Bones of Contentions.

Hi. This caught my interest.Arachnophilia stated "what h. sapiens had that made it more effective was sort of an evolutionary short-cut. cheating so to speak. it had a larger brain. that meant that it did not have to out evolve the more highly-adapted neandertals. it just had to do things a little smarter."Since brain size is roughly proportional to physical stature, are NBA players smarter than horse jockeys? Are large men on average smarter than small women? Are Pygmies less intelligent than white boys with bigger heads?
If you respond negatively, how can you make such a conclusion with any confidence?

Arachnophilia stated "what i meant was that homo sapiens tended to have proportionally larger brains (compared to body size) than neandertals."Yes, it was clear what you meant. The question stands unanswered. How can you have any confidence in your assertion in light of the questions posed to you concerning brain size? Are NBA players smarter than horse jockeys?

Arach, have you considered your assertion may be wrong?
If larger brains are smarter, why should you be concerned with the size of the body?So, assuming as you say, people that have "proportionally" larger heads compared to their bodies are more intelligent. Are you sticking with this? Do you have any evidence?
If so, the Nazis were measuring the wrong parameters in the 1930s for their "superior race", huh?

Arachnophalia - Disappointed that you have not responded. Perhaps you are researching the premise.
If your assertion were true, shouldn't we expect people with relatively "Big Heads" (compared to their bodies as you say) to be distinguished today with at least - slightly - higher intelligence? Is brain size or "relative brain size to body size" the primary reason evolutionists propose for some primitive animal slowly evolving into man? If there is no evidence, perhaps it is worth reconsidering.Arach, do you have any evidence or is this a tenet of Darwinian evolution that you have embraced at face value?

Ah, you responded just before my post. Thank you.
Arach, I'm not misrepresenting what you said at all - only repeating your assertion!
So if you are speaking on a "STRICTLY species average basis" shouldn't a statistical sampling bear out your assertion today? If not, then I could only conclude the Darwinian evolutionary premise is highly questionable, and likely wrong...
Do you have any evidence of people with relatively "big heads" being more intelligent today - even on an "average basis"?

My goodness Jar, you seem a bit sensitive. Perhaps you could answer the question rather than getting in a personal tizzy.
It was not my original contention - I don't believe it.I was simply quoting Arachnaphilia - you should ask him since you seem to be offended and you wander how clueless I am.
Here is Arach's original statement: So what do you say Jar? What do you believe was the "magic bullet" or predominant survival mechanism - if not mutational intelligence - that enabled or propelled Homo Sapiens to evolve from some small hairy animal?Best Regards

I am having difficulty following your logic Jar. I'll work through it and you can point out any errors or misunderstanding I may have made. (Capital emphasis mine.)OK. So you believe intelligence (as correlated by relatively big heads) is one of the factors in the survival of our alleged great great grandcritters. I would interpret this to mean that intelligence has SOMETHING to do with evolution. This is also consistent with what we are generally taught in school about Darwinian evolutionary theory, is it not?The definition of Darwinian evolution is (Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com): The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.The definition of Natural Selection (same source): The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to SURVIVE and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. (Capital emphasis mine.) Following you’re initial statement of belief, you seem to agree with Arach that intelligence correlates with "relative brain size". NOTHING to do with evolution? This is where you seem to be arguing from two different planets. EITHER intelligence was one of the factors in the survival of our great great grandcritters OR intelligence didn’t have anything to do with survival.Do you see where your logic here is not sound? So if Lots of critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain at all, how does it follow that All critters have evolved and done just fine with no brain (or without relatively bigger heads) at all?
Lots of cars are red so all cars are red?You asked if I even have a clue.
I do.
I jumped in this discussion by illustrating what I believe to be absurdity with absurdity. The responses have piled on more logical absurdity. I would encourage you to think through your beliefs with a more sound logical approach regarding evidence. I formerly believed the same Darwinian evolutionary tenets as you - until I started to question things more thoroughly with respect to actual evidence. Either relatively larger brains were a factor in alleged human evolution or they were not. If not, there must have been some other unidentified selection criteria for our alleged speciation.So, in summary, if you believe as you stated, that intelligence or relative brain size has distinguished Homo Sapiens from earlier primates (presumably through mutation and SURVIVAL of the fittest via natural selection), then we should be able to distinguish at least a slightly higher intelligence level among relatively big headed people today among a large current sample size of homo-critter descendents — if there were any evidence. A negative outcome would tend to refute this commonly embraced belief of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Do you have any evidence? I suppose one could refer to the entertaining depictions of space aliens we supposedly captured after a UFO crashed in Area 51 with proportionally very big heads? But let’s not confuse science with science fiction.And, on the other logical planet, if you don't believe that intellegence (sic) or brain size has anything to do with either the TOE or evolution, then what mutational criteria do you propose that natural selection used to distinguish and propagate us human beings from our alleged great great grandcritters? Assuming you were able to propose some other distinguishable mutational feature, what evidence do you have for such a proposal?If this relatively big head evolutionary principle of human evolution is supported by any evidence, we could have widespread application today. In addition to aborting Downs Syndrome children, we could abort children with relatively small heads — maybe call it Pin Head Syndrome. This could minimize the negative impact on the mother’s mental health from having an evolutionary inferior (less intelligent) child. Of course this is absurd but it is a logical path from common human evolutionary principle as described by Arachnophelia.Analytical Regards to relatively Big Headed Critters!

It was Arachnaphelia in post 6 that landed me in this discussion. Here is the quote: Natural selection supposedly propagates those billions (trillions) of allegedly beneficial random mutations that enhance survival and reproductive benefits to eventually produce human beings. If larger brains can be used to distinguish species, the trait must have some benefit in the process of natural selection. No?You seem to say you do not equate intelligence with brain size - so what is the benefit that supposedly retained the mutated brains in the hominid critter gene pool? Was increased brain size simply a neutral mutation and didn’t add any intelligence? Why do you suppose larger brains would be a selected trait — increased ability to deliver lethal head butts on enemies?So Jar, please explain it to me in your own words. What do Darwinian evolutionary theorists postulate was the decided selection mechanism for larger hominid brains in the scheme of natural selection?I humbly suggest you appear to be attempting to ignore the obvious and evade the questions that present particular problems for your beliefs. Maybe I’m reading you wrongly. That would be how many million years ago Jar? Why would you imagine that? Is their any evidence? The evidence I’m aware of suggests intelligence on par with us first appeared coincident with the oldest recorded history on Earth - only 5000 years ago (give or take). Wouldn’t you think that evidence at least a little bit odd if reasonably intellignet folks like us have really been bumming around for millions of years? Agreed! Wander if it was the same genius who first made beer? Jar, we are in the Human Origins forum, not viral origins. So I’ll ask the question once again, if you do not accept the common Darwinian premise that intelligence correlated with the supposedly ever increasing mutated brain size of hominids, specifically what predominant mutational traits do you propose worked to propel us through those millions of years alleged evolutionary history?Analytical Regards,

