Re: Questions: E.Q., the Evolution of Souls, the language of

Adam and Eve
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:39:56 -0500
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk

I am not sure what sugar differences you are talking about, the human brain
can use pretty much any metabolic fuel source, any sugars, even ketone
bodies.

But, like I pointed out before, there are clearly other differences in
brains other than EQ. If you inspect the brains of different species, with
similar EQ's there are obvious differences in where encephalization has
occurred. Dolphin brains, as I mentioned have enlarged temporal/parietal
lobes, compared to the human frontal.

As far as I am concerned EQ is not really a measurement of spirituality, or
the presence of a soul, it is a measure of intelligence. And it is valid
only comparing different species, not in comparing intelligence within a
species, because brain weight does not correlate with intelligence at all in
humans. Except for perhaps the extreme case of anencephaly.

But this leads me to a question for anyone here that can answer it. If
enlarged frontal lobes are required for language, and enlarged
temporal/parietal lobes are required for echolocation, which came first the
ability or the anatomy? I just don't understand how this is theorized to
occur. Is it thought that some mutation caused a change in anatomy that led
to the potential to do something that had never been done before? If human
brains were suddenly able to handle spoken language, how did they learn
language in the first place? If the anatomy was there, but the creature
couldn't use it, how would that confer increased ability to pass that
anatomic mutation on?

----- Original Message -----
From: "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 9:13 PM
Subject: Questions: E.Q., the Evolution of Souls, the language of Adam and
Eve

> GLEN:
>>Here is what the article in nature says about the EQ of Liang Bua
>>"The brain mass for LB1, calculated from its volume26, is 433.2 g; this
>>gives an encephalization quotient (EQ) range of 2.5-4.6, which compares
>>with 5.8-8.1 for H. sapiens, 3.3-4.4 for H. erectus/ergaster and 3.6-4.3
>>for H. habilis, and overlaps with the australopithecine range of
>>variation." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late
>>Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1060
>
> ED: E.Q. is one measurement, but there are other differences between
> brains to also consider since different genes code for different proteins
> or different sugars utilized by the brain that further facilitate its
> function. After the chimp and human genomes were compared such a
> difference was noted in a sugar that the human brain utilizes, I believe.
>
> Also, if "souls" are thought of as being introduced at a specific point in
> evolution after a measurable increase in E.Q. has occurred (i.e., at a
> definite point in primate evolution), then one is left to muse over the
> scene of a soulless primate mother giving birth to a son (Adam) and
> daughter (Eve) with souls, cuddling and suckling them, loving them,
> raising them, etc. That same soulless primate mother would then be the
> "Mother" of "The Mother of All Living." That soulless primate mother
> might also have given birth to other children prior to Adam and Eve, or
> perhaps after them, but those "other" children who are the biological
> sisters and brothers of Adam and Eve, would be "soulless?"
>
> Or should Christians who are evolutionists consider that entire
> populations evolved "souls" instead of just a singular "Adam" and a
> singular "Eve?" The Christian philosopher/apologist, Swineburne argues
> that even apes have "souls." Though Koko the ape was once asked where she
> thought she would go after she had died and allegedly she signed in
> response the rather literal reply, "comfortable hole, bye."
>
> Evolutionists point out that the primate-to-human transition lay along a
> continuum, and the "first" human is probably not something we could put
> our fingers on exactly, even if we watched a couple million years of
> digitized video tape coverage of each and every primate birth beginning
> with the earliest primitive ape species and watching it right up till the
> first species of archaic homo sapiens arrived on the scene. So we would
> only recognize clear differences between the the beginning species and
> later varieties of its descendants after a couple million years of
> physical and social evolution had definitvely separated one species from
> the other. For instance, I doubt that at any time any infant arose out of
> the womb with the ability to speak, since that has to be learned even
> today -- feral children or children raised alone in closets with an
> extreme minimum of human contact, being cases in point. Which reminds me,
> Matt Ridley (author of several bestsellers, including GENOME) mentioned
> that a few Christian kings had tried raising a child without allowing
> anyone to speak to that child, since mankind's present languages had all
> been "corrupted" at "Babel." The kings hoped that the child would grow up
> speaking the "original pure language that Adam and Eve spoke," but instead
> the child could not speak at all.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 6 00:12:04 2004