Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

Status
Not open for further replies.

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thanks for the replies but no-one has yet answered by questions. Saying we cannot tell who is an ape and who is a human unless we see them in the flesh is rather short-sighted - we can tell a great deal about extinct creatures by their bones, especially if we are able to extract their DNA.

If you found an unidentified skeleton, what features would they need in order for Creationists to consider them 'ape-men'? For example -

Would they have large, human-like brains and an ape-like body?
Or would they have a human-like body and a small, ape-like brain?

They will not want to get tied down in specifics - because that is always when they have to run away. Just like the definition of "kind" - you can never get a cast iron definition out of them.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi NSP,

You asked: Would they have large, human-like brains and an ape-like body?
Or would they have a human-like body and a small, ape-like brain?

I think the answer has been given you just haven't understood it. Skeletal remains give us no definitive explanation of the type of life that the skeleton once supported. We can postulate that a skeleton with a slightly different measurement of some standard would possibly indicate some difference in the creature that once used that skeleton to support their body, but nothing concrete. As much as some want to claim that they can. It is the 'seeing' the full creature and how it lived, did it speak in a language and did it grow and harvest its' food. Did the creature that once used the skeleton we are looking at have the soul and spirit of man or animal? These questions cannot be answered with any accuracy by skeletal examination.

All we can conclude from skeletal examination is that there does seem to be a difference in skeletal structure, but even today, men and women from different races and nationalities of men, have varying, especially skull, configurations. Mexican men, and I mean no disrespect to any Mexican, are generally of shorter stature than European men. Some believe that this is a dietary difference and it may well be, but then we can surely also understand that changes found in exumed skeletal evidence may also be explained by dietary differences.

So, the answer, from my perspective is that there really isn't much that we can conclude from just skeletal remains about the actual life of the creature that once was supported by the skeleton beyond the particulars of body dimensions.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hi NSP,

You asked: Would they have large, human-like brains and an ape-like body?
Or would they have a human-like body and a small, ape-like brain?

I think the answer has been given you just haven't understood it. Skeletal remains give us no definitive explanation of the type of life that the skeleton once supported. We can postulate that a skeleton with a slightly different measurement of some standard would possibly indicate some difference in the creature that once used that skeleton to support their body, but nothing concrete. As much as some want to claim that they can. It is the 'seeing' the full creature and how it lived, did it speak in a language and did it grow and harvest its' food. Did the creature that once used the skeleton we are looking at have the soul and spirit of man or animal? These questions cannot be answered with any accuracy by skeletal examination.

All we can conclude from skeletal examination is that there does seem to be a difference in skeletal structure, but even today, men and women from different races and nationalities of men, have varying, especially skull, configurations. Mexican men, and I mean no disrespect to any Mexican, are generally of shorter stature than European men. Some believe that this is a dietary difference and it may well be, but then we can surely also understand that changes found in exumed skeletal evidence may also be explained by dietary differences.

So, the answer, from my perspective is that there really isn't much that we can conclude from just skeletal remains about the actual life of the creature that once was supported by the skeleton beyond the particulars of body dimensions.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

In other words, someone could show you every single of the "missing links" and you'd be like, dur those are just skeletons.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think the answer has been given you just haven't understood it. Skeletal remains give us no definitive explanation of the type of life that the skeleton once supported.
This is patently not true. A skeleton cannot tell you everything but it can tell you a great deal.
So, the answer, from my perspective is that there really isn't much that we can conclude from just skeletal remains about the actual life of the creature that once was supported by the skeleton beyond the particulars of body dimensions.
Which explains why you are not a paleontologist or anthropologist I guess.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Hi kerrmetric,

He means that you can't tell so much difference between skeletal remains of a chimp or a human if all you have to go by is the skeletal remains. It's not until you flesh out the bones and see them alive, one covered with hair and swinging from the trees eating bananas and enjoying playing with his sexual organs and hearing him making all kinds of strange sounds from his mouth, and the other dressed in a pair of coveralls working behind a plow drawn by a pair of oxen and laying out neat furrows and planting seed and caring for it until a crop is grown and then he harvests the crop and makes bread and food for his table in his kitchen where the soft electric light glows and his family gathers around to hold hands and pray and give thanks to God for the bountiful blessing that He has provided for them, that you really understand the difference between the two skeletons.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hey, thank you very much for doing the explanation for me. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the replies but no-one has yet answered by questions. Saying we cannot tell who is an ape and who is a human unless we see them in the flesh is rather short-sighted - we can tell a great deal about extinct creatures by their bones, especially if we are able to extract their DNA.

If you found an unidentified skeleton, what features would they need in order for Creationists to consider them 'ape-men'? For example -

Would they have large, human-like brains and an ape-like body?
Or would they have a human-like body and a small, ape-like brain?

You did not hear what I said. Of course we can tell chimp skeletons from human skeletons by a careful study (I don't think anyone, includes me, who does not study biology, can do it easily). But if we can see chimp and human alive, then we can easily, and really tell the differences.

What it means is: the study of skeletons can only see a small part of the original life. We have similar skeleton as chimps. So, our living habits, movements, etc. etc. are all very similar to that of chimps. That is what we can see from the study of skeletons. But what can NOT be seen from skeletons, is the part of more critical differences between us and chimps. That information will be lost when the flesh disappeared. In other words, there is simply no way to tell that a chimp is not human-like by examining its skeleton.

So, the very specific answer to your question is: No, just by the skeletons, we do not know if an animal is human-like of not. How could you find out if a dinosaur could "think" as we do? In one of the Jurassic Park movie, those dinosaurs are struggling to retrieve their eggs from human. That is a very human-like behavior. Do you think it is real? Can you tell if they were able to do that by looking at their bones?
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You did not hear what I said. Of course we can tell chimp skeletons from human skeletons by a careful study (I don't think anyone, includes me, who does not study biology, can do it easily). But if we can see chimp and human alive, then we can easily, and really tell the differences.

What it means is: the study of skeletons can only see a small part of the original life. We have similar skeleton as chimps. So, our living habits, movements, etc. etc. are all very similar to that of chimps. That is what we can see from the study of skeletons. But what can NOT be seen from skeletons, is the part of more critical differences between us and chimps. That information will be lost when the flesh disappeared. In other words, there is simply no way to tell that a chimp is not human-like by examining its skeleton.

So, the very specific answer to your question is: No, just by the skeletons, we do not know if an animal is human-like of not. How could you find out if a dinosaur could "think" as we do? In one of the Jurassic Park movie, those dinosaurs are struggling to retrieve their eggs from human. That is a very human-like behavior. Do you think it is real? Can you tell if they were able to do that by looking at their bones?

Do you mind if I quote this in the next abortion debate I participate in?
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
miamited said:
So, the answer, from my perspective is that there really isn't much that we can conclude from just skeletal remains about the actual life of the creature that once was supported by the skeleton beyond the particulars of body dimensions.

juvenissun said:
What it means is: the study of skeletons can only see a small part of the original life. We have similar skeleton as chimps. So, our living habits, movements, etc. etc. are all very similar to that of chimps. That is what we can see from the study of skeletons. But what can NOT be seen from skeletons, is the part of more critical differences between us and chimps. That information will be lost when the flesh disappeared. In other words, there is simply no way to tell that a chimp is not human-like by examining its skeleton.

I doubt many people - creationist or evolutionist - would agree with your arguments. The question isn't whether we can tell how an animal lived from it's skeletal remains, obviously we can. We can do so by examining it's anatomy.

Consider for example this extract from an article written by Creationist Dr. David Menton for AnswersInGenesis:
The most eagerly sought after evidence in fossil “hominids” is any anatomical feature that suggests bipedality (the ability to walk on two legs). Humans walk in a bipedal fashion (as do birds and kangaroos), so any evidence of bipedality in fossil apes is considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence for human ancestry.
Both evolutionists and creationists generally agree that autralopithicus walked upright, judging by the way the femur connects to the hip. Evolutionists however say that this is evidence that autralopithicus was a human ancestor, while creationists say that many other creatures also walk on two legs, like birds and kangaroos.

So - same anatomical traits, different conclusions.

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but what traits do creationists think a creature would need in order to be considered an 'ape-man'?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I doubt many people - creationist or evolutionist - would agree with your arguments. The question isn't whether we can tell how an animal lived from it's skeletal remains, obviously we can. We can do so by examining it's anatomy.

Consider for example this extract from an article written by Creationist Dr. David Menton for AnswersInGenesis:
The most eagerly sought after evidence in fossil “hominids” is any anatomical feature that suggests bipedality (the ability to walk on two legs). Humans walk in a bipedal fashion (as do birds and kangaroos), so any evidence of bipedality in fossil apes is considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence for human ancestry.
Both evolutionists and creationists generally agree that autralopithicus walked upright, judging by the way the femur connects to the hip. Evolutionists however say that this is evidence that autralopithicus was a human ancestor, while creationists say that many other creatures also walk on two legs, like birds and kangaroos.

So - same anatomical traits, different conclusions.

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but what traits do creationists think a creature would need in order to be considered an 'ape-man'?

OK. Try this: We need to find something that a human can do, but a chimp can not do (I don't like the ape-man in your question. If you can find the trait, then he is simply a man). Just by looking at the skeletons, I don't think you can find that. Anatomy can not answer that question.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Juvenissun said:
We need to find something that a human can do, but a chimp can not do (I don't like the ape-man in your question. If you can find the trait, then he is simply a man).

Ah, now that answers my question: are you saying that any 'ape-man' who displays a uniquely human trait is automatically human?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Ah, now that answers my question: are you saying that any 'ape-man' who displays a uniquely human trait is automatically human?

Tricky question for a person like me who don't know much about anthropology.

How about say "yes"?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Because the pro-lifers think that no mental capability is required to be human.

So, if a fetus does not think, it is not a human. Right?

But, what about that very particular fetus WILL BECOME a human?
A seed is not a tree. But if you killed the seed, you kill that potential tree.
A child is not a hero. But if you kill that child, you eliminate a future hero.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,941
17,418
Finger Lakes
✟7,425.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Chimp skeleton:
sc-003-bp-md.jpg


Human skeleton:
istockphoto_454953_human_skeleton_front_and_back.jpg

Look at the skulls, the ribcage, the relative lengths of arms and legs. Oh, check out those feet! Both chimps and people have opposable thumbs. but chimps got opposable big toes, too! And who has the tail bone?
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So, if a fetus does not think, it is not a human. Right?

But, what about that very particular fetus WILL BECOME a human?
A seed is not a tree. But if you killed the seed, you kill that potential tree.
A child is not a hero. But if you kill that child, you eliminate a future hero.

Is not but can potentially become. I totally agree with that. Similarly, the skeleton that used to be but no longer is. Moreover, scientists can tell the difference between human and chimp skeletons and between human and chimp fetuses (the latter may require DNA test). From the pictures that aisy_Day shared, us laypeople can tell the difference between chimp and human skeletons even with no training and low resolution pictures.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
(Leave the abortion debates for another thread)

juvenissun said:
Tricky question for a person like me who don't know much about anthropology.

How about say "yes"?

In which case many hominids have unique human traits not found in other apes. No modern ape for example is bipedal, but australopithicus was.

That said, I doubt many anthropologists would consider australopithicus "human". They were human ancestors certainly, but at this stage they were merely upright apes. Like chimpanzees they had small brains (ave. cranial capacity 400 cm), long arms, and are thought to have had fur.

Basically they were apes with traits which - today - are unique to humans.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Chimp skeleton:
sc-003-bp-md.jpg


Human skeleton:
istockphoto_454953_human_skeleton_front_and_back.jpg

Look at the skulls, the ribcage, the relative lengths of arms and legs. Oh, check out those feet! Both chimps and people have opposable thumbs. but chimps got opposable big toes, too! And who has the tail bone?

And by looking at them, how do you know which one evolved into the other? The chimp structure is stronger and is more agile in motion. So may be it is the human who evolved into chimp.

Or, this one is better: how do you know human is not just another chimp? We can add muscle and skin to the human skeleton, and finish it with hair all over the body. What is wrong with that model? Furthermore, it may be debatable if we should put hair on the skin. But could we see that one can raise fire, but the other one can not?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.