Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Paul Crowley · Guest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7721999.stm

This nonsense is in Science magazine.

How come that it can go on and on? As everyone
knows (outside of ignorant PA) brain-size is NOT
the determining factor for the size of human female
pelvis. The head of a foetus (and its brain) is
easily distorted as it moves through the birth
canal.

See any medical textbook, or sites like:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17176.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9696.htm

It is shoulders that get stuck, and sometimes it is
necessary to break a foetal collar bone.

The BBC site shows three female pelvis shapes.
a) Modern human
b) Newly-found H.erectus of 1.4 mya
c) Lucy of 3.2 mya

Fossil female pelvises are rare, and Lucy>s is the
only specimen before 1.4 mya. I very much doubt
that she is representative. Hominid females need
a relatively large pelvis because their babies are
fat when they are born. That is because infants
sleep on the ground, and need good insulation at
night. Further female fossil pelvises will be closer
to the human.

Paul.

caldervangogh@gmail.com · Guest

On Nov 14, 3:32 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7721999.stm

This nonsense is in Science magazine.

How come that it can go on and on? As everyone
knows (outside of ignorant PA) brain-size is NOT
the determining factor for the size of human female
pelvis. The head of a foetus (and its brain) is
easily distorted as it moves through the birth
canal.

See any medical textbook, or sites like:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17176.htmhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9696.htm

It is shoulders that get stuck, and sometimes it is
necessary to break a foetal collar bone.

The BBC site shows three female pelvis shapes.
a) Modern human
b) Newly-found H.erectus of 1.4 mya
c) Lucy of 3.2 mya

Fossil female pelvises are rare, and Lucy>s is the
only specimen before 1.4 mya. I very much doubt
that she is representative. Hominid females need
a relatively large pelvis because their babies are
fat when they are born. That is because infants
sleep on the ground, and need good insulation at
night. Further female fossil pelvises will be closer
to the human.

Paul.
[/quote]

Isn>t the ischial tuberosity the determining factor, not
roundness? ...i>ll read the whole article which I have not yet
done.

Anyway, I disagree a little bit with you on one point. If a female
dies during childbirth because the head of the baby ... for whatever
reason... won>t pass... then that IS a very important factor in
evolution... ie, survival and reproduction. So the head/brian size
imposes a limiting factor; we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb. Childbirth has
been and remains a relatively risky thing for moms and babies... which
is not seen as frequently in the other animals. (The Romans in
Pompeii had a rather gruesome method of getting the baby out & saving
the mother.)

Yes, occasionally the shoulders get stuck. Most moms and midwives
will not think much about that in comparison to passing the head, even
in breech births.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040401/1707.html

regards
chap

caldervangogh@gmail.com · Guest

On Nov 15, 11:24 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]caldervang...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I disagree a little bit with you on one point. If a
female dies during childbirth because the head of the baby ...
for whatever reason... won>t pass...

Note that you begin the above sentence with
an 'IF'.

then that IS a very important factor in
evolution... ie, survival and reproduction.
So the head/brian size imposes a limiting factor;

Then you reach a few conclusions, forgetting
the "IF".
[/quote]
okay, i>ll take your point. how about "she dies" instead of "if she
dies..." or whatever...
childbirth for humans (and apparently H.N.) is risky.

[quote]
IF a significant number of females died in
childbirth from the head getting stuck, then it
would be a limiting factor. But, even in the
usually highly-unnatural modern state of things,
head-sticking is rare. If the first pregnancy
was, nearly always, in teen-age years, and the
first child often lost (for any of the usual
reasons, made more likely by the mother>s
youth and inexperience) and IF the female was
then pregnant or nursing for almost all her
reproductive years, with high infant mortality
(from all the usual reasons) the incidence of
such events (neonates getting stuck in the
birth canal) would be very low indeed.

we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This is the nonsense to which I object.
It is based, almost entirely, on a set of
self-praising assumptions.
[/quote]
My work, day in day out, is with infants and toddlers. I am not self-
praising, just observing. Compare a human infant to, say, a newborn
deer. The deer can stand up and run off in a few minutes. We don>t
walk/move for about 6 months.

