That is rather extreme speciation >The only other modern species that had such a close call are cheetahs, >at a much later time period. > >AlunFoto wrote: > > Human brain development may well be a runaway evolution process, just > > like the tail feathers of paradise birds, reindeer antlers, etc. etc. > > Any feature that enhance your probability of reproduction can continue > > evolving far beyond mere likelihood of survival. > > > > There's a lot of literature... > > > > Jostein > > > > 2007/6/13, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> No you've not paid attention to the literature. A larger brain is > >> helpful up to the point where it stops helping with basic survival. > >> This happens quite a bit smaller than ours. In fact at the size of >homo > >> habilis, after that, until the advent of true tool making and real > >> cooperation beyond a hunt it's just dead weight. The brain is ghastly > >> expensive in energy resources for the human body and incremental >changes > >> in size from that point don't add to capabilities enough to make up for > >> the costs. The development of a larger than needed brain was not pure > >> chance, it was incremental, but with no practical survival value. > >> > >> graywolf wrote: > >> > >>> No, you are missing a point there, Peter. Non-survival traits do away >with a line. Survival traits give it a boost. But traits that do not affect >survival are a dice roll, which is the point you are missing. Pure chance, >in other words. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >dog. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
