How do creationist deal with transitional fossils?

[Matthewj1985]

For the longest time the "party line" was that transitional fossils simply don't exist. In Darwin's time that argument held a bit of water since we had simply not discovered a whole heck of a lot to back up his claims. However now we have tons of what are known in the scientific community as transitional fossils that meet the creationist definition of "part of this "kind" and part of this "kind" of animal". My question is, how do you guys explain transitional fossils. Lets keep it down to only humans, say this series:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

I mean it is pretty hard to say that species like neanderthals were simply apes and we know that they are not human (at least, not on the same evolutionary tree). So how do you guys explain them? This is not a debate and unless I see factual errors I am going to butt out and see what you guys have to say.

 

[laptoppop]

So-called "transitional fossils" represent more man's ability to sort and organize things than they do any kind of transitions. Nobody is claiming that we have solid evidence of a complete change-by-change path from one to another. What is preserved is a set of fully-adapted organisms appropriately designed for their environment and ecocommunity.

Check out Behe's book - "The Edge Of Evolution". He uses example bacteria because they have huge numbers in their populations as well as huge numbers of generations. He makes a darn good case for successful mutations being one gene at a time.

Some evolutionists have tried to overcome these issues by postulating a "jumpy" evolution, as opposed to a smooth one. In other words, we don't have gene by gene changes because they don't happen that way - the change occurs in jumps.

One common thread however -- is that it is all conjecture and storytelling. Lots of "it may have been that" and not a lot of "here's the piece by piece evidence for...".

We have lots of evidence for mutations with no effect. We have lots of evidence for mutations with bad effects, both small and large. We have evidence for mutational loading, where the overall long term effect of mutations are negative in a population. What we DONT have evidence for is clear unambiguous progress over time.

 

[The Barbarian]

So-called "transitional fossils" represent more man's ability to sort and organize things than they do any kind of transitions. Nobody is claiming that we have solid evidence of a complete change-by-change path from one to another.

Sounds like a testable assertion. Let's see how it stands up. If I can show you a complete line of transitional organisms, so much alike that no two adjacent ones differ by more than exists in single species, would you agree that they are transitional?

What is preserved is a set of fully-adapted organisms appropriately designed for their environment and ecocommunity.

That's true of all transitionals. If it wasn't, then anything could evolve. And there are many things that can't.

Check out Behe's book - "The Edge Of Evolution". He uses example bacteria because they have huge numbers in their populations as well as huge numbers of generations. He makes a darn good case for successful mutations being one gene at a time.

In one individual at a time. But in sexually-reproducing species, that means many, many mutations in the population each generation. And that is where Behe's argument falls apart.

Some evolutionists have tried to overcome these issues by postulating a "jumpy" evolution, as opposed to a smooth one. In other words, we don't have gene by gene changes because they don't happen that way - the change occurs in jumps.

You're a bit confused by this. Saltation (punctuated equillibrium) happens the same way other evolution does. But the pace of evolution depends on a number of things. Would you like to learn more about that?

One common thread however -- is that it is all conjecture and storytelling. Lots of "it may have been that" and not a lot of "here's the piece by piece evidence for...".

Well, let's put that to the test. You want to take a little trip with some fossils and see?

We have lots of evidence for mutations with no effect. We have lots of evidence for mutations with bad effects, both small and large. We have evidence for mutational loading, where the overall long term effect of mutations are negative in a population. What we DONT have evidence for is clear unambiguous progress over time.

So if you have confidence in your beliefs, let's get started. Fair enough?

If you'd like to do just humans, how about I show you some fossils, and you tell me if they are humans or apes, and how you know? If you can't tell the difference, then we can conclude that there are transitionals. Give it a shot.

 

[mark kennedy]

For the longest time the "party line" was that transitional fossils simply don't exist. In Darwin's time that argument held a bit of water since we had simply not discovered a whole heck of a lot to back up his claims. However now we have tons of what are known in the scientific community as transitional fossils that meet the creationist definition of "part of this "kind" and part of this "kind" of animal". My question is, how do you guys explain transitional fossils. Lets keep it down to only humans, say this series:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Most of the Homo habilis apes are chimpanzee ancestors, most of the Homo erectus are human ancestors.

Some of the others

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
​

Notice these are all ape size brains and by the way, where are the chimpanzee ancestors from 1.7 mya to 3.5 mya?

Smithsonian Human Family Tree

I mean it is pretty hard to say that species like neanderthals were simply apes and we know that they are not human (at least, not on the same evolutionary tree). So how do you guys explain them? This is not a debate and unless I see factual errors I am going to butt out and see what you guys have to say.

The neanderthals are human except that they are about 10% bigger. Been a while since I read up on it but they had burials, huts, tools and some kind of a religion. It's kind of interesting, most of the apes that are passed off as our early ancestors are about 10% bigger then modern apes, some of them slightly more.

 

[laptoppop]

Sounds like a testable assertion. Let's see how it stands up. If I can show you a complete line of transitional organisms, so much alike that no two adjacent ones differ by more than exists in single species, would you agree that they are transitional?

No, of course not. You would just be showing a grouping of similar species. You are buying the standard line. To REALLY demonstrate transitions, you would need to show a bunch of other things as well including population locality, time progression, dna mutation identifications, etc. Morphological similarity is just a small part of the overall question.

I deliberately put this in the creationism forum. I don't have the interest, time or energy right now for a big debate -- sorry.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Sounds like a testable assertion. Let's see how it stands up. If I can show you a complete line of transitional organisms, so much alike that no two adjacent ones differ by more than exists in single species, would you agree that they are transitional?
​

No, of course not. You would just be showing a grouping of similar species.

Which is all the admission that's needed. Even if we showed you some fossils that are perfectly intermediate, you would deny that they were so.

You are buying the standard line.

The one about evidence being required? Yeah, scientists are really one-way about stuff like that.

To REALLY demonstrate transitions, you would need to show a bunch of other things as well including population locality, time progression, dna mutation identifications, etc.

And we can, if you like. Want to learn about how we know these things? I can put together a presentation in which we put all that together, although it will be quite long to show you all of it. But if you promise to go with me on it, and not drop out, I'll do it. If you're serious, let's do it.

Morphological similarity is just a small part of the overall question.

Indeed. As you might know, DNA evidence has shown that morphological homologies are extremely accurate in establishing phylogenies. And of course, the environment and geographic location data are also useful (and they support the other two lines of evidence.

I deliberately put this in the creationism forum. I don't have the interest, time or energy right now for a big debate -- sorry.

The truth matters. Even in this forum.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, of course not. You would just be showing a grouping of similar species. You are buying the standard line. To REALLY demonstrate transitions, you would need to show a bunch of other things as well including population locality, time progression, dna mutation identifications, etc. Morphological similarity is just a small part of the overall question.

I deliberately put this in the creationism forum. I don't have the interest, time or energy right now for a big debate -- sorry.

What you really need laptoppop is a molecular mechanism that can expand the human brain in size and complexity nearly overnight. It would have all had to happen right around 2.5 million years ago. It took nearly 3 million years to develop a bipedal gait and then the brain doubles in size and complexity overnight.

This is what I think, originally chimpanzee ancestors were bigger then the modern ones and bipedal. As a result of the fall they devolved to the point where their ancestors were actually better developed then modern ones.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Matthewj1985]

The neanderthals are human except that they are about 10% bigger. Been a while since I read up on it but they had burials, huts, tools and some kind of a religion. It's kind of interesting, most of the apes that are passed off as our early ancestors are about 10% bigger then modern apes, some of them slightly more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm

The genetics disagree that Neanderthals were human at all. Since they are genetically not an ancestor to us and we both agree that they were not apes, how do they fit into the creation model? Do you have to just throw this study under the buss and keep saying that they were in fact human?

 

[Matthewj1985]

So-called "transitional fossils" represent more man's ability to sort and organize things than they do any kind of transitions. Nobody is claiming that we have solid evidence of a complete change-by-change path from one to another. What is preserved is a set of fully-adapted organisms appropriately designed for their environment and ecocommunity.

Check out Behe's book - "The Edge Of Evolution". He uses example bacteria because they have huge numbers in their populations as well as huge numbers of generations. He makes a darn good case for successful mutations being one gene at a time.

Some evolutionists have tried to overcome these issues by postulating a "jumpy" evolution, as opposed to a smooth one. In other words, we don't have gene by gene changes because they don't happen that way - the change occurs in jumps.

One common thread however -- is that it is all conjecture and storytelling. Lots of "it may have been that" and not a lot of "here's the piece by piece evidence for...".

We have lots of evidence for mutations with no effect. We have lots of evidence for mutations with bad effects, both small and large. We have evidence for mutational loading, where the overall long term effect of mutations are negative in a population. What we DONT have evidence for is clear unambiguous progress over time.

Let's try and stay on topic, you failed to address how you personally deal with the overwhelming amount of transitional fossils. No, we do not have every form from one species to the other but fossilization is pretty rare and not an easy process.

Were all those forms spoken into life just so that they just happen to be in the right level of strata? The series of "ape to man" skulls has always been one of the bigger reasons why I personally believe in evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm

The genetics disagree that Neanderthals were human at all. Since they are genetically not an ancestor to us and we both agree that they were not apes, how do they fit into the creation model? Do you have to just throw this study under the buss and keep saying that they were in fact human?

I don't think your news article is making any sweeping conclusions, I searched nature and found this:

In addition to degradation and chemical damage to the DNA that can cause any ancient DNA to be irretrievable or misread, contamination of specimens, laboratory reagents and instruments with traces of DNA from modern humans must be avoided. In fact, when sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used, human mtDNA sequences can be retrieved from almost every ancient specimen. This problem is especially severe when Neanderthal remains are studied because Neanderthal and human are so closely related that one expects to find few or no differences between Neanderthals and modern humans within many regions, making it impossible to rely on the sequence information itself to distinguish endogenous from contaminating DNA sequences. (Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, Nature 2006)​

Now the mtDNA is remarkably different and outside modern human variance. They are also saying that Neanderthal and humans couldn't have interbreeded...at least I think that what they are saying. But these sequences are very old and I am far from convinced that they are going to come up with anything conclusive.

By the way, they are talking about an initial sequences. Personally I would much rather they did a gorilla sequences instead.

The series of "ape to man" skulls has always been one of the bigger reasons why I personally believe in evolution.

How interesting, they are the primary reason that I don't.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I don't think your news article is making any sweeping conclusions, I searched nature and found this:

In addition to degradation and chemical damage to the DNA that can cause any ancient DNA to be irretrievable or misread, contamination of specimens, laboratory reagents and instruments with traces of DNA from modern humans must be avoided. In fact, when sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used, human mtDNA sequences can be retrieved from almost every ancient specimen. This problem is especially severe when Neanderthal remains are studied because Neanderthal and human are so closely related that one expects to find few or no differences between Neanderthals and modern humans within many regions, making it impossible to rely on the sequence information itself to distinguish endogenous from contaminating DNA sequences. (Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, Nature 2006)​

Now the mtDNA is remarkably different and outside modern human variance. They are also saying that Neanderthal and humans couldn't have interbreeded...at least I think that what they are saying. But these sequences are very old and I am far from convinced that they are going to come up with anything conclusive.

By the way, they are talking about an initial sequences. Personally I would much rather they did a gorilla sequences instead.

Well first let me say that I am shocked to see a creationist quoting nature. Second I will say that I am by no means a geneticist so I will keep my nose out of it.

So we will both now say that Neanderthal was human like. Do you accept this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well first let me say that I am shocked to see a creationist quoting nature. Second I will say that I am by no means a geneticist so I will keep my nose out of it.

Buddy, genetics is the only thing about this evolution/creation controversy worth your time. Whatever you do, make sure you stick your nose in it. I have been arguing against a human/chimpanzee common ancestor for over 5 years almost exclusively from peer reviewed scientific literature. This was one of my posts to the the now defunct Quiet Thread.

Evolution and the Human Brain

So we will both now say that Neanderthal was human like. Do you accept this?

Not exactly, they are human just bigger. I think this mitochondria DNA is out of human variation but that is modern human variation and that's about it. I haven't heard any creationists calling them apes, heck, most creationists consider the Homo erectus specimens to be human. I don't know who you have been talking to but they have some strange ideas.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Buddy, genetics is the only thing about this evolution/creation controversy worth your time. Whatever you do, make sure you stick your nose in it. I have been arguing against a human/chimpanzee common ancestor for over 5 years almost exclusively from peer reviewed scientific literature. This was one of my posts to the the now defunct Quiet Thread.

Evolution and the Human Brain



Not exactly, they are human just bigger. I think this mitochondria DNA is out of human variation but that is modern human variation and that's about it. I haven't heard any creationists calling them apes, heck, most creationists consider the Homo erectus specimens to be human. I don't know who you have been talking to but they have some strange ideas.

If you have been in a multi-year debate and you only use peer reviewed material then why not write your own paper and submit it for peer review? This is the biggest beef I have with creationist and for me, proof that they know they have nothing. You obviously know how the process works, last I check the military didn't have a policy against soldiers who are also scientest.

As far as genetics goes, it really doesn't interest me all that much and frankly the only people talking about a creation/evolution "contraversy" just happen to be creationist. The way I see it, I know very little about genetics, but there are many out there who do. Those people publish their ideas in journals that are fact checked by other experts in the field. Till I start seeing peer reviewed papers about genetics that point away from evolution, or towards creation, I will leave it to the experts. Like I said, genetics really doesn't light my fire like cosmology or marine biology does.

 

[Biblewriter]

So far no one in this thread has fully addressed what I consider thatcentral point of this discussion.

The only theory that even begins to make sense is natural selection of mutational forms.

Now mjutations take place only at the genetic level. (If they are not there, they are not mutations.) And these mutations must of necessity take place one at a time.

Thus, even a transition from one species to the closest similar species will of necessity require the existance of thousands of transitional forms. Each of these mini-transitions must of necessity have a selective advantage over its peers.

So the demonstration of a dozen or so transitional forms is by no means a demonstration of evolutionary progress.

If man eveoved from an ape-like creature, there must of absolute necessity have been literally hundreds of thousands of transitional forms. Nothing even remotely resembling a demonstration of such development has ever been shown.

Instead of discussion what percentage of genetic material is identical in a species supposedly descended from another, we should instead concentrate on the number of genes that differ. (say, perhaps, 100,000? that's just a guess)

Each one of these genetic differences would of necessity have to developed independently of all the others, and thus there would have to have been a transitional form for every one of the specific genetic differences.

If, inddde, as I have guessed, there were 100,.000 genetic differences, then there had to have been 100,000 transitional forms. My 100,000 number is just a guess, but I think it is way too small.

So don't bother me with a dozen or so "transitional" forms. SHOW ME THOUSANDS OF THEM OR SHUT UP.

 

[The Barbarian]

What you really need laptoppop is a molecular mechanism that can expand the human brain in size and complexity nearly overnight.

Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.

D'Arcy Thompson recognized this about a hundred years ago. His On Growth and Form is still in print, and well worth reading.

It would have all had to happen right around 2.5 million years ago. It took nearly 3 million years to develop a bipedal gait and then the brain doubles in size and complexity overnight.

You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.

This is what I think, originally chimpanzee ancestors were bigger then the modern ones and bipedal.

Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.

But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?

 

[The Barbarian]

So far no one in this thread has fully addressed what I consider thatcentral point of this discussion.

The only theory that even begins to make sense is natural selection of mutational forms.

Now mjutations take place only at the genetic level. (If they are not there, they are not mutations.) And these mutations must of necessity take place one at a time.

In any given individual. But even rather restricted species number in the millions, so many different mutations are being tried out every generation.

Thus, even a transition from one species to the closest similar species will of necessity require the existance of thousands of transitional forms. Each of these mini-transitions must of necessity have a selective advantage over its peers.

So far, we can show a marked and gradual change in brain sizes among the various species of Homo. Would you like to learn about that?

So the demonstration of a dozen or so transitional forms is by no means a demonstration of evolutionary progress.

I'm surprised anyone would even attempt that kind of argument. It's a rather open admission that one won't accept evidence.

If man eveoved from an ape-like creature, there must of absolute necessity have been literally hundreds of thousands of transitional forms. Nothing even remotely resembling a demonstration of such development has ever been shown.

You've been misled on that. We surely have hundreds of hominins now, and even among the different speces, we can see transitional forms. In H. erectus, for example, the ancient ones had much smaller brains than more recent ones. Indeed, at one point, it becomes impossible to say with certainty where H. erectus ends and archaic H. sapiens begins.

Instead of discussion what percentage of genetic material is identical in a species supposedly descended from another, we should instead concentrate on the number of genes that differ. (say, perhaps, 100,000? that's just a guess)

Probably not a useful approach. For example, the foetalization of hominids, with retention of juvenile form becoming more and more pronounced over time, was probably the result of changes in genes that controlled timing of development, and a few changes would then have profound effects.

Each one of these genetic differences would of necessity have to developed independently of all the others, and thus there would have to have been a transitional form for every one of the specific genetic differences.

So far, that's what we see. Where species are documented in sufficient numbers, we see gradual change.

So don't bother me with a dozen or so "transitional" forms. SHOW ME THOUSANDS OF THEM OR SHUT UP.

A mind is a terrible thing to imprison. If you have to go through this kind of gymnastics to avoid the evidence, wouldn't it just be easier to let God do it the way He did?

Worked for me.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you have been in a multi-year debate and you only use peer reviewed material then why not write your own paper and submit it for peer review?

There have been a number of creationists who could muster the credibility but they are not allowed to be published. If the Intelligent Design community ever seriously looks at human evolution then it may be possible but I'm not holding my breath.

This is the biggest beef I have with creationist and for me, proof that they know they have nothing. You obviously know how the process works, last I check the military didn't have a policy against soldiers who are also scientest.

The military doesn't care and the last time I checked medical doctors were considered scientists. However, as a Solider I can assure you if I were considered for publication they would never attempt to hinder me, they would probably be excited. That is not an issue I assure you.

As far as genetics goes, it really doesn't interest me all that much and frankly the only people talking about a creation/evolution "contraversy" just happen to be creationist. The way I see it, I know very little about genetics, but there are many out there who do. Those people publish their ideas in journals that are fact checked by other experts in the field. Till I start seeing peer reviewed papers about genetics that point away from evolution, or towards creation, I will leave it to the experts. Like I said, genetics really doesn't light my fire like cosmology or marine biology does.

No offense intended but that is just absurd. Genetics is the fastest growing science in the world and if you think it's uninteresting and unimportant I suggest you might not realize what is important in these debates and discussions. I honestly am not trying to insult you intelligence but would recommend that you at least consider how vital it is to consider the mechanism responsible for the sweeping changes we know collectively as evolution.

Consider this, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 December and arctic fish develops a brand new gene, not gene duplication, not random mutation but a brand new gene. No on in their right mind would suggest that evolution (adaptation) has occurred but the real question is how it happened. It would appear to have came from simple repeats initially but like I said, it's a brand new gene. The point is that it has a lot to do with marine biology and you might want to consider genetics as you pursue this issue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.

There's a reason for that and it has nothing to do with allometry:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes . Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago . (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans)​

This regulatory gene allows 2 substitutions since the Cambrian Explosion and then there are 18. This must have happened about 2 mya since that is when the unprecedented expansion of the human brain from that of apes would have had to happen.

You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.

What makes us human? (Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)

One of the problems with the evolutionary expansion of the human brain from that of an ape is the size, weight and complexity. The human brian would have had to triple in size, starting 2 1/2 million years ago and ending 200 to 400 thousand years ago. The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 MY ago to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY.

"It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 ), yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive."

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003

Evolution and the Human Brain

Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.

The brain, that is the most important thing.

But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?

I have done this so many times there is no need to start over from scratch, start here:

Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

You want to revise or otherwise challenge my time line then lest start off with a general outline:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(See Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5–1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, I've been all over it for some time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obsrveves:
Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.
​

There's a reason for that and it has nothing to do with allometry:

Allometry is the observed fact. Why it happens is the question.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes . Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago . (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans)​

This regulatory gene allows 2 substitutions since the Cambrian Explosion and then there are 18. This must have happened about 2 mya since that is when the unprecedented expansion of the human brain from that of apes would have had to happen.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.

What makes us human?

Here's a hint:
It's not genes. But as far as the question at hand, about

(Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)

One of the problems with the evolutionary expansion of the human brain from that of an ape is the size, weight and complexity. The human brian would have had to triple in size, starting 2 1/2 million years ago and ending 200 to 400 thousand years ago. The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 MY ago to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY.

"It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 ), yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive."

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003

But it turns out that the clade for this is not Homo, but includes chimps, too...

Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ.

Evans PD, Vallender EJ, Lahn BT.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Primary microcephaly is a developmental defect of the brain characterized by severely reduced brain size but an absence of other overt abnormalities. Mutations in several loci have been linked to primary microcephaly. The underlying genes for two of these were recently identified as CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ. Here, we focus on CDK5RAP2 and show that the protein evolutionary rate of this gene is significantly higher in primates than rodents or carnivores. We further show that the evolutionary rate within primates is particularly high in the human and chimpanzee terminal branches. Thus, the pattern of molecular evolution seen in CDK5RAP2 appears to parallel, at least approximately, that seen in two other previously identified primary microcephaly genes, microcephalin and ASPM. We also briefly discuss CENPJ, which similarly exhibits higher rate of protein evolution in primates as compared to rodents and carnivores. Together, the evolutionary patterns of all four presently known primary microcephaly genes are consistent with the hypothesis that genes regulating brain size during development might also play a role in brain evolution in primates and especially humans.

Surprise. The process precedes the genus Homo.

Barbarian on the possibility of bipedal protochimps:
Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.

The brain, that is the most important thing.

Not for bipedalism, it isn't. Buttocks are more than cushioning.

Barbarian suggests:
But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?

I have done this so many times there is no need to start over from scratch,

Great. Then maybe you'd like the more advanced quiz.

Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.

Good luck.

 

[mark kennedy]

If I had a dime for every time I did this

Barbarian obsrveves:
Hmm... about 5 million years of growth, though various species of Homo. There's a very simple and testable mechanism. It's called "allometry." The growth of the human brain is directly attributable to the retardation of maturation in humans. We take a lot longer to mature, and we never fully assume an adult form as other apes do. This is why young chimps look so human; they are immature, and more closely resemble us in facial features, skull-to-face ratio, length of limbs, size of jaws, and so on.​

Barbarian is prone to generalities.

​

Allometry is the observed fact. Why it happens is the question.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes . Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago . (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans)​

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that. We can see a growth in the brain as far back as the early Australopithecines. And likewise, in the gracile Australopithicines and their relatives, a reduction in tooth and jaw size, and a flattening of the face, indicating that feotalization was even then progressing.

That looks like a cut and paste....something....

Here's a hint:
It's not genes. But as far as the question at hand, about

(Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)

Ok, I know what it says already but...

Surprise. The process precedes the genus Homo.

Barbarian on the possibility of bipedal protochimps:
Very unlikely. They have the primitive form of the gluteal muscles, which would strongly indicate that they were never re-arranged to form buttocks as in humans. And that's critical to walking upright.

Unless the butt is a precursor to the brain you are grasping at straws.

Not for bipedalism, it isn't. Buttocks are more than cushioning.

Barbarian suggests:
But since you're very sure you can eliminate any transitionals in humans, are you ready to put that belief to the test? At the same time, I'll try to get the skull size data, so you can test your "sudden brain" hypothesis. Ready to go?

This just drips with absurdity

Great. Then maybe you'd like the more advanced quiz.

Which of these are apes, and which of these are humans? Since you're certain that there are no transitionals, it should be a snap. And tell us by what criteria you made your decision for each.

Good luck.

I have been through the Talk Origins case of skulls a dozen times and the other bogus, so called, evidence of transnationals from ape to man. I offer you detailed specifics and you spam these bizarre images. Start with the Human Family Tree at the Smithsonian site and then pick a specific fossil. Otherwise you are just another spammer wasting everyone else's time.