|
Author
|
Topic: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 167 of 301 (41241)
05-24-2003 7:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
05-22-2003 10:13 AM
|
|
paleoraces
Greetings, Percy
You wrote: "Combined with the fact that the Homo erectus body size was roughly the same as Homo sapiens but with a brain little more than half as large, how do you support your conclusion that Homo erectus was "intellectually indistinguishable" from Homo sapiens?"
[a] Holocene people's brain volume (from about 650 - over 2000 ccm) doesn't prove any evident correlation between intellectual capacities and the brain size.
[b] There is a crucial difference between a given "technology" and the "development of technology". Spiders, beavers, bees demonstrate a "technical" behavior. But man seems to be the only animal capable to improve, change, to invent technologies.
[c] H. erectus most certainly invented processing of food, learned to control fire, learned to build shelters, so his rather mysterious acheulian handaxes are not the only sign of his intellectual power.
Regards
Piotr L.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-22-2003 10:13 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 168 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 8:20 PM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has not replied | | | Message 169 by Percy, posted 05-24-2003 10:12 PM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Re: paleoraces
[a] Holocene people's brain volume (from about 650 - over 2000 ccm) doesn't prove any evident correlation between intellectual capacities and the brain size This is a well understood fact. You've missed the point that the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity. And where did you get your brain volume information from. That may be the extremes of the range but it is not the normal range. edited to correct spelling (well make it a bit better) [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-24-2003]
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: [a] Holocene people's brain volume (from about 650 - over 2000 ccm) doesn't prove any evident correlation between intellectual capacities and the brain size. [b] There is a crucial difference between a given "technology" and the "development of technology". Spiders, beavers, bees demonstrate a "technical" behavior. But man seems to be the only animal capable to improve, change, to invent technologies.
[c] H. erectus most certainly invented processing of food, learned to control fire, learned to build shelters, so his rather mysterious acheulian handaxes are not the only sign of his intellectual power. These statements offer no support for your conclusion that Homo erectus was "intellectually indistinguishable" from Homo sapiens. The question of how you support this conclusion remains. So far all you have is an assertion with no supporting evidence. And you have to deal with evidence contradicting your assertion, such as that mentioned by NosyNed that brain size *does* correlate with intellectual capacity. As Nosy also mentioned, your brain volume range for Holocene humans is questionable. The range for erectus is estimated at 775-1225 cc with an average around 900 cc, and that for sapiens at roughly 1000-2000 cc with an average around 1400 cc. That's a dramatic difference in brain size. Our evidence regarding erectus and fire and "food processing" goes back to the earliest appearance of erectus 1.5 million years ago, and indicates that while he used fire he couldn't actually originate it himself. During his subsequent 1.3 million year existence he only added a single additional new technology, the Acheulian. In contrast, in less than 10% of that amount of time sapiens have introduced a veritable explosion of new technologies. There's no comparison. --Percy
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 170 of 301 (41260)
05-25-2003 3:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
05-24-2003 10:12 PM
|
|
paleoraces
Dear Nosy,
You wrote: "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity."
May I ask an additional question? Does the above statement refer to the "paleodata" (paleontological reconstructions) or to the holocene, historical evidence?
Regards
Piotr L.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Percy, posted 05-24-2003 10:12 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 171 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2003 3:13 AM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has replied | | | Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 11:15 AM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Re: paleoraces
May I ask an additional question? Does the above statement refer to the "paleodata" (paleontological reconstructions) or to the holocene, historical evidence?
No, of course not, how would you measure intellectual capacity of something that is not only dead but extinct. It refers to humans today mostly. You haven't cleared up some questions, could you do that now?
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Hi Piotr, I've visited your webpage at http://www.jezuici.krakow.pl/sj/lenart, and I see that you have a medical degree and that you've held academic positions at Catholic and Jesuit universities in Europe for the past 30 or 40 years. You seem to specialize in hominids, but all your listed papers appear in philosophy journals, none in paleontological journals. You seem to argue from assertion rather than from evidence, and you ask NosyNed a question about brain size that someone specializing in hominids would already know the answer to, along with being familiar with tons of background evidence. In other words, something about you doesn't quite jibe here. Perhaps you're salty II. Anyway, what evidence do you have that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal, and what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? By the way, here's a handy table of brain-mass/body-mass data for hominids: Franklin & Marshall
--Percy
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 173 of 301 (41303)
05-25-2003 7:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by NosyNed
05-25-2003 3:13 AM
|
|
paleoraces
NosyNed claims that "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity." Does the above statement refer to the "paleodata" (paleontological reconstructions) or to the holocene, historical evidence? NosyNed replies: "No, of course not, how would you measure intellectual capacity of something that is not only dead but extinct. It refers to humans today mostly." Now, according to my knowledge the above mentioned correlation in the holocene populations is very, very weak - to say the least. Besides I am aware of the difficulties in measuring the intellectual capacity. I am also aware how different "the ratio of brain size to body size" can be in different stages of man's adult life (the development or decrease of musculature or fat tissue may dramatically change without any significant change in the intellectual potential of a concrete individual). If we consider the pleistocene remains we have to be aware how difficult it is to reconstruct the stature and to estimate reliably the entire body weight. For these reasons I doubt the claim that "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity" is sound enough to be of any help in the reconstruction of the intellectual status of our ancestors. Regards Piotr L.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2003 3:13 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 174 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 7:18 PM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: For these reasons I doubt the claim that "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity" is sound enough to be of any help in the reconstruction of the intellectual status of our ancestors. If it's no help, then what is the evidence behind your conclusion that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal? And what does this have to do with this thread? --Percy
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 175 of 301 (41335)
05-26-2003 2:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
05-25-2003 7:18 PM
|
|
paleoraces
I wrote: "I doubt the claim that "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity" is sound enough to be of any help in the reconstruction of the intellectual status of our ancestors." Percy asks: "If it's no help, then what is the evidence behind your conclusion that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal? And what does this have to do with this thread?" The topic of our discussion is: "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?" In my opinion there is plenty of evidence that H. erectus was anatomically very similar to holocene people. However he was smaller, had more developped masticatory system, and his technology was probably less developed than the technology of some holocene populations. Is this a sufficient evidence for a "transitional form"? In my opinion H. erectus was a "different" ecophenotype of our kind. From the purely biological point of view I would expect that the human races during the glacial epoch were different from human races in the postglacial period. Regards Piotr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 7:18 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Percy, posted 05-26-2003 11:32 AM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: In my opinion there is plenty of evidence that H. erectus was anatomically very similar to holocene people. Certainly more similar to sapiens than chimps, but there are a number of significant differences. This webpage has a convenient list, and it indicates some pretty substantial differences:
You're assertion seems a simple handwave. You make a few other unsupported or incorrect claims.
However he was smaller,... Except that he wasn't smaller. See the table I just cited in my previous message ( Franklin & Marshall
) which indicates a body weight for erectus of 58 kg and for sapiens of 55.5 kg.
...had more developed masticatory system,... You mean bigger jaw muscles? This is a characteristic shared, to a reduced extent, with evolutionary predecessors or cousins like Australopithecus robustus and Australopithecus boisei. The chewing apparatus continued to diminish in sapiens. You ignored the other question. What is the evidence behind your assertion that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal? --Percy
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 177 of 301 (41442)
05-27-2003 8:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
05-26-2003 11:32 AM
|
|
paleoraces
Dear Percy, You wrote: "The chewing apparatus continued to diminish in sapiens." Precisely. And here my argument is hidding. During the pleistocene epoch the body mass in hominids was increasing. At the same - roughly - time the masticatory system was dimnishing. The most reasonable answer, in my opinion, is that the reduction of the masticatory apparatus is a sign of a progress in the technology of food processing. This process is still going on and can be easily observed in the "wild" populations of man, which started using highly processed modern forms of food. It seems that the "tradition" of the progressive trend in the food technology started very early in the hominid lineage. Am I really missing the point of our discussion? The evaluation of the body weight on the basis of the really scarce postcranial remains is a risky and not too reliable process. If different hypotheses concerning the diet (mostly meat or mostly vegetable), the "lean body mass" problem, the proportion in the development of the arm and leg musculature are taken into account, I cannot accept the MacHenry's estimates as final. I would rather vote for the similar, gradual increase of the adult body mass, as it is documented in the phylogenesis of equidae. The increase of the brain volume fits to this scenario, so that the gradual increase in the brain volume might be considered as another argument for the steady increase of the body dimensions in the hominid lineage. Piotr L.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Percy, posted 05-26-2003 11:32 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 178 of 301 (41454)
05-27-2003 11:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
05-25-2003 11:15 AM
|
|
paleoraces
Dear Percy, Only now I noticed your rather impertinent remarks on my person (message 172). As you see I am writing in the philosophical journals, but you didn't notice that in my philosophical paper on hominids I am dependent upon the evidence published in the paleontological or biological journals. Besides, you have recommended me a table of the brain/body ratio which is evidently wrong in such a well documented area as the brain volume of the Neandertal hominids. I would be a waste of time to check the rest of it. I am not asking you what is your scientific background. I was expecting a fair discussion and exchange of arguments. Piotr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 11:15 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 179 by Percy, posted 05-27-2003 12:30 PM | | Piotr Lenartowicz SJ has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: Only now I noticed your rather impertinent remarks on my person (message 172). As you see I am writing in the philosophical journals, but you didn't notice that in my philosophical paper on hominids I am dependent upon the evidence published in the paleontological or biological journals. Oh, good God, it's Salty II! As I said, something about you didn't add up, but now it's starting to make sense. You have the sound and manner of a crank. I'm guessing you're publishing in philosophical journals where they cannot assess your positions because paleontological journals would never publish your papers because of the obvious nonsense, like this introduction to Fossil hominids - an empirical premise of the descriptive definition of Homo sapiens that's simply an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance:
Since the discovery of the Neandertal bones 1856 (cfr Toussaint, 1996), the extremely old, fragmentary fossil remains of hundreds of man-like bodies have been discovered in Europe, Asia, and Africa (cfr Bonjean, 1996). Even the oldest ones - usually the most incomplete - look man-like and "un-apish", even to a layman, if compared with a modern apish and human correlate. Sometimes, in the vicinity of these remains, primitive stone tools or the evidence of their production have been found. At present, it seems absolutely certain - within the limits of our present physical and biological knowledge - that at least four million years ago, in Africa, some creatures resembling modern man were living, and that at least two and half million years ago, in Africa, stone tools were produced. In contrast with the firm, scientifically-arguable belief that all modern human tribes - however different they are - belong to a single species (cfr Littlefield et al., 1982; Marks, 1995), in paleoanthropology an equally firm scientific belief is maintained that the extinct man-like forms belong to several different, "presapient", "prehuman", more ape-like species (cfr Wood, 1996). No philosopher ignores the theoretical consequences of this situation. There is, however, a big epistemological paradox hidden at the bottom of it. There is no agreement among philosophers how to describe the clear gaps between the actually living primate forms and in particular how to understand the mental superiority of the modern living man (Hominidae family) over the modern living apes (Pongidae family). On the biological side of the problem, there is no consensus how to classify the distinctive hominid or human biological traits, such a bipedalism, the erect posture of the body and the functional complex of human masticatory system. One can, therefore, wonder how these extremely difficult and debatable topics might be solved on the basis of the fragmentary, mineralized remains. We are going to argue that the data concerning the evident gap between Pliocene and early Pleistocene hominids and Pliocene and Pleistocene pongids pose the same kind of questions as the present, obvious gap between the modern forms of man and modern forms of apes (cfr Lenartowicz 1972, 1990). Is this even good philosophy? Face facts - you've got a premise that's so far out in left field no paleontology journals or conferences will accept your work, and your messages here so far are primarily assertions with little or no supporting evidence, just like Salty. Why should anyone take you seriously?
I am not asking you what is your scientific background. And I'm not telling you. You made your background fair game when you used your real name.
I was expecting a fair discussion and exchange of arguments. Given the evidence you've provided so far, your ideas deserve to be taken with the same seriousness as those from inventors of perpetual motion machines. Present some serious evidence supporting your assertions, like the one about Homo erectus being our intellectual equal, or the one about prior hominid species simply being different human races.
Besides, you have recommended me a table of the brain/body ratio which is evidently wrong in such a well documented area as the brain volume of the Neandertal hominids. I would be a waste of time to check the rest of it. Here's the link again:
You're right, the Neanderthal number is light by about 150g. And the erectus number is a little light, too, by maybe 70g, and doesn't take into account that recent erectus had larger brains around 1100g instead of 900g. But you're using these minor errors as an excuse to avoid addressing your own massive blunder in claiming erectus had a smaller body size, which is the information you were supposed to examine in the table. Here's an article from Scientific American summarizing an article that appeared in Nature about the incredible shrinking human (in other words, we're smaller than erectus):
{Shortened display form of above URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus} --Percy [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-27-2003]
|
Sharon357
Inactive Member
|
Cetacean - Whale Evolution by Ed Babinski
Photographic evidence of vestigial hind limbs on Cetacean Species exists: In latter 2002, Edward T. Babinski posted on this Forum, about whale evolution. I was searching months later, out of my own personal interest, in a vague hope to find something on the web, that would give some hard evidence for whale evolution, to be true. I ran into a lot of dead ends, and information which I didn't consider convincing enough. I found some sites, where Creationist(s) mocked that no photographic evidence exists for hind limbs on whales.... the more I searched, the more disillusioned I became. I came across Ed's article in this forum - - it was the only thing I came away with that day, in my entire Google search, which gave me some hope evidence exists. After acquainting Ed through this Forum, we've had extensive email correspondence, and I still maintain the same interest in Cetacean Evolution as I did that day, when I bumped into him. Since then, he's done a lot of research on the subject and we've worked to get an article, prepared and placed on the web. He's done an excellent job, if I might say so. Creationists claim no photographs exist? Edward Babinski has provided an abundant amount of graphic evidence, also with appreciation to WGBH-Boston/Carl Zimmer's "Evolution Project", for their contribution to the article. This article "Cetacean Evolution: Whales, Porpoises, Dolphins" is located at Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean Evolution The public may also review the amusing response by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., from Answers in Genesis, in regard to Ed's earliest version of "Cetacean Evolution". (Long before Ed got the article on the web). That article, containing Dr. Sarfati's emails, is located at File Not Found -- Ed Babinski and myself, welcome people to visit. Thank you, Sharon Lemke http://www.skeptical-christian.netScrivenings [This message has been edited by Sharon357, 06-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by ebabinski, posted 07-26-2002 6:39 PM | | ebabinski has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Cetacean - Whale Evolution by Ed Babinski
This, from Safarti:
quote:
So I hope you will understand that we can't possibly respond to all claims disseminated by every God-hater inhabiting the darker hovels of the Internet, especially when our site and books deal with the claims already.
This is how the famous Dr. Safarti acts in public? Wow, he isn't even pretending to behave professionaly, is he? His comment about someone who disagrees with him being a "god-hater" is very telling. Also, it's clear that he is not, as a real scientist would be, interested in new evidence nor in discerning the truth about whales. He is, instead, interested in defending his preferred belief in spite of any contradictory evidence about whales which has come up. Very sad and very intellectually dishonest. Keep going, you two. The fact that he got so very upset and attacked you means that you are on the right track. Best of luck.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 180 by Sharon357, posted 06-29-2003 4:45 AM | | Sharon357 has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2