Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Has our brain degenerated since the stall in its expansion?

  1. #1 Has our brain degenerated since the stall in its expansion? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    I thought my recent publication 'Left in the Dark' might be of interest, its a new theory in laypersons language that explains some of the unusual human traits that do not easily fit classic adaptive selection. In addition I have proposed that the dominant left hemisphere in humans is simplistically a hormonally retarded version of the right. Despite the radical nature of these and other proposals it is already attracting academic interest.

    ‘This is a totally new way of looking at the evolution of the human brain. It is so totally fresh, unexpected and hitherto un-thought-of that it will probably take a long time before evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists begin to take it on board; but it will make an impact, of that there is no doubt. It will be, it must be, taken very seriously in any discussion of human origins.’ Professor Colin Groves A.N.U.


    One central theme is the role of our primary/only tool for investigating who/what we are. Aside from the mysteries of self-awareness, consciousness etc our brain/mind appears to be central to framing the questions we ask the protocols we implement and experiments we design including the engineering of the equipment we use. Then of course the interpretation of the data/information we perceive.


    This is the foreword, it will provide some context,

    The progress of science, and indeed, of human knowledge, requires a dynamic tension between the mere accumulation of observations and “dusty facts” and a synthetic process in which the accumulated results of scientific observation and inquiry are woven together into frameworks that, in the ideal case, create revolutionary paradigms that enhance human understanding of apparently discrete and unrelated aspects of nature. The hypotheses proposed in this book may well represent such a revolutionary paradigm. These ideas do not originate from the mainstream of academia, but rather are the contribution of two independent scholars. The history of science and intellectual inquiry teach us that, as is so often the case with truly novel syntheses, established scientific and intellectual institutions are too ossified, and too invested in the conventionally accepted worldview, to allow the introduction of a new paradigm without putting up considerable resistance.
    Resistance will more than likely characterize the response to this book; its authors will undoubtedly be denounced as mavericks, unqualified to comment on such a momentous topic as the evolution of human consciousness; the ideas put forth here will be condemned as heresy. Indeed they are heresy, in the context of what we think we understand about human evolution, particularly the anomalous evolution of the human brain and consciousness. But one is reminded of the famous observation of philosopher Arthur Schopanhauer: All truth, he said, passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident. We should be wary of rejecting out of hand the premises of a hypothesis that may one day seem self-evident.
    Evolutionary biologists have long been puzzled by what is perhaps the chief mystery of human origins: the explosive and rapid expansion of the human brain in size and complexity over a vanishingly small span of evolutionary time. There is also the mystery of hemispheric lateralization and the apparent de-integration of the right- and left-hemispheric functions that we humans suffer. In this work, the authors postulate that it was not always so; the universal myth of a pre-historic Golden Age, they maintain, is a racial memory that reflects our primate evolution in an arboreal, rainforest environment in which humans possessed mental and psychic abilities that have since become lost or atrophied in the profane ages that followed. That rainforest environment favored a frugivorous diet rich in flavonoids, MAO inhibitors, and neurotransmitter precursors, and relatively low in steroid containing or inducing elements. This dietary regime both mimicked and fostered a state, reinforced by positive feedback loops, in which pineal functions, including neocortical expansion and hemispheric integration, were potentiated; moreover, these neurochemical feedback loops were amplified in succeeding generations via the regulation of gene expression in the developing foetus, independent of conventional evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Climate changes or other environmental catastrophes forced several lineages of hominids as well as archaic/early humans out of their forest-dwelling ancestral home into much harsher savannah or grassland environments. As a consequence dietary regimens shifted toward roots, tubers, grass seed and a greater proportion of animal protein, triggering a reversal of the positive feedback loops that had sustained pineal potentiation and hemispheric integration in the paradisiacal, forest-dwelling Golden Age. Pineal dominance was disrupted by steroid-mediated, testosterone-driven functions primarily due to the reduced consumption of flavonoids and other steroid-inhibitory dietary factors. Changes in the dietary patterns that were forced on the population by this migration put an end to the rapid evolution of the human brain and triggered its devolution, ultimately resulting in the damaged human neural architecture that we suffer from today, and the myriad mental and physical deficits that are the legacy of our biological ‘fall from grace’.
    It is not the place of a foreword to present the central tenets of a complex theory in detail; what is alluded to here is only the barest outline of an elegant hypothesis that plausibly elucidates many baffling aspects of human evolution, brain science, and physiology into a coherent explanatory framework. Ecologists have realized for several decades that the complex interrelations of plants and insects are largely mediated through plant chemistry, and that the interactive dynamics we can observe in these processes is a reflection of millions of years of plant-insect co-evolution. Evolutionary biologists have long suspected that similar co-evolutionary processes, mediated by interactions with plant secondary products, have influenced the evolution of vertebrates, including primates. The hypotheses presented in this book are incomplete, and are even now being refined and developed; however, even in their present form they present a credible foundation on which to build a better understanding of who we are, and how our puzzling human species got to be the way it is.

    © 2007 Dennis J. McKenna, Ph.D.

    Dennis J. McKenna, Ph.D.
    Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
    December 2007




    I would suggest it is contrary to accepted scientific protocols to presume our brain/mind is fully functional given the role it plays. Even if there was no evidence to suggest any malfunction the question should at least be addressed if only to eliminate such a possibility. My hypothesis proposes that there is already significant if not overwhelming evidence of a major problem. In fact to propose out neural system is significantly compromised would require such evidence to be plainly apparent. Part of the conundrum is that our ability to recognise the evidence may be one of the symptoms. Left in the Dark attempts in simple language to join some of the dots that are already evidenced from orthodox research as well as evidence that does not fit accepted scientific protocols, it also predicts where further dots may exist. Simply asking the question and considering the possibility that there is a glitch in our perceptual equipment may be sufficient to dismiss the theory if you are willing, on the other hand it may not….

    More laypersons info at www.leftinthedark.org.uk


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your idea as outlined is intriguing, but I have reservations raised by several points.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    Resistance will more than likely characterize the response to this book; its authors will undoubtedly be denounced as mavericks, unqualified to comment on such a momentous topic as the evolution of human consciousness; the ideas put forth here will be condemned as heresy.
    This is an example of the inordinate space you devote to anticipation of resistance to your hypothesis. I certainly think that merited a mention, but not to the extent you adopted in this post. It was almost as if you were preparing the ground to say to detractors "See, we told you that you would never listen." I would prefer you had given the space over to more detail on your hypothesis.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    There is also the mystery of hemispheric lateralization and the apparent de-integration of the right- and left-hemispheric functions that we humans suffer.
    Suffer? I should be interested to hear why you think this de-integration is a negative.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    the authors postulate that it was not always so; the universal myth of a pre-historic Golden Age, they maintain, is a racial memory that reflects our primate evolution in an arboreal, rainforest environment
    Racial memory? I am unaware for any evidence for racial memory, or any mechanism by which it might function. Can you elaborate?.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    moreover, these neurochemical feedback loops were amplified in succeeding generations via the regulation of gene expression in the developing foetus, independent of conventional evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
    I rather like this part of your hypothesis, but would you agree it has Lamarkian overtones?
    ?.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    Changes in the dietary patterns that were forced on the population by this migration put an end to the rapid evolution of the human brain and triggered its devolution, ultimately resulting in the damaged human neural architecture that we suffer from today, and the myriad mental and physical deficits that are the legacy of our biological ‘fall from grace’.
    I really detest the term devolution since it has no place in the biological literature. If you choose to use it I think you have to mount a massive defence of and justificaiton for its use.
    Again, I am very uncomfortable with your casual description of 'damaged neural architecture'.

    While you contemplate answers to these points I shall take a look at your link.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Just because the brain isn't growing larger in volume, doesn't mean it doesn't gain more in total mass and surface area, why else would the brain start developing more wrinkles hmm?
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    As I understood from some program on television, if the brain got any larger than it is now, it would work slower.

