But I would encourage everyone to be careful using this 10% figure. 5:1 =
odds that the number is either bogus or way overblown, as in my muscle =
example. (Suppose one were to ask: why do we generally only use 10% of =
our major muscles, rather than working at flat-out 100% constantly? =
Disproof of evolution! ....)
If someone can show that I'm not giving this number the credit it =
deserves, please do so. So far, though, this has been a pretty =
intellectually sloppy thread. :^( We can do a -lot- better.
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 1996 11:37 AM
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: Brain Size
Glenn Morton wrote:
<<Let me place this view in another perspective. If mankind can get =
along=20
with only 10% of this brain power, why would we say that Homo erectus is =
unable to be human when he has 5 times the capacity in his brain as we =
are=20
apparently able to use?>>
You'll have to clear this one up a bit, Glenn. Homo erectus brain was =
approx.=20
850cc. Ours is 1,400 cc.
So are you saying that homo erectus had full brain capacity, while we =
don't?=20
What ARE you saying?
THIS STILL LEAVES GLENN DIXON'S EXCELLENT QUESTION UNANSWERED:
<<how is it that we evolved a brain with a capacity 90% higher than we=20
actually use? >>
BTW, how can we measure brain capacity and usage? Through EEG imaging =
and the=20
monitoring of oxygen, blood flow, and glucose. There may be other ways =
as=20
well.
Jim