[quote]
Childbirth has been and remains a relatively risky thing for
moms and babies... which is not seen as frequently in the
other animals.

True -- other animals generally seem to have
lower risks.

If humans infants were normally born after
six months in the womb, there would be almost
no problems around childbirth. Foetuses are,
in fact, almost fully formed at six months.
But they spend another three months inside,
growing larger, putting on weight and, above
all, building up a layer of fat.

It is THAT which requires explanation, not
some silly nonsense about brain size.
[/quote]
I agree. Cf. my discussion with Jois a few years ago. The baby fat
is NOT just for nutrition; after a short period (a few days) of fat
consumption in a starvation event, the infant body starts to "eat"
muscle tissue. Jois and I agreed to disagree on this point. I have
the science on this one though... evidence in a court case....

Anyway, I do agree with the "silly nonsense" that there was in our
evolution some sort of limiting selection between brain size,
gestation and birth. Why do we need bigger brains anyway?
regards
chap

[quote]
Yes, occasionally the shoulders get stuck. Most moms and
midwives will not think much about that in comparison to passing
the head

Are the opinions of moms and midwives
particularly relevant here? The emergence
of the head shows that things are progressing
normally, and it seems a very important stage
which can be greeted with relief. But is that
really justified -- when the main problem is
the baby>s shoulders getting stuck?

even in breech births.

Breech births can (I gather) be much more
of problem. In normal births an infant>s
head can be readily distorted, and pass
through easily, whereas this is not possible
in breech births.

Paul.[/quote]

Paul Crowley · Guest

caldervangogh@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]Anyway, I disagree a little bit with you on one point. If a
female dies during childbirth because the head of the baby ...
for whatever reason... won>t pass...
[/quote]
Note that you begin the above sentence with
an 'IF'.

[quote]then that IS a very important factor in
evolution... ie, survival and reproduction.
So the head/brian size imposes a limiting factor;
[/quote]
Then you reach a few conclusions, forgetting
the "IF".

IF a significant number of females died in
childbirth from the head getting stuck, then it
would be a limiting factor. But, even in the
usually highly-unnatural modern state of things,
head-sticking is rare. If the first pregnancy
was, nearly always, in teen-age years, and the
first child often lost (for any of the usual
reasons, made more likely by the mother>s
youth and inexperience) and IF the female was
then pregnant or nursing for almost all her
reproductive years, with high infant mortality
(from all the usual reasons) the incidence of
such events (neonates getting stuck in the
birth canal) would be very low indeed.

[quote]we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.
[/quote]
This is the nonsense to which I object.
It is based, almost entirely, on a set of
self-praising assumptions.

[quote]Childbirth has been and remains a relatively risky thing for
moms and babies... which is not seen as frequently in the
other animals.
[/quote]
True -- other animals generally seem to have
lower risks.

If humans infants were normally born after
six months in the womb, there would be almost
no problems around childbirth. Foetuses are,
in fact, almost fully formed at six months.
But they spend another three months inside,
growing larger, putting on weight and, above
all, building up a layer of fat.

It is THAT which requires explanation, not
some silly nonsense about brain size.

[quote]Yes, occasionally the shoulders get stuck. Most moms and
midwives will not think much about that in comparison to passing
the head
[/quote]
Are the opinions of moms and midwives
particularly relevant here? The emergence
of the head shows that things are progressing
normally, and it seems a very important stage
which can be greeted with relief. But is that
really justified -- when the main problem is
the baby>s shoulders getting stuck?

[quote]even in breech births.
[/quote]
Breech births can (I gather) be much more
of problem. In normal births an infant>s
head can be readily distorted, and pass
through easily, whereas this is not possible
in breech births.

Paul.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Nov 15, 11:45 am, "caldervang...@gmail.com"
<caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 15, 11:24 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

caldervang...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I disagree a little bit with you on one point. If a
female dies during childbirth because the head of the baby ...
for whatever reason... won>t pass...

Note that you begin the above sentence with
an 'IF'.
[/quote]
Yeah, so?

