XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce
XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid
From: laura@nospam.me
"Kaycee" wrote in message
news:cloe5h$apq$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Laura wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe "pointless" is an inaccurate way of putting it... What I meant was
> > that every single part of a living being is finely tuned to perform the
> > tasks that make it suited to survive within its niche.
> > Hence, there is nothing in a living being that is not of some use - so
no
> > 90% of brain that isn't used. Nature isn't wasteful.
>
> Perhaps "finely tuned" is a bit of an exaggeration. Evolution will
> optimize things as long as that optimatization still produces notable
> results. Endless fine tuning is sub-optimal, and often an organism is
> better off simply finding new ways of coping, instead of trying to
> perfect the ones it already has. Of course, if an organism lives in a
> very restricted environment, it might be that the only thing it can do
> to compete against others is to become the best in the one thing the
> environment allows it to do. But generally, going on to find new ways of
> competing is better than to try and optimize just one way.
>
> Taking a look at the human body, for example, we can see it's far from
> optimal. The body was meant to be supported by walking on all fours, we
> used to have a tail, the way babies are born prevents their head=brain
> growing any more, etc. This is because instead of optimizing our
> abilities as tree-hanging monkeys any further .), humans started to
> utilize a new way of survival, which was socialization and use of tools.
>
>
> Cheers, KC
All true :-) I was trying to keep it brief.
I'm sure you'll agree that evolution wouldn't allow for 90% of the brain to
be redundant.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
