Questions for Creationists: Human Brain Size

[juvenissun]

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 ...


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'.

OK, let me tell you what a human is. What I will give is not a basic definition, but it is what such a definition should look like. The criterion is not on the morphology, but is on the function. A morphological character is NOT a functional character.

A human should be able to raise and use fire.

We can find a ape-human fossil (bipedal transitional, cranial capacity transitional etc.), but we do not know if it was a human. No matter what kind of transitional we can find, I will ask: could that creature raise and use fire? If yes, then it is a human. If not, then it is not.

 

[philadiddle]

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?

Yes, it's an odd concept to some to actually make a prediction about what we should find if our paradigm is true.

 

[philadiddle]

OK, let me tell you what a human is. What I will give is not a basic definition, but it is what such a definition should look like. The criterion is not on the morphology, but is on the function. A morphological character is NOT a functional character.

A human should be able to raise and use fire.

We can find a ape-human fossil (bipedal transitional, cranial capacity transitional etc.), but we do not know if it was a human. No matter what kind of transitional we can find, I will ask: could that creature raise and use fire? If yes, then it is a human. If not, then it is not.

At what point in history do you think humans started using fire? Please be specific.

 

[Papias]

juvi wrote:

Originally Posted by 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
​

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

Right juvi, if you are capable, you may correct it. Otherwise, you can either utter nonsense or you may shut up. Good advice.

You, by making repeatedly making statments about these transitional ape-humans, are clearly not shutting up, even though you are not capable.

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The criterion is not on the morphology, but is on the function

. A morphological character is NOT a functional character.

Morphology is often a clue to function - it's one of the cornerstones of anatomy. For example, human femurs are much stronger than chimpanzee femurs because walking upright puts a lot of weight on the leg.

 

[juvenissun]

At what point in history do you think humans started using fire? Please be specific.

I don't know.

Even there are some suggestions out there, I don't really know how did they find out. (people dated the fire residue, but I think it only shows the minimum age)

Raise and use fire is my arbitrary suggestion. I do not know anything else which could be fossilized and demonstrates the intelligence that characterizes human.

 

[juvenissun]

Morphology is often a clue to function - it's one of the cornerstones of anatomy. For example, human femurs are much stronger than chimpanzee femurs because walking upright puts a lot of weight on the leg.

Yes. I was not very careful when I said that.

Morphological character do show the nature of motor function, but not the function given by brain. That is why I don't like to use bipedal

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Morphological character do show the nature of motor function, but not the function given by brain. That is why I don't like to use bipedal.

I'm pretty sure being able to walk upright is controlled by the brain, or at least the spinal chord.

Or if you're suggesting being bipedal has nothing to do with being intelligent, you're right - but I don't think anyone was trying to prove that.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm pretty sure being able to walk upright is controlled by the brain, or at least the spinal chord.

Or if you're suggesting being bipedal has nothing to do with being intelligent, you're right - but I don't think anyone was trying to prove that.

What I am emphasizing is that human intelligence has a quantum leap when compared with the smartest animal. This is not shown in any fossil record at all, including the cranial capacity.

God makes human and animals out of the same material in a same way. The only significant difference is on that special "breathe" to human.

Creation science holds a steadfast and correct origin of human. It is not distracted by evolutional details that make one totally lost.

 

[Papias]

juvi, did you see the question I asked back on page 11? here it is again:


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]

juvi wrote:

What I am emphasizing is that human intelligence has a quantum leap when compared with the smartest animal.

Intelligence falls on a sliding scale for animals, with human animals at one end, and worms at the other. The fact that it is a continuum is shown by the fact that chimps are much closer to humans in intelligence than they are to worms.

Chimps, after all, have been shown repeatedly to do many of the things that we think of with regard to human intelligence, including recognizing each other's status, having empathy, laughing, making & using tools (including stone tools), teaching others how to make and use tools, deceiving others (including us), planning strategies and carrying them out, planning for future hypothetical events, using and understanding symbols and numbers, and so on. The fact that you wish something else to be true doesn't change reality.

