Bones of Contentions.

Possible but not that likely:http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-doc...

Apologies - this is rather long - but it should be worth the time. So how many physical connections and how much code do you suppose were necessary for errors in DNA replication and natural selection to design the human brain from a critter brain, RAZD?Did this human brain design happen all at once or was it a slow gradual process as the text above indicates?If it were a slow gradual process, how on Earth would natural selection only propagate all the millions (probably orders of magnitude higher) small relatively insignificant brain mutations and - with each mutation - cut off the genetic viability all the other allegedly healthy non-mutated contemporary hominid creatures?Shucks, all those hominid folks were doing just fine until one gets a brain mutation - and then (poof!) all others manage to eventually eliminate themselves from the gene pool? And this same scenario supposedly happened over how many Mega individual beneficial brain mutations?So you believe that intelligence is not a necessary criteria for hominid survival. Yet only those with allegedly gradual increases in mutated brain size survived? Any logic there? Do you wander about mechanisms or do you merely accept it as fact without question? Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Please indicate if you desagree with any of these statements and indicate precisely what your disagreement is. Don't just say "nope" or "wrong". Be specific please.1) Supposedly even a slight beneficial mutation in brain connections and size in an individual was selected over and over and over.2) Every other individual hominid without the mutation of the day always eventually died off — their lineage never to be seen again.3) But most of the other pure non-hominid primates survived.4) Intelligence is not necessary for human speciation. Is that correct?Do you see some evident logical contradictions in the sequence above? And again, all other individuals among the entire population without the alleged mutations - which had all survived just fine up to that point — were mysteriously identified by natural selection and systematically eliminated from the gene pool. Right?And that is why we have no direct evidence of human evolution among the living today...?!? I see. And this exclusive systematically gradual progression of beneficial "mistakes in DNA replication" and individual selection (with complete eventual eradication of all non-mutated individuals) from critters toward modern humans went through how many estimated cycles? Would you estimate at least a thousand? I would say many orders of magnitude higher to achieve what neoroscientists indicate is possibly trillions of additions in brain circuitry and genetic code. I'm sorry but the heavier bird beaks in dry climates is not an example of "error in DNA replication". This is the same fallacy evolutionists still teach as evidence of Darwinian evolution using the famous peppered moth.Those moths that were fortunate enough to "inherit" darker colors from pre-existing DNA code were more likely to survive - No Mutations required or present!!!Think about it carefully RAZD.Let me give you another example:
Let's suppose the mass of people in a certain North African country, Libya for example, had 0.1% of the population with blue eyes.
Let's further suppose that Hitler invaded the country and the Nazis reigned for ten generations. Hitler decides that all people without blue eyes are sub-human and has them exterminated. What will the population look like after ten generations?Blue eyes!Was the subsequent predominantly blue eyed population due to errors in DNA replication? *Of course not!!!! It is shameful that such errors are dogmatically paraded as science.Back to alleged mutated "Big Headed" hominids. Would you not expect to find any evidence of these supposed Mega beneficial brain mutation processes occurring today within the population of seven billion people?
Absolutely no evidence of these marvelous beneficial individual brain mutations among humans today? Again, don’t forget the requisite unlikely systematic eradication of all healthy non-mutated individual lineages. If this is not a requirement for the theory, then our human gene pool would not be homogenious and we would have direct evidence today. No? Minor variations — millions (trillions) of them to produce human beings — all added together and somehow exclusively selected with no evidence of the process occurring in the human population today?According to NosyNed and others, humans are all one big homogenous group with no important distinguishable differences.
I believe that is true and I believe it tends to refute the theory of ongoing beneficial mutations.So many of those beneficial mutations required to produce humans from critters but all those amazing mutations have stopped and are somehow not working today? I agree, the concept is cumbersome to the point of losing credibility. We should reasonably expect a very smooth transition to be evident and ongoing among at least some distinct groups of mammals today — if it were a valid mechanism.Not enough time to observe the process is a losing argument among all the species we see today. There are simply no clear transitional examples among all living mammals for us to actually directly view the process of random beneficial mutations and natural selection. No living evidence today. All we see today is superficial genetic isolation of certain preexisting genetically coded traits such as skin color — no random beneficial errors in DNA replication among humans or mammals in general. Yet the concept clearly has been used in a racial manner via selection by people. Why do you think the Nazis were measuring all those facial features? Of course it is wrong but it stemmed from the idea of a master race. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not. The gallery will judge the validity of that statement. You may have a hard time convincing families of dead people how the historical application of the Darwinian theory is a strawman. Now you could argue that the practitioners were not evolutionary scientists but this would be a hard sell.Eugenics is basically human intervention to improve the human gene pool — (weed out those inferior human genetics that natural selection has not already eliminated). The systematic application of the Darwinian theory began almost immediately after it was first advanced. Note that this particular study and practice did not begin until Darwin’s theory - origin of species.Mankind can be particularly brutal and will use any philosophy to justify it - obviously including both evolution and religion.So I don't "fault" Darwinian theory necessarily - I fault the men who use it to justify murder and atrocious behavior such as racism. The theory has obviously been used and abused by people who may even have had good intentions (in their mind). In that respect, it is no better or worse than "religious racism".
But for this thread, we’re discussing the implications and applications of Darwinian views. (1) Lubenow evidently has a Master of Science degree in Anthropology from Eastern Michigan University.Was Darwin more highly educated or qualified than Lubenow?
The answer is clearly "no".(2) "A book is not a peer reviewed science paper."
RAZD, which book are you thinking of - "Origin of Species", or "Bones of Contention"?
Evidently, neither was peer reviewed.
So what is the relative significance?I wander if the study and practice of eugenics was/is peer reviewed?
Current evolutionary scientist John Sulston is an advocate today: "I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world".Also RAZD, are you aware of any scientific advances that have been made outside of the peer review process? Really? Would that include Origin of Species? I agree that peer review is generally good practice but it has inherent potential conflicts and has suffered many black eyes. The gallery can determine the validity of your claim.* - edited to read as is.Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" Hominids!This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-04-2005 12:31 AM

If you read posts from several evolutionists on this very thread, you will see agreement. If you pick up any text book on human evolution you will find the theory that larger brains and higher intelligence is at least partly responsible for the supposed Darwinian transition from critter to man. Posturing doesn’t add credibility to a lack of evidence.Run away? Ignore is the correct term. Your questions are terribly off topic and add nothing to the issues at hand.
Please note the title at the top of this page Jar. It is Bones of Contention. It deals specifically with human evolution and I have been requesting evidence of the intelligence relative to larger brain concept.Regrettably, it is typical for someone in a debate, when they do not have answers, to try to divert the subject matter and then begin posturing. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to deal with posts that are irrelevant. They dilute the focus of the discussion. You’re asking me? As a former evolutionist who ate up all the artistic renditions and fancy hominid names - there is no real evidence that humans evolved from critters.Since I reject the theory of critters experiencing trillions of beneficial errors in DNA replication and randomly generating new code for selection to act upon and produce the relatively homogenous DNA code of modern Human Beings, I would not agree with an assumed cause leading to a false conclusion.However, I’ll play nicely relative to the topic in this thread if you will answer this question for me: If you have heartburn believing randomly mutated brain size and allegedly related intelligence were the predominant trait supposedly favored by Darwinian natural selection to produce mankind from critters — to what favored selective trait do you say we owe our intellectual existence???Now back to your question. I agree with the theoretical supposition of most evolutionists that slowly mutating brains and natural selection for the trait of supposedly higher intelligence would be the most likely scenario in the context of Darwinian theory for critters to slowly become human — if it were realistically possible. By the way, you are repeatedly misspelling intelligent. Not trying to be picky but thought you might want to know.Again, the topic is Bones of Contention relative to human evolutionary theory, brains, and intelligence.
Plants, viruses, and bacteria have neither bones nor brains. Please stay on topic.I will repeat my questions here for your thoughtful consideration Jar:Question 1: If critter to man evolution were true, then the successive and subtle multiple beneficial brain mutations would occur to many different individuals within a direct lineage as defined by neo-Darwinism, and the lineage of every single contemporary critter without each subtle mutation would have to be snuffed out. That is the only way we would ever have a genetically homogeneous population today with a Mitochondrial Eve whose lineage did not inherit DNA from the contemporary un-mutated brain hominids.In other words, assuming millions of beneficial brain mutations were possible, a population bottleneck would be required simultaneous to every successive mutation to exclude the old brain design from the future population gene pool. Does that seem likely to you? Is there any evidence? How do you respond Jar?Question 2: If the Mega Mutated Brain scenario was actually responsible for all the supposed incremental transitions (among relatively small populations) from critter to man, why is there no evidence today of any such beneficial brain mutations among the seven billion or so people? Everyone here seems to agree that no diverse human population today has a jump on intelligence relative to other groups. Did the amazing beneficial mutated brain process suddenly just cease?You will likely respond — but there is not enough time for a divergent group to mutate, even among billions of people.Yet this beneficial mutate-bottleneck-mutate-bottleneck-(on and on) process has supposedly occurred in the neo-Darwinian theory of human evolution at a somewhat continuous rate among relatively small hominid populations until recently (at least Mitochondrial Eve).The not enough time answer is a good dodge attempt but it doesn’t hold water with me regarding expected evidence for the theory.Do you have any other explanations for a lack of evidence Jar?Analytical Regards to Big Headed Hominids!

