Bones of Contentions.

John PonceYou said

quote:

---

JavaMan, thanks for your response. What did you think of the striking similarities between the JavaMan skullcap and modern human (fully intelligent) Aborigine skull's low forehead and skullcap in message 200?
RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.
Do you consider it a possibility that the JavaMan skullcap may represent an individual who is essentially no different than modern humans with respect to intelligence or DNA?
Or do you consider the JavaMan skullcap to be irrefutable evidence that apes slowly mutated into humans via random mutations?

---

I can't see the aboriginal skull picture - has it been moved or deleted? Could you repost?However, it has been criticised as being taken from a different angle to the others.See the skull comparison here. Are you really saying that the erectus skull - flattened on the top, low brows, prominent eye ridges - is the same as the human skull configuration - high rounded top, high brow, eye ridges absent? Also note that while prominent creationists are adamant that some are true human and some ape, they are unable to agree which, thus demonstrating the transitional nature of the fossils.On relative skull sizez, erectus ranges from c900cc to c1200cc, the top end overlaps (just) the sapiens range, but since erectus evolved into sapiens and the largest brained erectus are the latest, this is exactly what would be expected.Finally, on brain size let's have one more go at explaining the variance of sizes:There is no correlation within a species between brain size and intelligence (ignoring obvious conditions such as microcephelism).However, if you compare average brain sizes between species there is a rough but good correlation between the brain:body mass ratio and intelligence. This correlation improves if brain complexity is considered.In the fossil records of the hominids, there is a clear progression to larger brain sizes. From this we can conclude an increase in intelligence. More controversially, there appears to be a big cultural shift coinciding with the emergence of sapiens, which has lead some to the conclusion that there was a change in brain organisation at that time leading to an increase in intelligence without an increase in brain size. But, since this sort of thing does not fossilise, it will remain a conjecture.The main defining charactaristics of the hominids is obligate bipedalism and a large brain/body mas ratio; and this has been a result (note not a cause) of hominid evolution.Further, it seems that, with sapiens, brain (and hence head) size has reached a maximum: indeed it has declined a bit since Cro Magnon man (although this may be a sampling artifact). This is due to the increased head size causing problems with birth. Although a number of other evolutionary features in women have mitigated this in part it would appear that brain evolution has reached a zero or balance point.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

In response to the requests for sources, I include a few from the web:Some references on brain size vs intelligence.From WikpediaFrom Washington State UniversityThere’s a good discussion from Bryn Mawr College.In particular, there’s a discussion on encephalization quotients.There are others. Try googling “brain size intelligence species”I think these demonstrate a consensus that there's a link between brain size and intelligence for cross-species comparison. Inside species other effects largely swamp the effect of size.This table (extracted from the last reference) would conform to most people's intuitive ideas of reltive intelligence.Species EQ Species EQ
Man 7.44 Cat 1.00
Dolphin 5.31 Horse 0.86
Chimpanzee 2.49 Sheep 0.81
Rhesus Monkey 2.09 Mouse 0.50
Elephant 1.87 Rat 0.40
Whale 1.76 Rabbit 0.40
Dog 1.17 (Macphail, 243)

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Right, courtesy of RAZD, I've now seen the skull in question.Firstly, we can't say anything directly: the angle of the photograph is different so making comparisons invalid.Having said that, the skull appears far too domed in comparison to erectus (bearing in mind that the angle would appear to "flatten" it) and the other features (as RAZD has pointed out) seem to conform more to sapiens than erectus.Have a look at this link. It's really about the "Kow Swamp aborigine skulls are erectus" nonsense, but it has a point-by-point differentiation of erectus and aboriginal skulls.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.