    I'm not sure though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Supernatendo and Obviously,
    nowhere in Tony's post does he suggest that the proposed reduction in brain power is the result of reduction in brain size. I'm not sure why you are both bringing it up, unless I have misread his post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    Reply to recent points

    I have yet to find a formula for presenting the hypothesis that pleases everyone, in this case I posted the foreword as it was written by someone else and includes some of the biochemical detail. Perhaps it would be easier to post the whole manuscript though I’m sure it would create a significant reaction to its style as it is intentionally written for the layperson.
    The defensive tone of the foreword is perhaps based on the historic evidence that radical off field ideas tend to be less than welcome.

    The central element/proposal/question I’m hoping to draw attention to is very simple, is it prudent to presume our neural system is functioning optimally, is there any evidence to suggest that there may be a problem?
    The how’s and why’s etc are of course relevant in making a case but ultimately less important.


    The proposed hemispheric de-integration is cited as the underlying cause of the questionable psychology/behaviour/decisions etc that drive the ‘evolution’ of our societies/culture/civilisation. Of course ‘suffering’ may be seen as a relative or subjective term but I have no interest in debating the minute detail of terminology. I personally perceive a lot of ‘suffering’ and it appears I am not alone.

    Racial memory I think alludes to the ‘Ages of Man’ mythologies/ oral traditions. These ‘pre historic’ traditions are remarkably consistent and I have proposed that they may be a more accurate natural history of recent human evolution that is generally considered.

    A quote from the introduction

    ‘Two Perspectives

    The mythic traditions of paradise allude to our naked, forest-dwelling, fruit-eating past. Various cataclysmic disasters portrayed in tales of floods, vulcanism and meteor impact brought the days of perfection to an end. These disruptive, earth-shattering events initiated a change in man too – a single divine self was split into two and the more fallen, delusional self assumed overall control. The impetus to treat this condition and the ingenious techniques devised to access the suppressed ‘god-side’ of man gave rise to religions.
    These ancient traditions are mirrored by our scientific view of the past and present. Anthropologists tell us that our direct ancestors lived in the tropical rain forest – and our closest relatives, the fruit-eating apes, still do. Various disciplines, including climatology and palaeontology, have found that the evolution of many forms of life have been profoundly affected by repeated ecological catastrophes. And from the sciences of neurology and psychology we know that we have two distinct selves. The latest research in this field is now revealing that the dominant side is perceptually limited and continually makes up confabulated tales to cover its fractures of reality. The dormant side, in contrast, has exceptional latent abilities – even its capacity for pleasure is more encompassing.
    It is a deeply held scientific assumption that humans not only represent the pinnacle of evolution but that advance proceeds apace. This view however is in conflict with observed behaviour – our inability to harmoniously coexist with each other and the increasingly rapid exploitation of the earth suggests we really are suffering from a psychological malady.
    The two versions of human history – one poetic, contextual and right brained, the other analytical, rational and left brained – are remarkably similar. The only significant point of disagreement is degeneration verses advancement. Currently the advancement argument holds sway, yet evidence from both versions suggest that this interpretation is flawed. If the side that has reached this conclusion has been negatively modified in some way – can we trust its judgement?’




    Lamarckian… if you mean the inheritance mechanism does not depend on DNA mutation or to a lesser degree selective adaptation then yes. Though my understanding of Lamarckism is quite distinct from my proposal in that it relies on ‘accepted’ mechanisms, I have simply considered that they may have played a fairly unique role in primate evolution. There is a very a very simplified summary at http://kaleidos.org.uk/PDF/Pictorial%20overview.pdf

    The term devolution may not be technically correct though the context is an inherited neurodegenerative condition resulting in significant loss of function. Again it is a quote from the foreword and not my choice though I think it is appropriate and perhaps intentionally emotive.

