Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

[Notedstrangeperson]

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.

You're right when you say that simply describing what a creature could look like is not proof of it's existance. But - and this is the important bit - what happens when you find evidence which matches your assumption?

It probably proves your assumption was correct.

To use an example I used earlier, my description of a unicorn as a horse-like creature with a horn sticking out of it's head does not prove unicorns exist. But if somebody were to show me a genuine fossilized skeleton of a horse-like creature with a horn sticking out of it's head - something which matches my description perfectly - I'd have to conclude that unicorns did indeed exist.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

(Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

This is one argument they have to answer for:

The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.
Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

 

[shernren]

Hey mark, I notice this incarnation of your frequently-spammed post is missing the (cherry-picked) list of cranial capacities of fossil hominids which purportedly shows a large gap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. (Compare this OP: http://www.christianforums.com/t7260803/#post47836097 )

Are you finally willing to admit that the fossil series shows a continuous variation between the cranial capacities of modern humans and their earliest hominid relatives, in roughly chronologically correct ordering?

If yes, then can we finally get on to Hespera's three-year-old counterargument for your genetic cherry-picking?

 

[juvenissun]

You're right when you say that simply describing what a creature could look like is not proof of it's existance. But - and this is the important bit - what happens when you find evidence which matches your assumption?

It probably proves your assumption was correct.

To use an example I used earlier, my description of a unicorn as a horse-like creature with a horn sticking out of it's head does not prove unicorns exist. But if somebody were to show me a genuine fossilized skeleton of a horse-like creature with a horn sticking out of it's head - something which matches my description perfectly - I'd have to conclude that unicorns did indeed exist.

I clearly pointed out and describe your trap before I answered the question, but you still use it. Sigh.

If so, the fossil of rhino is a transitional to the imaginary unicorn?

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey mark, I notice this incarnation of your frequently-spammed post is missing the (cherry-picked) list of cranial capacities of fossil hominids which purportedly shows a large gap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. (Compare this OP: http://www.christianforums.com/t7260803/#post47836097 )

If you had an argument you would have made it by now.

Are you finally willing to admit that the fossil series shows a continuous variation between the cranial capacities of modern humans and their earliest hominid relatives, in roughly chronologically correct ordering?

No, of course not, don't be silly

If yes, then can we finally get on to Hespera's three-year-old counterargument for your genetic cherry-picking?

That's your hero, Hespera?

This is a new low for you.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I clearly pointed out and describe your trap before I answered the question, but you still use it. Sigh.

What trap? Simply having an idea doesn't prove you are correct, the evidence does. If you have an assumption or hypothesis - and the evidence fits - then there's a high chance your assumption was correct. This is basic common sense.

This is the first time I've any seen anyone deliberately dismiss the evidence because it matched their idea ...

 

[juvenissun]

What trap? Simply having an idea doesn't prove you are correct, the evidence does. If you have an assumption or hypothesis - and the evidence fits - then there's a high chance your assumption was correct. This is basic common sense.

This is the first time I've any seen anyone deliberately dismiss the evidence because it matched their idea ...

This is the trap. I predicted it clearly, and you did it anyway.

 

[philadiddle]

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?

Your idea of a "trap" doesn't make any sense. If you described a unicorn you could use that description if you found a fossil that looked like a winged horse with a horn. But it wouldn't be the description that supports the fossil, it's the fossil that supports what you assert to exist.

You have things backwards. Just because we describe a chimp/man ancestor doesn't make the fossils exist, it's the existence of the fossils that lead us to conclude that the common ancestor existed.

 

[juvenissun]

Your idea of a "trap" doesn't make any sense. If you described a unicorn you could use that description if you found a fossil that looked like a winged horse with a horn. But it wouldn't be the description that supports the fossil, it's the fossil that supports what you assert to exist.

You have things backwards. Just because we describe a chimp/man ancestor doesn't make the fossils exist, it's the existence of the fossils that lead us to conclude that the common ancestor existed.

I know your argument. That is why I said it is a trap.

I don't want to make such description because I don't think any such description would help to solve the problem (with a good argument on that). But she insisted: try, try, what to be afraid of? It is only an idea about thing which might not exist.

So, I tried, and I fell into the trap (because something like I described do exist. I know they exist, but that is not the problem).

She avoided the argument set by my paradigm and try to pull me into the argument defined by her paradigm. I tried to argue in her game with many posts. But she never try to consider the problem from my point of view. For example, try to define human. If we do not know what a human is, then what is the use to argue on the part-ape-part-human skeletons?

 

[Papias]

juvi wrote:

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.

The KJV (21st century version) there in Isaiah 34 reads "unicorn", not "animal with a strong horn", nor "dinosaur". Of course it doesn't literally mean unicorn - we agree that the Bibles are reliable. (Btw, my Catholic Bible doesn't have "unicorn" there).

juvi, what I'm pointing out is that when reading Isaiah 34, you are applying modern knowledge (that unicorns don't exist), to your interpretation of the text, and making a conclusion on the meaning of the text in light of that modern knowledge, instead of clinging to an interpretation based simply on a literal reading of the text.

So we see that you indeed can apply modern knowledge to your interpretation of the text, at least there in Isaiah. In fact, you did so in a heartbeat, without hardly a pause. So I have to wonder why you seem to have a problem doing so with Genesis?

Papias

 

[Papias]

This kind of childish mockery is unbecoming of a mature believer but seems to make it in every one of your posts.

and....

Grow up!

Have a nice day
Mark

My my, I seem to have hit a nerve. mark, if you read the context of my note, you can see that I'm only pointing out to juvi that he is avoiding a complete anaysis and clinging to a simplistic, literal reading in one area (Genesis), while easily using an more in-depth interpretation someplace else (Isaiah).

The fact that you were so quick to somehow get out of that I was mocking someone says something about how you see the world. I'm sorry you have to live that that world you've made for yourself.

To be a Catholic is to be a Creationist Papias and you know it,

Of course - an evolutionary creationist, who sees evolution as the way God created the diversity of life on earth.

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.

mark, we had a whole public debate on this, remember? In it, it was clear to observes and current readers that the RCC allows theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism), including the obvious and clear support of theistic evolution in the statement from the commission headed by the Pope. Of course the Pope is a creationist, specifically an evolutionary creationist. We would all benefit if you were more clear in your posts, since "creationist" could be an "evolutionary creationist" or a "common descent denying creationist". Which did you mean? I encourage anyone reading to see the debate here, where it is clear that the Pope supports the idea of common descent of life on earth by evolution, including the evolution of humans from earlier apes. http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/

Something you may not know, the Scriptures are canonical in the original, not in their translations.

Sounds off topic. If you'd like to discuss that, you can post in the approprate forum. You know we see that differently anyway, since as a Catholic, I have an apostolic church here to help with the transmission of the scriptures. Even our canons are different. That's OK, as Christians we can have different scriptures - I don't see that as a salvation issue.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

Hey mark, I notice this incarnation of your frequently-spammed post is missing the (cherry-picked) list of cranial capacities of fossil hominids which purportedly shows a large gap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. (Compare this OP: http://www.christianforums.com/t7260803/#post47836097 )

Wow, frequently spammed is right! I didn't realize mark has been posting the same post with some fossils (whole species) removed from the list for so long. More recent times he posted the same thing (with some fossils removed) are here:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7552551-4/ (he omits the fossils in post #31, it's pointed out that he did that in posts #37, 38 and 35.)

He does it again on this thread, claiming the gap in post #34, being called on it in post #36 http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/


mark, the evolution of human brains from chimp brains is no mystery. Researchers have even pinpointed the genes that made the difference:

(skip up to about 2:40, he's describing the genes)

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

Skip up to about 2:40, where he's describing what they've found each of the small differences in DNA between chimps and humans do, and he describes that just a few genes account for the difference in brain size, by regulating the amount of brain formed. It's really very simple - just let the neurons multiply a little longer, (which only requires changes in a few genes) and a human brain is produced. They've even found those few genes. mark, I hope you are happy to see that the "mystery" that you've apparently been obsessing over for years is solved.

mark wrote:

Shernren wrote:

Are you finally willing to admit that the fossil series shows a continuous variation between the cranial capacities of modern humans and their earliest hominid relatives, in roughly chronologically correct ordering?

No, of course not, don't be silly

​

Here mark, this might help to see the smooth transition from earlier, chimp-like ape to human:

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

]I don't want to make such description because I don't think any such description would help to solve the problem[/COLOR] (with a good argument on that). But she insisted: try, try, what to be afraid of? It is only an idea about thing which might not exist.

That's not a good argument. If we're looking for something new we should at least have some idea of what it looks like - otherwise how else will we find it?

And I apologise for encouraging you to use your imagination.

But she never try to consider the problem from my point of view. For example, try to define human. If we do not know what a human is, then what is the use to argue on the part-ape-part-human skeletons?

I think we all know what a human is.

You first wrote that an "ape-man" should have at least a few unique human features (although you later wrote that any ape-creature with human features should automatically be considered human). That's why I suggested bipedalism.