Greetings Deerbreh,
Evolutionists believe that geographic isolation is a primary mechanism for supposed divergence from one form of life into another form of life via random mutation and natural selection. This is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory, is it not? The supposed acquisition of differing functional traits within isolated gene pools supposedly includes (but is not limited to) both brain size and intelligence according to evolutionary thought. Is this not taught as the driving force that critters supposedly evolved into mankind — slowly acquiring larger brains and higher intelligence? If not, please answer what the differentiating feature is thought to be with respect to evolution from critters to humans.When I challenge this concept (posts 37, 38, 44, and 52) concerning brain size and inferred intelligence of supposed progressive hominids as asserted by Arachnaphelia (I believe he called it cheating of sorts, folks start back-peddling and contradicting their statements — leaving my fundamental questions concerning potential evidence unanswered.If the theory of human evolution is true, there should be evidence within the general worldwide population that we can measure today in the supposed continuum of genetic traits within the lineage of human beings. If you think this statement cannot possibly be correct, please explain your logic in detail using evolutionary principles. Of course evidence for disagreement is always welcome. A common ancestor in a direct line. What an incredibly novel idea — yet an age old concept. I presume you are referring to the evolutionary Mitochondrial Eve Arach discussed in Post 6. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Mitochondrial Eve adopted into human evolutionary theory a few years ago after DNA analysis from people all over the world surprisingly pointed to a single common female "Mother of ALL human Beings"? In other words, the evidence indicates we have a single genetic source point rather than merging of beneficial mutations from disparate gene pools among tribes and individuals. Wow, she must have been some kind of WOMAN — since ONLY her lineage survived among all the supposed competing hominid type groups and sub-groups! But isn’t the supposed evolutionary tree continually mutating and branching into differing physical and functional characteristics, thereby resulting in new forms of life — sometimes generating completely new structures and capabilities such as controlled flight, sonar navigation, larger brains and higher intelligence?Are you a genuine evolutionist? Evolutionists teach that geographic isolation often leads to new branches of life from a common evolutionary limb. Concerning human evolutionary theory with respect to races, you seem to contradict this foundational principle. I understand why this may be. The Darwinian evolutionary philosophy naturally leads to some unpleasant conclusions. Conclusions for which I believe there is no evidence. I believe this is true. Do you have any supporting evidence for it? This would seem, to me at least, to be evidence against Darwinian evolutionary theory since it states the human species includes geographically isolated genetic pools branching out from an evolutionary continuum. A continuum with many branches since the time our intellectually challenged great great grand-critters supposedly climbed down out of the trees.There are differing DNA patterns among geographically separated human lineages. However, it is simply due to genetic isolation of certain traits such as hair color, eye color, facial features — dominant, recessive, etc. We see this all around us, among canines for example. I fully agree we are all equally human. However, Darwinian evolutionary theory postulates that some geographically isolated branches are diverging toward subgroups and eventually new types of organisms. The Darwinian theory infers that some branches are naturally a little higher than others with respect to certain functions and capabilities. No? Please explain if I am misrepresenting the theory at all. Well Good Golly Miss Molly! Bar the doors from those gawdawful liars!
Or as Larry the Cable Guy might exclaim with astonishment: Well I’ll be SumBitch! Heh heh! I don’t care who ye are, that’s funny right there!There seems to be a pattern here. When the evolutionists cannot (or will not) answer reasonable questions sensibly, there are typically two fallback positions:
1) Proclaim debate opponents to be grossly ignorant as in Do you even have a clue? (Jar Msg 39)
2) Pronounce debate opponents to be plain old liars as in Lying for Jesus is still lying. (Deerbreh Msg 54)
Frankly, I’m disappointed in the level of debate here. Neither response is a very convincing argument for validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory (or philosophy).Am I lying Deerbreh? How about we examine the evidence and leave Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, etc, out of it.Perhaps you could address the questions rather than wasting our time staking out positions of intellectual or moral superiority.Analytical Regards for Big Headed Hominids

Jar,Well, that left about 7 or 8 questions unanswered? I will let the lurkers decide whether you really don't understand the questions or you are simply being evasive because you don't have answers. Well OK... For the benefit of all those in the gallery, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us to the error.I suspect you know well what I mean by "recorded history". It is not rocks. Will do some checking on the Venus thing - Thanks for the reference.Analytical Regards

Greetings NosyNed,Thank you for the thoughtful response. If you read my posts carefully, you will note that the relative brain size to body as an indicator of "being smarter" is not what I believe. Arach originally threw that out. I was illustrating the absurdity of the concept and also pointing out that if such a thing were true, we should be able to quantify it today. It is, however, what I perceive a majority of evolutionists to embrace - possibly without much thought.The rest of your post is appreciated. It should give the gallery some food for thought concerning the recently developed parallels of antithetical world views - we all came from one woman who lived relatively recently with regard to supposed evolutionary time scales, etc.Analytical Regards

