There was nothing wrong with my first post to bondserv that I see even now. Your objection remains confused, incomprehensible, and apparently off-point.
No, it never was confused, nor incomprehensible, nor even yet off-point.
I was originally responding to a subset of your remarks in post 4, " The variations can be random. That's OK. What doesn't work dies. The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat."
So much for off-point. I noted that your remark in and of itself was oversimplyfying matters regarding brain development. This was in post 13. I then segued into a questions regarding the mechanism of the development.
As far as incomprehensible, I'm not sure that's true. Coyoteman in posts 96-97 responded to my questions, more or less on-topic, without calling them incomprehensible or off-topic. Are you really saying that it is incomprehensible, or off-topic, to ask for details of a specific mechanism for the increased complexity of the human brain as opposed to non-human primates? And my remarks were not creationist troll-baiting, either. I explicitly said that if no-one happened to have a detailed mechanism yet, that's cool. See the paragraph in my post 94 beginning with "If, OTOH, we just have the skulls ..."
Or are you basing your statements on a comparison of ALL of my posts merely to your post #4? I generally try to excerpt the relevant portion of the post I reply to, in order to prevent just such confusions.
Willing to continue discussion, but declining any apparent invitation to a flamewar.
Cheers!