Evolution can develop a feature by mutation and if it is beneficial it will be continued via survival and reproduction selection success. No mutation can choose to occur in a beneficial direction.They are just different features, some getting different enough to be complex and unusual, but the use of the feature is based on it's pre-existence, rather than the existence of the feature being based on the {usefulness\need} for it.Selecting complex unusual features that have distinctive benefits as evidence of the ability of evolution to generate complex unusual features still misses the point of how the process works. There you go again. The logical fallacy of this comment has already been pointed out. Restating the position does not make it any more correct, nor does it accomplish anything other than to show an unwillingness to learn from your mistakes. You are complaining about not seeing directed mutations when you have already been told that evolution in general and mutations in specific are not directed towards goals.The evidence is that selection has operated on the human birth canal as it has increased in size, based on fossil records. Comparison to other apes also shows a much larger opening than theirs (adjusted for body size).As already pointed out by others, continued development of a larger birth canal involves trade-offs that would reduce the survival capability of the mother.Expecting a given trend to be able to keep on trending also shows a distinct lack of understanding of the package: each feature that is developed involves trade-offs with other features and competition over resources, thus you cannot breed horses that continually run 10% faster than their progenitors. Longer legs? Thinner bones, ones that break when run hard.Any other scheme requires that current evolved features would have to devolve in order to evolve in a different manner (such as a smaller brain at birth, or the marsupial solution). Again this presupposes directed evolution, and it just don't work swing way.Of course humans have used their intelligence to evolve a work-around solution (which is too recent to see if it has opened the gate to further head size increases): the C-section. This also removes all evolutionary pressure from developing larger birth canals, and we may see a reversal of this development to a more "normal" hip anatomically speaking. Again it is too early to tell (as we are comparing decades to millions of years). Another logical fallacy, this one falls under Changing the Subject, specifically the Appeal to Anonymous Authorities. John Ponce appears to be quite fond of this misdirection technique. All it demonstrates is a complete lack of real argument. What he is avoiding is answering the deconstruction of his argument with any kind of substantiation at all. From this we can all easily assume that he has none. Denial does not make evidence go away or change, it just leaves you ignorant of the facts. Show me one (F1E) hominid fossil that is 3 million years old with a brain capacity near that of modern humans (seeing as we seem to be talking about brain capacity). Gosh two fallacious appeals to anonymous authority in one post, a new record? And for the record, pointing out logical fallacies is not an "appeal to intellectual superiority" but pointing out the facts.People of less than average intelligence learn from their mistakes and learn from new information and are fully capable of following logical thought, so it is not "intellectual superiority" that I am appealing to, but minimum average capability and a typical American high school level of education (ie - not much). Another (repeated) unsubstantiated false assertion. All that is required is for elements to be repeated, elements already available. The easiest mutation is one of increasing repetitions. Some people have two to three times as many color receptors in their eyes as other people. Both can see, both can see colors, one sees more vibrant colors and more distinct shades of colors than the other. Increasing brain surface are is no different. It already has. It is just another feature of our intellectual evolution, and we are also the selection process that has resulted in massive increases in capability of the processors.If you mean can one evolve on it's own? Then first you need one that can reproduce and undergo natural selection. But the result would never be an 8088, as ... again ... you are presupposing a directed process. (1) FROM: Themes > Science > Paleontology / Paleozoology > Paleozoology > Fossil Hominids > The Hominid Brain (click)
(2) FROM: Brain size, head size, and intelligence quotient in monozygotic twins. (click)
(3) FROM: Einstein's brain (click)
And finally,(4) FROM: Sizing Up the Brain`(click)
This is from only 4 of the first 6 hits on "brain surface area intelligence" on google, with one of the others being a repeat of (2) above. In other words, the evidence is readily available for those who truly want to discover it.Let me summarize it for you:(1) There is massive fossil evidence of a progressive increase in brain size in hominids, particularly in areas devoted to abstract thought and to speech (abstract representation).(2) When brains that are genetically identical but which have some variation in size, surface area, etc, are compared there is no relationship to IQ. Note that this genetic similarity means that one twin does not have more interconnections than the other even though there are differences in size, surface area, etc. And there are differences between sets of twins, but there is no measure of interconnectedness in the study.(3) Greater interconnectedness, rather than any significant difference in size or surface area distinguishes Einstein's brain from those of other men.(4) The human brain has 3 to 4 times the surface area for interconnections than our closest relative, the chimpanzee (which, btw, some consider to be part of the Homo family, another living hominid).If you need more, I suggest you spend the time to research the topic. No I don't need to "surmise" any criteria, as human evolution is no different than the evolution of any species, where random mutation causes change over time while {survival\sexual} selection filters out those changes that do not survive to breed. No, it is the assumed platform for more mutations and selection to operate from. Given enough time and pressure to select new features this may result in new species. But if the {eco-nitch\environment} is static there would be pressure to select for stasis rather than for change without need. This is why we have "living fossils" - even though they are distinctly different from their ancient ancestors they are also recognizably similar (sharks, alligators, coelacanths, etc). My relative transitional mutated grandfathers and grandmothers, great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, etc, have also died out. It's a sad fact of human life that each person only lasts so long.But their (and our distant relatives) trace is in the gene pool of humans today.We share somewhere between 95% and 98% of the genes with chimpanzees, and the DNA from Neanderthals shows more similarities than that (although they are also a little orthogonal to a direct line between the two, as a branch would be expected to be). All humans share around 99% of their genes What’s left out? Evolutionary theory says that species that don't survive to breed go extinct, and humans are no different than other species.Again you make mistakes based on false premises: we are different, not "advanced" and there is no measure of "success" versus "failure" because the process is not directed or oriented towards goals. Careful, your incredulity is showing. There is no need to quote mutated transitional hominids, as we are all transitional mutated hominids, it is an ongoing process (and please note the logical howler of branches that went extinct being transitional).All this shows is that intelligence is not necessarily a guaranteed benefit for either survival or ability to reproduce, as noted before: You obviously missed this point last time. Let me clarify it: the overwhelming vast majority of all species alive today (to say nothing of all the species that have gone extinct after surviving much longer than humans have so far managed) have significantly less intelligence than a human moron. LOL. What we have here is a complete misunderstanding of the very basic elements of evolution.There is no single "fully mutated" species on the face of the earth. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Null set. Every individual is a transitional stage between {what was} and {what will be}. Now your racism is showing ()... just to make sure that this is still on topic for this thread...Again you are projecting your need for a directed process onto one that isn't. There is no such thing as "sub-human" (unless you think being human is significantly superior, and the jury is still out on that, imho). Failure to survive long enough to breed is all that is needed for any species to go extinct, which includes the overwhelming majority of all the species that have ever lived. Again, why would you expect any difference because hominids were involved? Your repeating yourself and ignoring the evidence, not surprising given your exhibited poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. Let me repeat:Failure to survive long enough to breed is all that is needed for any species to go extinct, which includes the overwhelming majority of all the species that have ever lived.And you do see "a multitude of various living intermediate forms for hundreds of other mammals" -- in fact you see nothing but "a multitude of various living intermediate forms" for all forms of life, human included: it is called individual variation. Another fallacious appeal to anonymous authority: care to try for the tri-vecta? Notice that this is your only answer to the evidence of your logical fallacies being pointed out, and you have again failed to even try to substantiate your position. Most of your argument is either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity, neither of which is valid.I hope you have a good time waving to your fantasy phantom peanut gallery, but I'll take real evidence and plant my feet on a planet that revolves around the sun, thanks.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

