Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

Status
Not open for further replies.

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now and again threads about transitional human fossils or ape-men come up. Most of the time Creationists argue that there are no so-called "missing links", usually by looking at their brain size or cranial capacity. The fossils are either human or just apes, nothing in-between.

So my questions are:
What traits do fossils need to have in order for them to be 'human'?
If ape-men did exist, what would you expect them to look like?

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

Weirdly, Creationists have a broader definition of human brain size than Evolutionists:
As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV of WT 15000 would be no more than about 1000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc.
- Bill Mehlert
Via AnswersInGenesis.​
Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950 cc to 1800 cc, with the average about 1400 cc.
Many Creationists also consider homo erectus to be human, but not homo habilis. This is odd, considering the differences in brain size.

- Homo Habilis: ave. cranial capacity [cc] 750cm
- Homo Erectus: ave. cc 850 - 1,100cm
- Modern man: ave cc. 1,400cm

So there is (roughly) a difference of 100cm between Habilis and an early Erectus, while there is a difference of 300cm between Sapiens and late Erectus. Keeping in mind that some modern humans can have a cranial capacity as high as 1,800cm, this difference jumps to 700cm.

In other words Erectus is more similar to Habilis than they are to Sapiens in terms of cranial capacity. So why is homo erectus considered human while homo habilis is not?


I'd also point out that anything below 900cm is considered abnormal among modern humans. Even those with microcephaly have a cranial capacity of roughly 1,000cm ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Anthropometric craniofacial pattern profiles [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]in microcephaly[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]). Therefore early homo erectus (ave. cc 850cm) cannot be considered 'human variation'.[/FONT][/FONT]
 

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,

All I can tell you is that you're way out of my league. However, I don't base my decision of the creation on human wisdom. A piece of Scripture was pointed out to me last night that I think is very appropriate to explain my understanding of brain size, scientific dating methods, red shift, etc. It can be found in the book of Colossians chapter 2 and verse 8:
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.
Now, I'm confident that many will disagree, but as I read that passage I was suddenly convicted in my spirit that this is exactly what evolutionary theories, old earth theories were all about. People of the fellowships of the church are being taken captive, or being deceived by deceptive philosophy that is based on human tradition (everybody believes this) but even more distinctly by basic principles of this world.

What is philosophy? The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. In it's most simplistic understanding by the greek words that make up our word philosophy which comes from the Latin philosophos which when translated is 'lover of wisdoml'. So the plain meaning of Paul's instruction seems to be that we need to be careful in believing 'hollow' or 'deceptive' wisdom. However, he goes on to explain where this wisdom actually comes from and it just bowled me over when the synapsis snapped together and I made the connection. What kind of hollow and deceptive philosophy do we need to be careful of being made captive? Why it is the wisdom gained from the basic principles of this world.

Many in the church today are being taken captive by a knowledge that is based on the basic principles of this world!

Why must the universe be so old? Well, everyone knows that it is a basic principle of light that it travels....

Why must the earth be so old? Well, everyone knows that the laying down of sedimentary rock takes millions, perhaps billions of years based on 'proven' basic principles of this world.

And they accept this wisdom rather than that of Christ. God has clearly told us how and when all things were created, but we are being taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophy that is based on human tradition and the basic principles of this world. We refuse to believe just exactly what God says. "I spoke all of the creation into existence perfectly and fully formed just as you see it today in six days that consisted of an evening and a morning and on the last day of the six I created Adam and then listed for you the years of the genealogy of mankind from Adam. So, you have all you need to know about how, when and why I created all things, but yet you would rather deny my claim that all of this was made in and through Christ and follow the hollow and deceptive philosophy of 'supposed' wise men who have engineered arguments against my truth based on basec principles of this world. Do you think I see you as faithful?"

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
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

How about this one:
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Can we trust what we see with our eyes, about the world we live in?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Now, I'm confident that many will disagree, but as I read that passage I was suddenly convicted in my spirit that this is exactly what evolutionary theories, old earth theories were all about. People of the fellowships of the church are being taken captive, or being deceived by deceptive philosophy that is based on human tradition (everybody believes this) but even more distinctly by basic principles of this world.
I would have though it was creationism and literalism that were based on tradition. Cold hard facts can overturn a scientific theory, they cannot shake a tradition. I find as well, that it is creationists who keep relying on philosophy to try to argue against the scientific evidence. Then you have the problem that Colossians was warning about gnosticism and worshipping angels, I could understand trying to apply it to the New Age, but you are taking it completely out of context trying to apply it to modern science.
 
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
Now and again threads about transitional human fossils or ape-men come up. Most of the time Creationists argue that there are no so-called "missing links", usually by looking at their brain size or cranial capacity. The fossils are either human or just apes, nothing in-between.

So my questions are:
What traits do fossils need to have in order for them to be 'human'?
If ape-men did exist, what would you expect them to look like?

I think that is a very very good question.

The answer should be: they should be alive and their behavior should be observable. Do you see why are so many people insisting that we are also an animal? Because our bones look like that of chimps. However, if you put an alive human and an alive chimp side by side, even a toddler can tell who is who.

Of course, it is not possible. So, fossil, no matter what is its unique character, should never be treated as a human-like creature.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
juvenissun said:
I think that is a very very good question.

The answer should be: they should be alive and their behavior should be observable. Do you see why are so many people insisting that we are also an animal? Because our bones look like that of chimps. However, if you put an alive human and an alive chimp side by side, even a toddler can tell who is who.

Of course, it is not possible. So, fossil, no matter what is its unique character, should never be treated as a human-like creature.

But there are plenty of dead people out there. :p I'm pretty sure we can prove the skeletons of those who lived in the 13th century were human.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Steve Petersen said:
As I understand it, brain size is a function of protein intake.

Sort of. There's evidence that human brain size increased as we started eating more meat. Carnivores also tend to have larger brain sizes than herbivores.

However vegetarians tend to have higher IQs than the general population (despite having smaller brains) and pure carnivores, such as cats, are not as intelligent as omnivores, such as apes.

Protein intake probably helps, a lot, but I'm not sure how.
 
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
But there are plenty of dead people out there. :p I'm pretty sure we can prove the skeletons of those who lived in the 13th century were human.

That is what I am saying. If you compare the skeletons of a 13th century human and a 13th century chimp, you do not really see the actual huge different between them. In fact, the skeletons only show a very small difference.
 
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

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
That is what I am saying. If you compare the skeletons of a 13th century human and a 13th century chimp, you do not really see the actual huge different between them. In fact, the skeletons only show a very small difference.
Huh? I don't think you typed what you meant to type.
 
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
43
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many Creationists also consider homo erectus to be human, but not homo habilis. This is odd, considering the differences in brain size.

- Homo Habilis: ave. cranial capacity [cc] 750cm
- Homo Erectus: ave. cc 850 - 1,100cm
- Modern man: ave cc. 1,400cm

So there is (roughly) a difference of 100cm between Habilis and an early Erectus, while there is a difference of 300cm between Sapiens and late Erectus. Keeping in mind that some modern humans can have a cranial capacity as high as 1,800cm, this difference jumps to 700cm.

I'd also point out that anything below 900cm is considered abnormal among modern humans. Even those with microcephaly have a cranial capacity of roughly 1,000cm ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Anthropometric craniofacial pattern profiles [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]in microcephaly[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]). Therefore early homo erectus (ave. cc 850cm) cannot be considered 'human variation'.[/FONT][/FONT]
I think you mean cC
 
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
What do you mean about 13th century human versus chimp skeletons?

It means what I said. To put a 13th Century human skeleton and a 13th Century chimp skeleton together and compare them.
 
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

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
It means what I said. To put a 13th Century human skeleton and a 13th Century chimp skeleton together and compare them.

And in your opinion the result of that is what? And what does that result imply for you?
 
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 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
 
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
BTW, for a guy who's hitting literalism with what hurts - you'd probably better keep practicing your swing.'

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Been batting 1.000 for years. And if you characterised what he was saying then he is wrong. Easy to tell a chimp skeleton from a human skeleton.
 
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

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
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?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.