Again, what was totally ignored/omitted will be in RED.
OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.
I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas.
It depends. Relevance?
The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans.
Only partly true. The brain loses plasticity (not elasticity - that means to stretch) with age. This is why younger people with brain trauma can adapt more readily than older folks.
There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision.
Please tell me what part you think this structure is and I can tell you whether or not you've made another blunder. The superior colliculi of the midbrain tectum do play a role in visual reflexes, but that is not really "seeing".
Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.
We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain.
No, we don't. Let me remind you - I have taken graduate level neuroscience and have taught neuroanatomy, so your mere say so on these matters will not work on me. The term midbrain has a very specific meaning in neuroanatomy, I suspect that you do not know this. Like you did not know where Broca's area is, or how to spell it.
So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?
Why do you think your uninformed assertions, dreamed up out of nowhere, have merit?
The area is called Broca's area because, as you should know, Broca found multiple cases in which people with trauma to the inferior frontal gyrus lost their ability to speak. That was indicated in the link I provided for you which you did not read yet pretended to have.
What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?
My evidence that you are wrong is:
1. You have presented no evidence you are
right. Merely asserting these counterfactual notions about floating secondary speech centers does not indicate they are real, much less demonstrate this.
2, You seem to have rather naive understanding of brain anatomy. I recognize nothing you have claimed so far as having merit, and in double-checking your claims I found that I was correct - there is nothing in the midbrain that allows one to "see", and there is no unfixed second speech center. Like most of your unsupported assertions, you appear to have just made this up because it fits your fantasy life.
The logic is that merely making a counterfactual claim does not mean it is correct. Quite the opposite, especially when you never present any supporting documentation.
Here is a diagram of a section through the human midbrain:
None of the indicated structures have anything to do with speech.
Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.
If it were shown tall people can do boolean geometry with their little toes would this seem only natural to you?
Irrelevant.
Show me a second motor speech area, and show me the evidence that Broca's area (and please spell it correctly for once) can be scattered all over the place, and not just somewhere on the inferior frontal gyrus.
Do you dispute that we can only see what we believe?
Yes. Well, in terms of sensible people. I do know that people like you only see what you believe.
Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.
You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.
Since you refuse to address my actual arguments or demonstrate you understand them it is impossible for me to even debate you. I'll avoid trying going forward.
Cool cop out - it is not that I do not understand your arguments - I DO understand them, I just know that they are wrong. You refuse to consider that , for some odd reason.
Show me this second motor speech area.
Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."
Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.
Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."
Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."
Define "peer" as in 'peer review".
Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.
Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.
Did you even read the link you supplied for me that you purported proved your opinion?
My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.
But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
Did you miss this; " describe in detail how the gross anatomy of Broca's area varies between people,"?
Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?
I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:
Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.
Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.
Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.
DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?
Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.
varies between individuals it is logical to assume we are born without it.
LOL!
OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.
No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.
I am saying flat out I have discovered the fundamental difference is all other life speaks a metaphysical (or for gnostic, "empiricism and methodological naturalism") language just as humans did until 4000 years ago.
You've discovered nothing.
If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.
In all seriousness, get the help you need.
