Bones of Contentions.

Hey JavaMan I agree. I believed that for years. However the evidence from neuroscience does not support the correlation. 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. Yes. 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. 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.. 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

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: 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.htmRAZD, 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 AMThis message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-08-2005 12:22 AM

Because interfertility is not the only definition of species. I'm sure prejudiced theories will discriminate humans all the time. Hardly a ground breaking idea. However, is the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution prejudiced? Wrong end of the stick I'm afraid. It doesn't matter if there was racial variety before, it doesn't matter how we classify previous species (though since you ask, we do it morphologically). What I am saying is that racism is a social phenomenon. It really makes no difference what a species or a race or a breed is, it doesn't make ToE racist. Racist people look to ToE to 'prove' why they are 'right', by fuzzing up the definitions. OK, so you agree that racism is a wider issue than you are trying to convince us of and that there are other theories regarding the human race. Ok. Indeed they aren't, and lets face it, there is a reason. Evolutionists aren't a community. It's not like they can be directly contrasted with Christianity or something...so you are going to have to actually back this up (assuming you are allowed back in the Science fora), or we shall take it as read that it is actually just something you made up in a fit of near dishonesty.Just for fun, I will point you to the scientists that are working on cures and vaccines for the people of Africa every day, geneticists concieving of crop growing tools. Given the amusing fact that there are more scientists called Steve that accept evolution than there are scientists that don't, we can assume that the vast vast vast majority of the scientists involved in helping those in need in Africa are indeed, evolutionists. Nope, I'm afraid the modern synthesis is not racist. Racism is a social issue. Neo-Darwinism does not prejudice against other races, or other species. Stating that two things are different and giving factual and observable reasons as to why is not prejudice, discrimination or racist. If I say that a black man has darker skin and so is better able to survive hot climates, is that racist, or simply an observable fact?You are going to have to do a lot of work to demonstrate how the theory that the diversity of life (diversity is good according the theory, the wider the gene pool the better, the exact opposite of racism) is the result of random mutations in the genome and directed by natural selection is in anyway racist.You're first clue for your work: So far, you've failed...badly.

Step 2 of your argument is simple to refute. 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.You and I are proof that the second claim is false (unless you were born by Caesarian section of course!).

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

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. 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.

Let's use a thought experiment.Think about your extended family and the similarities and differences between them. Some of them are more intelligent than others, but you would probably be unable to find a correlation between brain size and intelligence within your family. Similarly, you probably wouldn't find a correlation between sense of smell and brain size (stay with me - there is a point to this!).Now let's imagine we put half of your family on island A where there is selective pressure to develop a good sense of smell, and the other half on island B where life is pretty comfortable (a kind of desert island Florida) where there isn't much selective pressure
to develop any particular sense or mental ability.Now fast forward a hundred thousand years and lets assume that the pressure to develop a strong sense of smell has caused a significant increase in the size of the olfactory bulb (and therefore a significant increase in brain size) in the people on island A. The change in size is very gradual and those who carry genes for the larger olfactory bulb produce more offspring than others, so the gene gets pretty evenly spread across the population, and from generation to generation you never see any significant correlation between brain
size and sense of smell.So our original family group show no correlation between brain size and sense of smell, our group on island A show no correlation between brain size and sense of smell, and our group on island B, because they haven't changed significantly from our original group, they don't show any correlation either.But, when we compare individuals from island A with those from island B, they do show a correlation, because island A individuals all have larger brains and stronger sense of smell than those on island B.Now for island A inhabitants read Homo sapiens, for island B inhabitants read Homo erectus, and for sense of smell read intelligence. Does that explain my argument better? I'm sorry. I was being flippant. What I meant when I said: was that you (if you weren't born by Caesarian section) and I, are proof that the difficulties caused by large head size aren't insurmountable. If they were, we would never have been born. Natural selection just requires survival, it doesn't require that birth be easy.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

LOL. This from one who fails to substantiate a single claim, makes logically fallacious argument after logically fallacious argument, repeats ones that have been shown to be logically fallacious before and tries to ignore the fact that almost all of his arguments have been refuted and that the remaining points are irrelevant. As has been done for your posts? As has been done to others of jcrawfords posts?How many times does it take?(hint: Once should be enough)Enjoy.

