TrueAmerican
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:14 PM
Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 09:18 PM by TrueAmerican
Why does man's brain grow larger as Human's progress and computer chips grow smaller as technology develops. Shouldn't our brains be shrinking too? ;)
|
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Computer chips are designed, not evolved. (Hope that gives pause to some Intelligent Design adherents. ;) )
|
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. lol-- my short answer was longer than yours.... |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 09:23 PM by mike_c
great minds think alike!
|
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Looks like your mind may be a little greater than mine! :)
<Birthmark's eyes rolled up in head...maybe to try to see them fat ol' axons.>
|
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 09:22 PM by mike_c
Because the speed with which neural signal propogation occurs along nerve axons is directly proportional to the cross section of the axon, i.e. all other things being equal, big axons carry signals faster than small axons. And the nervous system is much more than the brain, and processes a LOT more information than we're consciously aware of. AND there would have to be significant fitness improvements for selection to favor smaller, slower nervous systems over still pretty small but pretty fast ones. There's probably other good responses, too....
|
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Your answer reminds me... |
|
...of why I never take those computer chess players seriously. If the human that they were playing had to process as little information as the computer, that computer would get its ass thoroughly kicked. lol
|
Lefty48197
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:25 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Cause it takes someone with a big assed brain |
|
to invent a little computer chip.
|
Craig Roberts
(292 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Ok, but if there were an adaptive advantage to smaller brain cases... |
|
which I think there would be (would make birth much less dangerous, for one thing), then shouldn't we be evolving toward smaller heads with more efficient brain structure, just like computer chips?
I think it is a good question, and would be an even better question if I had some pot.
|
LeftyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. It really wouldn't make birth safer |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 09:50 PM by LeftyMom
Big fat baby heads plug up the cervix nicely to prevent cord prolapse and the pressure stretches out the cervix. When babies get "stuck" the problem is generally shoulder dystocia. Dystocia can usually be resolved by havign the mother change position and avoided entirely when the mother births in an upright position.
/birthtweak
edited to fix a typo
|
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-27-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Well, to take your question seriously... |
|
... unless people with small brains had a reproductive advantage. All that drives evolution is who can reproduce the most. The point is that if you are selected against then you'll die soon and won't reproduce very much. But if you have an evolutionary adaptation that is advantageous, you'll, at lesat in theory, live longer and reproduce more.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |