I don't know who you think you are talking to but the a priori assumption is a Single Common Ancestor Myth. It's not the first time that main stream science has propagandized a mythology only to have their flawed logic exposed. Remember that thing about the sun revolving around the earth, that was main stream science for a couple of thousand years.
I feel like making a creationist sockpuppet and coming back on here and telling you that "even though I'm a creationist I believe that Turkana Boy was not a human based on his cranial capacity." I'm very curious. What
would you do if a creationist told you that Turkana wasn't human?
That's a lie, all that has been said is that Turkana boy is well within the range of human variation. I don't have a problem with raising valid points about the mean average but don't twist my arguements speaking to some imaginary audiance.
Actually, this: "Note that this is all that has been claimed: that Turkana Boy is not a
Homo sapiens, and that this causes problems for a creationist view." was all
I was saying. But if you want me to bring up "all that has been said" by you, no problem:
#188: It need not be an argument, the evidence speaks for itself. The boy was still growing, everyone realizes this and no one has a problem with it. Sure he was a transitional, from early adolesance to adulthood not ape to man.
So are you still holding to this or are you backing off?
There you go, arguing in circles around your a priori assumptions and claiming there is no need for them. Turkana Boy was well within the human range of cranial capacities and there are still humans with brain that are even smaller then his and by now you know this. Posting the propaganda from Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins is not a scientific arguement, it's rethorical showboating.
Firstly, none of this "propaganda" is from Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins. The data that Turkana was 1.6m tall with an expected 910cc
adult skull capacity (note that had I used the actual figure of 880 the situation would have been even worse for you) was widely available on this thread almost from the start and you have not brought up any reliable countersources to indicate that he was anything other than 1.6m tall with a 910cc cranium. The graphs were self-drawn using Excel and Paint (hardly scientific, I admit), and the data sources were made known right from the start.
Secondly, I know that there are still humans with smaller cranial capacities than this. But are you talking about microcephalics? Why are you still raising them when you admitted here:
#235: I never considered Turkana boy to be microcephalic, I just brought that up as an example of human beings with small skulls. Actually, someone with that particular genetic abnormality has a cranial capacity comparable to that of a chimpanzee. I know this kid had an awfully small skull, there is no getting around that, but it is still within the range of modern human beings.
where you yourself say that Turkana Boy was not a microcephalic, artfully avoid giving any other logical explanation for his having an "awfully small skull", and then go on to claim that he was human anyways without any such explanation.
Natural selection was always a religiously motivated a priori argument. Tell me something while you preach to an invisable choir, what constitutes a logical disproof of humans and apes having a common ancestor. Nothing that's what, the possibility is never allowed because that would require a creator which is the circular reasoning of Darwinians.
I don't know who you're talking to here because all I happen to be saying at this moment is that there's no way Turkana could be a
H. sap.
I don't brush of something as important as the defining anatomical characteristic the defines human/ape divergance. The genes involved in the development of the brain and the liver mark the single greatest genetic evolutionary obstacle for Darwinian evolution. You do not attempt to prove or disprove common ancestry on this level because it would require actual science which you refuse to deal with.
Yes, I would be out of my depth talking about the genetic changes involved because I have not intensively studied them. But again note that all I am saying on this thread at this moment is that there's no way Turkana could be a
H. sap. I could be a dyed-in-the-wool creationist and still not see why I should accept it as one.
Where are all these peer reviewed scientific journal reports that are so prized amoung evolutionists? You don't have any for the evolution of the human brain and when you are faced with them you simply change the subject.
My subject has never been the human brain, my subject was that Turkana Boy was not human. I haven't changed the subject because I'm waiting for you to accept the subject. Seems like I have a lot longer to wait.
Still arguing in circles to an audiance you imagine is listening when I am the only one really reading what you have to say. That makes me wonder if you have the courage of your convictions or just playing to the crowd.
I don't know lurkers or get much if any rep from them, and the chances are that if I ever meet them it will probably be on the other side of eternity if at all. So why would I say something to please people I'll never know who could never praise me? Stats is my passion, math is my playground, the numbers simply don't support your assertions, and that's all I'm saying.
For one thing your pointless chart should be cited and linked to any and all relevant peer reviewed scientific research you have. Oh wait, you don't have any, that would account for why you don't provide any.
Not only did I provide peer-reviewed and authoritative data, I linked to them right from the get-go.
#191: Growth curve of normal humans: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/...l/cj41c021.pdf
Note that the very earliest a human can reach 1.6m is about 11 years (giving the benefit of the doubt).
Brain growth curve of normal humans:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1109727/DC1/1 (second page)
Look at what age the human brain size is more than 880cc or even 910cc: approx 1-2 years. And since cranial capacity is larger than brain size, the approx age has to be adjusted back some more. (Note in passing that the chimpanzee never reaches even 880cc.)
#320: [geek]
Functions used:
y(t) = 1300/(1+3.333e^(-.9696t)). Fitted to y(0) = 300cc and y(3) = 1100cc.
x(t) = 2/(1+3e^(-0.002675t^2-0.18288t)). Fitted to x(0) = 0.5m, x(11) = 1.55m, and x(16) = 1.85m.
Data points obtained from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/...l/cj41c021.pdf (male height vs. age, 95th percentile), Wikipedia (max body length of newborn ~= 50cm), http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1109727/DC1/1 (human brain growth curve).