---

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

I could dispute that, but it is still irrelevant to the fact that you have not substantiated your previous claim nor shown the above noted logical impossibility to be false. This shows that you have no further substantiation of any kind for your point, and that it has been shown to be false. Note that this "agreement" (1) contradicts the previous assertion (the logically impossible one noted above) rendering both comments meaningless by association, and (2) does not disprove nor challenge teh existence of older common ancestors, just makes another unsubstantiated assertion of this claim. Repeating claims makes them no more valid than before. Once again jcrawford shows that he has no further substantiation of any kind for his point, and that it has been shown to be false. Denial of evidence does not make it go away. Repeating claims makes them no more valid than before. Once again jcrawford shows that he has no further substantiation of any kind for his point, and that it has been shown to be false.Once again jcrawford shows his racist tendencies by being selective in his association of africans with apes. Evolution shows that all hominids and apes have descended from a common {ape like} ancestor by gradual convergence of the fossil evidence towards said common ancestor with time. There is no other trend in the record. Almost cute, but irrelevant and racist by implication. Nor does it clarify any of the gibberish posted.Your suspension is earned, if not overdue. You have a chance to rethink your modus operandi here and start making valid arguments, or you can continue to jump up and down repeating your points like a spoiled child ... and be rewarded accordingly. I always enjoy it when a reply to one of my posts leaves the logic of my post still valid and my conclusions unchallenged, the more so when the poster has nothing more to say on the topic, thus confirming my conclusions.

---

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

I don't know what "evidence" you think you have, but try reducing your brain mass by 50% and see if your capacity for mental function isn't drastically decreased.It's beyond question that there's a gross corellation between brain mass and mental capacity. I don't see in what rational way this proposition can be disputed; certainly not with the true assertion that there's little or no corellation between small-scale brain size variation and the degree to which you can absorb education. From Alfred Binet. Maybe you've heard of him? He's the inventor of the IQ test, named after him in it's most modern incarnation, the Stanford-Binet V. Well, no, they don't. IQ experts and psychologists agree that IQ tests measure what they're supposed to measure - the degree to which the subject has absorbed the educational objectives appropriate for his age-peers.That's why your IQ changes as you age, why it can go up or down - sometimes you pull ahead of your peers, sometimes you fall behind. IQ is based on age. An adult with an IQ of 100 is way, way more educated than a child of the same IQ.In regards to what IQ measures, let's look closer at that Standford-Binet V. The test itself gagues performance in five key areas:Fluid Reasoning
Knowledge
Quantitative Reasoning
Visual-Spatial Processing
Working MemorySee? "Knowledge". Since none of us are born with knowledge, since knowledge is not an innate quality of the human brain, another way to refer to "knowledge" is "education." And all the rest are skill areas that can be improved with excercise, like video games, puzzles, or even taking IQ tests.The inventor of the test invented it to test education. The test itself gagues your education. Scores on the test are positively correlated (prior to "correction") with socioeconomic status - in other words your access to quality education. Proposition proved, as far as I can tell.Exactly who do you have that's telling you the test measures something other than education? Because they're wrong. What does the test measure if not education?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-08-2005 07:31 PM

I'm afraid I don't follow this. You say those who carry genes for the larger olfactory bulb produce more offspring (implicitly because they are better at smelling ). Thus there must be some, perhaps very slight, correlation between bulb size and sense of smell and that this is subject to selection.How can there be any selection if there isn't any correlation? If no selection (N or sexual) why did homo brains enlarge so agressively and in such a mostly steady way over some millions of years?Isn't that the point that you are arguing against?

Perhaps this slight correlation is more than drowned out by other factors? Such than when comparing A's with one another, there is no way to tell if the large size is due to a larger olfactory bulb or a larger memory/temperature regulation/visual perception/language/ etc node? Even perhaps general fatty tissue/water content has some impact.However, when comparing As with Bs we note that A's brain is bigger because they all have an enlarged olfactory bulb compared with the Bs. I thought the same thing as you though Ned, and after a ponder, that was the conclusion I came to.

