Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

I am sure glacial epoch existed, and that it took about 2 million years.
The so called Homo erectus type of anatomical morphology was found both in Africa and Asia during almost all this period.
This kind of morphology indicates a much more developed masticatory system, than the morphology of the holocene (since the last glacial period)races. Their brain was also statistically smaller than the brain of holocene people.To me all that "evolution" of the masticatory system is just a gradual reduction of this system, probably because of the use of fire and other means to make food more easy to swallow.
The development of technology which is evident in the successive generations of Homo erectus demonstrates that this creature was intelectually undistinguishable from the anatomical Homo sapiens.
The same - mutatis mutandis - applies to the "australopithecinae" kind.
Human paleoraces were as distinct biologically from apes as we are. They were smaller, so their brains were smaller too.
Regards
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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