Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 240 (231152)
08-08-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by jcrawford
08-07-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
jcrawford, still unable to master the very simple and easy to use quote mechanisms writes:
"It is logically impossible for descendants of one branch to be related to species on another branch."
That's just what creationists would say!
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.
"All humans share in the common gene pool back to their respective common ancestors, whether immediate or distant."
Agreed, as long as their common ancestors were human.
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.
"Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither human nor one of the african ape species."
Since there is no evidence of that, such beliefs must stem from neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origin and evolution of African people from non-humans.
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.
"Your post is gibberish at best."
At least I don't associate African people with the common ancestor of gibbons.
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.
"Enjoy."
I am, thank-you. Hope you are too.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jcrawford, posted 08-07-2005 1:22 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 240 (231185)
08-08-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by John Ponce
08-07-2005 8:15 PM


revised, take II
John Ponce, msg 181 writes:
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.
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}}
John Ponce, msg 182 writes:
I was glad to see that you finally submitted a proposed mechanism - other than standard intelligence - for allegedly evolved big headed hominids.
{{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}}
Let’s focus, if you will, on the primary argument here. I will be glad to address your objections to the secondary arguments later.
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.
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.
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):
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 some mutations (but not necessarily all) in brain connections and size in an individuals were was selected over and over and over in humans.
2) Every other individual hominid without the mutation of the day always eventually died off — their lineage never to be seen again.The genes of any individual that did not have offspring and which are not existent in other individuals were removed from the gene pool upon their (natural or otherwise) deaths.
3) But most all of the other pure non-hominid primates individuals of all of the other species in the world survived long enough, and were successful enough, in having offspring to pass their genes on to the next generation.
4) Intelligence is not necessary for human speciation. Is that correct? um ... as amended.
Edited to correct your errors and add omissions
While 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 omissions
1.a. Anthropologists argue that human beings have large brains because large brains confer increased intelligence and increased intelligence conferred a selective advantage during evolution.
1.b One of the effects of this selection for increased intelligence would be the increase in the size of the brain, as is shown in the fossil record. Other effects of this selection would be for increased area within a given volume (via a more convoluted surface) and more neuron density and connections between neurons (to increase interconnectedness of the brain without changing its size)
;
2. a. Current scientific neurological evidence finds no correlation between absolute or relative (to body) brain size and intelligence within the current population of humans because the effects of the other variables (of surface area and neuron connections) outweigh the correlation with raw size for the available data (but such data extends maybe 50 years into the past compared to 3 million years for the development of intelligence in hominids, and so is incomplete and not valid to use for comparison).
2.b While increased area and increased neuron density and connection cannot be measured in extinct species, the evidence from fossils does show a gradual trend in overall brain size over time, especially in the areas related to thought. All else being equal, such increases in size should correlate with a gradual increase in average intelligence of the populations involved.
2. c. In fact, the associated energy requirements and birthing difficulties of bigger heads seem to refute the Darwinian human evolutionary theory.show that human head size may have reached an upper limit (unless some other mechanism becomes available - like using C-sections), and this may also indicate that human intelligence has reached an upper limit (unless other mechanisms are not limited by skull volume), however there is not sufficient data to make any conclusion in this regard (again because of relatively brief timescale compared to overall hominid development).
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.(This conclusion is obviously no longer valid because the precepts have been shown to be false representations of the facts and it no longer follows from the precepts as corrected)
Also 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.
By the way, would you mind sharing that fair bit of evidence for the run-away sexual selection hypothesis?
{{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).
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)? *
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.
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?
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.
Let's summarize:
RAZD, correct me if I’m wrong, (as I have done before, and likely as will be necessary later) 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.
RAZD, is that a reasonably close assessment of your thoughts concerning how critters mutated and became humans with large brains?
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 picture
Enjoy.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by John Ponce, posted 08-07-2005 8:15 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 196 of 240 (231627)
08-09-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by JavaMan
08-09-2005 7:51 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
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.
and welcome to the board.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by JavaMan, posted 08-09-2005 7:51 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by JavaMan, posted 08-10-2005 1:05 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 197 of 240 (231663)
08-09-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by John Ponce
08-08-2005 9:56 PM


Notes
John,
Note that I've edited Message 192
also see http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species? -->http://EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species? -->EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?< !--UE-->
you might find it interesting
I also think this whole discussion hear should be shifted to that thread to leave jcrawford to deal with his racist issues here.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*09*2005 09:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by John Ponce, posted 08-08-2005 9:56 PM John Ponce has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 08-12-2005 11:17 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 208 of 240 (232957)
08-13-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John Ponce
08-13-2005 1:34 AM


Re: Skull similarities
for the record
Well, was that not the claim that was made by an evolutionist with the comparison of the first two skulls - by looking at them?
No. The claim that they were both Homo erectus preceded any such comparison. As another point of fact, more than just "looking at them" one was overlaid on the other in the reference article to show the points of conformity between them in an easily visible format.
The aborigine skull you posted is at a different angle, being a quarter view and from above the plane of the other views, and as such cannot be used for anything like the same degree of comparison. Even with that caveat, there appears to me to be a difference with the dome of the aborigine skull being a bit higher. I would need a better view (profile only) to judge though.
Starting a road trip now - be out for a while.
Good weekend to all!
Take your time. I'll deal with your "Gish Gallop" type posts as I find the time.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John Ponce, posted 08-13-2005 1:34 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 209 of 240 (232958)
08-13-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by John Ponce
08-13-2005 1:41 AM


Re: Use of analogies and understanding probability
John Ponce, msg 206 writes:
2) How many of those events would you estimate it would take to transition from a critter brain to a human brain?
Note that you have not shown that more than 200 are needed. Until you do, any argument in this direction is invalid. It is of course, just more argument from incredulity ... repeated again in spite of being challenged to be substantiated (like other assertions you have made).
We also know (1) that brain size has evolved, (2) that brain ability has evolved more in humans than relative apes. We do not need to know "how many" to know that it has happened.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by John Ponce, posted 08-13-2005 1:41 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 210 of 240 (232960)
08-13-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by John Ponce
08-13-2005 1:24 AM


Re: Welcome & Thanks
John Ponce, msg 203 writes:
Congratulations - you are the first to buy into RAZDs contention!
Thanks John, for proving that the argument from anonymous authority is indeed logically false.
Otherwise you would have had to agreed to Omni's post instead of rejecting it out of hand.
Could I interest you in a lottery ticket?
Still "selling" misrepresentations instead of logical arguments?
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by John Ponce, posted 08-13-2005 1:24 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 240 (232996)
08-13-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by John Ponce
08-13-2005 1:14 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
My comments:
John Ponce, msg 201 writes:
RAZD claims that DNA code for thicker bird beaks, peppered moths, etc, are the result of prior DNA mutations but there is no direct evidence for that from a DNA perspective — only conjecture according to the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm.
Actually there are several studies that have shown this to be the case, and the peppered moths and Galapagos finches are but two of them. They are published, they are peer reviewed. Denial is not evidence to the contrary.
First, we do have human brains today that are roughly twice the size of other human brains — but no more intelligent. There are plenty of significant deviations from the mean.
Because selection was for intelligence, not size, especially as related to creativity.
Second, the evidence indicates there are practical limits within existing DNA codes. In other words, no matter how long we try to selectively breed intelligence into an ape, it will never approach the intelligence of a human.
Prove it. This is just another assertion, based on the argument from incredulity.
Personally I don't doubt that active selective breeding can increase intelligence, but as the experiment has not been done that is just assertion. However in order to say "never" you have to have proof.
RAZD admits this with his example that you cannot continually breed horses to run 10% faster. Then he seemingly contradicts himself by presenting the supposedly unlimited mechanism for change whereby each individual evolves from its parents. Under this second scenario, you could eventually breed a cheetah from horse genes.
ROFLOL. You really do not understand. There is unlimited possiblities of change, but the ones that you actually get are based on the mutations available. Each generation is limited in what you can get. You also neglect that all changes are trade-offs, that something is lost as well as gained because there is only so much available resources available for development. You reach the point with the available genes within the horse genome that adding leg length means reduced lungs or reduce muscles or reduced bone strength or some other trade off that negates the gain by length. Does this mean that horses cannot evolve to be faster? Nope. Just that we can't force which mutations occur. Neither can natural selection. Evolution is not directed.
"breed a cheetah from horse genes" typical creationist nonsense. We can (and have) breed horses to be markedly different from their ancestors (although dogs are a better example). Breeding a horse to replicate the running behavior of a cheetah would likely be possible, but breeding one to eat meat or to grow claws would mean waiting for a mutation that would be selected against by the existing population.
Again there is a major difference between selecting features based on natural variation within the species (hair length, speed, color) and selecting for a feature that does not exist within the population.
The only way new features occur is via mutation (with no guarantee of what the new feature is or what it can become) and on it's survival\sexual selection ability to persist within the population.
Third, leaps in intelligence require, as a minimum, a vast increase in structural complexity not size.
To begin with "leaps in intelligence" are not required for individuals in each generation to be more intelligent than their parents. Just an 0.1% increase/generation is still an increase. It just needs a mechanism to select for {creativity\intelligence} because there is sufficient natural variation to provide the base differences.
If a feature is pushed to the limits of its natural variation, then it is fairly obvious that selection has been operating on it. I also note that you have not (yet) gone to the sexual selection thread to discuss the aspects of run-away sexual selection.
The probability of random DNA translation errors producing - just one single mutation - that increased complexity and functionally of the supposed hominid brain is very nearly zero - no matter how much time is allowed.
Unsubstantiated assertion (repeated), based on invalid premise, the conclusion is invalid.
RAZD states in Msg 124 that the 8088 microprocessor was designed by a random process.
Not sure if that is what RAZD meant to say but it is absurd. The leap in intelligence from a critter to a human brain is analogous to an 8088 microprocessor morphing into a Pentium 4 processor via random error processes.
You are talking about an artifact made by a species, so it's existence is based on the existence of the species that makes it, as is it's "evolution" from 8088 to pentium. The random process is the one that led to the existence of the artifact making species and the information and ability of that species to try different solutions until one succeeds. The reason that it (and life, evolution) happens is because not only is there a random process but there is a selection process.
More and more evolutionists have come to understand the absurdity of millions of random complex beneficial mutations required by neo-Darwinism.
Two fallacies in one statement: the appeal to authority ("more and more") and the argument from incredulity ("millions of mutations").
The truth of the evidence does not depend on the number of creationists in the world. Or evolutionists. Or monkeys. It just depends on it happening. If it happens it is true. It happens.
You have been asked before to substantiate you claim of "millions of random complex beneficial mutations required" and you were also told that repeating this argument without substantiation is just demonstrating that you have no validation for this assertion, and that it is logically invalid to keep making it.
I again repeat: Prove that more than 200 are needed.
You must have some basis for making this claim that puts it in a league beyond a mere 200. Or it is just another groundless assertion made because it sounds pretty.
RAZD claims millions of mutations are not required for the human brain to evolve from a critter. Again, consider the amount of additional data in blueprints and code required to build a working Pentium 4 processor compared to an old 8088 processor — it is millions, if not trillions.
OOPS. There you go with the multiple repeats of logically challenged arguments again.
RAZD is correct in that I cannot prove these highly unlikely scenarios did not happen. Neither can he prove they did.
au contraire ... the evidence shows that evolution has occurred. In human heads and in life in general. Denial does not make evidence go away. Your inability to substantiate a single assertion is evidence that your position is logically invalid.
Of course trying to classify this as "highly unlikely scenarios" is just another logical fallacy ...
Suppose RAZD lived across the sidewalk from me and RAZD managed the state lottery.
To begin with it is "the other end of the sidewalk" and it is a reference to "Where the Sidewalk Ends" - Poems and Drawings by Shel Silverstein
and you win the lottery every year for those ten years. After some careful thought and analysis, I determine that the lottery outcomes are too incredible to believe that the process is random
But all of a sudden, all the neighbors armed with new knowledge, also suspect my analysis is correct and they also quit investing in RAZD’s lottery.
It took you ten years? More likely they decided that the process was not random based on the evidence in the second or third year. They then visited Javaman to see what his system was, and when he showed them how he selected the tickets they invested their money in his method.
Talk about a bogus analogy. As a point of interest I do not "invest" any money in lotteries.
Personal Incredulity is the same objection, right or wrong, that Einstein expressed for Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle — God doesn’t shoot craps.
If only RAZD was available, he could have admonished Einstein for his "willful ignorance".
And yet, strangely, Einstein's critique did not render the Uncertainty Principal suddenly {inactive\inoperable\invalid}. Strangely enough it is still around today, in spite of being attacked by both the argument from incredulity and the argument from authority.
I just love it when your incredulity validates my position.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by John Ponce, posted 08-13-2005 1:14 AM John Ponce has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 08-13-2005 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 216 of 240 (233005)
08-13-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by John Ponce
08-12-2005 11:42 PM


Andya?
John Ponce, msg 200 writes:
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?
The argument that was convincingly refuted was the one by Gish that the Java skull was obviously apelike:
"Now we can see the skullcap is very apelike. Notice that it has no forehead, it's very flat, very typical of the ape. Notice the massive eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape" ...
While the Turkana Boy Skull was obviously human:
"The size and shape of the braincase and a few other characteristics of the postcranial skeleton were the only exceptions when the skeleton of this young boy was compared to those for modern humans."
"...the features of the Nariokotome juvenile were remarkably human with few exceptions." (Gish 1995)
Do you disagree that the arguement of Gish is refuted by the obvious similarity of the Java skull to the Turkana skull as shown by the overlay picture?
(image originally from Java Man and Turkana Boy)
Now do that with your aborigine skull. I would be interested in the result. Your picture is at too much of a different angle to tell. We should also be dealing with an aborigine skull that predates european influence to ensure no genetic cross breeding eh?
Perhaps we can get Andya to help? (he posts here - see Andya's post record)
RedRival Free Hosting
I believe that aborigines are generally shorter in stature too, but that may be due to "island ecology" effect
btw -- nice chart on increased brain volume with evolution of new hominid species.
As a proportion of body size it also shows the relationship to energy consumption, as someone else mentioned as a criteria for increased development.
1) The Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls are very similar to modern human Aborigine skulls and, therefore, may be fully human.
The fact that all of these specimens are members of the family Homo means that they are all, by definition, "fully" human. Or do you mean something else by adding "fully" to human?
Enjoy.
{{edited to change picture source}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*13*2005 02:50 PM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by John Ponce, posted 08-12-2005 11:42 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 240 (233006)
08-13-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
08-13-2005 2:03 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
heh, I know. But let's not confuse John with facts eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 08-13-2005 2:03 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 219 of 240 (233171)
08-14-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by JavaMan
08-14-2005 12:33 PM


Mechanisms for Variations
congrats, in only 14 posts no less.
http://EvC Forum: August 2005 - Post of the Month

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by JavaMan, posted 08-14-2005 12:33 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by JavaMan, posted 08-15-2005 3:00 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 240 (242337)
09-11-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Ben!
09-03-2005 2:04 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
ben, msg 222 writes:
There's no selection pressure for larger brains (and considerable pressure in the developing world against)
I can imagine why this may be so... but I've never read / heard an argument for it. Can you elaborate a bit, and point to a source?
The selection pressure is for {intelligence\creativity} not for brain size per se (John Ponce's continued mistakes to the contrary).
This has resulted in both neurological change (increased connectivity), increased surface area (the thought portion of the brain) and in increased {brain\skull} volume (for the surface area to expand into), and possibly some other factors as well (such as increased post-natal development with concurrent increased dependency while this is ongoing). That there are a number of factors is also why intelligence does not correlate with any one factor directly with the species, but does correlate between man and other species that have not selected for the same {intelligence\creativity} features.
In the undeveloped world this increased head size also correlates with increased infant and mother mortality, thus a negative selection pressure. This is alleviated in places where C-sections can be performed.
This would also have operated up until the recent past, and appears to have set a limit on birth head size. It will be interesting to see if this increases in areas where C-sections are common and thus the negative selection pressure is eased.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Ben!, posted 09-03-2005 2:04 AM Ben! has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 230 of 240 (242367)
09-11-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by John Ponce
09-11-2005 2:33 AM


John Ponce fails to answer questions directly - cannot? willnot? - repeats old bleats
John Ponce after a long absence in msg 221 writes:
I initially jumped into this forum illustrating what I felt to be absurdity.
You did. You have done nothing but demonstrate a totally absurd position, unfortunately, yours.
msg 224 writes:
RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.
I am not surprised that the subtle distinction that I made escaped you. Let me quote it seeing as you seem to have missed it the first time (Message 208):
The aborigine skull you posted is at a different angle, being a quarter view and from above the plane of the other views, and as such cannot be used for anything like the same degree of comparison. Even with that caveat, there appears to me to be a difference with the dome of the aborigine skull being a bit higher. I would need a better view (profile only) to judge though.
To me there does appear to be a difference, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it: I am willing to see a real comparison done properly and not your implicated one. Time to provide real evidence eh? (More on this below).
John Ponce, msg 224 writes:
Note that these dogs are the result of selecting pre-existing genetic traits - there is no evidence of mutations. RAZD protests that these variations were actually the result of "pre-existing mutations" but he neglects to offer any evidence
Each of those "pre-existing genetic traits" are the results of {mutations\variations\transposition errors} that occur in the process of reproduction, otherwise there would be no such trait to select for whether intentionally by humans or naturally by {survival\sex}.
The evidence is in the genes. John Ponce must think {mutations\etc} only happen after he looks at pictures of skulls. Either that or by selection for {I want red eyes} among brown eyed dogs and arbitrarily selecting ones for breeding he will accomplish red eyes by some magical process.
The answer for this single - seemingly simple - randomly correct spelling, minute by minute, is roughly once every 42 Trillion, Trillion, Trillion years. ... My friend RAZD likes to call this type of analysis "snake oil" but I suspect even he would not buy a lottery ticket with these odds.
LOL ... "probabilities" calculated when you don't know how the system works are pointless at best. Ones that intentionally ignore the way the real world works are lies. This is nothing more than the argument from incredulity masquerading as mathematics. For more on this see: {the old improbable probability problem} thread (click), and yes, I have addressed this issue before.
RAZD may propose that ...
Trying to put words in my mouth when you cannot answer the words that I do write is less than disingenuous, it is the ultimate strawman fallacy: what a surprise.
As before, I expect my friend RAZD will proudly proclaim he has "invalidated" this analysis as a "logical fallacy".
And John doesn't even attempt to reply to my post on it. Until such time as he can provide some answer this will remain invalidated.
John seems to be unable to understand that it has nothing to do with pride or with being able to repeat an argument ad nauseum but with being able to substantiate his points with valid facts and logical processes. As long as he can provide neither his arguments are ill formed opinions based on ignorance and denial at best.
There is a reason why beneficial brain mutations are not observed today.
Except they are. Google News on {brain evolution} and you will get several results.
FROM: Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens(click)
Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.
Of course John Ponce will probably argue that 5800 years is not recent... ignoring that this is long after the species Homo sapiens evolved from their ancestors some 200,000 years ago, and the comment that the spread of this mutation within the population in that time shows "that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution" ... but willful denial is like that.
Quoting RAZD in Msg 22 of the thread Is there any indication of increased intelligence over time within the Human species? in the Human Origins forum:
RAZD writes:
Any way that succeeds is not wrong. Any way that leads to new solutions is helpful.
This is why I am a former evolutionist.
The fact that you have continuously shown a complete ignorance of the basic mechanisms of evolution shows that you were never a "former evolutionist" for to be a "former" you had to first be one, and to be one you had to understand it.
As to the "quote" given, the thread link is HERE so you can read the context of the thread, and the specific message referenced link is HERE so you can see what the discussion is actually about (rather than the gratuitous quote mining): we were talking about communicating concepts between two people and whether or not there was a wrong way involved.
Obviously John Ponce wants to portray this sentence in a different light than it actually was posted in or he is unable to see the distinctions involved. This has been a continued characteristic of his posts on this thread in general and with any reference to my points in particular.
Now, I would characterize his post as a "wrong way" to communicate between parties, whether it is due to a willful and intended misrepresentation or just from ignorance and lack of ability is not important, the point is that once again John Ponce is just plain wrong.
John Ponce, msg 227 writes:
Something was strange about that post #200. The Skull displayed properly when I first posted it
Sometimes you have to right click on the little box that is where the picture should be and select {view image} to load it into your machines memory, then when you go "back" to the post it will display. This is also a problem when you live-link to pictures on other sites rather than save them to ones you can link to without involving site tracking softwares.
I have copied the one in question to:
{{picture deleted of another abo skull, original can be seen at
Human Male Australian Aboriginal Skull - Bone Clones, Inc. - Osteological Reproductions}}
Note that John Ponce reproduces part of the article form talkorigins that I provided on the skull comparison, but that what he quoted was in refutation of Gish's claim that:
""The size and shape of the braincase and a few other characteristics of the postcranial skeleton were the only exceptions when the skeleton of this young boy was compared to those for modern humans."
The full quote from the article is:
Note that the skull of the Turkana Boy is quite different from a modern skull. To illustrate this, draw a line from the eyebrow ridge to the corner made by the lower jaw and the bottom of the skull. This divides the Turkana Boy's skull into two almost equal-sized parts. With the human skull, the upper part is much larger.
The rest of this post is repeating previous arguments that have been addressed already. This just shows a continued pattern of failure to address the points raised that challenge John Ponce's opinions. For example, here is another copy of John Ponce's aborigine skull ... with the above referenced "line" drawn:
{{deleted -- you'll have to draw the line yourself on the picture in the above link}}
If anyone thinks that this picture with this line is a valid representation of the aborigine brain volume to compare to the one of the Turkana Boy, I'd like to hear it.
All John Ponce has done with his latest visits is to repeat failed arguments, insinuate erroneous conclusions without substantiation, post hilarious invalid "probability" calculations, and continue to make the argument from incredulity.
And apparently he doesn't have the guts to answer my points directly anymore, only make bad references to them that misrepresent what I said.
Messages that John Ponce will not or cannot answer: And probably this one as well.
And this doesn't even begin to address the points that he has failed to address in other posts of mine where he has made some half-hearted attempt to answer.
Enjoy.
{{edited to remove copyright pictures}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*18*2005 10:02 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by John Ponce, posted 09-11-2005 2:33 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 240 (243144)
09-13-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by JavaMan
09-13-2005 8:40 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
That wouldn't be deliberate would it?
If you {google images} on {aborigine skull} it is the first one that comes up, so I don't think it is deliberate, just lax and uncritical thinking at best.
here is another abo skull picture, originally from
Human Male Australian Aboriginal Skull - Bone Clones, Inc. - Osteological Reproductions
here is a similar view of a Homo erectus skull, originally from
http://www.evolutionnyc.com/....(img)
Not much doubt about a difference there from homo erectus to me.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*13*2005 10:02 PM
{{pictures deleted -- use links to see}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*14*2005 06:54 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by JavaMan, posted 09-13-2005 8:40 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by MangyTiger, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 236 of 240 (243468)
09-14-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by MangyTiger
09-13-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Can we use the aborigine picture?
oops. deleted, but left link to view the picture at their site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by MangyTiger, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 PM MangyTiger 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