Thanks for your analysis PaulK.
I don't have time to respond to all others but your post seemed thoughtful. If true, why shouldn't that trend or some trace of that trend be measurable today? Did those mutations causing billions (trillions) of increased brain connections, size, and related intellectual abilities just explode on the scene and then disappear into a completely homogenous transfigured population with no relative measure today? Similar mutations never to be ongoing or detectable again among billions of people?Do you believe that intelligence is a function of increased brain size as measured in supposed hominid progression?
If you do, why would that same phenomena not be measurable today? If you do not beleive that, what would be the evolutionary advantage of relatively bigger heads? Not true - but theoretically possible? OK.
It is reasonable to me that whatever mechanism propelled such a relatively rapid alleged advancement from a group of critters to mankind should be detectable and measurable today. The brief discussions here indicate there is a wide range of evolutionary thought as to what that mechanism is and human evolution in general — relatively big brains vs body size, Neandertal mating with Sapiens, etc. Don’t forget Bigfoot! PaulK, if it were expected, it should have been predicted. Do you know of any predictions of this result before the analysis was published?
Surely, others were surprised as the Wikipedia expresses the same. Moving on. Not sure exactly what you refer to as wrong. Granted, the concept is not absolutely certain — but I’m not sure any of us can state with certainty what is wrong or More wrong. Here is a good reference on the analysis for interested gallery viewers:Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia.The evidence points to a bottleneck in the population.If it is true that all women today are direct descendents of this fine old Lady, then by necessity, all men are also (since men are only born from this line of women).By the time this fine lady lived - after millions of years of various alleged critter to hominid type transitions - there were likely some form of competing groups spread all across inhabitable land.There seems to be two potential causes if the analysis is correct. Either something supposedly caused a severe bottleneck in the evolutionary gene pool (either due to or coincident to Mega Benificial Mutations), or it was the actual origin of the gene pool. groups associated with the idea of "race" have probably never been geograpjhically isolated from each other.
PaulK - I am at a total loss to understand how you logically conclude the distinguishing features among human races are the result of anything but genetic isolation of those traits via geographic isolation over many generations.We know certain populations have been largely isolated from others for millennia! What else could it possibly be??? Do you believe distinguishing racial features are the result of mutations and that these races have already started to deviate toward new species?It is reasonable and logical to conclude the Himalaya range has isolated different populations to the degree that various facial features became pronounced compared to other populations on the continent.Certainly, geographic isolation (with minimal outside influence) is responsible for various superficial features.However, this is isolation of pre-existing genetic traits within the overall population, not mutations.In other words, with genetic trait selection, a poodle can be bred from a general dog population — no mutations necessary. It’s still, and always will be, a genetic dog as much as any other dog. This, I think, is the meat of the matter. No, I don’t think anyone has described that as racism.On the other hand it isn’t Darwinian evolution either, in my opinion. It is highly unlikely that evolutionary mutations have increased the lung capacity of people living in higher parts of the Andes. Other factors are likely responsible.For example, if you use your biceps to carry heavy buckets of water from a well several times a day — your bicep size and strength (capacity) will naturally increase beyond that of the average population. No mutations necessary.
Those that have weaker arms will likely relocate to a water source where they don’t have to carry water so much.Alternatively, those people within the existing genetic population who happen to be fortunate enough to inherit exceptional lung capacity (as opposed to other larger than normal organs) are more likely to be comfortable at higher altitudes and migrate there.Even though Darwinian evolution does not necessarily include anything we consider greatly important as you say, the theory hinges upon critical mutations as a mechanism for new branches (certain functions and capabilities) via natural selection.These supposed distinguishing capabilities will necessarily cause some branches to be a little higher than others over time with respect to mutational advantages
— how much time is largely conjecture within the Darwinian theory.This is diametrically opposed to human origins via special creation in which all human variation is limited within certain established genetic bounds and diverse lineages will never produce anything but genetic human beings.Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" Hominids!

