Bones of Contentions.

I'll give it the attention it deserves when I see a more complete response promised here. A quick perusal showed it to be one logical howler after another, a house of cards built on false premises, that renders your conclusions invalid.In formulating your next response you may want to try making one simple logically argument and not running off on tangents based on conclusions based on false premises.Try keeping it short and see if you can make a valid point before proceeding. Just a suggestion. ROFLOL. Entertainment rather. Your argument is invalidated, and you want to pretent that it isn't; you do this by "leaving it up" to some imaginary group of people to decide (the logically false "appeal to anonymouse authority"). This is called "shuck and jive" dancing.As compared to the anxiety on your part of actually having to make a logically valid answer or to actually substantiate your challenged assertions.Enjoy.

John, you are a hard person to discuss anything with. I agree you're ignoring me.Please understand I'm old and slow and so need to deal with things one small step at a time. Humor me please.You asked: That is a direct question.I responded: That is an answer and a request for you to provide supporting material.I then asked a few follow up questions that I believe are needed before we can move further. If you will support your assertions and answer my questions whe can then try to move forward towards resolution of your issue regarding intellegence and brain size.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

only H. sapiens is regarded by them as full and equal members of the human race while H. neandertalis, erectus et al, are regarded as sub-human races or "species"

---

Since Homo neandertalensis et al. are not being denied jobs or other rights enjoyed by H. sapiens, it seems the point is rather moot.

And I thought you Yanks didn't get irony...

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

My bold.That should read "modern Europeans, Africans, Asians and Americans - but that leaves out Australians, Polynesians and so on.It should really just say "all extant humans".

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Really? Is it that difficult to answer my questions? Imagine how difficult it would be of I ignored your responses and repeatedly tried to bring up unrelated issues in an attempt to avoid the tough questions? You have my answers in post 123 on page 9 related to alleged human evolution. Don’t ignore them because they are difficult to counter — as well as specific detailed questions 1 and 2 related to human brain design. Please respond with logical thought, not evasion to unrelated no brain plants, viruses, and bacteria.I will continue to ignore attempts to divert attention from lack of evidence for the flawed Darwinian human evolutionary theory relevant to millions (at least) of supposed beneficial brain mutations, mechanisms, and evidence.For over a century, Darwinists have taught that larger brains and natural selection (based on intelligence for survival) were the result of fortunate random Mega brain mutations that enabled slow development from critters to man.Now the scientific evidence reveals brain size has no significant or measurable correlation to intelligence.So Jar, what are the benefits from a mutated brain that were favored by the supposed natural selection process. A process that created the larger human brain with all the associated energy requirements and birthing difficulties by somehow delivering more success for reproduction - where virtually all coexisting non-mutated hominids failed in a repeated cycle?I have seen no answer from anyone on this forum yet - except RAZD's refusal to surmize.That puts you in a logical bind so you want to talk about plants, viruses and bacteria — where brains are not relevant. Dodge ball is fun but not in a scientific debate concerning evidence. See Larry the Cable Guy. Jar, you are arguing with yourself. In Msg 47 on page 4 you state: You clearly state that intelligence is a factor and brain size is an indicator! I am sincerely not trying to be sarcastic or disrespectful here Jar but - are you smoking something?I will provide an additional reference as you specifically requested. The reference above details very well one of the problems for Darwinian human evolutionary theory. There are others as I have detailed. No one here seems willing to directly address these issues. Sorry Jar, we’re discussing bones and brains here. Take it to another thread.Analytical Regards to Big Headed Hominids!

John.Enjoy your stay here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you Jar.

Can someone answer John's question on brain size and evolution?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be as follows: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 understanding is that large brains and intelligence don't necessarily correlate;3. Therefore the selective advantage of large brains can't be proven, and evolutionary theory therefore can't account for the fact that modern humans have large brainsWould that be a reasonable summary of your argument?This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-05-2005 11:14 AM

Already have. The evidence is in another post (Message 124), and you may have missed it due to the length needed to deal with the multiple logical problems. To summarize again: the reason the nazis were wrong was because the assumed only one correlation applied: size.Enjoy

---

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

I don't believe this is neccessarily the case. Surface area is not the be alland end all. Brains with a smaller surface area may still have more cortical neurons and therefore greater interconnectedness (Roth and Dicke, 2005). TTFN,WK

Three (make that) Four points:(1) the "capacity to develop expertise" is still a part of intelligence, even if it is not measured by the (very) flawed measure of IQ. IQ also does not measure ability for art or music or any non-verbal means of expression. IQ is a poor measure of overall intelligence. Note that it is completely incapable of measuring non-human intelligence, and this should be a clue to it's limitations.(2) "normal" IQ is not very intelligent as humans go, and this is due in part to "normal" being set as the overall average IQ and it is a skewed pattern: you can't get much below 50 and still be functional, but there are several people with IQ's over 200. You can do the math: how many 50's does it take to average with 200 to get 100?(3) Homo erectus already had a large brain compared to previous hominids and compared to common apes today:FROM: Homo erectus (click) - the first hit from google on "homo erectus brain size" - gives: (bold mine for emPHAsis).The paper does not provide the actual brain size being discussed so we don't know which Homo erectus classification was used for the comparison.(4) The paper also states " but there is a problem: evidence ... shows that there exist individuals with psychometrically normal IQ but Homo-erectus-sized brains" but does not discuss the average IQ of people in this group of people with smaller brain measurements, so you could well be comparing genius Homo erectus types with average Homo sapien types.And we are, after all, talking about walking, talking, tool using Hominds here, and not even the first ones:FROM: Homo erectus (click) - the first hit from google on "homo erectus tool" - gives: So we are also already dealing with an intelligent hominid compared to earlier hominids and to modern apes.If he had been talking about Australopithicus afarensis sized brains you might have a point.Enjoy.{{fixed typo and added by edit}}
ps -- this thread is supposed to be about rampant racism and not about the correlation of brain size to intelligence. As such your telling jar "Sorry Jar, we’re discussing bones and brains here. Take it to another thread." is rather hypocritical, no?This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*05*2005 07:35 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*05*2005 07:38 PM

---

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

Welcome Javaman. Thanks for your perceptive summary and interest. You have grasped the issue better than some. I would clarify points 2 and 3 a bit and reiterate some other analytical evidence regarding the theory of human evolution.But before I continue, I think a process check is in order.Does - anyone - agree with RAZD that he has refuted the argument as Javaman has described above. If so, my time is probably better spent elsewhere.Personally, I would give RAZD an A+ for self-esteem but a considerably lower grade for logical analysis.

There are other anthropological explanations for human brain size, most of which are not mutually exclusive with each other or with the "size/intelligence" explanation.I would say that the problem for anthropology is not a lack of explanations but a surfeit of them, and no immediately clear way to distinguish those that are correct from those that are merely possible. Nonetheless I would say that situation falsifies your position that large human brains are an evolutionary mystery.