This is not shown in any fossil record at all, including the cranial capacity.

Animal intelligence has been shown to be accurately predicted by the encephalization quotient, which has been explained to you, and which can be applied to fossils perfectly well, showing that the transitional fossils between earlier apes and the apes that dominate the planet today fit nicely in the intermediate space between earlier apes and us. The fact that you wish something else to be true doesn't change reality.

God makes human and animals out of the same material in a same way. The only significant difference is on that special "breathe" to human.

Right. And understaning the etymolygy clearly shows that "breath" is "pnuema", which is often used for "spirit". The "breath" part is simply describing that God gave humans and only humans an immortal soul. Nothing in evolution contradicts that, it is outside the realm of science. Everything down to a mouse has simple "breath".

Even there are some suggestions out there, I don't really know how did they find out. (people dated the fire residue, but I think it only shows the minimum age)

No, they also found the sites with Homo erectus fossils, tools and artifacts. As usual, the very topic you brought up yourself shows the expected developement of humans from earlier primates, since homo erectus, who used fire, is clearly transitional between earlier primates and the dominant ape of today.

................No fire.................................... has fire ....................has fire


Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Papias: Where did you get that EQ chart?

 

[Papias]

NSP-

From this intriguing article, which appears to map out the genes and their mutations that resulted in the earlier ape brain evolving into the human-ape brain.

Figures and Tables : Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Nature Reviews Genetics

However, I don't have the subscription to see the whole article. Maybe someone here can kindly get it for us?

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Papias: Thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

juvi, did you see the question I asked back on page 11? here it is again:


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

I have zero problem in doing that.

 

[juvenissun]

No, they also found the sites with Homo erectus fossils, tools and artifacts. As usual, the very topic you brought up yourself shows the expected developement of humans from earlier primates, since homo erectus, who used fire, is clearly transitional between earlier primates and the dominant ape of today.

................No fire.................................... has fire ....................has fire


Papias

If what you said were true (I doubt it), then the homo erectus is human.

What would be the problem then?

 

[Papias]

juvi wrote-

Papias wrote

.....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

I have zero problem in doing that.

It sure seems like you do have a problem applying modern knowledge to your interpretation of Genesis. As we've abundantly seen on this thread, you not only have no reason to doubt the evolution of humans from earlier apes, but that you are not even aware of the vast majority of the evidence of that transition, to the point that we've had to repeatedly inform you about it.

It's OK to be completely ignorant of a whole field of study - each of us is similarly ignorant of many fields, because a single person cannot possible know all of them well - research and learning have given us so much information that it's difficult to be an expert in even two fields today.

What is unreasonable, however, is for someone who is so ignorant of the findings and evidence in a field, to disagree with those who know the evidence well, as you, and all evolution deniers, have been doing.

You yourself haven't tested that unicorns don't exist (nor have I). You haven't searched for them, and you have no more basis in personal experience to disbelieve in unicorns than you do to disbelieve in atoms, neither of which you've seen yourself. In both cases, we are relying on the evidence and analysis of experts to determine that unicorns don't exist and atoms do. It would be preposterous for you or I to claim that unicorns exist or that atoms don't exist because that's what my interpretation of the Bible says to me, in disagreement of the experts.

It is equally as preposterous for you to deny and old earth and the evolutionary origin of humans based on your failure to apply modern knowledge to your interpretation of Genesis, because in all these cases, practically everyone in their respective fields agrees that unicorns don't exist (zoologists), atoms exist (physicists), and common descent happened (biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, and many others).

That's why I asked why you were willing to apply modern knowledge to one (the unicorns in Isaiah 43) and not the other (your interpretation of Genesis 1). That's also why I pointed out earlier that what you are doing is like disagreeing with a cancer diagnosis, out of complete ignorance.

So the question still stands - why do you refuse to apply modern knowledge to Genesis 1, when you have no problem doing so for Isaiah 43?
Knowing you, who has steadfastly denied evolution for hundreds of posts, I think you can see that it is reasonable to doubt your statement that you have "no problem" applying modern knowledge to Genesis, because you still haven't done so, unless you are going to now agree that humans descended from earlier apes.

