Re: And the winner is *** Post of the Month for November 2006 ***

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ray,
I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
posts because I like focusing on central issues....
In other words
In other words, you cannot win without making people say things
they didn't say.

Keith evaded. That is a fact.

What did he evade? In this part of the thread, you have been doing the evading.

<snip>

....and believe
that the following statement from you is directed to the core
issue that separates us:
RM> There isn't any evidence for evolution - none.
For the past year or so the starting point evidence for
evolution that I have been posting is as follows:
These fossils illustrate the step by step evolution of the
human brain over the past 2.5 million years from about 450cc
to it's present size of about 1350cc:
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
Can you tell me why this group of fossils doesn't qualify as
"evidence for evolution"?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Homo-erectus is a child,
Homo erectus (no hyphen) is known from a number of individuals.

does not cranial capacity increase when
adulthood is reached?
Didn't you notice that the H.e. cranial capacity was given as the
average of 5 individuals?


FB has multiple entries for one species in a ascending list. Did you
notice that, Tom?

What do you mean? There is only one entry for the species Homo erectus.

Or do you think that all of the listings are of one species? They are not, you know.

And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
Why? Do you want to have another real Homo genus to ignore, just
as you have ignored all of the others?


NM is ignored because he wrecks the scheme. That is the only reason.

How does Neandertal wreck the scheme? The scheme in the good Friar's list is to show the evolution of the human brain, which I took to mean to show the direct line to us. Neandertal does not appear to be in the direct line of our ancestry (although, to be fair, the entire lineage is still under study, and Neandertal might yet have something to do with us'ns, while some of the other listed species might not).

Neandertals appear to have had brains somewhat larger than ours, on average; though they were arranged a little differently from ours. But if you want to add H.n. into the mix, go right ahead. It doesn't pose the problem you think it does, at least partially because Neandertals, though generally shorter than H.s. at the same time range, tended to have somewhat more massive bodies.

BTW, in what way is Neandertal ignored? No one denies they existed, and were human (well, Homo, anyway). No one denies that their average brain size appears to have been somewhat larger than ours. What exactly do you assert is ignored about Neandertal, that is in any way relevant to this discussion?

Again, like scholars have pointed out: the ToE does not stand up under
scrutiny....the devil is in the details. You do not seem to understand
the issue here.

I think I do. I've actually studied human skeletal remains, including holding actual Neandertal bones in my hands, as well as high-quality casts made from actual Neandertal remains. Measured them, weighed and massed them, identified which bones they were, from which side of the individual, estimated age at death, and occasionally identified which sex the bones came from.

I've studied archaeology at the graduate level, Ray, which includes human evolution. One of my prof worked at Koobi Fora, and showed us what they'd discovered.

So please, Ray, explain to me what I do not understand about the evolutionary history of the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, but that you do?

At any rate, Tom, what is the current explanation for Neanderthal Man?
I am asking for the explanation of these specimens found in the
Neander Valley? How is cranial size larger than ours explained?

Are you asking specifically about the single specimen (single individual, that is) that was found in the Neander Valley? That is only one specimen.

I think you mean to ask about what we know based on sum of the relatively large number of Neandertal remains we know about. After all, that's the only way we could be discussing an average difference in brain size.

There are a couple of explanations that come to mind off-hand. One is as I noted above: Neandertal bodies were, on average, more massive than ours. A more massive body could use a more massive brain, whether or not it did anything else with it.

Another possible explanation is that Neandertal seems to have adapted to cold environment more via physical adaptation than through, for instance, cultural adaptations such as sewn clothing. A larger brain, a wide nose, and a compact, massive body would have been useful in keeping the body warm in the cold.

It may be that the larger brain was also used for cultural activities that we don't know about. After all, while they were much like us, the were *not* us; and we can only speculate as to what use they may have put their thinking caps.

Of
course the explanation must be satisfying.

You keep leaving off words from your sentences. To whom must the explanation(s) be "satisfying"? You? Scientists? Me?

I will tell you frankly that I am always interested in improved explanations for all manner of archaeological and evolutionary data. So I am not absolutely satisfied with the explanations I've given. But they are OK to be going on with, and they pose no problems for evolutionary biology.

In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles. In
other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
it rejects Creationism as a competitor. Nobody has ever provided a
satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
court.
Waiting....
In other words, you are running away as you always do.

Your intellectual cowardice is noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom: I am right here. Stop wishing I wasn't

I don't wish you weren't here. I do wish you'd answer more of the questions put to you. As, for instance, the actual evidence the good Friar posted, and you have evaded like crazy. Even to the point of posting a red herring (which, to be fair, a lot of intelligent folks went haring after).

and answer the god-damn
questions

But Ray--how can I ever know when your questions are not-to-be-answered rhetorical questions, or rhetorical questions for which you demand answers anyway; or when you are actually asking non-rhetorical questions for which you, and regular people, would expect an answer? :-)

in a satisfactory manner.

Ah. That, my dear Ray, is up to you to decide. If you get into a 'no true Scotsman' kick, no answer, by definition, would satisfy you except your own.

But please, Ray, don't think that our answering the questions, even the god-damned ones, lets you off the hook for answering those posed to you.

.

Relevant Pages