Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 240 (226643)
07-27-2005 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by jcrawford
07-26-2005 11:42 PM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
That the definitions are relevant to "race" does not mean that they are relevant to "racism" as it is usually understood.
Should adverts for yoghurt drinks containing "good" bacteria be considered racist since they elevate one strain of microorganisms over others ?
I would say that that is absurd. "Racism" as it is commonly understood deals with divisions within the modern human species - divisions which are more social than biological. Even the distinction between Neanderthals and modern humans has a more solid biological basis. So any extension of the concept of "racism" to extinct hominid species (or sub-species) needs to establish that it is a valid extension of the current usage of "racism".not to redefine "racism" based on a dictionary definition of race.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jcrawford, posted 07-26-2005 11:42 PM jcrawford has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 2:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 240 (226684)
07-27-2005 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by John Ponce
07-27-2005 12:18 AM


Re: Brain Size...
I believe that intellegence was certainly one of the factors in the survival of the critters that became hSs. I believe that one of the indicators that can be used to distinguish between homo sapiens and earlier primates in the line is relative brain size.
But...
I don't believe that intellegence or brain size has anything to do with either the TOE or evolution. Lot's of critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain at all.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John Ponce, posted 07-27-2005 12:18 AM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 1:12 AM jar has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 48 of 240 (226745)
07-27-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jcrawford
07-27-2005 12:50 AM


Re: A definition of racism
Lubenow's thesis leads one to conclude that the division of the whole human race into different and separate species by evolutionists is merely a racist ploy to argue that some primitive African people (Homo ergaster, rudolfensis, erectus or habilis) were direct decendents of some species of African apes.
I take it that you are saying Lubenow's thesis led YOU but not ME to conclude that the attempts at classifying fossils is merely (i.e. only?) motivated by a desire to establish descent and that calling this racism makes it a bad thing comparable to the kinds of political persecutions we've seen in this country (the USA) as well as around the world?
My reading of your posts leads me to conclude you will use whatever emotional rhetoric supports a conclusion you emotionally like and you prefer this kind of rhetorical emotional self soothing to actually thinking about science and evidence. You've not given a satisfactory explanation of Lubenow's theory though I suspect Charles is correct that Lubenow is not qualified.
This is not science at all, it's a rhetorical exercise attempting to smear Darwin and TOE. It's been done before. So? Science is still going on in the labs and in the field. If you have anything of scientific interest, please produce it.
What you've done so far is try to influence by labeling with emotionally laden words like "racism" and "ploy" and shown no evidence that would even make this position scientifically debatable.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jcrawford, posted 07-27-2005 12:50 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 240 (226753)
07-27-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jcrawford
07-27-2005 12:50 AM


Re: A definition of racism
quote:
...The only true test of our common ancestral humanity is biological interfertily and human fossils don't tell us who they reproduced with or didn't.
This isn't quite true. Interfertility isn't necessarily a way to define "species". It doesn't work for species that reproduce asexually, for example, and it begins to break down with ring species. And, as you point out, it is problematic how to assign various fossils to particular species since we cannot test interfertility.
The problem is that "species" are an attempt to categorize, and the boundaries of categories are always arbitrary. Nature rarely has distinct, cut and dried boundaries. I really don't see what the problem is. Whether we have distinct species, Homo erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. rudolfensis, H. floriensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens, or whether we lump them altogether in the same species is largely irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jcrawford, posted 07-27-2005 12:50 AM jcrawford has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 07-27-2005 12:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 73 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 2:45 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 50 of 240 (226767)
07-27-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Chiroptera
07-27-2005 12:11 PM


lumpers and splitters!
whether we lump them altogether in the same species is largely irrelevant.
Oh NO! Say it's not true! Lumpers vs. splitters is the very soul of academic debate and now you say it's irrelevant?! Aren't careers made and broken over these crucials distinctions? ***shudders***
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 07-27-2005 12:11 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 2:54 AM lfen has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 240 (226773)
07-27-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jcrawford
07-27-2005 12:50 AM


