Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: darwinism
Message-ID: <512@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 16:20:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.512
Posted: Mon Jun 17 16:20:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 15:17:19 EDT
References: <783@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: net.origins
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 22

In article <783@oddjob.UUCP> sandip@oddjob.UUCP (Sandip Chakra) writes:
>For some days the following question is bothering me. If the evolution
>theory is right, then why the human brain evolved to about six times
>as that of an orung-otung and yet human uses only about 5 percent of the
>brain cells? If the other cells were not needed then why produce them? Does
>any of you have an answer? I thought that may be since brain cells
>do not multiply nature has provided us enough at a time to protect against
>all the odd kinds of injuries. How many of you buy this argument?

	This is based on a miscomception. We *do* use *all*(or nearly
all) of our brain cells. The old statement you are thinking of is the
(possibly incorrect) statement that we only use 5% of our brain for
*conscious* thought, the rest is used for "subconscious" thought. Sort
of like a bunch of pre-processors or filters in fromt of a complex DB
system. Please move further responses to this to net.origins where it
belongs.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen