FA_Q2
Gold Member
That is your assumption.Size does not necessarily equate to capacity or ability to learn.No you just think there are.Actual there are a lot of differences.
People are still the same as they were centuries ago we just have better stuff now
We have 'better stuff ' now because of those people centuries ago, and paganism would never have led to the 'now' we have now.
Don't confuse intelligence with civilization.
Those pagans could never imagined the weapons we have today that can kill millions in an instant.
We're still barbaric only now we can commit acts of barbarism from a nice climate controlled room and watch it all via satellite feed on hi def led monitors while sipping fine liquors.
And our brains have actually shrunk by about 10% as we actually use them less than we did thousands of years ago.
Just think those barbaric pagans most likely had a higher capacity for learning than we do even though we think ourselves to be more intelligent.
There a many animals that have larger brains than humans, that does not make them more intelligent or give them a greater capacity to learn.
Our brains are the most developed on the planet and it's not just because of size but because of surface area. A 10% decrease in brain size also results in a decrease of surface area.
Our brains have shrunk because we don't use as much of our computing power as we used to and you know the old saying, "use it or lose it"?
We are losing it
You essentially state that surface area does not necessarily equate to size (animals with larger brains not having the same surface area) and then state a reduction in size directly means a reduction in surface area.
You cannot haven it both ways.