The evidence from neuroscience is from the exiting hominids (humans) only over the last 50 years or so, and does not include a single ancestor species, thus at best "the evidence from neuroscience" is insufficient to make any conclusions on the pre-historic development of human intelligence at this point. Using this "lack of evidence" as evidence for your position is another logical fallacy.The evidence from other sources, however, still exists, and failure to address it does not make that evidence go away.{{irrelevant comment and reply deleted}} {{deleted}} the fact remains that you have yet to challenge any of the points I have made, and you also appear to miss the relationship of this mechanism {{sexual selection}} to the previous points involving the evolution of intelligence in hominids.{{deleted}} Yes, lets see if you answer any of the previous questions, support any challenged assertions or display anything other than logical fallacies, willful ignorance and denial of evidence contrary to your position. Once again John Ponce misrepresents my arguments, and now his. Nowhere did he post these three points previously, so my statement could not be a refutation of them, no matter what the statement says or it's relationship in the argument. {{deleted}} The closest I can find was this series of points and rebuttals (and it comes after the above quote): Edited to correct your errors and add omissionsWhile I am gratified to see shorter posts and attempt at greater logical clarity, it would appear that you still need to work on {{logical structure and }} connecting arguments to one another. Let me edit these latest points in the same way to show your errors and add omissionsAlso note that if human intelligence is now limited from further development due to the restrictions of birth that this in no way invalidates evolution having selected the feature for development to that extreme condition in our ancestors. {{deleted}}Try the {Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution} thread in the {Biological Evolution} (science: you need to substantiate assertions) forum. Note that there are added sections and some good comments from others on the thread rather than just the first post (feel free to read all the posts for that open mind approach). Yes, keep ignoring that the issue is not size but intelligence in general and creativity in particular (or that this would also include the "development of expertise" part of human intelligence).The fact that human head size appears to have reached an upper limit that endangers the lives of the carriers more than necessary for survival is a marker of run-away sexual selection, and further discussion of this aspect can be better addressed on the {Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution} thread. The multiple fallacies of this argument have already been addressed. There is no "non-mutated" gene pool, nor are there " un-mutated hominid guys with smaller heads" - rather every individual carries different sets of mutations, and there is a natural variation in intelligence in each subsequent generation. All that is needed is {{as much variation in intelligence as occurs today in the human population and}} a general sexual {{mating}} preference for (and survival of) the more intelligent {{creative}} individuals of both sexes, such that they have more successful offspring than the others. It is so totally off the mark and wrong that it is not even worth correcting. See the sexual selection thread and take this comment there if you want to.Evidence shows a consistent trend to larger volume to enable greater average intelligence: {{Fixed. Note: this is a picture that I assembled with each skull sized to put the eyebrows on one line and the upper jaw on the other line, thus demonstrating the proportionate size of the brain case each species would have for similar body size.}}if that doesn't work, page down to see pictures of skulls (from B to L) on this site: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
{{changed website to better source of the picture in question}}btw -- I notice that you still failed to substantiate the claims you have made or answer any of the questions asked.Enjoy{{edited to add comments in {{these}} brackets and to {{delete}} irrelevant comments, and to fix the picture link so that the image will show up. I apologize for the original tone in the comments deleted.}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*09*2005 08:34 PM{{edited to add:}}Another graph of brain size increases over time comes from
Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes
Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes
(which deals directly with some of Lubenow's errors)and it looks like this: Where I've added the blue lines (the thinner ones to encompass most of the data points with an "average" line between) and resized the pictureEnjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*09*2005 10:09 PM

---

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

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

You're unlikely to see a correlation because the changes are small and there's little variation in the population as a whole - you'll only see a significant correlation where there's substantial variation from the mean.So, if you do a statistical analysis of brain size/sense of smell in a particular generation on island A most of the results will lie around the mean, and any minor correlations between these two variables will be masked by other variables. If you do a statistical analysis of A islanders and B islanders, however, you will find a large group of individuals from A with brain size/sense of smell well above the mean, and a large group of individuals from island B with brain size/sense of smell well below the mean - thus you will find a statistically significant correlation between brain size and sense of smell.John is having difficulty understanding how it's possible for there to be no significant correlation between brain size and intelligence within the extant human population, and yet for anthropologists to claim that intelligence was a determining factor in the development of large brain size in modern humans. I'm just trying to explain to him why it wouldn't be surprising not to find a statistically significant correlation within a particular generation of a species.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

See my reply to Ned. It's a skull cap of Homo erectus found by Eugene Dubois in 1891. The fossil is popularly known as Java Man.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible