Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 240 (229010)
08-03-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
08-01-2005 7:55 PM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
RAZD writes:
John Ponce writes:
John Ponce writes:
Is this not taught as the driving force that critters supposedly evolved into mankind — slowly acquiring larger brains and higher intelligence?
Nope. The driving forces are (1) natural variation within a population due to random mutation, (2) individuals surviving long enough1 to breed and (3) those individuals being succesful in having offspring.
Nope? You are leaving out some critical details here RAZD. The human evolutionary theory says that all the branches of advanced hominids (except the completely developed modern human line) failed in Step 2 or Step 3.
Several branches of mutated transitional hominids were not able to survive - while the supposedly less intelligent monkeys and apes did just fine?
While that is very convenient for the human evolutionary theory in terms of absence of "not fully mutated" individuals and genetic evidence we could measure, I have yet to hear any sound scenarios to explain it.
Why would all the supposed lines of advanced but sub-human critters that had been so successful evolving from pure critters suddenly disappear from the gene pool? Every single one of them except mutated Mitochondrial Eve’s folks?
What a shame all that supposed evidence disappeared - never to be seen again!
RAZD writes:
Intelligence may or may not assist in that endeavor. The overwhelming evidence of all life is that even sub-average human intelligence is not needed.
Well, then something else must have completely extinguished all those supposed variant mutated distant cousin gene pools?
What do you suppose completely eliminated all those alleged intermediate hominid gene pools, leaving only our homogenously pure human gene pools, pure monkey gene pools, and pure ape gene pools?
Somehow, mysteriously dastardly events conveniently eliminated all the living transitional evidence that we could have readily observed and measured today!!! Hate when that happens!
And why would we not see a multitude of various living intermediate forms for hundreds of other mammals? You will likely pass this off as — just because that’s the way it happened!
Perhaps it is because they never existed!
RAZD writes:
The rest of your argument based on this false premise is invalid.
Let’s not forget the lack of present day evidence - the lack of support for brain size relation to intelligence - evidence that should be measurable among the billions of humans today if the common theory were true.
Others have tried to dodge this by saying brain size had nothing to do with human evolution but that is counter to the commonly taught theory.
RAZD writes:
The remainder of your argument appears to be based on incredulity and other false premises, and is equally invalid.
Really? I’m confident the gallery can determine the validity of the arguments.
Analytical Regards to Big Headed Hominids

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 7:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 12:20 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2005 12:27 AM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 240 (229028)
08-03-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
08-03-2005 12:20 AM


Re: What are you talking about?
John Ponce writes:
Let’s not forget the lack of present day evidence - the lack of support for brain size relation to intelligence - evidence that should be measurable among the billions of humans today if the common theory were true.
Jar writes:
What common theory?
It should be evident in the text Jar - brain size relation to intelligence.
I believe there is near unanimous agreement that this relationship was at least partly responsible for the supposed evoluition from critter to man via incremental beneficial brain mutations.
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 12:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 9:21 AM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 240 (229522)
08-03-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
08-01-2005 9:31 PM


Re: the point?
Apologies - this is rather long - but it should be worth the time.
RAZD writes:
Let's begin with "neo-Darwinism" -- from Wikipedia:
Essentially, the modern synthesis (or neo-Darwinism) introduced the connection between two important discoveries; the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (selection). It also represents a unification of several branches of biology that previously had little in common, particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany and paleontology.
According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be due to mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated by geographic barriers.
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?
RAZD writes:
In other words, differences between individuals are selected, with those individuals who survive to reproduce passing on their particular genes to their particular individual offspring.
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?
RAZD writes:
Over time there is an accumulation of non-lethal variations within any population, which are then coupled with new mutations and that lead to new differences between individuals within the populations.
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...?!?
RAZD writes:
But not every individual within a population aquires most (to say nothing of all) of the variations, and it is still the individuals that are selected for {survival\mating} fitness.
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.
RAZD writes:
Fitness does not equal "better" or "superior" because what is fit today can be unfit tommorrow and vice-versa: a drought causes individual birds with heavier beaks to be selected as they can more easily crack the dried seeds to eat. When the drought ends the individual birds with the finer beaks have an easier time getting the seeds from the plants.