Why do you suppose selection pressure could not have overcome the balance point when the special advantage of a larger brain was supposedly counterbalanced by the birthing difficulties caused by "larger heads in babies"? The problem of the "big head" would not necessarily have to be overly pronounced at birth.After all, random mutation and natural selection have supposedly solved much more difficult problems than this one to help create new species — controlled flight in birds, sonar in dolphins, etc!Alternatively, why wouldn’t the selection pressure (for highly successful larger human brains) have selected women with mutated larger birthing canal structures or possibly a mutated pouch combined with thumb sized birth and infant growth like kangaroos? Not enough "time" for randomly mutated pouches, I suppose.The gallery can form their own conclusion on the validity of the balanced big headed evolutionary progress limitation proposal.Again, I believe there are no distinguishing intellectual features among races today. That firm belief is based both on my professional experience and my confidence that the concept of human evolution from smaller brained critters is the biggest hoax ever heaved on mankind. So you believe the slowly developing larger brain played a large part and was highly successful under selection pressures so as to completely supersede all other supposed hominid evolutionary cousin strains and branches - except all the varieties of apes, monkeys we see today? Are you saying that not very many (millions-trillions) "random mutations" were needed for the critter brain to slowly evolve to produce smarter and bigger heads?
Any neuroscience folks in the gallery?Well, if you are correct, the Nazis were measuring all the wrong human head dimensions in their effort to weed out the inferior people and proliferate the superior race!
It’s too bad the Nazis didn’t see alleged pictures of a captured "Area 51 Alien" before the war was over. Unfortunately, the alleged UFO hadn't crashed yet. They may have realized how important relatively big heads really were! (tongue firmly planted in cheek)Is there any evidence?PaulK, do you also believe that this phenomenal big headed evolutionary development has produced human beings in such a short order (relatively speaking) but that all distinguishing evidence of this supposedly super successful and relatively fast evolutionary platform has disappeared among present populations?There’s no trace of this phenomenal development today?If you back off this implication like Arach and NosyNed, then you will claim the remaining lineage of all humans today is COMPLETELY homogenous with respect to intelligence — not enough time to make any real differences.If this forum is consistent in human evolutionary thought, you will assert that the competitive field was absolutely leveled very recently — no distinguishable relative differences and no similar ongoing measurable mutations of intellectual benefit according to relative brain size. That would be convenient for the theory of human evolution.Suddenly, there is nothing to observe and measure as relative evidence among billions of individuals???If that is the position you take, then I would understand. Otherwise, we could potentially validate the theory today by analyzing the evidence.Does this seem a bit counter-intuitive to you? I would not want to be required to defend the human evolutionary thesis based on remnant brain trait evidence among ancestors or even current mutational advantages - because I believe there is no evidence.Again, we’ll let the gallery decide what seems more logical from the inferences of the human evolutionary theory and the antithesis - versus the evidence. Yup! That is likely why they named her the Mitochondrial Eve - one woman with a relatively recent date. Of course the average rate of accumulation in mitochondrial evidence is also debatable as some direct measurements have been observed at approximately 20 times the rate inferred by comparing modern human to gorilla mitochondria — placing Eve at a much more recent date! But that is too far off topic for this thread. Of course the article would not deny that convergence will happened — because it evidently did happen!If Mitochondrial Eve was such an expected event, were there any published (or even unpublished) predictions of this by evolutionary theorists before the evidence was uncovered?
Perhaps it was just common sense - after the fact. If you are asking me, no hominids were ever living! The supposed shards of evidence is either extinct monkeys, fully human, hoaxes, or just plain old mistakes, widely acclaimed, like Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki (Nebraska Man).Regardless, according to the common human evolutionary theory, there were many branches of critters progressively growing bigger heads and brains over millions of years. Why so many branches supposedly died out is a bit of a puzzle.
These "evolving" big headed strains supposedly could not survive as successfully as their contemporaries, the pure old smaller brained monkeys and apes still hanging around the planet!After all these millions of years of progressive larger brained critters, we supposedly arrive at relatively recent Mitochondrial Eve in a relatively small group in a restricted geographic location — and, by golly, no other successful transitional relatives to pass on their genetic lineage anywhere else on Earth!Any other humanoids who were geographically distant from that particular mitochondrial bottleneck were wiped completely out of the human gene pool according to the theory as it is applied to the evidence!Again the Wekipedia summary indicates there is some disagreement in the Mitochondrial Eve scenario — as I would expect. Monkeys and apes were still covering a broad range of real estate during Eve’s supposed era, right? So foreign lands must have been inhabitable distant from Eve? But the Mitochondrial Eve scenario seems to indicate there were no other human like creatures — of any type - anywhere other than where Eve lived. At least no others whose descendents ultimately survived to modern times. No?I’m sure the gallery can draw their own conclusions.

OK, so we are to believe evolution is very capable of elaborately clever design solutions provided by randon mutations and natural selection, e.g. bat flight and pinpoint sound wave navigation (among thousands of other eloquent designs). But you claim evolution is the "wrong tool" to provide marginally larger birth canals to accomodate the supposedly highly successful selective trait of alleged bigger hominid brains and higher human intelligence??? I am confident the gallery can reasonably determine which of the antithetical schemes are fallacious logic. Ahhh yes! The LACK of REAL evidence - both in the fossil record and in the current population - for human evolution is what convinced me that it is bogus! A discussion of evidence is what I prefer, quite frankly! Thank you for bringing that up. RAZD, your appeal to intellectual superiority may be judged by the gallery as a weakness. I am confident that people can decide for themselves when given the actual lack of evidence for human evolution.Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

But of course! Also, the more beneficial Mega Mutations are required to provide the additional circuitry and system to process the "bits"!. Do you suppose random processes could EVER be responsible for the development of computers - even the most simple 8088 microprocessors? That is an overly simplistic assessment, but go ahead. Are you guessing or is there evidence? Evidence? This is what I’ve been looking for. Could you share it with us please? This evidence may be precisely what the Nazis were missing when they were measuring heads to breed a superior race! IF? But aren’t random mutations and natural selection based on intelligence what common human evolutionary theory teaches? What other selection criteria would you surmise RAZD? And this selection of mutated individuals is the assumed platform for new species. No?
Others here believe that Sapiens "species" was essentially selected because all the distant relative transitional mutated hominids between critters and man died out and, unfortunately, left no trace of there gene pool among humans today. Supposedly, for unexplained reasons, only one branch of mutated hominids survived to produce Mitochondrial Eve (possibly with a little Neandertal genes mixed in). No?