Bones of Contentions.

btw, are you familiar with this article:
Java Man and Turkana Boyit 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}}}

John,Note that I've edited Message 192also 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 interestingI 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

Thanks. Yes. That's a pretty convincing refutation.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Welcome first: Java Man, I enjoyed your thought experiment immensely. I hope you teach.Thanks: RAZD, I noticed that John Ponce got no replies to his query about whether you had refuted his arguments. I just finished reading the entire thread, Msgs. 1-198, and this member of the gallery thinks: yes, John, RAZD ate your lunch.

Been away for a while. Don't have much time right now, but... Incredulity?
Have you guys examined ALL the evidence with this comparison while considering there is no evidence today that random brain mutations are increasing human intelligence or brain size?JavaMan Homo Erectus — Turkana Boy Modern Human Austrailian Aborigine - Fully Intelligent! I used to believe the Darwinian theory of human evolution without question... had them all memorized.
Which of the following conclusions would you draw - based on the pictures above and the evidence we have today from neuroscience:1) The Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls are very similar to modern human Aborigine skulls and, therefore, may be fully human.2) The modern human Aborigine skull is very similar to Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls and, therefore, may be a transitional animal somewhere between apes and human.3) Some reconfigured hominid skulls have been proven to be hoaxes. Others (many from only a few bone fragments) may either fall into the category of apes or humans. There may, in fact, be no transitional animals between apes and humans.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?Answer 1), 2), or 3)?Feel free to add an alternative conclusion if you have any.Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

Thank you JavaMan. An excellent exercise. Statistical analysis, probabilities, means, etc, have been very useful in forming my own conclusions.Where the measurement capability is good and the hypothesis were true, a correlation would be expected even with slight variations. We could all agree (I think) that a big guy with a big head has no intelligence advantage over a small lady — where the variations are significant from the mean on either island.Some reflections on the thought exercise:
1) If I understand correctly, you are proposing that the greater sense of smell on island A is the result of genetic isolation of pre-existing traits — similar to variation in Darwin’s island Finches, thicker bird beaks and peppered moths discussed previously. 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.
JavaMan - Is it correct that you are not inferring random beneficial mutations for increased olfactory capability in the exercise? This is an important consideration.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.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.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. We simply don’t have any evidence of those types of transitional leaps in design today among highly developed organisms due to mutations — whether gradual or sudden. We only see superficial change of existing genetic traits within a type — dogs, cats, cows, horses - no transitional forms to new highly developed species - or between highly developed species - None.Third, leaps in intelligence require, as a minimum, a vast increase in structural complexity not size. 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.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.In RAZD’s analysis, beneficial brain mutations are relatively simple and the mechanism happens all the time. It is analogous to saying just duplicate and expand the existing memory structure and — voila — an 8088 microprocessor becomes a Pentium 4. Never mind the complex redesign of the I/O bus, mountains of complex control code, denser construction with orders of magnitude increased processor interconnections, power and cooling requirements, etc, etc.More and more evolutionists have come to understand the absurdity of millions of random complex beneficial mutations required by neo-Darwinism. Some have embraced alternatives such as the Panspermia model of human origins, intelligent aliens performing genetic engineering on hominids, etc.Reference Everything You Know Is Wrong, subtitled Book One: Human Origins authored by Lloyd Pye (Barnes and Noble bookstore).
I don't subscribe to this stuff but it illustrates some of the problems from a Darwinian evolutionist's perspective.2) Is the supposed correlation of improved smelling ability and increased Olfactory Bulb volume based on any evidence?
For example, a common rat’s sense of smell is probably better than any human’s. Are the olfactory bulbs of a rat larger than a human’s? I have not been able to determine the answer yet, but my guess is they are not. If my guess is correct, the exercise would tend to support my postition.3) The island example is a good exercise but it does not reflect the Darwinian human evolutionary theory - in that supposed small populations inhabited the same territories in Africa — thus the gene pools were not isolated as in the island example.For this scenario to be a working analytical model, each significant alleged brain mutation must be exclusively selected via reproduction and all supposedly non-mutated — yet healthy - specimens (every single one) must necessarily be cut of from the gene pool. Similar to every person on island B snuffed out - for no apparent reason.This same (highly unlikely) scenario supposedly occurred many, many times, over the supposedly uniform transition from ape to man. Otherwise, transitional hominid genetic throwbacks would be walking among us today. We would actually have verifiable irrefutable evidence for Darwinism. That is not the case. All we have is bone fragments and conjecture.Another thought exercise.
RAZD claims to have logically refuted some of my arguments by claiming the fallacy of incredulity. RAZD is correct in that I cannot prove these highly unlikely scenarios did not happen. Neither can he prove they did.The fact of the matter is theories of origins are beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove anything concerning origins.However, in the last fifteen years, we have learned much about the complexity of life combined with probability theory and analytical tools. We are better able to assess the likelihood and probability of millions of theoretically random beneficial genetic mutation mechanisms that are the necessary foundation for neo-Darwinism to create new organs, higher intelligence, etc.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.So here is the exercise:
Suppose RAZD lived across the sidewalk from me and RAZD managed the state lottery. Let’s further suppose that I invest in 100 lottery tickets per year for 10 years, each ticket having a winning probability of 1/10,000,000. It just happens that you live on the corner down the street 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. Therefore, I inform RAZD that I am no longer investing in his lottery. With great indignation, RAZD runs out in the street and loudly proclaims that I have committed the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity. He professes the "willful ignorance" of anyone who doesn’t buy in to his lottery and claims that his lottery outcomes are common and they happen all the time! RAZD is correct that I cannot prove his lottery outcomes are not the result of random processes. 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. The neighbors determine to examine other alternatives for investments that they consider are more likely to bear fruit.This appears to be the trend concerning dogmatic neo-Darwinism via random beneficial brain mutations as a reasonable explanation of the complexity we see today. Whether RAZD is willing to acknowledge it or not, probabilities are useful scientific tools for analysis of proposed mechanisms.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".Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!Message is identical to original post.This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:39 AMThis message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:41 AM

You can not tell that from the picture of the modern human skull you supplied. How did you conclude that? You do understand that the degree of similarity is not determined by looking at them, right?

Hi Omni! You must be one of those folks in the gallery that RAZD said was imaginary. Congratulations - you are the first to buy into RAZDs contention!May I ask you what is the most persuavive points RAZD made - in your opinion?See msg 201. Could I interest you in a lottery ticket? They're cheap...This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:18 AM

You need to understand that your analogy is not, in any way, appropriate for the real situation. Your thought that you have refuted anything is wrong.It is true that you would be suspect of RAZD's lottery under the circumstances described. However, those are NOT the circumstances that evolutionary theory is talking about.Perhaps you should understand it before you think you will have any chance of actually critisizing it.ABE I presume you mean there are limits if no mutations are allowed. Do you think that anyone is suggesting that there have been no mutations in the homo genome in 5 million and more years?If you are including mutations please supply the evidence that indicates these limits.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-13-2005 01:29 AM

Well, was that not the claim that was made by an evolutionist with the comparison of the first two skulls - by looking at them?Granted, the anle is not perfect for the modern human skull, but the slope of the forhead and size of the skullcap are very discernable - and are nearly identical. Those were the same exact features compared between Javaman and Homo Erectus - No?Are we only allowed to compare features if they support your particular paradigm?Starting a road trip now - be out for a while.
Good weekend to all!Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids.

I understand it quite well.NosyNed,
1) What would you estimate the odds of a random beneficial mutation increasing complexity in a critter brain?
2) How many of those events would you estimate it would take to transition from a critter brain to a human brain?Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

Thanks for the reply. Your message is quite long and I think it's going to take me a while to get through it!But I can answer one question: The olfactory bulbs in a rat are enormous (See the following link). They make up a large proportion of the brain size. The same goes for any animal that depends so much on smell. Rat brainThis message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-13-2005 06:49 AM

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

for the record 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. 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}}}

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}}}

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. 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}}}