[/geek]
The chart is not cited because it was original work. But it is based on data points given in the above works which I have consistently linked to, and if you have better data points to present by which Turkana Boy falls nicely onto a human cranial capacity vs. height curve, do present it by all means.
Here is the actual burden of proof, notice that the human brain is three times bigger:
What you don't want to look at is the burden of proof. Look at the size of the ape incisor on the chimp, it's exactly what you would expect an apes tooth to look like. Now realize something before you go back to talking to your invisable audiance. In addition to the cranial capacity being nothing close to that of an ape, the teeth have no basis of comparison between a human being and an ape. Turkana boy was human, there is no doubt about him or any of the other Homo erectus skulls.
I wasn't saying Turkana Boy was an ape, all I was saying was that he wasn't human. And once we're done with him I really would love to get to the other Homo erectus skulls and see just where they fall on my little graph.
Anyone interested in the actual science involved I strongly recommend you check this out:
"The team compared the DNA sequences of humans, chimpanzees and monkeys, and looked for genes that were repeated more often in human DNA than in the other primate genomes. One gene that codes for a piece of protein called DUF1220 stood out. Humans carry 212 copies of DUF1220, whereas chimps have 37 copies, and monkeys have only 30 copies, the researchers found. Mice and rats each had a paltry single copy of the protein-coding region. When the team looked for the protein in the human body, they found it in many places, including in neurons in the brain."
DUF1220 Gene Key For Human Evolution
And again, my argument is not that humans have evolved, my argument is that Turkana Boy was not human.
Again with these averages, apes average between 300cc and 400cc with Homo habilis not quite 600cc which makes him a knucle dragging ape. Turkana boy was 800cc and would have been close to 1000cc at adulthood. This boy had not stopped growing and there is a problem here that evolutionists don't like to deal with. There is nothing between Homo Habilis and Turkana boy. The overall cranial capacity nearly doubles and this is supposed to be a smooth transition that causes no problems for evolution? Baloney!
Cite your sources please, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_boy the cranial capacity was 880cc as found and projected to be 910cc. Again, I am not arguing here that humans have not evolved, I am simply arguing that Turkana Boy was not human.
Speaking of the increase of information, do you have any idea how many genes would have been involved in the accelerated evolution of human specific genes? Do you know how many mutations would be required in those respective genes? Now for the clencher, do you know what the directly observed and demonstrated effect of mutations involved in neural functions is?
Again, I am not arguing here that humans have not evolved, I am simply arguing that Turkana Boy was not human. Am I evading your arguments? Yes. But then again, you have been evading mine precisely by bringing up all these side points which are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Turkana Boy is human as determined by the simple structural ratios associated with his body, i.e. the cranial capacity/height comparison.
I doubt seriously you want to answer any of those questions and I don't blame you, the science involved is devastating to TOE
See above.
Here is the logical fallacy of trying to use a ridiculous analogy to make a substantive point. It's called circular reasoning aka begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.
Not until you show how it is circular.
-AiG quote snipped, word limit exceeded-
Cranial capacity and endocranial casts
Stop argueing in circles and start reading scientific literature instead of that propaganda mill at Panda's Thumb or Talk Origins.
And Answers in Genesis (from which this was copied) is "scientific literature instead of a propaganda mill"? Still I am interested by that Melanesian example, the citation is
Schultz, A.H., 1966. The physical distinction of man. In: Readings in Anthropology, Thomas W. McKern (ed.), Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey. anyone can access it? I'm guessing that particular person probably had skeletal dysplasia (dwarfism), though I freely admit that it's because I've never seen anyone with normal growth and an 890cc cranium. I've seen a few with that condition in my college and I'm guessing that if I measure their cranial capacity it would probably be below average (and since they're in the same college as me let me just put in my PC insurance and say that in no way would this imply any lack of intelligence on their part).
The clincher is did any of these individuals stand 1.6m tall? Skeletal dysplasia would both reduce cranial capacity at adulthood and height simultaneously. That would move the Turkana Boy data point both left and downwards simultaneously, instead of moving it any farther from the curve (remember, you need a condition which would move a normal human data point off the curve and onto Turkana Boy's position) it would move parallel to the curve.
And as a final throwaway insult
I didn't believe you to be so desperate that you would mis-quote your own creationists. From the same article used:
There have been many attempts to measure the cranial capacity of man and his cranial configuration in order to directly measure his mentality. From what is now known of modern man, there is no relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence. In fossil man and apes the endocranial casts show arteries and the general shape of the inner aspects of the skull, but not the sulci and gyri which are important. The key transitional fossils Proconsul and Australopithecus have been challenged by Falk and his group who demonstrate affinities of these organisms by reading the sulci, especially the lunate sulcus on the endocranial casts. Their work is disputed and so one must conclude that cranial configuration studies need further research.
This work intended to dispute the connection between cranial capacity and human intelligence, a connection I have nowhere made, and therefore much of its points are irrelevant to my arguments. Nowhere is it implied (although shorthand formulae are given) that measurements of cranial capacities can be erroneous or rest on unfounded assumptions, and even if this were true the burden of proof would be on you to show that these assumptions caused an erroneous measurement of Turkana Boy's cranial capacity.
