Re: * makes hubey

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "A Challenge for Hubey's DE's..."
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: * makes hubey"

>n8010095@cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
>>4) A test of Hubey's large-brain-is pre-determined hypothesis:
>> The Plant Kingdom is at least as old as the Animal Kingdom (perhaps even
>>older by some phylogenist's reckonings). There is not a single plant with a
>>centralized "data processing" area. If intelligence is inevitable, why did
>>the Plant Kingdom get the short end of the stick?

hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H.M. Hubey) responded:
>That's why they are dead-ends of evolution. They stayed where they
>were, the animal kingdom moved on.

If what you say is true (and I don't believe the Plant Kingdom is a dead-end
Kingdom), then:
Doesn't that mean that acquisition of intelligence is *not*
inevitable? I think you had better give your pet "theories" another going
over, this time with a finer-toothed comb. Either throw out your concept of
evolutionary dead-ends, or throw out the intelligence-is-inevitable part.
<pb>

• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "A Challenge for Hubey's DE's..."
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: * makes hubey"