Genetic drift puts the event well into prehistory. If I was going to literally interpret the bible I'd have to ignore way too many other facts...
Tom C wrote: > 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 >> > > > > -- 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