"You will be doing yourself a huge favor if you can simply have that idiot banned."Name-calling, labeling, classifying of human beings, with subsequent ad hominem attacks upon them, are the forte of neo-Darwinst taxonomists and evolutionary theorists.

Thanks for responding RAZD. I will give careful consideration to your analysis. You may want to carefully review post 122 as well.My confidence in the judgement of the gallery on the quality of arguments and evidence is just that. Nothing more, nothing less.It seems to create some anxiety.If the quality of your analysis is sound, there is nothing to worry about.Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" Hominids.

"Since one major definition of species is a population in which individuals can normally reproduce successfully H. sapiens is NOT divided up at all."That is correct, but since the whole human race over time is divided up into several different and separate "speces" by neo-Darwinist race theories, only H. sapiens is regarded by them as full and equal members of the human race while H. neandertalis, erectus et al, are regarded as sub-human races or "species" for the sole purpose of identifying and associating them with some non-human species of African apes. Problem is though, that neo-Darwinsts don't know whether Neandertal descendents evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Europe or from H. ergaster in Africa, but still insist that all original African species of humans originated from some unidentified species of non-human African apes."Biologists clearly do not in any way suggest that H. sapiens are compartmentalized at all."That's true. Neo-Darwinst biologists only insist on dividing racial groups up into "species.""In fact, genetic studies have recently been done to argue that there isn't a biological basis for race separation either."Some geneticists also claim that there's no basis for dividing the human race up into "species" either."Your statement above could not be more wrong."It could be more right than your statements."If you wish to argue that all of the genus Homo are one species you need to give detailed reasons for doing so."Without going into details, I'll just refer you to the evolutionist theories of Wolpoff and Thorne who regard H. sapiens and erectus as mere variations of one human species.

"It's your concept that isn't worth discussing. Do you usually make sure that people fully understand that under your view using antibiotics is an act of racist genocide ? "I'm non-plussed by your 'non-sequitor' rebuttal.

"I guess that your imagination missed the fact that racism is discrimination on the basis of race."Mere guessing is the hallmark of amateurs since racism may only be based on one's prior concept and definition of race."However, if you really believe that Europeans and Asians are so awful that Africans should be insulted at the idea that they share a recent common ancestor it is likely that you are racist."Since you offer no universal working defintion of race, I daresay to question your beliefs about what constitutes racism and to utterly reject your ad homimen comments about my being a racist. As a committed supporter of neo-Darwinst theories, you don't deny that the first people to evolve from some non-human species of African apes were Africans, do you?Try to keep the discussion on topic, will you, and refrain from ad hominem attacks in the future. Otherwise, you might run the risk of being branded an evolutionist troll instead of a reasonable observer, judge and commentator of scientific theories.

"Do you have any evidence that the 'aboriginal African people', by which I presume you mean H. erectus, are not thought to be ancestral to all humans."Yeah. Lubenow's documentation in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention.""Perhaps you mean one of the Australopithecines, in which case you still need to show some support for these being peculiarly ancestral to Africans rather than all modern humans."No problem since neo-Darwinists still think that H. habilis or rudolfensis directly 'evolved' from apes in Africa and were ancestral to all subsequent species of African 'people' from whom all modern Europeans, Asians and Americans are 'naturally' descended. It's one thing to think that all men are created equal and quite another to theorize that they racially evolved from different 'species' of African apes."Exactly which currently extant group of people are you claiming is being classified as sub-human by evolutionary biology?"Neo-Darwinist racial theorists sub-humanize the whole human race by associating, classifying and identifying our very human ancestors with and as, a non-human form or 'species' of African apes.

