1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

Discussion in 'Origins Theology' started by Notedstrangeperson, Sep 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Loudmouth

    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Anglican
    Having a big heart is only required when they have a big body. Giraffes for example have very large hearts, but that's because they have very long necks. They need an extra-powerful pump to be able to push the blood all the way up to their heads.

    Whales too have very big hearts to support a very large body - they are also one of the few exceptions to the Encephalization Quotient: they have small brains compared to their huge bodies, but that's because they live in the ocean.

    Having a large heart does not correlate with having a large brain, or being intelligent.

    No, we can tell it cannot walk upright because it has weak knees and spine (compared to a human), its neck connects to the back of the head (rather than underneath) and its hips are long rather than bowl-shaped. It's feet too are not adapted for walking upright for long periods of time.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing Aridpithecus was actually a human? If so you're the first Creationist to do so.
     
  2. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  3. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I am not suggesting that. I guess you said that walk upright is a unique character of human. Than I question: did Aridpithecus walk upright? If so, why is it not a human? (then, I guess you simply have to answer my question on the brain/body size ratio, and do not use walk upright as a valid criterion.)
     
  4. chris4243

    chris4243 Advocate of Truth

    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    That's a good question. It may be possible to "cheat" by having nerve tissue that is not part of the brain. We have some in our spinal cord, that are responsible for our reflexes. This is much more pronounced in insects, and insects can learn despite the removal of their head and brain. Some dinosaurs may have had a cluster of nerves larger than their brain in their pelvis to control the lower half of their body (not a brain though).

    Dinosaur Brains and Intelligence - Enchanted Learning Software

    I don't think anyone considers the brain to body ratio to be anything but a guestimate of intelligence.
     
  5. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Loudmouth

    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Anglican
    We know it is a human ancestor because it shows the early signs of bipedalism: something humans have which other apes do not. It is not a human because in practically every other way it is a like a chimpanzee: it's brain is small, it's feet have 'thumbs' and it's barely 4ft tall.

    Was it a human ancestor? Yes. Was it a human being? No. Simple as that.
     
  6. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you see a chimp skeleton, could you see the same (or similar) sign? Noticed that it is only a sign. It does not mean the creature walked upright all the time. I would interpret this sign as: it walked part of the time. Is it what the "sign" suggested?
     
  7. Papias

    Papias Listening to TW4

    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Catholic
    juvi wrote:

    juvi, please compare your statement with this one:

    Your statement shows a level of arrogance and hubris that is truly amazing, yet I see it again and again in creationists. If you don't understand something, and are not an expert in the field you are talking about, then you have no basis to disagree with the experts. It's a simply fact of life and basic human rationality that I see was never learned by some people.

    Papias.
     
  8. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did you make the second one up? It was not me, and the comparison is not proper.
    Why don't you try to answer my question? It may only take 3 lines, rather than 5 lines and so much quotes.
     
  9. Papias

    Papias Listening to TW4

    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Catholic
    juvi wrote:

    Yes.

    Right. I never said it was you.


    The comparison is perfectly proper. They both are about fields that take years of study, for which there are experts who have put forth the effort to learn those fields, and both ignore the vast difference in knowledge between the expert and the speaker. What basis do you have to claim that the comparison is not "proper"?

    Because to understand the skeletons takes much more than 3 lines. It takes years of study, labs, tests, collaborations, and research. The fact that you would say that it only takes 3 lines shows that you have no clue as to what is involved in actually learning a field to the point of being competent to make the types of claims you seem to be happy to make out of ignorance. You don't seem to understand that every curve, dip, measurement and bump on those bones speakes volumes to those who understand what affects bone shape.

    There are (at least) two levels of ignorance. One is being clueless about a complicated and detailed field, while realizing that you are clueless about it. The other is to not only be clueless about a complicated and detailed field, but to also be clueless about the fact that the field is complicated and detailed, and clueless about the fact that you are ignorant of both the field and the nature of that field.

    So many creationists seem to be in the doubly ignorant group.

    To realistically discuss why it is obvious to the experts whether or not this or that hominin was bipedal requires a four year undergraduate degree, four years of graduate study, then field work, collaborations, and more. That's all a lot more than 3 lines. In fact, those discussions have been held, and are available in the scientific literature for all to see, and be critiqued by more experts in case anything was overlooked.

    The sheer hubris, and apparent wearing of ignorance as if it were a badge of honor are both terrible to see by those who have put in thousands of hours of hard work to actually learn a field. I hope this helps you see why some here get so frustrated by the howler misstatments made by creationists, often on these fora with a hint of humility. Does it?

    Papias
     
  10. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now it gets worse. I read :)doh:) dozens of lines and found zero word in addressing the issue.

    If you asked me any geologic question, I can give you a good answer within two lines.
     
  11. chris4243

    chris4243 Advocate of Truth

    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Me too, but I can do far better -- I can answer in just three or at most five words and in any field of science or medicine! Either "God did it" or "Trust in God". The more complicated questions are answered by "God works in mysterious ways".
     
  12. Papias

    Papias Listening to TW4

    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Catholic
    juvi wrote:


    OK, so while in the real world, it takes whole books, years of school and so on, to adequately explain scientific concepts, you seem to think you can do so in two lines of text, not just in geology (which we've see previously you don't understand, even though you've claimed to be a geology professor) as well as anthropology (as you've suggested in this thread).

    juvi, if you really believe you can give complete and scientifically accurate explanations in two lines (or less), then why are you wasting your genius on a message board? Why not open juvi University, where everyone can learn the equivalent of a four year degree after just a few of juvi's magic lines? If you are right about your ability to convey complex and detailed scientific concepts in two lines, just a few minutes in one of your lectures would deliver more value than any normal four year university.

    Yep, there are two levels.

    Papias
     
  13. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Loudmouth

    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Anglican
    (Sorry about such a late reply)

    There are many adaptations or "signs" suggesting bipedialism, especially in humans:

    - The neck vertebrates connect underneath the skull rather than behind it.
    - The spine is curved into a slight 'S-shape'.
    - The pelvis is short and round
    - The top of the thigh bone is reinforced.
    - Legs (especially the thighs) are long compared to the rest of the body.
    - The kneecaps are stronger and turn very slightly inwards.
    - The feet are rigid with big toes instead of 'foot thumbs'.

    Humans have all of these adaptations, modern apes have none. Very early hominids like Ardipithecus have only one or two (strong thighbones, rounded pelvis), and later hominids like Australopithecus have a few more (strong thighbones, rounded pelvis, flat feet, the neck connects beneath the skull). This is what suggests they were on the road to becoming human.
     
  14. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now, it popped up 7 criteria. I would say any one of the seven should also be transitional, but not has or has not.

    For example, When compare a chimp with a monkey (some kind), the chimp can walk upright more and longer. So, at least some of the seven criteria should be observed positive on chimp skeleton but not on the monkey skeleton. If not, what makes the chimp walk upright for a longer time? All by stronger muscle? I don't think so.
     
  15. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum

    Messages:
    9,168
    Likes Received:
    93
    Faith:
    Calvinist
    How about this, Genesis, you either believe it or you don't.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  16. Assyrian

    Assyrian Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

    Messages:
    14,849
    Likes Received:
    29
    Faith:
    Christian
    How about "This is my body", you either believe it or you don't?
     
  17. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Loudmouth

    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Anglican
    I'm not an expert so I could be wrong - but as far as I know chimpanzees aren't much better at walking upright than monkeys. And they don't have any of the seven criteria I mentioned.

    -------------------

    Juvenissun: When I asked "What do you think an 'ape-man' would look like?" you replied that it would need to have features found only in humans. You're the only Creationist who actually bothered answering by question. :thumbsup:

    In fact your assumption was completely correct: we know they were transitional fossils because even though they were apes, they also had features which - today - are unique to humans. This is how we know they were human ancestors rather than just extinct apes.

    I'm guessing however that you still don't believe in "transitional fossils" or "ape-men". Why not? They fit the idea you had.

    BTW would any other Creationists like to answer my OP: "If ape-men did exist, what would you expect them to look like?"
     
  18. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My major argument is against the term (or idea) of "human ancestor". Either they are human, or they are not human. A human ancestor IS a human. Some thing similar to human, but is not a human, is an ape (classification of apes is fine with me). Morphological transition may suggest a gradual change. But the non-human to human change could (should) be abrupt and is not shown by the skeletal change (brain or leg). Because the most critical nature of human is not indicated by its skeleton. (theologically, it is called the "breath of God")
     
  19. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Loudmouth

    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Anglican
    In which case you haven't answered my question at all. I asked what Creationists would think a human transitional fossil or "ape-man" would look like. Instead all I'm hearing is "They didn't exist - they were either humans or apes, nothing in-between."

    That's not how debate works. Even if we think something does not actually exists, we still need to have some idea of what it could look like. For example:

    If somebody tried to prove unicorns existed, I would expect them to show me a fossilised skeleton of a horse-like creature with a long, single horn sticking out of it's head.* Since there are no fossils of horses with such horns I can conclude unicorns never existed.

    Instead Creationists are arguing something like this: Unicorns never existed, therefore any fossils of a horse-like creature with a single horn on its head must be wrong. Why? Because unicorns never existed.

    C'mon people, use your imaginations. :p 8 pages and still no answer.


    *Which was possibly pink / invisible.
     
  20. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Suppose I answered your question and said, this is how the transitional form "should" look like. If so, what have I said?

    1. I admitted or accepted there is a possibility of transitional form.
    2. I provided some ideas on the criteria of identification.
    3. etc.

    However, If I do not think there should be a transitional form (and provided some arguments), then I would say that there should not be any. This is a correct way to answer your question at a more fundamental level.

    In your unicorns example, the reason is: unicorn "should not" exist, because ..... Then, the reason provided may not have anything to do with fossils. In other words, if one started to look for unicorn fossil, he is wrong right at the beginning. If a creationist is smarter than an evolutionist, that is where it is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.