[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hands and brains

Subj:  Re: Hands and brains
to: Timothy van der Linden

> To Kelly:
> >> But why do elephants have such big brains (3 to 4 times larger than
> >humans)?
> >
> >They need the nuerons to run their big bodies, which are dozens of times
> >humans.
> Are you sure or are you guessing? The story that David wrote, I had heard
> before. It was the reason why I thought (before I read otherwise) that an
> elephant (and a dolphin) had a small brain too.

Yes, elephants have very large brains with normal sized cells, but the cells
are not aranged in a complex structure, and are not as proportionally large
as humans.  Dolphins brains are larger (in mass and proportion) then humans,
and are more structuralu complex, but the complexity isn't in the intelegence

> Looking at this after discussing it, a possible explanation may be that the
> brain-cells are much bigger. This may also be the case for dolphins. So
> saying the absolute size, I should have said the number of neurons. I don't
> have any confirming data however. I'm going to search for some more data
> about this.
> >> >automate systems will work well and productivly.  Which is why all
> >> >manufacturing industries use them.
> >> 
> >> But that means that much less people can do the job
> >
> >Yes.
> So if you go on a few centuries, only a few people have to work. This is
> where I was going to.

Look what happened in the past.  Technology allowed farming (which used to
take up the bulk of the population) to be done by less than 5% of the pop.
 That doesn't mean the other 95% decided to goof off all the time.  They just
spend their time doing something else.

> >> It's keeping the heat in: Greenhouse gasses are more opaque planetary
> >> radiation than for solar radiation. Solar radiation is what directly
> >> from the Sun and planetary radiation is 
> >
> >I know the theory, I also know their is no data to support it.
> Of course I don't have the hands on an experiment that proved it but I find
> it very hard to believe that no one has tried to figure out to what kind of
> radiation the so called greenhouse gasses are most opaque. This very simple
> experiment would show the proof or rebuttal.

It is not a simple experiment.  NASA tried to do some studies comparing
thermal emmisions from earth and space to get a ballence audit.  So far the
info is frustratingly inconclusive.  Climatologists really have little handel
on what percentage of the earths heat comes from solar heat, or converted
light, or internal heating.  Then again, it was only a few years back that
someone showed the greenhouse effect dosen't work in greenhouses.

Bottom line, no one has any models that acuratly predict anything about
climate on that scale.  We just don't know the fundamentals that well, and
the extream mass of calculations would swamp any of our current computers.
 None of the globalwarming theories predictions agree well with one another,
or with our real history.  (Ask Kevin about the iunseasonably warmer winters
that we are supposed to be having.  Parts of his area hit -60 F!)  And no one
has been able to detect a credible (acuratly messurable) temperature
increase.  Few of the temperatures are even take in areas that would show
such an effect.  For example if you check city temps you will see and
increase.  but it maps to urban growth around the airports where the temps
are taken.  Not to state wide temps.  (Thats why NASA tried using global
thermal images.)

> >It is also argued if the earth is getting warmer or cooler.  NASA went
> >over 25-30 years of satelihgt scans.  They could have detected a change as
> >small as 1/5th the smallest variation predicted by any of the green house
> >theories.  They didn't find it.  Longer term arcio-climatology studies
> >shown a cooling since the mid 1800, a warming from the 1700, and a long
> >cooling over the last 800 years.
> Did these images show there was no temperature increase or did they show
> that there was no increase due to the so called greenhouse effect. If you
> mean the latter, how can they distinguish between normal and greenhouse
> deviations?

They showed no detectable global increase in temp.

> >> To that I agree, but as long the greenhouse effect is not too large the
> >> temperatures will not become so high that no live can exist. At the
> >> light-side of the moon you will freeze to death (assuming you weren't
> >> choking first) this is because there are no gasses to keep the heat in.
> >> only heat there is radiative heat.
> >
> >How do you freeze to death at 200 degrees F?  Trust me, freezing wasn't a
> >problem on the moon in full sunlight.
> Yes, that is radiative heat, not convective. So everything that is in the
> shadow is much colder. I assume that if you where standing with your back
> the Sun than your belly would freeze.

Worse if your in the shadow of a rock!

> >> I think that if chemicals are not recycled any amount is used up in a
> >> relative short period. (If water and carbondioxide where not recycled by
> >> plants, animal (non photosynthesis) live would very soon die away).
> >
> >But the chemicals are being recycled by the planetary geo-processes, and
> >have sustained their local populations for a very long time.
> Yes, but the chances for evolution are not very big in a small (local) area
> where the climate is relatively stable. Higher evolutionized animals would
> not occur due to serious inbreading.

But in an alien environ those isolated patchs here, could be the norm for the
planet.  (It would be worth a lot of study, but no one would want to live

> >> I've seen a TV-series (again :) ) that tried to explain that the human
> >brain
> >> expanded as soon as it began standing up. The reason for that was the
> >> temperature difference between 0.8 metre (on 4 legs) and 1.5 metres (on
> >> legs) above the ground. -------
> >> One question remains however, why didn't they get a bigger brain while
> >> the forest before the mountain ridge appeared?
> >
> >Or why didn'tproto apes in cooler climates develop it.
> Ah, I think I know, they had a live that was too easy, so there was no
> advantage of being smart. The apes on the rather dry and hot savannas had
> do more for their food than just sitting on a branch.

Yeah, something about having to go hunt down your food and not just reach out
for it.  Its still debated thou.

> >Besides, humans are
> >warm blooded.  They keep thie brain tissue withing a fraction of a degree
> >temp.
> But it is much harder to cool in higher temperatures.

We aren't well evolved for higher temps, so we probably didn't live in them.

> >Humans have an odd brain hand trick we retained since we were tree
> > It makes certain types of eye hand coordination easier (real important
> >your jumping for a branch) but humans brains developed long after  our
> >and hands were developed.
> So you do agree (to a certain degree) that there is a more than normal
> connection between hand and brain?

Not for other tree dwelling apes or monkeys, but it is an unusual structure.
 but then humans have had a very odd history.  trees, to water, to savanas,
and each left odd evolutionary twists ranging from legs, fat distrabution,
noses, weak lower backs, etc..  Maybe thats why we finally developed
intelegence.  We were such an adaptable patchwork, that without intelegence
we couldn't use our bodies as well as they were capable of.

> >Why did humans develop such powefull minds?  Thats a hotly debateed
> Yes, I noticed ;)
> Tim

Pity those damb chimps didn't keep good records!  "yes another long leged
freak with a passion for long walks.  Its parents were heartbroken..."