    ‘Damaged neural architecture’, to consider that quote it might be worth looking at Simon Baron-Cohens research into the effects of testosterone/oestradial on foetal development


    Re the size of the brain, that has been covered by a later post, I do not claim the reduction in size following the end of the rapid and apparently accelerating expansion of the human brain is the cause of dysfunction rather I link one to the other. I am much more interested in the influences that affect cellular and sub cellular structure. In this case steroid homones and their role in transcription. Having said that as far as I can tell re the ‘size isn’t everything’ debate, taking all other factors out absolute size does appear to provide greater function, not a key point though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    You can't have a loss of function if there is no function.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    I’m not sure what you mean re 'no function'

    My proposal centres around cerebral dominance, (as I understand it) the left side of the brain significantly dominates out perception, psychology and pretty much everything else. The theories to explain this seem to centre around adaptive specialisation, quite reasonable as selective adaptation is a phenomenally successful theory. However there is in my opinion a potential conundrum, by definition the left side of the brain is effectively assessing its self. This may be absolutely fine if it really has specialist skills and abilities (as the left currently defines them). On the other hand if there were the slightest risk that all it not as it seems regarding the reliability of left ‘self analysis’ then it is surely worth eliminating such a risk? This paper http://leftinthedark.org.uk/PDF/Rama...0VS%20Evol.pdf outlining a hypothesis to explain self deception etc draws together some areas I would consider relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    My proposal centres around cerebral dominance, (as I understand it) the left side of the brain significantly dominates our perception, psychology and pretty much everything else.
    I have not done extensive reading in this area and certainly nothing in the way of research papers. However, your statement runs counter to my understanding of brain architecture and function. The tasks concentrated in the right hemisphere are also important, indeed essential, to our physical and mental lives. I use the word concentrated rather than located because, the processes within the brain activate many areas, in eahc hemisphere, even though most may be found in one hemisphere or another.
    So can you clarify why you are asserting this left brain dominance? Have I misread the popular works on the subject?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    I’m not sure what you mean re 'no function'
    If we don't need it then there is no function.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    I have recently added a preview/review page with the whole book available. http://leftinthedark.org.uk/preview might stimulate some debate...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Back in the days of yore when I went to college I recall some instruction on the left and right hemispheres of the brain and an example. A person (can't remember his name) working either in a mine or on a railroad had an explosion occur near to him. A bar went up through his chin and out the top of his head. Amazingly he survived however after that incident his emotions would travel wildly between that of being normal and that of being extremely agitated and violent. It wasn't until recent studies that we found out why. The right and left hemisphere of the brain control completely different things. They 'speak' to one another via a cord that connects the two hemispheres. This cord was split when the bar went through his head.

    Recent tests of people like this have shown interesting results. A piece of paper was placed on the bridge of the nose in between the two eyes while looking at a television screen. In one hand a pencil was placed. An image appeared on one side of the paper and the subject was asked to both speak and write what he saw. He said he didn't know because the side of the brain that deals with perception and eyesight could not see the object with the eye it controlled while to his amazement his hand wrote exactly what it is on the screen. The reason being because different hemispheres of the brain control different things. Both sides of the brain are needed.

    If one is young enough and a trauma occurs to the brain quite often the brain will reallocate functions to different areas. I recall an image of a young man who lost almost one fifth of his brain when he was younger and though he was mentally retarded afterwards he still survived (I believe it was due to an automobile accident). His brain reallocated functions of his brains to different areas so he could survive. I'm not exactly sure how much trauma a brain can take before it's completely immobilized nor am I sure what would happen if the cord connecting the two sides of the brain in this person was broken but it's still interesting.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    a cord that connects the two hemispheres
    The corpus callosum. In the 50s (or thereabouts) we used to cut that to limit seizure propagation in some epileptics. At least they'd have one unaffected side while the seizure lasted. This operation effectively split the individual into two nearly autonomous minds, like siamese twins.

    The people studying them sometimes observed right and left hands fighting over who got hold of an object.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony
    I have recently added a preview/review page with the whole book available. http://leftinthedark.org.uk/preview might stimulate some debate...
    Tony, it might be nice if you could get around to answering my earlier question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    Hi Ophiolite, Apologies for delay in response, far too much to do, not enough time. I was hoping that by posting a link to the whole manuscript http://leftinthedark.org.uk/preview
    it would negate questions already covered or referenced in the book. I would suggest that the data from split brain, split visual field and related research etc from the time of Sperry and Gazzaniga onwards clearly points to the predominant and in many areas exclusive influence of the left hemisphere. Once its influence is significantly or wholly reduced different skills and abilities etc as well as a distinct psychology/self can begin to emerge. While there are different theories/interpretations to explain this phenomena is appears to be pretty consistent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    We are nowdiscovering, for example, that the mind has direct connections to the immune system, raisingpossibilities of thinking ourselves well.
    Do you mean by now like in the last few decades???

    Because that's the kind of timeframe we are looking at.

    Not really now is it.

    What is becoming clear is that the human mind has untapped powers.
    Actually the new consensus is probably that the human mind if more restricted than ever thought before.

    Animal brains are basically dual structures. As far as weknow both sides are essentially alike in structure and function.
    Unfortunately for your quaint little theory most primates and many animals also show biased hand/paw use.

    I guess this information already kills your book since it is assumed as a dogma that humans are special in this respect.

    Well...I guess you tried.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    There is no satisfactory explanation for why humans are physically, mentally andculturally so very different to bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, when, as far as our geneticblue print is concerned, we are all nearly identical.
    Try reading a book on developmental biology. Or evo-devo.

    DNA is usually thought to be the only conveyance for the passage of information tothe next generation and hence to variation, adaptation and evolution. The mechanism thatreads the DNA is assumed to be stable. This is not usually included in the picture as far asinherited change and variation is concerned. The standard evolutionary model is based on thechanges that come from glitches in the DNA code. These changes are taken to be accidental(mutation) and usually deleterious, but when they are of benefit, the benefits incurred willcreate a fitter animal with enhanced survivability (selection). However, there could be,theoretically at least, a secondary mechanism for inheritance. If variation in what is builtwithin an animals lifetime somehow affects how the DNA is read, then these slightdifferences may be built into the structure of an offspring in the next generation.
    This is total bullshit. Nothing of the somatic phenotype goes back into the genotype of the germline. And unfortunately it seems a cornerstone of your speculations.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    There is a tendency within orthodox science to the belief that discrete systems work inisolation
    total nonsense.

    This is due in part to the way subjects are studied in isolation
    You have it backwards. People try to isolate parts in order to understand the system. Everybody knows it is not ideal, but you can't study a black box otherwise.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    If, for example, a pregnant woman had a slightly abnormal hormone regime, it wouldbe this regime which coursed through the body of her foetus. The growth and development ofthe foetus would be slightly changed in response to this altered regime. Even though its DNAcode is unique, the growing child is not an autonomous unit growing in isolation. In the uterus,she (and it is the female line that is significant) is being flooded with her mothers hormones,and this will have some effect on aspects of how she is built.
    yeah and. Maternal effects is a quite well studied area of research. It still doesn't change the germline genotype of the offspring.

    The DNA is not being altered by this mechanism. But there is an effective DNAchange because what is built is dependent on how the DNA is interpreted. If these changeswere all generally flowing in the same direction, what would be built could changeprogressively over the generations.
    Once again. Nothing new. You just think you discovered something. Just google a bit better next time.

    What we are proposing here is nothing less than a new theory of inherited andevolutionary traits. The standard model is totally DNA based: inherited traits are passed on viaDNA codes but, if a different reading system can be inherited and passed on, there is, in effect,a transmission of a different DNA expression. The DNA and the reading system do not workin isolation. They go together. The reading system is built in the uterus. A change in thisreading system will result in different structures, including the structures that read the DNA. Ifthese are stable, the way the DNA is read will be changed permanently. This is a new andradical theory that has huge implications. It is a mechanism for inheritance that does notdepend on changes in DNA. It is an inherited reading change.This theory is not incompatible with the standard DNA model for inheritance.
    It is. Shitload of papers on maternal effects. Just delete the speculative crap you put inbetween and what you end up with is just a one-liner fit for wikipedia. Since it is common knowledge.

    Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_effect

    Your picture already says everything in that chapter.

    NOTHING CHANGES TO THE DNA. Nothing is passed on to the next generation but the DNA. And whatever the mother will have as an affect. But not the previous mother, just the current mother. An effect which is entirely controlled by the DNA. Not that of the offspring, but that of the mother.

    There is absolutely nothing new here. You just took an existing fact and raped it till it became idle speculation.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    We are now discovering, for example, that the mind has direct connections to the immune system, raising possibilities of thinking ourselves well.
    Do you mean by now like in the last few decades???
    Because that's the kind of timeframe we are looking at.
    Not really now is it.