"All extant populations of humans evolved from a common ancestral group in Africa. Indigenous populations in Africa are as genetically different from the common ancestral group of humans as indigenous groups in Asia, Europe or Australia. None the ancestral group now exist, they have morphed into Australian aborigines or asiatics or Bantu or Hottentots or Europeans or any "race" one nominates."Sounds like another neo-Darwinist racist theory to me since you left out common H. neandertalis descendents.

"In other words the multi-regional model favoured by Lubenow is more congenial to racism than the out-of-Africa model he calls racist. (The more so since much racism is directed against people of recent African descent - any hypothesis which minimises the African contribution to the modern gene pool is likely to be favoured by racists who discriminate against "blacks")."Obviously, you haven't read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" and are simply projecting and attributing latent neo-Darwinist racial theories onto Lubenow.

As evidence goes this is weak, why not quote some of the evidence, or provide the references Lubenow uses to support his claims? Unless you are just trying to drum up sales for Lubenow simply suggesting everyone read his book is a poor way to debate. You wanted to discuss his ideas, why aren't you prepared to provide the evidence neccessary to do so? But you and Lubenow are the only ones doing that. No one else thinks that different 'species' of African ape were involved for different modern populations, we are all thought to have evolved from the same species of African apes. How human is "very human", are you claiming that H. neaderthalensis and H. habilis are indistinguishable from H. sapiens? That is going to require some pretty solid evidence to substantiate it. Why not exactly go into the details of which "African apes" you think modern evolutionary theories are ignoring the descent from for modern populations of humans.*ABE* Your very last point totally fails to answer the question I asked, in fact it seems to admit that the only 'racism' present is to populations which you claim are human but which are generally thought of as extinct related species. So in fact there is no current target for the supposed racism, this isn't a basis for racism against Africans, Chinese, Ameircan indians or any other modern day population. In fact, as has been suggested, your own theory provides a much greater gap between the many modern populations in terms of ancestry, given the clear differences between the disputed populations, and therefore seems more conducive to racist interpretations.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-04-2005 05:29 AMThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-04-2005 05:30 AM

I'm trying following this debate but failing. I've yet to see you show any evidence that ToE qualifies superiority of anything but the fitness of a population to survive and breed through the changing environment.In this regard, bacteria and insects prove to be far superior to humans of any 'race' or species. Homo Sapiens are considered superior to other Homos purely in the quantifiable and self-evident sense that Homo sapiens survived, and the other ones didn't. We are not more superior than pigs evolutionarily speaking, until one of us becomes extinct or endangered.It may be the case that one race has genes more adapted to surviving whatever climate change is upcoming than any other. However, we do not know which race that is, until such time as one race is extinct or near extinct. Whilst one can, at a push, describe this as racism (the belief that one race is superior to another), but it is unnecesarily emotive use of language, and is not conducive to clear communication. So in that, the language usage fails.In this case, evolutionary racism, is quantifiable and not arbitrary, it also does not cause humans to treat others poorly or violently, and does not involve prejudice or discrimination in our social affairs. And that is where the word racism really applies, to our social interactions, not to the interactions of an impersonal phenomenon we have identified. A dictionary definition might let you wangle the point, but if you pick up a book on racism, you'll find that racism means a lot more than the one or two sentence definitions the lexicographers are often limited to.If the African race was dying out, due to climate change, would an evolutionist treat an African differently than a white man? If so, the evolutionist is racist, not the theory which he accepts as the best theory to describe the diversity of life.In closing, like the Hitler used artificial selection and genocide so evolution must be wrong, is another demonstration of creationist propaganda. Instead of being able to refute the theory of evolution, instead they turn to the tried and tested method of defining and portraying evolution in such a horrifying way that any sane person that falls for it would not want to associate themselves with evolution. Instead of winning converts by cogent scientific objections, they use rhetoric and smear tactics.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 04-August-2005 11:52 AM

Sounds like some ignorant creationist pulp. There is no strong evidence that Neanderthals left any descendents. They were a separate species and the strong indications are that there is no Neanderthal genetic material in Homo sapiens sapins genome.