Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
View Poll Results: Are you interested in debating the topic?
By the way, Mark, while you're here: would you care to share the particulars on those "contrived [Homo habilis] tools they keep pointing to"? In case you don't remember where you mentioned that, see here.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Still talking to me in the third person I see. Homo habilis averaged right just below 600cc, thus the need for a new classification getting around the cerebral rubicon. Turkana Boy was actually 880cc but was still very young and was projected to have had a cranial capacity close to 1,000cc at adulthood. You know this....
Oh, closer to 1,000 cc, certainly.
The cranial capacity of WT 15000 is measured at 880cc. Using the same extrapolations that were used for height, it is estimated that he would have attained an adult cranial capacity of 909cc.
Whichever way you dice it, Turkana Boy and the other H. erectus / ergaster specimens have cerebral capacities quite between H. habilis and H. sapiens.
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
Now you go back to playing to the party spirit of bashing creationists with fallacious ad hominems. BTW, thanks for the formal debate in General Theology it was fun demonstrating how you don't really have one.
Have a nice day
Mark
At least, when I say people are wrong, I show why ...
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]