 

[Astridhere]

You first wrote that an "ape-man" should have at least a few unique human features (although you later wrote that any ape-creature with human features should automatically be considered human). That's why I suggested bipedalism.

let's get something straight right now. Evolutionary researchers have no idea what bipedalism looks like in a fossil.

Just look at the Turkana Boy skeleton and the top of his thigh bone where it joins the hip. The joint is long and non human. It looks like nothing human nor ape. It most certainly does not look like a biped.

Apes can walk bipedally for short distances even today. It really is a lot of nonsense in the quest for making apes out of men.

 

[Astridhere]

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?

Darls, we are using adult comparisons of the average. Sidekicking refutes about children or even people with disabilities is a shocking aside. A child learns words generally by the age of 1 year. An ape does not. Again the obvious distinction is apparent.

 

[Papias]

Astrid here wrote:

let's get something straight right now. Evolutionary researchers have no idea what bipedalism looks like in a fossil.

That's hilarious! Here we have someone with zero background in the field, making pronoucements that the experts don't know their own field!

I can just hear joe the plumber stating that "those oncologists, they have no idea what a cancer cell looks like., and those historians of ancient Rome, they wouldn't know a chariot if it ran them over."

When creationists make statements like "Evolutionary researchers have no idea what bipedalism looks like in a fossil.", is it any wonder they have so little credibility left? A little humility there could be a good thing.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

That's not a good argument. If we're looking for something new we should at least have some idea of what it looks like - otherwise how else will we find it?

And I apologise for encouraging you to use your imagination.



I think we all know what a human is.

You first wrote that an "ape-man" should have at least a few unique human features (although you later wrote that any ape-creature with human features should automatically be considered human). That's why I suggested bipedalism.

Why don't you explicitly spell it out? Then we can start to see which skeleton has how many % of human.

I like this topic because ape/human skeletons are the most recent, and the most abundant "fossils". If we could not see evolution from them, then we could not see evolution from any fossil record.

 

[juvenissun]

Astrid here wrote:


That's hilarious! Here we have someone with zero background in the field, making pronoucements that the experts don't know their own field!

I can just hear joe the plumber stating that "those oncologists, they have no idea what a cancer cell looks like., and those historians of ancient Rome, they wouldn't know a chariot if it ran them over."

When creationists make statements like "Evolutionary researchers have no idea what bipedalism looks like in a fossil.", is it any wonder they have so little credibility left? A little humility there could be a good thing.

Papias

If you are capable, you may correct it.
Otherwise, you can either utter nonsense or you may shut up.

 

[JVPITER]

...With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

We have the human genome.

We have the chimp genome.

Is there any difference between the two genomes that could not be bridged by the kind of mutations or population variations that we have actually observed?

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation (link)

The idea is that selection gets rid of the bad mutations, isn't it?

In any case, doesn't the chart showing increasing brain size demonstrate, as a matter of history, that humans evolved from small, chimp-like ancestors, even if we don't understand the precise genetic mechanism? I mean, I don't see any other way to read that chart.

Cheers

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

let's get something straight right now. Evolutionary researchers have no idea what bipedalism looks like in a fossil.

Just look at the Turkana Boy skeleton and the top of his thigh bone where it joins the hip. The joint is long and non human. It looks like nothing human nor ape. It most certainly does not look like a biped.

Well you can't really say we have no way of proving they were bipedal by looking at their bones - then argue we can tell they weren't bipedal by looking at their bones ...

Why don't you explicitly spell it out? Then we can start to see which skeleton has how many % of human.

I like this topic because ape/human skeletons are the most recent, and the most abundant "fossils". If we could not see evolution from them, then we could not see evolution from any fossil record.

We have thousands of human skeletons and a complete human genome to study from, and it is quite easy to point out which traits are "human" or human-like. And compared to other types of fossils (such as dinosaurs) human transitional fossils are actually very rare.

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

This topic never really got off the ground, I might ask to close it soon. Perhaps I was expecting too much from Creationists. So far all I've gathered is:

- We can't tell anything about a creature by looking at it's bones ... but we can tell it was nothing more than an ape (thus proving even Creationists can understand anatomy when it suits them).

- An ape-man would look something like and ape and something like a man ... but all these ape-man fossils don't prove they actually existed. Why? Ape-men didn't exist, therefore any fossils which look like ape-men can't be right.

- We have no clue what human traits are ... which presumably is why whenever they are confronted with a transitional fossil all they can see are the 'ape features'.