Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

[Papias]

juvi wrote:

I provided some ideas on the criteria of identification. (of a transitional form between an earlier ape and a human) my add.

OK, maybe remind us what those criteria were, exactly? Or say what post # they were in?

juvi wrote:

In your unicorns example, the reason is: unicorn "should not" exist, because ..... 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.

But wouldn't the creationist be the one to take the Bible always literally, and hence, think unicorns are real? The "21st century" King James Version mentions unicorns many times, such as in Isaiah :

The sword of the LORD is filled with blood; it is made fat with fatness and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
​

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

juvi wrote:



OK, maybe remind us what those criteria were, exactly? Or say what post # they were in?

juvi wrote:


But wouldn't the creationist be the one to take the Bible always literally, and hence, think unicorns are real? The "21st century" King James Version mentions unicorns many times, such as in Isaiah :

The sword of the LORD is filled with blood; it is made fat with fatness and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
​

Papias

Which chapter is that in Isaiah?

 

[Papias]

34



Edited to add: That was my shortest post ever. Hey, now it isn't anymore!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

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.

Yes you did provide some criteria: transitional fossils should have unique human traits. The evidence fits your idea perfectly, as we have fossils of apes gradually becoming bipedal - a trait only humans have, and no other ape does ...

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.

... But then you say that even if such fossils do exist, they aren't proof that man evolved from apes because transitional fossils "shouldn't" exist.

That doesn't make sense. You had a very good idea of what a transitional fossil would look like, yet when the evidence supports your idea you dismiss it.

To go back to my previous example: imagine if somebody asked me what I thought I unicorn looked like. I would say "A horse with a long, single horn sticking out of it's head." He then shows me a fossil skeleton of a horse-like creature with a horn coming out of it's head. Tests have been conducted and they confirm it is not a fake.

Surely it wouldn't make sense for me to say. "Well yes it looks exactly what I expected a unicorn to look like ... but it can't be. Unicorns never existed."

I can't help but think we're going in circles.

 

[juvenissun]

34



Edited to add: That was my shortest post ever. Hey, now it isn't anymore!

OK, I was thinking of a horse. But the unicorn described in the Bible is an animal with a strong horn.

So, it is easy to understand. We do have fossils and modern species of those animals. I am not sure, but I believe some dinosaurs have one, two, three, or more horns.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes you did provide some criteria: transitional fossils should have unique human traits. The evidence fits your idea perfectly, as we have fossils of apes gradually becoming bipedal - a trait only humans have, and no other ape does ...


... But then you say that even if such fossils do exist, they aren't proof that man evolved from apes because transitional fossils "shouldn't" exist.

That doesn't make sense. You had a very good idea of what a transitional fossil would look like, yet when the evidence supports your idea you dismiss it.

To go back to my previous example: imagine if somebody asked me what I thought I unicorn looked like. I would say "A horse with a long, single horn sticking out of it's head." He then shows me a fossil skeleton of a horse-like creature with a horn coming out of it's head. Tests have been conducted and they confirm it is not a fake.

Surely it wouldn't make sense for me to say. "Well yes it looks exactly what I expected a unicorn to look like ... but it can't be. Unicorns never existed."

I can't help but think we're going in circles.

No, we are not going in circle. You forgot what I said in the very beginning.
I said: It does not matter how transitional the fossils could be, we do not know if they are human-like unless we see them in real life.

An example, we can suit up one of those transitional human-like skeletons and compare it with a modern human. It does not matter how similar they looked alike, if we do not see the "behavior" of the fossil, we do not know if it is human-like after all.

So, if I define human as a creature who can raise and use fire. Then I do not know any of the transitional forms is human or not, no matter how big is their head and how long can they walk upright. A better criterion would be to check if any burnt material or feature could be found around the skeletons.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No, we are not going in circle. You forgot what I said in the very beginning.
I said: It does not matter how transitional the fossils could be, we do not know if they are human-like unless we see them in real life.

Yes but then we determined that there's a great deal we can tell from anatomy and other fossil evidence, and even geology. Even the creationists from Answersingenesis thought so ...

It's a shame no other Creationists tried to answer my question.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes but then we determined that there's a great deal we can tell from anatomy and other fossil evidence, and even geology. Even the creationists from Answersingenesis thought so ...