    Well I accept that it is not now (whatever that means) it is intended as a laypersons summary/history and not everyone is as up to date as you


    Unfortunately for your quaint little theory most primates and many animals also show biased hand/paw use.
    I guess this information already kills your book since it is assumed as a dogma that humans are special in this respect.
    Well...I guess you tried.

    I dont know if this is your usual style of discussion, it seems a little aggressive to meanyway biased hand/paw use or preference appears significantly distinct to the degree of obligate handedness exhibited by the vast majority of humans. The variation in dexterity between the dominant and non dominant hand is something most people have 1st hand experience of. Why we would have one hand that is significantly less able than the other intrigues me.

    There is no satisfactory explanation for why humans are physically, mentally andculturally so very different to bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, when, as far as our geneticblue print is concerned, we are all nearly identical.
    Try reading a book on developmental biology. Or evo-devo.

    I make no claim that there arent whole rafts of theories, ideas and explanations supporting or refuting distinctness.
    I completely accept that humans are closely related in all aspects to apes, however if you think that there is nothing at all unique (beyond any normal species distinction) re humans then that is your opinion, I dont think it is a universally held view. For example humans for the most part arenow unique in constructing themselves from material that has played no part in biological evolution ie complex biological material heated such that it is no longer biological as much as you could heat a liver or kidney before tranplant.


    survivability (selection). However, there could be, theoretically at least, a secondary mechanism for inheritance. If variation in what is built within an animals lifetime somehow affects how the DNA is read, then these slight differences may be built into the structure of an offspring in the next generation.

    This is total bullshit. Nothing of the somatic phenotype goes back into the genotype of the germline. And unfortunately it seems a cornerstone of your speculations.

    If you are saying that an epigenetic mechanism based on stable incremental changes in the transcription environment as simplistically outlined in the book is total bullshit then that is obviously the death nell for the hypothesised inheritance mechanism. I am aware that epigenetic inheritance is often assumed to be some form of Lamarckism and a mechanism that could work over evolutionary time scales is beyond the worst heresy imaginable. However it would be helpful if you could isolate which piece of the proposed mechanism is total bullshit, or perhaps it all is. I did run it by a few people who are reputed to specialise in epegenetics, admittedly no one would commit to supporting the proposal in the context of humanevolution equally no one could tell my precisely it was not hypothetically possible, please enlighten me.



    .There is a tendency within orthodox science to the belief that discrete systems work inisolation
    total nonsense.
    Quote:
    This is due in part to the way subjects are studied in isolation
    You have it backwards. People try to isolate parts in order to understand the system. Everybody knows it is not ideal, but you can't study a black box otherwise.

    I understand the principle and in fact I think it is most useful to study the parts in isolation, aside from my personal belief that in the pursuit of ever greater detail context is often lost or forgotten my amateur interest in split brain research appears to suggest that context is not one of the specialist adaptations of the rational side of the brain.



    .the uterus,she (and it is the female line that is significant) is being flooded with her mothers hormones,and this will have some effect on aspects of how she is built.

    yeah and. Maternal effects is a quite well studied area of research. It still doesn't change the germline genotype of the offspring.

    If you can show me where I claim it does that would be helpful. I simply propose that (specific) maternal effects you appear to agree with need only influence the in utero transcription environment in such a way that the foetal neuroendocrine development results in the production of a greater amount of the same (specific) effects, hence epigenetic inheritance.

    ..This theory is not incompatible with the standard DNA model for inheritance.

    It is. Shitload of papers on maternal effects. Just delete the speculative crap you put inbetween and what you end up with is just a one-liner fit for wikipedia. Since it is common knowledge.

    Incompatable refers to it not being a replacement for DNA inheritance simply an extension of what is known from maternal effects ie the normal transcription process.
    The speculative crap, it is undoubtedly speculative, it may be crap, perhaps you are an authority?

    Beyond all the crap speculation the central question I am hoping to address is whether our neural system is as functional as it could be. Presumably questioning whether our primary investigative tool is in full working order is worth considering or is that more bullshit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Maybe you should read your own book. You don't seem to know its content.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •