Comment on Evolutionary psychology: evolving three eyed monsters

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 02:23:21 GMT

Big rearrangements at a single step leave you with disabled individuals. That's how we didn't evolve the third eye, too.

It is certainly possible to evolve a third eye on back of the head, but that takes several steps going in different direction, a very huge number of generations, and it most certainly is extremely unlikely in such brief timeframe.

One shouldn't invoke that sort of change unless one first demonstrates that this extremely unlikely path is positively the most likely way in which nested syntax can arise. They didn't demonstrate so; they just have very strong prejudice; that's what rationalizations are.

The neuroplasticity being what it is, it appears we don't need conjunctions of multiple highly unlikely events such as this as explanation for the nested syntax.

Discuss