[quote]
then that IS a very important factor in
evolution... ie, survival and reproduction.
So the head/brian size imposes a limiting factor;

Then you reach a few conclusions, forgetting
the "IF".

okay, i>ll take your point. how about "she dies" instead of "if she
dies..." or whatever...
childbirth for humans (and apparently H.N.) is risky.
[/quote]
Paul, stop being an evasive twit. You know what he meant despite the
"if."

[quote]IF a significant number of females died in
childbirth from the head getting stuck, then it
would be a limiting factor. But, even in the
usually highly-unnatural modern state of things,
head-sticking is rare. If the first pregnancy
was, nearly always, in teen-age years, and the
first child often lost (for any of the usual
reasons, made more likely by the mother>s
youth and inexperience) and IF the female was
then pregnant or nursing for almost all her
reproductive years, with high infant mortality
(from all the usual reasons) the incidence of
such events (neonates getting stuck in the
birth canal) would be very low indeed.

we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This is the nonsense to which I object.
It is based, almost entirely, on a set of
self-praising assumptions.

My work, day in day out, is with infants and toddlers. I am not self-
praising, just observing. Compare a human infant to, say, a newborn
deer. The deer can stand up and run off in a few minutes. We don>t
walk/move for about 6 months.
[/quote]
Paul is being argumentative. It seems strange to me that anybody
(Paul) would suggest we can just dismiss what is clearly a critical
juncture in human reproduction. As you stated, you are not self
appraising, just observing. (Well stated.)

Paul, this is just an observation. It *seems* to be inconsistent with
what you are stating. How>s about at least acknowledging that
Caldervangogh has made a pertinent point?

[quote]Childbirth has been and remains a relatively risky thing for
moms and babies... which is not seen as frequently in the
other animals.

True -- other animals generally seem to have
lower risks.

If humans infants were normally born after
six months in the womb, there would be almost
no problems around childbirth. Foetuses are,
in fact, almost fully formed at six months.
But they spend another three months inside,
growing larger, putting on weight and, above
all, building up a layer of fat.

It is THAT which requires explanation, not
some silly nonsense about brain size.
[/quote]
These are good points, Paul. Personally I think these points are
consistent with my own hypothesis that seasonal scarcity was a major
selective factor for human evolution. But I digress. Paul, as I see
it it seems you are trying to set up a strawman. Or maybe I>m missing
your point.

[quote]
I agree. Cf. my discussion with Jois a few years ago. The baby fat
is NOT just for nutrition; after a short period (a few days) of fat
consumption in a starvation event, the infant body starts to "eat"
muscle tissue. Jois and I agreed to disagree on this point. I have
the science on this one though... evidence in a court case....
[/quote]
Well stated.

[quote]Anyway, I do agree with the "silly nonsense" that there was in our
evolution some sort of limiting selection between brain size,
gestation and birth.
[/quote]
Again, well stated.

[quote]Why do we need bigger brains anyway?
[/quote]
Well, keeping in mind the (now) old adage that bigger isn>t
necessarily always *better* maybe the best answer to this question is:
because society demands it.

Enough said.

[quote]regards
chap

Yes, occasionally the shoulders get stuck. Most moms and
midwives will not think much about that in comparison to passing
the head

Are the opinions of moms and midwives
particularly relevant here? The emergence
of the head shows that things are progressing
normally, and it seems a very important stage
which can be greeted with relief. But is that
really justified -- when the main problem is
the baby>s shoulders getting stuck?

even in breech births.

Breech births can (I gather) be much more
of problem. In normal births an infant>s
head can be readily distorted, and pass
through easily, whereas this is not possible
in breech births.

Paul.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

rmacfarl · Guest

On Nov 15, 7:32 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7721999.stm

This nonsense is in Science magazine.

How come that it can go on and on? As everyone
knows (outside of ignorant PA) brain-size is NOT
the determining factor for the size of human female
pelvis. The head of a foetus (and its brain) is
easily distorted as it moves through the birth
canal.

See any medical textbook, or sites like:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17176.htm[/quote]
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9696.htm
[quote]
It is shoulders that get stuck, and sometimes it is
necessary to break a foetal collar bone.

The BBC site shows three female pelvis shapes.
a) Modern human
b) Newly-found H.erectus of 1.4 mya
c) Lucy of 3.2 mya

Fossil female pelvises are rare, and Lucy>s is the
only specimen before 1.4 mya. I very much doubt
that she is representative. Hominid females need
a relatively large pelvis because their babies are
fat when they are born. That is because infants
sleep on the ground, and need good insulation at
night. Further female fossil pelvises will be closer
to the human.

Paul.
[/quote]
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002911.htm
"Why the Procedure [C-section delivery] is Performed
....
* Baby>s head is too large to pass through mother>s pelvis
(cephalopelvic disproportion)"

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/cephalopelvicdisproportion.html
"The accurate definition of cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is when
a babies head or body is too large to fit through the mother’s pelvis.
It is believed that true CPD is rare..."

True CPD is rare. Now why would that be? Could it be that *natural
selection" played a role in this?

This is so wasted on you Paul...

Ross Macfarlane

"Are the opinions of moms and midwives particularly relevant here?"
- Paul Crowley discussing childbirth, 16-Nov-2008

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Nov 15, 3:55 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 15, 7:32 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7721999.stm

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/cephalopelvicdisproporti...
"The accurate definition of cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is when
a babies head or body is too large to fit through the mother’s pelvis.
It is believed that true CPD is rare..."

True CPD is rare. Now why would that be? Could it be that *natural
selection" played a role in this?
[/quote]
A better question would be "how is it possible that natural selection
did *not* play a role in this?

[quote]This is so wasted on you Paul...
[/quote]
True.

Paul seems to be determined to realign the current evolutionary
pardigm with his imagination.

Paul Crowley · Guest

rmacfarl wrote:

[quote]Fossil female pelvises are rare, and Lucy>s is the
only specimen before 1.4 mya. I very much doubt
that she is representative. Hominid females need
a relatively large pelvis because their babies are
fat when they are born. That is because infants
sleep on the ground, and need good insulation at
night. Further female fossil pelvises will be closer
to the human.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002911.htm
"Why the Procedure [C-section delivery] is Performed
....
* Baby>s head is too large to pass through mother>s pelvis
(cephalopelvic disproportion)"

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/cephalopelvicdisproportion.html
"The accurate definition of cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is
when a babies head or body is too large to fit through the
mothers pelvis. It is believed that true CPD is rare..."
[/quote]
Do a Google search on "cephalopelvic disproportion".
In addition to the above site, the first few results
will show:
http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/birth/small-pelvis-big-baby-cpd
which states: "In modern times, however, CPD is rare"
and
http://www.ican-online.org/vbac/cephalopelvic-disproportion-cpd
which states:
"Absolute CPD is very rare . ."

This page also has a section on "CPD Myths".
It seems that Standard PA is dominated by
such myths.

[quote]True CPD is rare. Now why would that be? Could it be that
*natural selection" played a role in this?
[/quote]
So your "theory" would be true if

(a) CPD was very common, or if
(b) CPD was fairly common, or if
(c) CPD was unusual, or if
(d) CPD was rare, or if
(e) CPD was very rare.

If you make a statement the truth of which has
no connection with any facts in the world, then
what kind of statement is it?

[quote]This is so wasted on you Paul...
[/quote]
Ever heard of 'bullshit'?

[quote]"Are the opinions of moms and midwives particularly relevant here?"
- Paul Crowley discussing childbirth, 16-Nov-2008
[/quote]
Case proved. Myths about CPD are routine
among ordinary moms -- and among inexperienced
midwives. Maybe (very much 'maybe') midwives
will learn (from experience) that it is rarely
(if ever) a problem in practice.

But don>t bet on it.

Paul.

rmacfarl · Guest

On Nov 16, 10:56 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]rmacfarl wrote:
Fossil female pelvises are rare, and Lucy>s is the
only specimen before 1.4 mya. I very much doubt
that she is representative. Hominid females need
a relatively large pelvis because their babies are
fat when they are born. That is because infants
sleep on the ground, and need good insulation at
night. Further female fossil pelvises will be closer
to the human.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002911.htm
"Why the Procedure [C-section delivery] is Performed
....
* Baby>s head is too large to pass through mother>s pelvis
(cephalopelvic disproportion)"

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/cephalopelvicdisproporti...

"The accurate definition of cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is
when a babies head or body is too large to fit through the
mother s pelvis. It is believed that true CPD is rare..."

Do a Google search on "cephalopelvic disproportion".
In addition to the above site, the first few results
will show:http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/birth/small-pelvis-big-baby-cpd
which states: "In modern times, however, CPD is rare"
andhttp://www.ican-online.org/vbac/cephalopelvic-disproportion-cpd
which states:
"Absolute CPD is very rare . ."

This page also has a section on "CPD Myths".
It seems that Standard PA is dominated by
such myths.

True CPD is rare. Now why would that be? Could it be that
*natural selection" played a role in this?

So your "theory" would be true if

(a) CPD was very common, or if
(b) CPD was fairly common, or if
(c) CPD was unusual, or if
(d) CPD was rare, or if
(e) CPD was very rare.

If you make a statement the truth of which has
no connection with any facts in the world, then
what kind of statement is it?

This is so wasted on you Paul...

Ever heard of 'bullshit'?

"Are the opinions of moms and midwives particularly relevant here?"
- Paul Crowley discussing childbirth, 16-Nov-2008

Case proved. Myths about CPD are routine
among ordinary moms -- and among inexperienced
midwives. Maybe (very much 'maybe') midwives
will learn (from experience) that it is rarely
(if ever) a problem in practice.

But don>t bet on it.

Paul.
[/quote]
CPD is rare because of natural selection. The fact that the condition
exists and has a medical description shows that the relative size of a
woman>s pelvic opening & her baby>s head at term are factors that will
be controlled by natural selection...

Ross Macfarlane

[quote]Ever heard of 'bullshit'?
From Paul Crowley? Need anyone even ask?[/quote]

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Nov 16, 11:49 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
Then you reach a few conclusions, forgetting
the "IF".

okay, i>ll take your point. how about "she dies" instead of "if she
dies..." or whatever...
childbirth for humans (and apparently H.N.) is risky.

Paul, stop being an evasive twit. You know what he meant despite the
"if."

I can guess, but I might be wrong.
I am perfectly entitled to point out
sloppiness in an argument.
[/quote]
It isn>t a competition. It>s a discussion.

[quote]we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This is the nonsense to which I object.
It is based, almost entirely, on a set of
self-praising assumptions.

My work, day in day out, is with infants and toddlers. I am not
self-praising, just observing. Compare a human infant to, say, a
newborn deer. The deer can stand up and run off in a few minutes.
We don>t walk/move for about 6 months.

Paul is being argumentative. It seems strange to me that anybody
(Paul) would suggest we can just dismiss what is clearly a critical
juncture in human reproduction. As you stated, you are not self
appraising, just observing. (Well stated.)

Caldervangogh stated

we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This IS self-praising B/S
[/quote]
Strange comment. It seems like standard evolutionary thinking. It
seems pretty tame and even conservative to me.

[quote]-- and
entirely conventional Standard-PA B/S.
Elephants have a big brain as well. But
their neonates can walk just as quickly
as any deer. Altriciality/precocity is
determined by the niche
[/quote]
Vague, meaningless.

[quote]-- not by daft
notions about 'brain development'.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that 'brain development' can>t be part of the
niche? If not then it seems you have a non-issue (as usual).

[quote]Paul, this is just an observation. It *seems* to be
inconsistent with what you are stating. How>s about at
least acknowledging that Caldervangogh has made a pertinent
point?

It is not inconsistent with anything I say.
Nor is it pertinent.
[/quote]
Are you on your own planet or something?

[quote]If humans infants were normally born after
six months in the womb, there would be almost
no problems around childbirth. Foetuses are,
in fact, almost fully formed at six months.
But they spend another three months inside,
growing larger, putting on weight and, above
all, building up a layer of fat.
It is THAT which requires explanation, not
some silly nonsense about brain size.

These are good points, Paul. Personally I think these
points are consistent with my own hypothesis that seasonal
scarcity was a major selective factor for human evolution.

It is not consistent -- as you would see
from the next paragraph in Caldervangogh>s
post. Infants start to use up their muscle
soon after they start to starve.
[/quote]
Yeah so?

[quote]Their
fat is not a resource-store.
[/quote]
Why do you assume this?

[quote]It has other
functions.
[/quote]
Yeah, so?

[quote]I agree. Cf. my discussion with Jois a few years ago. The baby fat
is NOT just for nutrition; after a short period (a few days) of fat
consumption in a starvation event, the infant body starts to "eat"
muscle tissue. Jois and I agreed to disagree on this point. I have
the science on this one though... evidence in a court case....

Well stated.

Shame that you did not notice how it
contradicts your theory.
[/quote]
I guess it>s a double shame because I didn>t notice it either, and
still don>t.

[quote]Anyway, I do agree with the "silly nonsense" that there was in our
evolution some sort of limiting selection between brain size,
gestation and birth.

A suspicion is not a theory. If there was
anything in this silly nonsense, it should be
possible to set it out clearly. No one tries.
How did a tree-living species get out of the
trees (to enable its infants to rest on the
ground)? What were the stages?

Again, well stated.

How can the expression of a vague
suspicion be well stated?
[/quote]
Once again, Paul, I find myself wondering what your point is.

Paul Crowley · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]Then you reach a few conclusions, forgetting
the "IF".

okay, i>ll take your point. how about "she dies" instead of "if she
dies..." or whatever...
childbirth for humans (and apparently H.N.) is risky.

Paul, stop being an evasive twit. You know what he meant despite the
"if."
[/quote]
I can guess, but I might be wrong.
I am perfectly entitled to point out
sloppiness in an argument.

[quote]we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This is the nonsense to which I object.
It is based, almost entirely, on a set of
self-praising assumptions.

My work, day in day out, is with infants and toddlers. I am not
self-praising, just observing. Compare a human infant to, say, a
newborn deer. The deer can stand up and run off in a few minutes.
We don>t walk/move for about 6 months.

Paul is being argumentative. It seems strange to me that anybody
(Paul) would suggest we can just dismiss what is clearly a critical
juncture in human reproduction. As you stated, you are not self
appraising, just observing. (Well stated.)
[/quote]
Caldervangogh stated
[quote]we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.
[/quote]
This IS self-praising B/S -- and
entirely conventional Standard-PA B/S.
Elephants have a big brain as well. But
their neonates can walk just as quickly
as any deer. Altriciality/precocity is
determined by the niche -- not by daft
notions about 'brain development'.

[quote]Paul, this is just an observation. It *seems* to be
inconsistent with what you are stating. How>s about at
least acknowledging that Caldervangogh has made a pertinent
point?
[/quote]
It is not inconsistent with anything I say.
Nor is it pertinent.

[quote]If humans infants were normally born after
six months in the womb, there would be almost
no problems around childbirth. Foetuses are,
in fact, almost fully formed at six months.
But they spend another three months inside,
growing larger, putting on weight and, above
all, building up a layer of fat.
It is THAT which requires explanation, not
some silly nonsense about brain size.

These are good points, Paul. Personally I think these
points are consistent with my own hypothesis that seasonal
scarcity was a major selective factor for human evolution.
[/quote]
It is not consistent -- as you would see
from the next paragraph in Caldervangogh>s
post. Infants start to use up their muscle
soon after they start to starve. Their
fat is not a resource-store. It has other
functions.

[quote]I agree. Cf. my discussion with Jois a few years ago. The baby fat
is NOT just for nutrition; after a short period (a few days) of fat
consumption in a starvation event, the infant body starts to "eat"
muscle tissue. Jois and I agreed to disagree on this point. I have
the science on this one though... evidence in a court case....

Well stated.
[/quote]
Shame that you did not notice how it
contradicts your theory.

[quote]Anyway, I do agree with the "silly nonsense" that there was in our
evolution some sort of limiting selection between brain size,
gestation and birth.
[/quote]
A suspicion is not a theory. If there was
anything in this silly nonsense, it should be
possible to set it out clearly. No one tries.
How did a tree-living species get out of the
trees (to enable its infants to rest on the
ground)? What were the stages?

[quote]Again, well stated.
[/quote]
How can the expression of a vague
suspicion be well stated?

Paul.

rmacfarl · Guest

On Nov 17, 11:39 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]rmacfarl wrote:
CPD is rare because of natural selection. The fact that the
condition exists and has a medical description shows that the
relative size of a woman>s pelvic opening & her baby>s head at
term are factors that will be controlled by natural
selection...

Feet pointing backwards is a rare condition because
of natural selection. The fact that the condition
exists and has a medical description shows that the
direction in which feet point is a factor that will
be controlled by natural selection...

Ever heard of 'bullshit'?

Paul.
[/quote]
Let>s face it, it isn>t for the hope of educating you that I>ve been
posting this.

<Plonk>

Paul Crowley · Guest

rmacfarl wrote:

[quote]CPD is rare because of natural selection. The fact that the
condition exists and has a medical description shows that the
relative size of a woman>s pelvic opening & her baby>s head at
term are factors that will be controlled by natural
selection...
[/quote]
Feet pointing backwards is a rare condition because
of natural selection. The fact that the condition
exists and has a medical description shows that the
direction in which feet point is a factor that will
be controlled by natural selection...

[quote]Ever heard of 'bullshit'?
[/quote]

Paul.

mclark · Guest

On Nov 17, 5:02 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
[crap][/quote]

[quote]Take any species, see how it lives, and that
will tell you how its infants will develop
(including their brains). Bird chicks in high
nests risk falling out if they are too active
too early. Those which nest on the ground
usually need to be active early to minimise
predation. The first will be altricial, the
second precocial. Chimp infants need to be
fairly capable early on, since they can readily
fall from the high trees in which they sleep
and spend much other time. Human infants have
no such pressures, and are far better off NOT
moving. So they don>t.
[/quote]
Say, Pauly, 'ever notice how the tip of your index
finger fits nicely up your nose? Must be for pickin',
eh? Instead of calling that great swath of science
fed by years of observation and experiment (anthropology)
"bullshit", why don>t you try to reason your way past
its arguments. That>s called critical thinking. Make the
attempt sometime before you die --for your own sake.

> Paul.

Paul Crowley · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]we moderns have an extended infancy in
order to grow our brains bigger outside the womb.

This IS self-praising B/S

Strange comment. It seems like standard evolutionary
thinking. It seems pretty tame and even conservative to me.
[/quote]
It is indeed "standard evolutionary 'thinking' ".
It is also self-praising B/S.

Whenever you see a Standard-PA comment
on human brain-size, you will necessarily
find pure B/S.

[quote]Elephants have a big brain as well. But
their neonates can walk just as quickly
as any deer. Altriciality/precocity is
determined by the niche

Vague, meaningless.
[/quote]
Not at all. Elephants have big brains.
BUT their niche requires each family group
to be constantly on the move, and to fend
off predators. So, like antelope, their
neonates have to be able to walk well
almost as soon as they are born. Species,
without these kinds of pressures, (e.g.
carnivores, pigs, porcupine) can have
altricial infants, and often use burrows
for nests.

When you encounter a species with altricial
young, you will know that it does not move
around much. Guess how Standard PA regards
the animal it studies? All its 'thinking' is the
result of a deep ignorance of the concept of
niche.

[quote]-- not by daft
notions about 'brain development'.

Are you suggesting that 'brain development' can>t be part of
the niche? If not then it seems you have a non-issue (as
usual).
[/quote]
'Brain development' is like all other kinds
of growth -- and its rate and nature will be
determined, above all, by the requirements
of the niche.

Take any species, see how it lives, and that
will tell you how its infants will develop
(including their brains). Bird chicks in high
nests risk falling out if they are too active
too early. Those which nest on the ground
usually need to be active early to minimise
predation. The first will be altricial, the
second precocial. Chimp infants need to be
fairly capable early on, since they can readily
fall from the high trees in which they sleep
and spend much other time. Human infants have
no such pressures, and are far better off NOT
moving. So they don>t.

Paul.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2