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?
RAZD writes:
Selection doesn't discriminate based on species wide traits, but based on individual variations within a population.
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?
RAZD writes:
There is also some argument that the whole concept of "species" is an artificial construct, because we are all part of {LIFE} with some remote common ancestor and the variation that you see is only {minor variations between individuals}n, where n is just the numbers of generations that the variations are measured over.
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?
RAZD writes:
This aspect is particularly cumbersome when dealing with the past, as a {parent} and {child} are always of the same "species" but you can extend each {modern species\extinct species\etc} back in time to common ancestors with generation after generation of {the same "species"}.
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.
RAZD writes:
Distinctions are arbitrary, and based on an accumulation of differences. One "species" is different from another, because there are enough differences between the {population of individuals} within one group that they can be distinguished from the {population of individuals} within the other group, and not just by us, but by the {population of individuals} of both groups: the differences between the populations is more {noticeable\distinctive\measureable} than the differences within the populations.
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.
RAZD writes:
Selection based on temporary fluctuating, individual fitness cannot, by any definition, be racism.
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.
RAZD writes:
The implication of racism is due, rather, to the poor understanding of evolution as being involved with species as a whole evolving into "better" and "more highly" evolved species that is typical of the creationist view, and not the science itself, and as such devolves into a (poor) strawman argument.
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.
Wikipedia writes:
The term eugenics is often used to refer to a movement and social policy that was influential during the first half of the 20th century. In a historical and broader sense eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes more broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool
During the 1860s and 1870s Sir Francis Galton systemized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin.
After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton noticed an interpretation of Darwin's work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization.
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.
RAZD writes:
Now, I will say some "intellectualist" comments:
(1) Creationist Marvin Lubenow is not a "professor" properly speaking, unless he has a doctorate degree in the field he is (supposedly) teaching or "professing" and claiming otherwise is snake-oil selling.
(2) A book is not a peer reviewed science paper.
(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?
RAZD writes:
(3) Anyone who takes such work from such a source as being equal to the science in peer reviewed papers, has a poor understanding of the rigors of science as opposed to popular fiction, particularly ones published by "vanity" presses.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 9:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 11:35 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 240 (229525)
08-04-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
08-03-2005 9:21 AM


Re: What are you talking about?
Jar writes:
John Ponce writes:
I believe there is near unanimous agreement that this relationship (brain size relation to intelligence) was at least partly responsible for the supposed evoluition from critter to man via incremental beneficial brain mutations.
No?
No. Where have you shown that is a common theory.
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.
Jar writes:
I tried many pages ago to engage you in a discussion of just this issue.
Perhaps this time you won't simply run away and we can move through this in a reasonable manner.
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.
Jar writes:
First, would you agree that there are no indications that intellegence is required as a condition of evolution?
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.
Jar writes:
Are plants intelegent?
Are viruses intellegent?
Are bacteria intelegent?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 9:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:35 AM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 240 (229539)
08-04-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
08-04-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and denial do not an argument make
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2005 12:27 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2005 7:00 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 240 (229956)
08-04-2005 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
08-04-2005 10:35 AM


Re: What are you talking about?
Jar writes:
John, you are a hard person to discuss anything with.
Really? Is it that difficult to answer my questions? Imagine how difficult it would be of I ignored your responses and repeatedly tried to bring up unrelated issues in an attempt to avoid the tough questions?
Jar writes:
I agree you're ignoring me.
You have my answers in post 123 on page 9 related to alleged human evolution. Don’t ignore them because they are difficult to counter — as well as specific detailed questions 1 and 2 related to human brain design. Please respond with logical thought, not evasion to unrelated no brain plants, viruses, and bacteria.
I will continue to ignore attempts to divert attention from lack of evidence for the flawed Darwinian human evolutionary theory relevant to millions (at least) of supposed beneficial brain mutations, mechanisms, and evidence.
For over a century, Darwinists have taught that larger brains and natural selection (based on intelligence for survival) were the result of fortunate random Mega brain mutations that enabled slow development from critters to man.
Now the scientific evidence reveals brain size has no significant or measurable correlation to intelligence.
So Jar, what are the benefits from a mutated brain that were favored by the supposed natural selection process. A process that created the larger human brain with all the associated energy requirements and birthing difficulties by somehow delivering more success for reproduction - where virtually all coexisting non-mutated hominids failed in a repeated cycle?
I have seen no answer from anyone on this forum yet - except RAZD's refusal to surmize.
That puts you in a logical bind so you want to talk about plants, viruses and bacteria — where brains are not relevant. Dodge ball is fun but not in a scientific debate concerning evidence.
Jar writes:
Humor me please.
See Larry the Cable Guy.
Jar writes:
You asked:
I believe there is near unanimous agreement that this relationship (brain size relation to intelligence) was at least partly responsible for the supposed evolution from critter to man via incremental beneficial brain mutations.
No?
That is a direct question.
I responded:
No. Where have you shown that is a common theory.
That is an answer and a request for you to provide supporting material.
Jar, you are arguing with yourself. In Msg 47 on page 4 you state:
Jar writes:
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.
You clearly state that intelligence is a factor and brain size is an indicator! I am sincerely not trying to be sarcastic or disrespectful here Jar but - are you smoking something?
I will provide an additional reference as you specifically requested.
ABSTRACT: Why do modern humans have larger brains than earlier
people such as Homo erectus? As large brains cause problems in
childbirth, infancy and locomotion, the advantage they offer must
be substantial. This advantage might be associated with increased
IQ, but there is a problem: evidence from MRI volumetric surveys,
microcephaly and hemispherectomy shows that there exist individuals
with psychometrically normal IQ but Homo-erectus-sized brains. Why
did evolution increase brain size (with its associated costs) when
humans (as these individuals demonstrate) can have normal IQ
without bigger brains? I propose that the advantage may be related
to increased capacity for an aspect of intelligent behaviour not
measured by IQ tests but critical to the survival of our simple
hunter-gatherers ancestors: the capacity to develop expertise.
Reference: http://www.neurophys.com/discussion/CNL/msg00082.html
The reference above details very well one of the problems for Darwinian human evolutionary theory. There are others as I have detailed. No one here seems willing to directly address these issues.
Jar writes:
I then asked a few follow up questions that I believe are needed before we can move further.
First, would you agree that there are no indications that intellegence is required as a condition of evolution?
Are plants intelegent?
Are viruses intellegent?
Are bacteria intelegent?
If you will support your assertions and answer my questions whe can then try to move forward towards resolution of your issue regarding intellegence and brain size.
Sorry Jar, we’re discussing bones and brains here. Take it to another thread.
Analytical Regards to Big Headed Hominids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:56 PM John Ponce has replied
 Message 145 by JavaMan, posted 08-05-2005 11:05 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2005 7:32 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 240 (229972)
08-05-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
08-04-2005 10:56 PM


Re: What are you talking about?
Thank you Jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:56 PM jar has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 240 (230414)
08-06-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by JavaMan
08-05-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Summary of your argument
Javaman writes:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be as follows:
1. Anthropologists argue that human beings have large brains because large brains confer intelligence and intelligence conferred a selective advantage during evolution;
2. Current scientific understanding is that large brains and intelligence don't necessarily correlate;
3. Therefore the selective advantage of large brains can't be proven, and evolutionary theory therefore can't account for the fact that modern humans have large brains
Would that be a reasonable summary of your argument?
Welcome Javaman. Thanks for your perceptive summary and interest. You have grasped the issue better than some. I would clarify points 2 and 3 a bit and reiterate some other analytical evidence regarding the theory of human evolution.
But before I continue, I think a process check is in order.
Does - anyone - agree with RAZD that he has refuted the argument as Javaman has described above. If so, my time is probably better spent elsewhere.
Personally, I would give RAZD an A+ for self-esteem but a considerably lower grade for logical analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by JavaMan, posted 08-05-2005 11:05 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2005 1:34 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 151 by JavaMan, posted 08-06-2005 2:24 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 240 (230489)
08-06-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by JavaMan
08-06-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Summary of your argument
It sounds like you and Crashfrog do not agree that RAZD has actually refuted the argument and instead are offering alternatives.
What we can say, based on the evidence, is the old notion that larger mutated brain size and associated intelligence was the key to survival (and exclusively successful reproduction where allegedly smaller brained hominids failed) has been largely invalidated - at least intelligence as measured by IQ.
Would you agree?
Can anyone detail the alternaitve explanations and the evidence that leads to those as potential solutions?
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" Hominids

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by JavaMan, posted 08-06-2005 2:24 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2005 4:54 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 6:07 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 180 by JavaMan, posted 08-07-2005 6:33 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 240 (230741)
08-07-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by AdminNosy
08-07-2005 1:26 PM


Re: A rest for jcrawford
AdminNosy,
Any forum rule violations in Jcrawford's last post that evolution proponents have not committed in this thread?
He's gotta go because you are a bit too slow?
Why not counter his statements and point out logical errors or specific forum violations rather than verbally kick him in the butt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AdminNosy, posted 08-07-2005 1:26 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2005 6:26 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 240 (230778)
08-07-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by JavaMan
08-07-2005 6:33 PM


Re: Summary of your argument
Hey JavaMan
JaveMan writes:
I think it would be very surprising if the development of intelligence weren't a factor in increasing hominid brain size.
I agree. I believed that for years. However the evidence from neuroscience does not support the correlation.
JavaMan writes:
The controversy you have been alluding to in your previous posts is about making simplistic correlations between brain size and intelligence within extant human populations. Racist and sexist anthropologists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were very fond of saying things like 'women have smaller brains than men, therefore they're less intelligent' or 'Aryans have larger brain sizes than other races, therefore they have superior intelligence'. These ideas have been villified for the last 50 years or so, partly because of their appalling social consequences, and partly because they're scientifically naive.
There have certainly been appalling social consequences but that is not necessarily the fault of the theory. Mankind can be the most brutal of all and will use any means available to justify brutality.
The lack of evidence seems to verify the scientific naivete concerning past applications of the Darwinian human evolutionary theory - particularly regarding racism.
JavaMan writes:
What makes a human brain different from a chimpanzee brain, for example, is less overall size and more a change in the way the neurons are organized. So a small-brained human, with brain size close to that of a chimpanzee, still has a characteristically human rather than chimpanzee intelligence.
Yes.
JavaMan writes:
That being said, I don't see how rejecting these simplistic ideas about brain size and intelligence necessarily leads one to the conclusion that there isn't any relationship between brain size and intelligence.
The evidence leads us to conclude there isn't any relationship brain size and intelligence. Theories rise and fall based on hypotheses and conclusions refuted or supported by evidence.
JavaMan writes:
In fact, the alternative theory you quoted in one of your posts suggests that the development of expertise may have been a factor in causing the increase in brain size during hominid evolution. Expertise, of course, is an example of intelligent behaviour.
Yes, the alternative theory proposed a different type of intelligence not easily measured with standard methods. Crashfrog stated that IQ measured education — not intelligence.* Not sure where he got that notion but IQ experts disagree.
In any event, there is no evidence presented for the alternative theory regarding a correlation of expertise intelligence to larger brains and bigger heads..
JavaMan writes:
You may be interested to know that another theory suggests that it was the development of an increasingly sophisticated social life that drove the devlopment of the human brain rather than the evolutionary advantage of greater problem solving skills. This has led to the suggestion that we should think of ourselves as the gossiping ape rather than the intelligent ape.
It is an interesting thought. Is there any evidence social skills correlate to larger brains and bigger heads - or is this conjecture?
*Edit - IQ statement to Crashfrog.
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-08-2005 12:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by JavaMan, posted 08-07-2005 6:33 PM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2005 7:17 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 240 (230783)
08-07-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
08-06-2005 11:35 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argument
Pretty long post there RAZD. I was glad to see that you finally submitted a proposed mechanism - other than standard intelligence - for allegedly evolved big headed hominids. Let’s focus, if you will, on the primary argument here. I will be glad to address your objections to the secondary arguments later.
So here is the primary argument that you claim to have answered or refuted:
1. Anthropologists argue that human beings have large brains because large brains confer intelligence and intelligence conferred a selective advantage during evolution;
2. Current scientific evidence finds no correlation between absolute or relative (to body) brain size and intelligence. In fact, the associated energy requirements and birthing difficulties of bigger heads seem to refute the Darwinian human evolutionary theory.
3. Therefore, absent any other identifiable or hypothesized benefit toward survival and reproduction, randomly mutated larger brains are evidently an evolutionary liability - refuting Darwinian human evolutionary theory.
And here is your rebuttal:
RAZD writes:
There is a fair bit of evidence that the development of the human brain was due at least in part to run-away sexual selection, related to communication and creativity in mating song and dance etc. Notice that even today natural leaders, poets, dancers, artists and musicians are considered more {romantic\desirable} mates than scientists.
This may actually be good news for me if you are correct that I am good at shuck and jive dancing, huh! Never mind that I am a plain ole' white boy.
By the way, would you mind sharing that fair bit of evidence for the run-away sexual selection hypothesis?
Let’s ignore - for the moment - the apparent lack of evidence for your proposal that supposed increased hominid talent for song and dance would be associated with the allegedly mutated big headed hominids — although it necessarily would be for your thesis to be valid.
Would this run-away sexual selection scenario for the big headed human evolutionary supposition explaining the consistently large brains of our human gene pool today - be sort of analogous to all hominid females refusing to mate with anyone other than say — a hominid type of Bing Crosby or Elvis "the Pelvis" Presley (even though Bing and Elvis are missing the critical larger head mutation)? *
For your hypothesis to eliminate the non-mutated gene pool over time, then the un-mutated hominid guys with smaller heads don't get any Nookie and only the mutated big headed guy with allegedly better song and dance genes are successful reproducing with the women.
This exclusionary process may actually have occurred over more than one generation. No?
Let's summarize:
RAZD, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I understand your position for the allegedly mutated large evolutionary human brain scenario to work with the exceptional traits of "song and dance":
1) A critter (or hominid) benefited from a mutated brain which increased his brain volume and associated head size relative to his body.
2) Since there is no evidence that larger brain size is associated with standard forms of measured higher intelligence, the critter (or hominid) was likely able to sing and dance better than his contemporaries.
3) Rumors spread quickly to all supposed hominid tribes in all inhabitable lands that this mutated guy with the big head could really sing and dance.
4) When word spread that this mutated guy had exceptional talent to sing and dance, all females determined that they would only have sex with the mutated big headed hominid.
5) Thus all of the healthy hominids with non-mutated brains eventually died off without passing on their non-mutated genetics (smaller heads).
6) This exclusive song and dance evolutionary genetic mechanism must have occurred repeatedly over at least fifteen specified evolutionary steps within the alleged intermediary transitions from critter to Homo Erectus (who supposedly migrated out of Africa) as detailed below.
According to the Carolus Linnaeus taxonomic classifications
1. Ardipithecus ramidus
2. Australopithecus (southern apes) and Paranthropus
3. Australopithecus anamensis (southern ape of the lake)
4. Australopithecus afarensis (southern ape of Afar)
5. Kenyanthropus platyops
6. Australopithecus barelgazeli
7. Australopithecus garhi
8. Australopithecus africanus (southern ape of Africa)
9. Paranthropus aethiopicus
10. Paranthropus boisei
11. Paranthropus robustus
12. Homo rudolfensis
13. Homo habilis
14. Homo ergaster
15. Homo erectus
Reference: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa052501a.htm
RAZD, is that a reasonably close assessment of your thoughts concerning how critters mutated and became humans with large brains?
Enjoying Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!
* Note: edited out Brad Pitt in favor of the King!
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-08-2005 12:12 AM
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-08-2005 12:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 11:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by JavaMan, posted 08-08-2005 8:02 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2005 9:30 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 240 (231001)
08-08-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by JavaMan
08-08-2005 8:02 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
JavaMan writes:
Step 2 of your argument is simple to refute.
Javaman writes:
John Ponce writes:
2. Current scientific evidence finds no correlation between absolute or relative (to body) brain size and intelligence. In fact, the associated energy requirements and birthing difficulties of bigger heads seem to refute the Darwinian human evolutionary theory.
The first claim is not true. Both myself, in Message 180, and RAZD, more elegantly, in Message 146, have argued that, while one can't make simple correlations within a species, there are clear inter-species correlations between brain size and intelligence.
JavaMan, I am having difficulty following your logic. You say (correctly) one can't make simple correlations (of intelligence to brain size) within a species. But that is precisely what Darwinian human evolutionary theory proposes.
In fact, that correlation between mutated brain size and intelligence within a species would be required - many times - over the supposed incremental transitions from critter to man. No?
If not, what selective pressure could have possibly produced larger brains and bigger heads?
I maintain we cannot logically account for humans having larger brains than primates or supposed hominids (allowing for the minor variation among the current population) according to the evidence from neuroscience.
In addition, there is no evidence to support the notion of beneficial DNA errors producing larger mutated brains and allegedly associated higher intelligence — of any form.
RAZD casually asserts this type of thing (mutated brain size and complexity) happens all the time - but we don’t see it among seven billion human beings today. Incidentally, there are possibly more specimens alive today than all the supposed hominids combined. Although that may be debatable, we certainly do have many more people today than have ever existed at one time.
JavaMan writes:
You and I are proof that the second claim is false (unless you were born by Caesarian section of course!).
Lost me again JavaMan! Do you have evidence that alleged groups of hominids had access to safe surgical procedures such as Caesarian sections? Until roughly 70 years ago, the leading cause of death among young women was complications in childbirth. No?
C-sections are irrelevant to the Darwinian theory of human evolution.
Your assertion the second claim is false would likely be pronounced a non-sequitur by RAZD as he does the ROFLOL thing.
The argument stands, therefore, according to proper application of the theory and the evidence.
Incidentally, I watched the History channel special last night Ape to Man. The experts of the theory clearly stated that bigger brains and associated intelligence were the mechanism for alleged human evolution. There was no mention of selection based on correlation of larger brains to social skills such as "song and dance" that RAZD proposes.
They did have a great dramatization of those Sapiens hunting down and killing the last of the supposedly less intelligent Neandertals.
The really sad thing is Neandertal would have made a great fullback — if only they had experiences a few more (few according to RAZD) of those allegedly beneficial brain mutations! With any more mutations, he would have required a King Size helmet! He sure was an ugly dude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by JavaMan, posted 08-08-2005 8:02 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by JavaMan, posted 08-08-2005 6:16 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 240 (231191)
08-08-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by JavaMan
08-08-2005 6:16 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
JavaMan,
Thank you for the thought experiment and helping to focus the debate. My first response was similar to Ned's but I am going to give it more consideration.
BTW, what is the picture below your name? I can't tell if it is a skull cap - something else.
John

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JavaMan, posted 08-08-2005 6:16 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by JavaMan, posted 08-09-2005 7:51 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2005 9:24 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 240 (232842)
08-12-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JavaMan
08-10-2005 1:05 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
Been away for a while. Don't have much time right now, but...
RAZD writes:
btw, are you familiar with this article:
Java Man and Turkana Boy
it has a nice overlay of the Java Man skull cap onto the Turkana Boy skull, and a nice refutation of typical Gish arguments of incredulity in the process.
JavaMan writes:
Yes. That's a pretty convincing refutation.
Incredulity?
Have you guys examined ALL the evidence with this comparison while considering there is no evidence today that random brain mutations are increasing human intelligence or brain size?
JavaMan
Homo Erectus — Turkana Boy
Modern Human Austrailian Aborigine - Fully Intelligent!
I used to believe the Darwinian theory of human evolution without question... had them all memorized.
Which of the following conclusions would you draw - based on the pictures above and the evidence we have today from neuroscience:
1) The Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls are very similar to modern human Aborigine skulls and, therefore, may be fully human.
2) The modern human Aborigine skull is very similar to Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls and, therefore, may be a transitional animal somewhere between apes and human.
3) Some reconfigured hominid skulls have been proven to be hoaxes. Others (many from only a few bone fragments) may either fall into the category of apes or humans. There may, in fact, be no transitional animals between apes and humans.
A pretty convincing refutation?
Which answer would you select based on all the evidence - including a lack of any larger mutated brains that are supposedly more intelligent today among seven billion people?
Answer 1), 2), or 3)?
Feel free to add an alternative conclusion if you have any.
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JavaMan, posted 08-10-2005 1:05 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2005 1:22 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2005 12:02 PM John Ponce has replied
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 2:24 PM 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