No evidence
...evolutionists merely assume and postulate that Neandertal and Homo erectus types were a different 'species' and not equal biological members of the one and only human race.
That isn't strictly true, advances in the recovery of ancient DNA have allowed the identification of some neanderthal genetic sequences which do provide some evidence to allow us to estimate the extent of interbreeding between H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis populations
(Currat and Excoffier, 2004).
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-27-2005 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jcrawford, posted 07-27-2005 12:50 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 240 (226926)
07-28-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
07-27-2005 7:50 AM


Re: Brain Size...
I am having difficulty following your logic Jar. I'll work through it and you can point out any errors or misunderstanding I may have made.
Jar writes:
I believe that intellegence was certainly one of the factors in the SURVIVAL of the critters that became homo Sapiens sapiens.
(Capital emphasis mine.)
OK. So you believe intelligence (as correlated by relatively big heads) is one of the factors in the survival of our alleged great great grandcritters. I would interpret this to mean that intelligence has SOMETHING to do with evolution. This is also consistent with what we are generally taught in school about Darwinian evolutionary theory, is it not?
The definition of Darwinian evolution is (Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com): The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
The definition of Natural Selection (same source): The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to SURVIVE and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. (Capital emphasis mine.)
Jar writes:
I believe that one of the indicators that can be used to distinguish between homo sapiens and earlier primates in the line is relative brain size.
But...
Following you’re initial statement of belief, you seem to agree with Arach that intelligence correlates with "relative brain size".
Jar writes:
But
I don't believe that intellegence or brain size has anything to do with either the TOE or evolution. Lot's of critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain at all.
NOTHING to do with evolution? This is where you seem to be arguing from two different planets. EITHER intelligence was one of the factors in the survival of our great great grandcritters OR intelligence didn’t have anything to do with survival.
Do you see where your logic here is not sound?
Jar writes:
Lot's of critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain at all.
So if Lots of critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain at all, how does it follow that All critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain (or without relatively bigger heads) at all?
Lots of cars are red so all cars are red?
You asked if I even have a clue.
I do.
I jumped in this discussion by illustrating what I believe to be absurdity with absurdity. The responses have piled on more logical absurdity. I would encourage you to think through your beliefs with a more sound logical approach regarding evidence. I formerly believed the same Darwinian evolutionary tenets as you - until I started to question things more thoroughly with respect to actual evidence. Either relatively larger brains were a factor in alleged human evolution or they were not. If not, there must have been some other unidentified selection criteria for our alleged speciation.
So, in summary, if you believe as you stated, that intelligence or relative brain size has distinguished Homo Sapiens from earlier primates (presumably through mutation and SURVIVAL of the fittest via natural selection), then we should be able to distinguish at least a slightly higher intelligence level among relatively big headed people today among a large current sample size of homo-critter descendents — if there were any evidence. A negative outcome would tend to refute this commonly embraced belief of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Do you have any evidence? I suppose one could refer to the entertaining depictions of space aliens we supposedly captured after a UFO crashed in Area 51 with proportionally very big heads? But let’s not confuse science with science fiction.
And, on the other logical planet, if you don't believe that intellegence (sic) or brain size has anything to do with either the TOE or evolution, then what mutational criteria do you propose that natural selection used to distinguish and propagate us human beings from our alleged great great grandcritters? Assuming you were able to propose some other distinguishable mutational feature, what evidence do you have for such a proposal?
If this relatively big head evolutionary principle of human evolution is supported by any evidence, we could have widespread application today. In addition to aborting Downs Syndrome children, we could abort children with relatively small heads — maybe call it Pin Head Syndrome. This could minimize the negative impact on the mother’s mental health from having an evolutionary inferior (less intelligent) child. Of course this is absurd but it is a logical path from common human evolutionary principle as described by Arachnophelia.
Analytical Regards to relatively Big Headed Critters!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 07-27-2005 7:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 8:56 AM John Ponce has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 240 (226984)
07-28-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John Ponce
07-28-2005 1:12 AM