It's a shame no other Creationists tried to answer my question.

It does not matter now many answered. Sometimes, one (me) is enough.

Yes, fossils can tells a lot. But they are not enough to solve the key questions on evolution. In this thread, the question is: what is a human?

You can not answer that by: Apes -- transition 1 -- transition 2 ---- transition N ---- human. My argument is: those so-called transitionals are NOT human.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes you did provide some criteria: transitional fossils should have unique human traits. The evidence fits your idea perfectly, as we have fossils of apes gradually becoming bipedal - a trait only humans have, and no other ape does ...
No you do not have apes becoming gradually bipedal at all. What you have is a 3.5ft curved fingered ape called australopithecus afarensis, that supposedly made full sized human footprints 3.7mya and has been ousted out of the human line, Ardi that was meant to demonstrate bipedalism that has also been turfed from the human line, and other evidence of Sediba being found with tree climbing ankles, 2mya.

Handier than Homo habilis? Versatile hand of Australopithecus sediba makes a better candidate for an early tool-making hominin

I can provide more links if you are unaware of the research.

... But then you say that even if such fossils do exist, they aren't proof that man evolved from apes because transitional fossils "shouldn't" exist.
Then you will be happy to produce sound fossil evidence of the ancestry of chimps. Hint...there are few.....Why? Because they have all been humanized and placed as human ancestors because that is where the headlines and glory are...
That doesn't make sense. You had a very good idea of what a transitional fossil would look like, yet when the evidence supports your idea you dismiss it.
Most of the fossil evidence are single bones, skulls and fragment that have been reconstructed into whole creatures and given full life stories. This is the veracity of the fossil evidence you speak to. When more complete fossils are found like the recent Sediba they rarely align with evolution and more non plausible scenarios are enlisted to explain the discrepancy. Sediba, touted as a great find, with her ridiculously long thumb, has hands less similar to mankind than the representations of Ardi did. Where is the graduation? There isn't any.


To go back to my previous example: imagine if somebody asked me what I thought I unicorn looked like. I would say "A horse with a long, single horn sticking out of it's head." He then shows me a fossil skeleton of a horse-like creature with a horn coming out of it's head. Tests have been conducted and they confirm it is not a fake.
This is a great game evolutionists play. So if a guess at an intermediate descriptor is wrong what does that mean? Nothing. So you are basing an argument on a guess at what someone does not believe in. Great science.

Chimps share similarities to mankind now, yet one can easily see the differences, despite the similarities. There is great overlap in many features with other non human primates also. In fact morphologically we are more similar to an orangutan. To find similarities in old ape fossils is not demonstrating anything more than what is already seen today. Given you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like, you can no more than guess what any intermediate should look like. Hence the revolving door of human so called intermediates.

Surely it wouldn't make sense for me to say. "Well yes it looks exactly what I expected a unicorn to look like ... but it can't be. Unicorns never existed."
However, what you have forgotten, is that once upon a time mankind descended from chimps, then along came genetic testing and mankind then evolved from something like a chimp, now mankind evolved from some creature that does not resemble a chimpanzee at all.

How can you possibly know what an intermediate should look like when you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like. You can do no more than continue to do what you are doing which is guessing and hoping for the best...and turnstyling ancestors in and out of the human line like a revolving door and presenting 100 years of mistakes, recantations, and contradictions.
I can't help but think we're going in circles.

Indeed you are going around in circles. For a start one needs to have faith in the algorithms and convolutions that suggest what any fossils brain size was. I believe it is all a nonsense and no more than the flurry of researchers desperate to humanize any find for continuing grant money.

Brain, Size and Gender Surprises in Latest Fossil Tying Humans, Apes and Monkeys
Scientists scuttle claims that 'Hobbit' fossil from Flores, Indonesia, is a new hominid
Anthropologist Confirms 'Hobbit' Indeed A Separate Species

Neanderthal had a substantially larger brain than mankind had. If they were the progeny of angels one may expect that they would be smarter and this would be reflectd in the brain size. So is the guessed and predicted larger brain size of Neanderthal proof that they are nephalim?

The largest known brain volume of the gorilla is 650 cc, and the smallest known in humans are 855 cubic centimeters. Large brains have also been associated with smell. There is huge variation.


Antique Clippings: The Smallest Human Brain


It is not about the size of the brain. It is about the function of the brain. If you think this little 2myo Sediba, with it's long thumb and obviously ape hands, ape climbing feet, brain size 440cc, small size was responsible for making tools, you go right ahead and believe it. Similarly you can believe an 3.5ft. small brained curved fingered ape left full sized human foorprints demonstrating a human gait if you wish to. However you need to understand that creationists obviously do not have your faith in this kind of nonsense with good reason. It is non plausible and obviously non credible.

Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin


There is no graduation of brain size in the fossil record. There is a mess.

I prefer to use a little common sense, a human higher brain function, that does not belong in evolutionary science, obviously.

 

[Astridhere]

It does not matter now many answered. Sometimes, one (me) is enough.

Yes, fossils can tells a lot. But they are not enough to solve the key questions on evolution. In this thread, the question is: what is a human?

You can not answer that by: Apes -- transition 1 -- transition 2 ---- transition N ---- human. My argument is: those so-called transitionals are NOT human.

You are absolutely correct!

 

[mark kennedy]

juvi wrote:



OK, maybe remind us what those criteria were, exactly? Or say what post # they were in?

juvi wrote:


But wouldn't the creationist be the one to take the Bible always literally, and hence, think unicorns are real? The "21st century" King James Version mentions unicorns many times, such as in Isaiah :

The sword of the LORD is filled with blood; it is made fat with fatness and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
​

Papias

This kind of childish mockery is unbecoming of a mature believer but seems to make it in every one of your posts. To be a Catholic is to be a Creationist Papias and you know it, you love to pretend that Creationists are an isolated group of extremists, then quote encyclicals out of context in support of your views you know are in error. What is far worse you treat the Scriptures with childish disdain but I know what the RCC teaches regarding creation and so do you. The Pope is a Creationist Papias and if you preach otherwise you are a liar and you know it.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night. (Psalm 1:1,2)

22 “ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
23 Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you. (Proverbs 1:22, 23)

Something you may not know, the Scriptures are canonical in the original, not in their translations. If you want to do an exposition of the text feel free but unless or until you do you have quite a nerve mocking other believers. As a matter of fact it would be refreshing and a first, to see a theistic evolutionist that even had enough academic honesty to attempt an exposition let alone get one done.

Grow up!

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[chris4243]

You can not answer that by: Apes -- transition 1 -- transition 2 ---- transition N ---- human. My argument is: those so-called transitionals are NOT human.

Uh, if they were human then they can't be intermediate...

Also, you can see the evolution of our physical body, and even some of our behavior, and people can assume what they will about our mind. Evolution definitely happened, but if at some point God decided to give a soul (or a better soul) to one of these creatures, that would leave no fossil evidence either way. At this point scientists will make like Occam and not believe that it happened like that, since as far as science is concerned it would be a meaningless hypothesis.

 

[Astridhere]

Uh, if they were human then they can't be intermediate...

Also, you can see the evolution of our physical body, and even some of our behavior, and people can assume what they will about our mind. Evolution definitely happened, but if at some point God decided to give a soul (or a better soul) to one of these creatures, that would leave no fossil evidence either way. At this point scientists will make like Occam and not believe that it happened like that, since as far as science is concerned it would be a meaningless hypothesis.

The bible speaks to God speaking to Adam and giving him directives. This requires sophisticated language ability and the ability to reason. This is what separates mankind from ape and beast. So erectus are out as an Adam or Eve.

Homo Erectus

Homo Habilis KNM-ER 1470 & Turkana Boy.
The Evolution of Early Man

Note the reconstruction of KNM-ER and how easy it is to misrepresent a fossil. Turkana Boy, as you can see, looks like an ape and looks like Habilis. The Turkana Boy skull was shattered into pieces and had to be reconstructed. Tilt Turkana Boys head back so that its chin sits square like the other, and all the more does it resemble an ape. See below the 4 examples, the chin should sit square! The other Erectus fossils look like apes as well. A couple of them have a sagital crest.