Papias

 

[Papias]

juvi wrote:

If what you said were true (I doubt it), then the homo erectus is human.

juvi, do you recognize that your statement above "I doubt it {that Homo erectus controlled fire}" is another stunning example of you disagreeing with the experts out of your complete ignorance of the evidence and lack of even trying to learn about it? Can you tell us how many sites and papers show clearly that Homo erectus used fire, and how many of those have much more than just the dating of the fire residue? Do you even have a clue as to how many?

Yet, out of that level of ignorance, you are still willing to put your ignorant and completely unsupported opinon above the evidenced and extensivly tested conclusions of dozens of expert anthropologists, who long ago agreed that Homo erectus controlled fire.

Do you see how that level of arrogance and prideful ignorance in a Christian makes it very hard for people like me to evangelize those atheists who think that Christians are arrogant and filled with prideful ignorance?

What would be the problem then?

well, I personally would have no problem, unless you were going to concurrently claim that Homo erectus wasn't an ape and transitional to modern humans. Homo erectus obviously isn't a modern human, you can see that yourself by comparing the foreheads of the three animals below:

................No fire.................................... has fire ....................has fire

The forehead of Homo erectus is more like the chimp than the human, and plenty of other features show it to be transitional.

Think of it this way. Who is in your "family"? You mom? Your cousin? Your 3rd cousin twice removed? Yoru 14th cousin 8 times removed? If you and I both have european ancestry, then you could well be my 54th cousin 39 times removed. Am I in your "family"? Native Australians are likely about your 2,421th cousins (based on known migration dates), and chimps are about your 240,000th cousins (yes I had to get out a calculator for that one), and your dog is around your 20 millionth cousin, and so on.

Are they all your "family"? I personally find it wondrous that God has given us all of life as our literal family. It's quite arbitrary where you personally say your "family" ends, as it is quite up to you if you want to call Homo erectus "human", as long as you recognize reality in either case. In fact, if you want to call our fishlike ancestors back by Tiktaalik to be "human", then I also don't mind, as long as again, the transitional nature of that ancestor is acknowledged.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

well, I personally would have no problem, unless you were going to concurrently claim that Homo erectus wasn't an ape and transitional to modern humans. Homo erectus obviously isn't a modern human, you can see that yourself by comparing the foreheads of the three animals below:

So, how do you define a modern human?

 

[Papias]

Well, of course for me the most important aspect is the religious one - humans are defined as those animals that have been given a soul by God, so that would be all people alive today, and I don't know exactly when God gave the first soul, (when Adam, the transitional ape that crossed the line to being human, lived). If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 100,00 years ago? But that's just a guess, since souls tend to not fossilize well. : )

For physical attributes, from a layman's standpoint, I'd go by encephalization quotient, which is simple and distinguishes us from all other animals.

However, I need to be clear that I'm not an expert, and that is a "person on the street", common answer. Those kinds of answers should always be remembered to be incomplete, and not to ever suggest that they are as good as the actual definition used by experts.

Anthropologists uses two definitions, one for anatomically modern humans, (AMH) and another for behaviorally modern humans. (BMH) Obviously, we evolved to be AMHs before evolving to be BMHs.

AMHs go by a bunch of anatomical features (including brow ridges, encephalization quotient, a chin, and so on), which evolved gradually and not all on same schedule, with some appearing sooner, some later. Hence the many smooth transitional fossils. Trying to draw a sharp line there is like trying to draw a sharp line between when a room goes from being "freezing cold" to being "too hot". AMH gradually appeared, with the transition being mostly done by around 200,000 years ago.

BMH is defined by spoken language, which also likely appeared gradually (from basic sounds, to a few words, up to language today), but of course that is harder to test because words don't fossilize very well before writing developed (also gradually, as can be seen).

I have enough sense not to disagree with those who know the subject much better than I on this or anything else. I am an expert in one field, and will disagree with anyone there if I think they are wrong, but it's not anthropology.

Papias