http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/11/richard_dawkins_smart_dinosaurs.php&... 
> 
> I'm kind of interesting to see your thoughts on this, it relates to Adler's book.-First, that is one of the stupidest pieces of speculation I've ever wasted time reading. Conway Morris is certainly the world's biggest advocate for convergence, and uses it to push his view that humans had to appear, suggesting that humans might have been pre-determined. I'm not aware that he has had an opinion about humanoid dinosaurs. This kind of contingency disucssion reminds one of Gould, who concluded we are "a glorious accident" and if the tape of evoltion were rerun (paraphrasing) there was no chance we would successfully reappear.-As for Adler, he was discussing only the vast difference in intellectual power, and the philosophic meaning or conclusion it led to. Certainly corvids are very bright birds. Jeremy Taylor has a whole chapter on them in his book "Not a Chimp". And his book beautifully supports Adler's conclusions.-People sure have a weird fascination with dinos.


> Finally finished Not a Chimp. His conclusion is that we changed rapidly in the 6 million years since the split, and he opines the chimps not much.
> 
> And his final conclusion on pg. 308 is that 'we are genuinely discontinous to other animals'. Strong support for Adler.-A recent study in Nature supports Jeremy Taylor's contention, from the earlier research he cited, that the split from Chimps was a very rapid evolutionary process. Now studies of the human and chimp Y chromosomes strongly support this interpretation.-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/edsumm/e100128-09.html

Here is a new book that supports Adler, but taking an exacting look on the scientific studies of the great apes,etc.
> > 
> > http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7087
&#10... > 
> > The jump in cognition from ape to human is one of the major reasons I think there is a greater power. -Finally finished Not a Chimp. The author carefully reviews th genetics and makes his own assesment on the difference. True that the total DNA bases are about 98% the same, but the genetic structure is much different. The human has many copy number variations (multiple gene copies) and segmental duplications (whole sections of DNA sequence, containing any thousands of bases) copied and re-inserted elsewhere, differeing from the chimp. (pg. 112) 6.4% of all human genes have no match in the chimp. Point mutation changes are less a driving force than the above mechanisms. In the immune system genes there is a 13% difference. His conclusion is that we changed rapidly in the 6 million years since the split, and he opines the chimps not much.-In a chapter called "Clever Corvids", a related group of crows, rooks, ravens, jackdaws, magpies and jays have been shown to be equal to or better at problem solving than chimps. Here he is attacking the fanciful allusion to chimps as intellectually equal to baby humans. In "Inside the Brain" he points to large anatomic differences between chimps and humans.- And his final conclusion on pg. 308 is that 'we are genuinely discontinous to other animals'. Strong support for Adler.

Here is a new book that supports Adler, but taking an exacting look on the scientific studies of the great apes,etc.
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7087
&#10... 
> The jump in cognition from ape to human is one of the major reasons I think there is a greater power. Another leg is the enormous complexity of living biochemistry and how DNA as an underlying code is used. In a sense DNA is simple compared to the molecular dance around it.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090904/full/news.2009.880.html-Alright tackled the nature article since it had the word "fractal" in it (sorry, math-prejudiced.) This isn't new. In biomedical engineering, to create "microbe-free" surfaces, they manipulate the molecular surface to create a fractal pattern that microbes can't adhere to, a very "mountainous" surface is actually much better than a perfectly smooth surface. Fractal structures in nature (all of it, not just life) are so common that this paper doesn't exactly tell me anything new at all, except that a couple of biochemists applied a biomedical engineering principle to the cell's nucleus. -In the grander scope, I know your implicit question is "How did this evolve by chance?" -My answer of course, is that we don't know how it evolved at all, so we can't beg the question as you are doing.

Here is a new book that supports Adler, but taking an exacting look on the scientific studies of the great apes,etc.
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7087
&#10... 
> The jump in cognition from ape to human is one of the major reasons I think there is a greater power. Another leg is the enormous complexity of living biochemistry and how DNA as an underlying code is used. In a sense DNA is simple compared to the molecular dance around it.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090904/full/news.2009.880.html-I'll hit those articles tomorrow night, got my first programming assignment due at 5:30 (my time.) -For the record, Adler explicitly stated that the difference between man and everything else is going to be decided by computer science, not by neuroscience or comparative biology. He also explicitly didn't prejudge the work as you appear to have done. The question is still open.

The difference of Man: of all species we take the longest time to become adult. The following article describes the plasticity of the baby brain and how it learns:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.700-from-butterfly-to-caterpillar-how-ch... - Sofia Kovalevskaya. - Her parents, when she was a baby, plastered her crib and her room with pages from then-modern mathematical texts, under the auspice that since math is a language early exposure will help to eliminate future barriers. Even if she didn't know what they meant, she would be comfortable with the symbols. Blocked from school in Russia, she went to school in Northern Europe and became (if memory serves) the first female to be appointed professor in Europe. - While I don't want to set a path for my kids, I want them to be unafraid of math, unlike myself. It is much harder to learn as an adult, the incoming high-school kids learn about 1/3 faster than I do. The one advantage I have is that I can pretty rapidly see how each result fits into the big picture, even while only partially understanding it. - Not that I think that grad committees look at it, but my knowledge of myself is certainly my greatest asset.

I can tell you by personal experience that I am aware of free will and can even tell you when my free will seems to be abrogated. (Such as right now when I should be studying for my GRE Wednesday. I don't want to write this, but feel compelled to do so.) 
> 
> I wish I had the philosophic background to really discuss this with you. All I can see is that we differ by kind not degree and I can't be talked out of that.And I am positive my free will is absolutely free.
> - As for the free will issue, there was that idea I threw out from N that you said you liked... let me get the exact quote, I think you'll like it. It's one of the rare cases that N is direct in argumentation. - "With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact, which these superstitious minds hate to concede--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks; but that this "it" is precisely the famous old "ego" is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "it thinks,"--even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: "Thinking is an activity,; every activity requires an agent; consequently--" - This really is an attack both on materialism *and* immaterialism. Materialism for its assertion that nothing is immaterial, immaterialism for asserting that binary logic can apply to the immaterial. (It was N, that struck me off the materialist path, actually.) - EDIT:
Sorry, let myself get off track. It is this passage that challenges free will as we commonly know it. We don't know what free will is, but we know we have it. We cannot however, really study it. All we can do is assert it--its another "immaterial agent." - 
> But more importantly, best of luck on the GRE. I know you will do well. You come across as very bright. I took either the first or second MCAT, and on the side the GRE, in case (1949). I went to med school so there was no in case, but I remember what the tests were like. I don't know how you study for them, they are so diffuse. I didn't.
> 
> I have a story about grade creep. I rarely got straight A's. My Ph.D. daughter never got anything but A's. Her GRE result and mine were identical! - My grades are awesome. I tend to be awful at standardized tests, however. Part of the reason I chose Information Systems is that I'm a project-based learner, I rarely do well on traditional exams. Not an anxiety thing, just... I'm just not good at them. Didn't used to be that way, but I've got to accept the current reality. - Technically I need a 700 on the quant in order to be accepted, underestimating the difficulty as it is I'm averaging 620 or so according to the practice exams. However my GPA is high enough that I was told if I "got in the ballpark" I'd be fine. What exactly that ballpark is, remains to be seen, heh. - EDITED

I can tell you by personal experience that I am aware of free will and can even tell you when my free will seems to be abrogated. (Such as right now when I should be studying for my GRE Wednesday. I don't want to write this, but feel compelled to do so.) - I wish I had the philosophic background to really discuss this with you. All I can see is that we differ by kind not degree and I can't be talked out of that.And I am positive my free will is absolutely free. - But more importantly, best of luck on the GRE. I know you will do well. You come across as very bright. I took either the first or second MCAT, and on the side the GRE, in case (1949). I went to med school so there was no in case, but I remember what the tests were like. I don't know how you study for them, they are so diffuse. I didn't. - I have a story about grade creep. I rarely got straight A's. My Ph.D. daughter never got anything but A's. Her GRE result and mine were identical!

Well, either way Adler's book is a good read. I've learned quite a bit, some commentary on chapters 12 and 13 are forthcoming. 12 raises quite a few issues, 13 so far, has been the big eye-opener in terms of the metaphysics of knowledge. The immateriality of human thought is flayed out for you to see. - The H. sapiens enormous brain appeared during ice ages. That brain and its abilities, in one sense, is what Adler's book is about. Authors have discussed ice age/ brain development relationships for many years. See The River That Flows Uphill by Wm. Calvin, as an example. He thought about stress under those conditions. The following article looks at heat and brain metabolilsm as a factor. Please note some of the ancient higher Earth temperatures also mentioned in the article: - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.000-did-an-ice-age-boost-human-brain-siz...

The thrust of the argument that lead me to read this book was the supposition that the primitive apes do not have the rudiments to allow us to make generalizations from them to us. You stated a dislike for comparing those societies to ours based on the distinction that we differ in kind.
> 
> I don't think I conferred the meaning you have given in the above paragraph. We can make some generalizations from them to us. What I was pointing out is the mental gap is huge. And as for studying their societal mechanisms, of course we should. Evolutionary psychology is in some disrepute in certain quarters nows, for too many just-so stories lacking any semblance of sound research, but we can learn from them some of the earlier societal mechanisms hominids might have used. 
> - Well, either way Adler's book is a good read. I've learned quite a bit, some commentary on chapters 12 and 13 are forthcoming. 12 raises quite a few issues, 13 so far, has been the big eye-opener in terms of the metaphysics of knowledge. The immateriality of human thought is flayed out for you to see. - > 
> > My argument was that humans under extreme stress don't act like humans. They act the beast. And it is in this context that I feel studying ape societies can give us some insights on that behavior. 
> 
> I agree. 
> 
> > In fact, in most cases we are limited to studying animals because of ethics boards.
> 
> In medicine we have to try drugs on lower animals and have later trials on humans also, but the drug trials are never as good as release of the drug, for then, unfortunately, is when the weird side-effects show up. Like Murphy's Law.
> 
> By the way, another study on human brain plasticity:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720202549.htm

The thrust of the argument that lead me to read this book was the supposition that the primitive apes do not have the rudiments to allow us to make generalizations from them to us. You stated a dislike for comparing those societies to ours based on the distinction that we differ in kind. - I don't think I conferred the meaning you have given in the above paragraph. We can make some generalizations from them to us. What I was pointing out is the mental gap is huge. And as for studying their societal mechanisms, of course we should. Evolutionary psychology is in some disrepute in certain quarters nows, for too many just-so stories lacking any semblance of sound research, but we can learn from them some of the earlier societal mechanisms hominids might have used. 
 
 
> My argument was that humans under extreme stress don't act like humans. They act the beast. And it is in this context that I feel studying ape societies can give us some insights on that behavior. - I agree. - > In fact, in most cases we are limited to studying animals because of ethics boards. - In medicine we have to try drugs on lower animals and have later trials on humans also, but the drug trials are never as good as release of the drug, for then, unfortunately, is when the weird side-effects show up. Like Murphy's Law. - By the way, another study on human brain plasticity: - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720202549.htm