Re: Brain Size...
I don't think you will find any place in my post where I equate intellegence with relative brain size. Sorry but you'll have to point that out. I did say that relative brain size is one method that can be used to distinguish species in the human ancestral lineage.
Frankly, I would imagine that the first person who learned to chip flint to make a cutting edge was likely as intellegent as the average person today. Certainly the person who first made bread was a genius.
While intellegence, adaptability has been a hallmark in the evolution of man, it is not necessary to Evolution. Virus evolve. Are they intellegent?
Thus, intellegence is not a factor in evolution. Survival is. Evolution is history, it's the story of what worked.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 1:12 AM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 11:20 PM jar has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 54 of 240 (227053)
07-28-2005 11:07 AM


I am perplexed
The prevailing theory of of human evolution has all of the races evolving from a common ancestor in direct line. There is no suggestion of one race being more "highly evolved" than another. The races all belong to the same species, there is more genetic variation within races than between races for characters associated with 'IQ", so where is the racism? Further, the fact that human evolutionary theory does not accept Biblical genealogy proves nothing - how is this racism? Once again the creationists are resorting to any tactics to win the day. This is profoundly unChristian. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 11:51 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 75 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 3:01 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 240 (227213)
07-28-2005 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
07-28-2005 8:56 AM


Re: Brain Size...
Jar writes:
I don't think you will find any place in my post where I equate intellegence with relative brain size. Sorry but you'll have to point that out. I did say that relative brain size is one method that can be used to distinguish species in the human ancestral lineage.
It was Arachnaphelia in post 6 that landed me in this discussion. Here is the quote:
Arachnaphelia in Post 6 writes:
what h. sapiens had that made it more effective was sort of an evolutionary short-cut. cheating so to speak. it had a larger brain. that meant that it did not have to out evolve the more highly-adapted neandertals. it just had to do things a little smarter.
Natural selection supposedly propagates those billions (trillions) of allegedly beneficial random mutations that enhance survival and reproductive benefits to eventually produce human beings. If larger brains can be used to distinguish species, the trait must have some benefit in the process of natural selection. No?
You seem to say you do not equate intelligence with brain size - so what is the benefit that supposedly retained the mutated brains in the hominid critter gene pool? Was increased brain size simply a neutral mutation and didn’t add any intelligence? Why do you suppose larger brains would be a selected trait — increased ability to deliver lethal head butts on enemies?
So Jar, please explain it to me in your own words. What do Darwinian evolutionary theorists postulate was the decided selection mechanism for larger hominid brains in the scheme of natural selection?
I humbly suggest you appear to be attempting to ignore the obvious and evade the questions that present particular problems for your beliefs. Maybe I’m reading you wrongly.
Jar writes:
Frankly, I would imagine that the first person who learned to chip flint to make a cutting edge was likely as intellegent as the average person today.
That would be how many million years ago Jar? Why would you imagine that? Is their any evidence? The evidence I’m aware of suggests intelligence on par with us first appeared coincident with the oldest recorded history on Earth - only 5000 years ago (give or take). Wouldn’t you think that evidence at least a little bit odd if reasonably intellignet folks like us have really been bumming around for millions of years?
Jar writes:
Certainly the person who first made bread was a genius.
Agreed! Wander if it was the same genius who first made beer?
Jar writes:
While intellegence, adaptability has been a hallmark in the evolution of man, it is not necessary to Evolution. Virus evolve. Are they intellegent?
Thus, intellegence is not a factor in evolution. Survival is. Evolution is history, it's the story of what worked.
Jar, we are in the Human Origins forum, not viral origins. So I’ll ask the question once again, if you do not accept the common Darwinian premise that intelligence correlated with the supposedly ever increasing mutated brain size of hominids, specifically what predominant mutational traits do you propose worked to propel us through those millions of years alleged evolutionary history?
Analytical Regards,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 8:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 11:46 PM John Ponce has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 240 (227215)
07-28-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by John Ponce
07-28-2005 11:20 PM


