werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (05/12/86)
A few months ago, a discussion broke out under the Subject heading of
"Darwinism" that was essentially a net.origins flame to the extent that, if
Darwin was right and we evolve to be fit, why is over 95% of our brain
capacity superfluous?
The argument, like most anti-evolution arguments was specious because
it assumes some predefined plan determines evolution rather than just
reproductive fitness. Hence, the fact that the neurons just went along for
the ride cannot be discounted.
[This may have originally also been posted to net.sci, as well as net.origins.
For the former (net.sci), why clutter it when net.bio is more appropriate,
as for the latter (net.origins), what do you think am I, crazy?]
However, in a discussion of AIDS and other neurotropic viruses, a
possible evolutionary selection for excess neurons became obvious.
We forget, living in a developed country with vaccine programs about
all the childhood viral illnesses (polio, smallpox, measles, rubella, mumps)
not to mention bacterial infections capable of causing fever high enough
to initiate seizures and destroy brain tissue.
We also forget that the average life expectancy has substantially
increased since 1800.
If having excess neurons allows half to be destroyed in childhood
without early dementia, then it provides a clear evolutionary advantage.
Humans (or ancestors) might then live to the ripe old age of 40 with their
mental faculties intact, rather than dying secondary to senility at age 20,
giving them, not incidentally, an extra 10+ years of reproductive life.
Hence, the evolutionary advantages of "excess" capacity become
clear, even without long semantic arguments about having to define
what is "excess."
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Coke is much more socially acceptable than self-mutilation."friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/16/86)
In article <2486@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > > A few months ago, a discussion broke out under the Subject heading of >"Darwinism" that was essentially a net.origins flame to the extent that, if >Darwin was right and we evolve to be fit, why is over 95% of our brain >capacity superfluous? > The argument, like most anti-evolution arguments was specious because >it assumes some predefined plan determines evolution rather than just >reproductive fitness. Hence, the fact that the neurons just went along for >the ride cannot be discounted. > It is specious for another reason as well, it is *false*. There is no significant excess brain capacity, it is all used for *something*. Just because only ~5% is used for *consiousness* does not mean the rest is without function. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??