These above are all varieties of apes. Apes are varied with varying skull morphologies. Every skull, skull fragment or partial that shows reduced eyebrow ridging or shortened facial features is not necessarily an ape becoming human. Flat facial morphology has been around for 12my with Lluc, the ape, as has all the other skull features akin to mankind.
New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

Female Bornean Orangutan

Turkana Boy, your best example, was found with a small neural canal and therefore was not capable of speech. He was young, already had pronounced eyebrow ridging, greatly protruding jaw, both features way outside of the variation found in mankind. Why they have spun around some figures and come up with an 910cc brain capacity is beyond me. Turkana Boys skull looks just like Habilis KNM-ER 1470 at 750cc. It is not credible to assert that Turkana Boy was anything more than an ape with a brain a little larger than a gorilla.

These Erectus & Habilis fossils are not transitional at all. They are apes. Researchers have tried their hardest to humanize them. How any one could make up such convoluted arguments to get these apes showing some graduation in increasing brain size is truly beyond me. It is a non credible assumption that is not based on the fossil evidence.

I do not understand why you say 'Evolution definitely happened'. I cannot see any evidence of it.

There is no evidence of gradual increase in brain size. Therefore creationists have nothing to explain. These so called transitional fossils are backed by false and misleading information and assertions including their comparative brain sizes. You and others are free to believe it all of course. However evolutionists should not disparage creationists for not believing it. Creationists have good reason not to.

 

[Assyrian]

It does not matter now many answered. Sometimes, one (me) is enough.

Yes, fossils can tells a lot. But they are not enough to solve the key questions on evolution. In this thread, the question is: what is a human?

You can not answer that by: Apes -- transition 1 -- transition 2 ---- transition N ---- human. My argument is: those so-called transitionals are NOT human.

By that logic oak trees cannot grow from acorns, an acorn isn't an oak tree, neither is it an oak tree when the acorn first sprouts a shoot and roots. I can look at it when it is two foot high and according to my definition of a tree, this isn't one. It is a shrubbery. I only call an oak tree and tree if it is at least five foot high with a wooden trunk, branches and roots. Even though I can point to all these intermediate forms between acorn and oak tree, by defining an oak tree as being at least five foot tall I can claim oak trees don't grow from acorns as surely as you have claimed humans could not develop from apes.

In fact all you are doing is putting a label on one stage in the development from earlier hominids to man and calling that human, you are not showing that human did not evolve from earlier transitional forms.

 

[chris4243]

The bible speaks to God speaking to Adam and giving him directives. This requires sophisticated language ability and the ability to reason. This is what separates mankind from ape and beast. So erectus are out as an Adam or Eve.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ability to use sophisticated language is a requirement to be a human being. If so, do you consider a young infant, before they learn to speak, to be a human being?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No you do not have apes becoming gradually bipedal at all. What you have is a 3.5ft curved fingered ape called australopithecus afarensis, that supposedly made full sized human footprints 3.7mya and has been ousted out of the human line, Ardi that was meant to demonstrate bipedalism that has also been turfed from the human line, and other evidence of Sediba being found with tree climbing ankles, 2mya.

Handier than Homo habilis? Versatile hand of Australopithecus sediba makes a better candidate for an early tool-making hominin

I already wrote down the traits suggesting bipedalism [URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7589410-5/#post58497392"]here[/URL]. I'm too lazy to write them all down again but obviously the earliest signs of becoming upright are in the spin and the femur/pelvis, not the hands.

I'm also not sure why you added that study. It suggests that Australopithecus was more sophisticated that your average ape, which in turn suggests they were transitional.

Then you will be happy to produce sound fossil evidence of the ancestry of chimps. Hint...there are few.....Why? Because they have all been humanized and placed as human ancestors because that is where the headlines and glory are...

If they are transitional it stands to reason they have more 'human' traits than ordinary apes do.

However, what you have forgotten, is that once upon a time mankind descended from chimps, then along came genetic testing and mankind then evolved from something like a chimp, now mankind evolved from some creature that does not resemble a chimpanzee at all.

Creationists frequently make this mistake. Even Darwin did not suggest man evolved from chimps - both humans and chimps evolved from an ape-like ancestor, hence this ancestor would not look like a modern chimpanzee.

Antique Clippings: The Smallest Human Brain

Again, I don't why why you added that link. It's from a humour site, showing how the people of the past were mistaken.

How can you possibly know what an intermediate should look like when you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like.

If humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor it stands to reason that these ancestors would look partly like an ape and partly like a human.

I cannot understand how you can say we cannot possibly know what an intermediate would look like ...

These Erectus & Habilis fossils are not transitional at all. They are apes. Researchers have tried their hardest to humanize them. How any one could make up such convoluted arguments to get these apes showing some graduation in increasing brain size is truly beyond me. It is a non credible assumption that is not based on the fossil evidence.

... And then argue that we can tell if they were 'human' or not by looking at the fossils.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Guys, I don't like it when people - usually atheists - mock Creationists by calling them "dumb". But you're kind of making it difficult for me to say otherwise. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least some kind of imagination, so I'll ask again:

If ape-men did exist, what would you expect them to look like?​

This is not about evolutionists proving that man evolved from apes, this is a question directed at Creationists: what do you - you personally - think an 'ape-man' would look like?

And please, stop writing thing like "They never existed so we can't possibly know what they would look like." This is a rubbish non-answer. Unicorns never existed but I still have a fairly good idea on what one would look like.

Writing "We cannot tell anything about an animal from it's bones" is a rubbish answer too. Several creationists, including ones on this thread, have argued that we call tell these transitional were simply apes by looking at their fossils.

 

[juvenissun]

Uh, if they were human then they can't be intermediate...

Also, you can see the evolution of our physical body, and even some of our behavior, and people can assume what they will about our mind. Evolution definitely happened, but if at some point God decided to give a soul (or a better soul) to one of these creatures, that would leave no fossil evidence either way. At this point scientists will make like Occam and not believe that it happened like that, since as far as science is concerned it would be a meaningless hypothesis.

But this difference should be detected by seeing some evidences on unique behavior of human. One of them I used frequently is to raise and use fire. Explore it from this point of view, it would still be in the field of science.

 

[juvenissun]

By that logic oak trees cannot grow from acorns, an acorn isn't an oak tree, neither is it an oak tree when the acorn first sprouts a shoot and roots. I can look at it when it is two foot high and according to my definition of a tree, this isn't one. It is a shrubbery. I only call an oak tree and tree if it is at least five foot high with a wooden trunk, branches and roots. Even though I can point to all these intermediate forms between acorn and oak tree, by defining an oak tree as being at least five foot tall I can claim oak trees don't grow from acorns as surely as you have claimed humans could not develop from apes.

In fact all you are doing is putting a label on one stage in the development from earlier hominids to man and calling that human, you are not showing that human did not evolve from earlier transitional forms.

But we do see acorns on oak tree. They coexist, not in transition. And in a sense, an acorn is, indeed, not an oak tree. That is why "seed" is emphasized in Gen 1:11-12.

By the way, does an acorn have exactly the same DNA as an oak tree? I would guess so.

 

[juvenissun]

Guys, I don't like it when people - usually atheists - mock Creationists by calling them "dumb". But you're kind of making it difficult for me to say otherwise. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least some kind of imagination, so I'll ask again:

If ape-men did exist, what would you expect them to look like?​

This is not about evolutionists proving that man evolved from apes, this is a question directed at Creationists: what do you - you personally - think an 'ape-man' would look like?

And please, stop writing thing like "They never existed so we can't possibly know what they would look like." This is a rubbish non-answer. Unicorns never existed but I still have a fairly good idea on what one would look like.

Writing "We cannot tell anything about an animal from it's bones" is a rubbish answer too. Several creationists, including ones on this thread, have argued that we call tell these transitional were simply apes by looking at their fossils.

That is a good argument, but with a trap.

First, when I describe a unicorn, I am sure it does not exist. So whatever I described can not be used to argue on its existence.

An ape-man should be a creature like ape and like man at the same time. In fact, there is no other way to describe it. Now, my description should not be used to support any so-called transition fossils based on the same reason as my description to a unicorn. [like ... Aha, you just said that, look, we have a fossil like what you said here.]

Now you have it. So what?