Re: Brain Size...
Evolution is a history. It's simply a summary of what happened.
I don't know of anything that suggests that modern humans are more intellegent than earlier primates. Why would that even be a factor?
Natural selection supposedly propagates those billions (trillions) of allegedly beneficial random mutations that enhance survival and reproductive benefits to eventually produce human beings.
Nope. Not really the way it happened.
You seem to say you do not equate intelligence with brain size - so what is the benefit that supposedly retained the mutated brains in the hominid critter gene pool? Was increased brain size simply a neutral mutation and didn’t add any intelligence? Why do you suppose larger brains would be a selected trait — increased ability to deliver lethal head butts on enemies?
I don't have a clue what you're talking about there. Try again using other words and maybe I'll see what you're asking.
I humbly suggest you appear to be attempting to ignore the obvious and evade the questions that present particular problems for your beliefs. Maybe I’m reading you wrongly.
Could be because I don't have a clue what you're talking about either.
That would be how many million years ago Jar? Why would you imagine that? Is their any evidence? The evidence I’m aware of suggests intelligence on par with us first appeared coincident with the oldest recorded history on Earth - only 5000 years ago (give or take). Wouldn’t you think that evidence at least a little bit odd if reasonably intellignet folks like us have really been bumming around for millions of years?
Well, what do you mean by recorded history. The Venus of Willendorf dates to around 20,000 BCE or even earlier. Stone tools dating to 10-12,000 years ago have been found in the Americas.
Why would I think the creator of the Venus of Willendorf was any less intellegent than anyone today?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 11:20 PM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John Ponce, posted 07-29-2005 12:08 AM jar has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 240 (227216)
07-28-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by deerbreh
07-28-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
Greetings Deerbreh,
Evolutionists believe that geographic isolation is a primary mechanism for supposed divergence from one form of life into another form of life via random mutation and natural selection. This is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory, is it not? The supposed acquisition of differing functional traits within isolated gene pools supposedly includes (but is not limited to) both brain size and intelligence according to evolutionary thought. Is this not taught as the driving force that critters supposedly evolved into mankind — slowly acquiring larger brains and higher intelligence? If not, please answer what the differentiating feature is thought to be with respect to evolution from critters to humans.
When I challenge this concept (posts 37, 38, 44, and 52) concerning brain size and inferred intelligence of supposed progressive hominids as asserted by Arachnaphelia (I believe he called it cheating of sorts, folks start back-peddling and contradicting their statements — leaving my fundamental questions concerning potential evidence unanswered.
If the theory of human evolution is true, there should be evidence within the general worldwide population that we can measure today in the supposed continuum of genetic traits within the lineage of human beings. If you think this statement cannot possibly be correct, please explain your logic in detail using evolutionary principles. Of course evidence for disagreement is always welcome.
Deerbreh writes:
The prevailing theory of of human evolution has all of the races evolving from a common ancestor in direct line.
A common ancestor in a direct line. What an incredibly novel idea — yet an age old concept. I presume you are referring to the evolutionary Mitochondrial Eve Arach discussed in Post 6. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Mitochondrial Eve adopted into human evolutionary theory a few years ago after DNA analysis from people all over the world surprisingly pointed to a single common female "Mother of ALL human Beings"?
Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve writes:
A comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of humans from many races and regions suggests that all of these DNA sequences have evolved molecularly from a common ancestor sequence. Under the assumption that an individual inherits mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed Mitochondrial Eve.
In other words, the evidence indicates we have a single genetic source point rather than merging of beneficial mutations from disparate gene pools among tribes and individuals. Wow, she must have been some kind of WOMAN — since ONLY her lineage survived among all the supposed competing hominid type groups and sub-groups!
Deerbreh writes:
There is no suggestion of one race being more "highly evolved" than another.
But isn’t the supposed evolutionary tree continually mutating and branching into differing physical and functional characteristics, thereby resulting in new forms of life — sometimes generating completely new structures and capabilities such as controlled flight, sonar navigation, larger brains and higher intelligence?
Are you a genuine evolutionist? Evolutionists teach that geographic isolation often leads to new branches of life from a common evolutionary limb. Concerning human evolutionary theory with respect to races, you seem to contradict this foundational principle. I understand why this may be. The Darwinian evolutionary philosophy naturally leads to some unpleasant conclusions. Conclusions for which I believe there is no evidence.
Deerbreh writes:
The races all belong to the same species, there is more genetic variation within races than between races for characters associated with 'IQ"
I believe this is true. Do you have any supporting evidence for it? This would seem, to me at least, to be evidence against Darwinian evolutionary theory since it states the human species includes geographically isolated genetic pools branching out from an evolutionary continuum. A continuum with many branches since the time our intellectually challenged great great grand-critters supposedly climbed down out of the trees.
There are differing DNA patterns among geographically separated human lineages. However, it is simply due to genetic isolation of certain traits such as hair color, eye color, facial features — dominant, recessive, etc. We see this all around us, among canines for example. I fully agree we are all equally human. However, Darwinian evolutionary theory postulates that some geographically isolated branches are diverging toward subgroups and eventually new types of organisms. The Darwinian theory infers that some branches are naturally a little higher than others with respect to certain functions and capabilities. No? Please explain if I am misrepresenting the theory at all.
Deerbreh writes:
Once again the creationists are resorting to any tactics to win the day. This is profoundly unChristian. Lying for Jesus is still lying.
Well Good Golly Miss Molly! Bar the doors from those gawdawful liars!
Or as Larry the Cable Guy might exclaim with astonishment: Well I’ll be SumBitch! Heh heh! I don’t care who ye are, that’s funny right there!
There seems to be a pattern here. When the evolutionists cannot (or will not) answer reasonable questions sensibly, there are typically two fallback positions:
1) Proclaim debate opponents to be grossly ignorant as in Do you even have a clue? (Jar Msg 39)
2) Pronounce debate opponents to be plain old liars as in Lying for Jesus is still lying. (Deerbreh Msg 54)
Frankly, I’m disappointed in the level of debate here.
Neither response is a very convincing argument for validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory (or philosophy).
Am I lying Deerbreh? How about we examine the evidence and leave Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, etc, out of it.
Perhaps you could address the questions rather than wasting our time staking out positions of intellectual or moral superiority.
Analytical Regards for Big Headed Hominids

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 07-28-2005 11:07 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2005 12:48 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2005 3:02 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 10:41 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 66 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 12:08 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 7:55 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 240 (227218)
07-29-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
07-28-2005 11:46 PM


Re: Brain Size...
Jar,
Well, that left about 7 or 8 questions unanswered? I will let the lurkers decide whether you really don't understand the questions or you are simply being evasive because you don't have answers.
Jar writes:
Ponce writes:
Natural selection supposedly propagates those billions (trillions) of allegedly beneficial random mutations that enhance survival and reproductive benefits to eventually produce human beings.
Nope. Not really the way it happened.
Well OK... For the benefit of all those in the gallery, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us to the error.
I suspect you know well what I mean by "recorded history". It is not rocks. Will do some checking on the Venus thing - Thanks for the reference.
Analytical Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 11:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 07-29-2005 10:29 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 240 (227225)
07-29-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Ponce
07-28-2005 11:51 PM


The Theory and the Details
I believe this is true. Do you have any supporting evidence for it? This would seem, to me at least, to be evidence against Darwinian evolutionary theory since it states the human species includes geographically isolated genetic pools branching out from an evolutionary continuum. A continuum with many branches since the time our intellectually challenged great great grand-critters supposedly climbed down out of the trees.
There are differing DNA patterns among geographically separated human lineages. However, it is simply due to genetic isolation of certain traits such as hair color, eye color, facial features — dominant, recessive, etc. We see this all around us, among canines for example. I fully agree we are all equally human. However, Darwinian evolutionary theory postulates that some geographically isolated branches are diverging toward subgroups and eventually new types of organisms. The Darwinian theory infers that some branches are naturally a little higher than others with respect to certain functions and capabilities. No? Please explain if I am misrepresenting the theory at all.
Your statement of evolutionary theory is correct. In fact, I think most of the basic statements have been correct. However, you then attempting to draw conclusions which are not well founded.
H. sapiens spread from a relatively small population about 60k years ago. Geographic separatation, accidents of founder populations and the local selective pressures have in that short time produced local populations with general tendancies to some traits. (e.g., skin color, lung capacity etc.)
However, there hasn't been anything like enough time to move anywhere down the path of speciation between these populations. In addition, the local advantages don't allow any sensible classification of one group being 'better' than any other.
When the genetic variations of these groups are compared we find that some groups have much more variation than others. We also find that the amount of variation within any geographically "isolated" group (remember they haven't been separated very long) is not all that great but still greater than the spread of variation that can be allocated between the different groups.
In other words; we appear to have developed from a small group (1,000's of individuals) that was living only some 10,000's of years ago. This group carried some degree of genetic variation.
Smaller groups migrated from this and while doing so acquired some genetic differences. At the same time, because they were a subpopulation they carred less total variation than the population they split from.
In some locations, by accident of small populations and/or selective advantages, the populations have some recognizable characteristics. (stocky body, tall thin body, eye folds etc.)
If these populations were left and isolated then there is every expecation that they would speciate. However, they have not been separated any where near long enough.
There is not hint that any of the populations is clearly 'better' than any other except for a few characteristics that are advanages in the local environment. An inuit is 'better' than a zulu tribesman if they are both living in the high arctic from a heat retention point of view. A sickle cell carrying african is 'better' than a northern european in an area of endemic malaria.
I'll not go back up the thread an go over the relative brain size thing except to say that Jar is an wrong as you are but in different ways with this small clarification of why I think that.
Jar is wrong in at least a bit of the ways you have suggested. You are wrong because you seem to suggest that if the relative brain size between a population average 50 kg and a brain size of 600 cc and one of 75 kg and a brain size of 1500 cc shows an probable intellectural superiority of the later then we can decide that an individual with body mass of 70 kg and a brain of 1350 cc is superior to one with a 70 kg mass and a brain of 1300 cc.
It is pretty darned clear that structure of the brain also enters into it. It is also pretty clear that different individuals carry rather different talents. The rough characterization of brain size/body mass groups does not allow such fine distinctions.
There are also some very interesting mysteries here. Our form, including brain size has changed only a modest amount in 200,000 years. We made some significant jumps ahead in less than the last 100,000. Was this simply because the time was right? Or were there some structural changes that don't preserve well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Ponce, posted 07-28-2005 11:51 PM John Ponce has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John Ponce, posted 07-29-2005 1:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 240 (227239)
07-29-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed
07-29-2005 12:48 AM


Re: The Theory and the Details
Greetings NosyNed,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
NosyNed writes:
Jar is wrong in at least a bit of the ways you have suggested. You are wrong because you seem to suggest that if the relative brain size between a population average 50 kg and a brain size of 600 cc and one of 75 kg and a brain size of 1500 cc shows an probable intellectural superiority of the later then we can decide that an individual with body mass of 70 kg and a brain of 1350 cc is superior to one with a 70 kg mass and a brain of 1300 cc.
If you read my posts carefully, you will note that the relative brain size to body as an indicator of "being smarter" is not what I believe. Arach originally threw that out. I was illustrating the absurdity of the concept and also pointing out that if such a thing were true, we should be able to quantify it today. It is, however, what I perceive a majority of evolutionists to embrace - possibly without much thought.
The rest of your post is appreciated. It should give the gallery some food for thought concerning the recently developed parallels of antithetical world views - we all came from one woman who lived relatively recently with regard to supposed evolutionary time scales, etc.
Analytical Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2005 12:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 07-29-2005 2:46 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024