Glenn wrote:
>Now, your criticism that handedness is statistical has nothing to do with
>Broca's area. Broca's area is not the petalia that Falk is talking about.
>Falk is not saying that Broca's area is statistical and we don't know where
>it is in any given individual.
Doesn't really make any difference. Deacon writes:
Surprisingly enough, these studies show that the spatial
distribution of language functions vary from one person's
brain to another.
so more than just the handedness is variable from person to person and
extrapolating language functions from cranial endocasts is not certain.
>You are stretching here, hoping to find
>something we DON'T know in order to support your position.
How many times have evolutionists done exactly this, I wonder? Seems
to me like the whole of "Artifact theory" is exactly this kind of an effort.
In this case, however, I think I am justified. We really do know very little
about brain function and you would have to be crazy to say otherwise.
Glenn continues:
>You forget that there is an encephalization quotient. The larger the body
>the larger the brain needed to control that body. Elephants are quite large
>but not as encephalized as us.
That is exactly why I mentioned that modern man has a brain size that varies by
a factor of two. If our brains vary by that much and have the same basic
functions, then the brains of other primates might well exhibit the same kind
of behavior.
Glenn continues:
>Well if Broca's area is used for advanced language functions then maybe the
>homo habilis who also possesses a Broca's area, used advanced language
>functions. Your admission here seems to undercut your own argument.
Let's perform a Foleyesque thought experiment. Let's say there was a brain
region that is used in modern human beings for motor skills such as driving,
playing tennis or typing on the computer. If we found a similar structure in
homo habilis, would this mean that they had all of the advances of modern
technology? No one would argue that this was the case. Rather, they would
argue that the same structure was used for different purposes. So unless
we are prepared to believe that homo habilis had syntax and grammar, we
should conclude that these structures were used for something else. After
all, concluding that homo habilis had essentially modern language capabilities
on the basis of these cranial endocasts is stretching it just a little, don't
you think?
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA