Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Taq, vimesey (5 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,781 Year: 20,817/19,786 Month: 1,214/2,023 Week: 165/557 Day: 52/43 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 226 of 240 (241918)
09-09-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by MarkAustin
09-09-2005 9:17 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
MarkAustin,

However, if you compare average brain sizes between species there is a rough but good correlation between the brain:body mass ratio and intelligence. This correlation improves if brain complexity is considered.

I was posting about this in another thread. I was wondering if you'd be so kind to forward some references for both of these claims of correlation. It's tangentially related to my field of study, and I'm having trouble coming up with good experimental and/or review papers that really address the subject so directly.

But I'm not a great searcher yet... anyway, if you could do that, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by MarkAustin, posted 09-09-2005 9:17 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 240 (242197)
09-11-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by MarkAustin
09-09-2005 9:17 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
Hi MarkAustin,
MarkAustin writes:

John Ponce writes:


JavaMan, thanks for your response.
What did you think of the striking similarities between the JavaMan skullcap and modern human (fully intelligent) Aborigine skull's low forehead and skullcap in message 200?

RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.

Do you consider it a possibility that the JavaMan skullcap may represent an individual who is essentially no different than modern humans with respect to intelligence or DNA?
Or do you consider the JavaMan skullcap to be irrefutable evidence that apes slowly mutated into humans via random mutations?

I can't see the aboriginal skull picture - has it been moved or deleted? Could you repost?

Something was strange about that post #200. The Skull displayed properly when I first posted it but the next day it would not display. Not sure if some admin disabled it or what. Perhaps an admin can advise us here if it is a problem.

As you requested, I will repeat the image here. I will also repeat the images for comparison and my questions related to them - I don't think anyone has actually addressed the questions.

Quoting the reference that RAZD gave:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html writes:


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.....

If a "human" and an "ape" that look almost identical aren't transitional fossils, what would be?

The criteria in this reference (draw a line...) would reasonably conclude a modern Aborigine to be a transition between critters and mankind - which is an obviously flawed conclusion. As with the Canine skulls in post 124, we are on very thin scientific ground drawing any conclusions concerning intelligence from shapes and sizes of skulls.

JavaMan

Homo Erectus ? Turkana Boy

Modern Human Austrailian Aborigine - Fully Intelligent!

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.

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.

MarkAustin, I would also be interested in the references for correlation you mentioned in post 225.

Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by MarkAustin, posted 09-09-2005 9:17 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2005 10:37 PM John Ponce has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 240 (242218)
09-11-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by John Ponce
09-03-2005 1:49 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
If that is true, then neo-Darwinism would not have produced larger brains in humans from critters - correct?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You asked a question in the context of larger human brains, I answered in that context.

Clearly there was, at one point, a selection pressure on larger brains. That pressure appears to no longer exist - and in fact, the opposite pressure may have existed for a period of time, when agriculture replaced hunting and gathering as the main means of human food production.

I don't know anyone who goes to the city zoo to look for a wife. Do you?

No, I met my wife playing Dungeons and Dragons. (And I don't know anybody who goes there to look for a wife, either.) But, once again, you don't appear to have understood what I said.

"Ape" is not a species, it's a larger group than that. Like "mammal." Humans are part of that group. It doesn't make sense to ask for a transtition between a group and a member of the group.

Humans mate within their own species. (Mostly.) All humans are apes, but we're different apes than the other species of apes.

I would caution you about jumping back into debates like this after such a pronounced absence. Unless you are careful about reading the previous posts and not simply the latest round of replies, you're likely to commit the same grave errors of misunderstanding that you have committed here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by John Ponce, posted 09-03-2005 1:49 AM John Ponce has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


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
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-031.htm}}

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:


Message 148
Message 155
Message 192
Message 208
Message 209
Message 210
Message 214
Message 216

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 yet responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 231 of 240 (242824)
09-13-2005 5:59 AM


Brain Sizes
In response to the requests for sources, I include a few from the web:

Some references on brain size vs intelligence.

From Wikpedia

From Washington State University

There’s a good discussion from Bryn Mawr College.In particular, there’s a discussion on encephalization quotients.

There are others. Try googling “brain size intelligence species”

I think these demonstrate a consensus that there's a link between brain size and intelligence for cross-species comparison. Inside species other effects largely swamp the effect of size.

This table (extracted from the last reference) would conform to most people's intuitive ideas of reltive intelligence.

Species EQ Species EQ
Man 7.44 Cat 1.00
Dolphin 5.31 Horse 0.86
Chimpanzee 2.49 Sheep 0.81
Rhesus Monkey 2.09 Mouse 0.50
Elephant 1.87 Rat 0.40
Whale 1.76 Rabbit 0.40
Dog 1.17 (Macphail, 243)


For Whigs admit no force but argument.

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 232 of 240 (242852)
09-13-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by John Ponce
09-03-2005 2:40 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
JavaMan, thanks for your response. What did you think of the striking similarities between the JavaMan skullcap and modern human (fully intelligent) Aborigine skull's low forehead and skullcap in message 200? RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.

Apologies for not replying to the original message, but I couldn't see the Aborigine skull until RAZD pointed out how to get it displayed. Now I can see it, I have to tell you that I don't have any way of making a judgement until you show me the skull in profile - it's like showing me photographs of two cars, one taken from the side and the other from the front, then asking me to judge which is the longer!

In fact, the photograph of the Aborigine skull is taken from an angle that foreshortens the forehead and skull casing, making them look smaller than they actually are. That wouldn't be deliberate would it?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by John Ponce, posted 09-03-2005 2:40 AM John Ponce has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2005 9:50 PM JavaMan has not yet responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 233 of 240 (242871)
09-13-2005 9:19 AM


Right, courtesy of RAZD, I've now seen the skull in question.

Firstly, we can't say anything directly: the angle of the photograph is different so making comparisons invalid.

Having said that, the skull appears far too domed in comparison to erectus (bearing in mind that the angle would appear to "flatten" it) and the other features (as RAZD has pointed out) seem to conform more to sapiens than erectus.

Have a look at this link. It's really about the "Kow Swamp aborigine skulls are erectus" nonsense, but it has a point-by-point differentiation of erectus and aboriginal skulls.


For Whigs admit no force but argument.

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


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
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-031.htm

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 yet responded

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

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4672 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 235 of 240 (243168)
09-13-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
09-13-2005 9:50 PM


Can we use the aborigine picture?
Hi RAZD.

If you checked with Bone Clones before posting their picture this is a moot point, but they have a "No portion of this site, either photos or text, can be reproduced without the written permission of Bone Clones, Inc." notice on their homepage.


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2005 9:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2005 6:51 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


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 yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 240 (244577)
09-18-2005 9:50 AM


Aborigine skull? from questions thread
RAZD--I don't remember having any Aborigine skull pictures, sorry I can't help.

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 9:58 AM Andya Primanda has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 238 of 240 (244580)
09-18-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Andya Primanda
09-18-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Aborigine skull? from questions thread
okay. I just ran across an article that you had on the web that discussed the aborigines and wondered what you had available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 9:50 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 9:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 240 (244581)
09-18-2005 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by RAZD
09-18-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Aborigine skull? from questions thread
That one? Hmm, the picture comes from somewhere. I forgot where I took it, but I don't own it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 9:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 11:42 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20263
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 240 of 240 (244602)
09-18-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Andya Primanda
09-18-2005 9:59 AM


Re: Aborigine skull? from questions thread
yeah, the one about 1/4 down on this page:

http://www.redrival.com/evolusi/humevol5.htm
http://redrival.com/evolusi/img/aborigin.gif

It looks different from the {boneclone} one
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-031.htm

or the one on {skullsunlimited} - John Ponce's source
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/human-australian-aborigine-skull.html

and it is from a different angle -- I suspect it is from a creationist website as the arrow points to the brow ridge (unless you added that)

slightly better angle but still not a profile.

Thanks.


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 239 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 9:59 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019