Science vs. Evolution

[USincognito]

How does one know from looking at a skull whether that particular specimen had descendants or not?What can we look for in teeth ,jawbones, or craniums to decipher whether the specimen had reproduced?

We don't know if that individual reproduced, but since individuals don't pop out of no where live solitary lives and then die leaving a fossil skull the individual would have lived in a population and that individual a type specimen that represents the species.
Type (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An example of one we know didn't reproduce is the Taung Child who was too young to be sexually mature, but none the less is the type specimen for A. africanus.
Fossil Hominids: Type Specimens
And was used to classify other A. africanus discoveries.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have established that its impossible to judge intelligence from the size of a cranium without soft tissue.
Im eager to learn here.

No, it's impossible to assign an IQ to these beings - or any being other than humans for that matter - since we can't have them sit down and take a Stanford-Binet. But to act like we cannot arrive at conclusions about their intelligence by other methods is simply not in accordance with the facts. There are measurements like the encaphalization quotient that has been linked earlier in the thread. We can see what sort of tools hominids left behind and how simple or sophiticated they were. And sometimes we get lucky and, as is the case with Taung Child, we find an endocast or a fossil showing what the soft brain tissue looked like.
Endocranial cast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[laconicstudent]

oh another 1.byeeee.Please stick to the topic or i shall be forced to just skim and ignore.And im older than justin bieber.teehee.

Tell me, what did you think of Socrate's refutation of Thrasymachus' rejection of conventional morality and promotion of injustice using the analogy of techne in the Republic?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

oh another 1.byeeee.Please stick to the topic or i shall be forced to just skim and ignore.And im older than justin bieber.teehee.

Did anyone else's jaw just drop? This guy must be a joke. No one can be this immature.

Yea, it's a troll. I declare it.

[/unsubscribe]

 

[Blayz]

name those host of factors please.Surely the number of specimens would be important.

Once again, I am not a paleontologist. I have no idea what a definitive list of factors is. Maybe number of specimens counts, maybe not. I am not in a position to say one way or the other.

I think the truth is important.If it isnt to you,you may step out of the thread.

Well gee, thanks for the permission.

im merely searching for what is true and what is false.We either evolved from monkeys or we didnt.You may call that an "absolutist" position i call it accuracy.

You need to go to another forum then. Absolute true and false is not going to be found in science.

Oh but it is.The more i look at the processes involved in how scientists justify monkey to man evolution,the more curious i get.

Oh.. Dear... "justify monkey to man". And here was I thinking we were actually having a conversation.

I think the truth is important.If it isnt to you,you may step out of the thread.

Consider me stepped out. Let me know if you are ever interested in shucking off your shell of willful ignorance and actually learn something.

 

[tanzanos]

Tell me, what did you think of Socrate's refutation of Thrasymachus' rejection of conventional morality and promotion of injustice using the analogy of techne in the Republic?

Αριστος! Ευγε!

 

[USincognito]

Noted,so is it safe to say that really when a naturalist wants to defend his position,the fossil record actually doesnt back him?I find it interesting despite the multitudes of fossils discovered,you would say 0.01%

You completely misunderstood what he was saying (and it was phrased inelegently). While the fossils are very important parts of the evidence for evolution, and form one half of the double nested hierarchy that is fomed when comparing fossil and genetic evidence, we could construct phylogenetic relationships between animals with DNA analysis even if we didn't have a single fossil.

Right understood,so what if there only happens to be fragments or only 2 or 3 specimens found,would it be safe to say that they are an anomaly rather than the rule?.

Why don't we conclude they were placed there by space aliens or the devil? Why don't we conclude they were figments of our imagination? Why not conclude any possible explanitory scenario we can come up with? They're all equally valid right?

Well, the reason we don't is because they're not. We don't find fragmentary bones that indicate an individual was 20 feet tall or had 6 eyes or had wings like a bat. We don't find hominids with fossil swim bladders or reptilian jawbones. The fragments we find are recognizable bone structures that can be compared to known species type specimens and it can be determined if they belong to a previously known species or if they represent a new one.

You didnt quite answer the question either,if there are no other skulls or fragments in the area,how can you tell whether the specimen has reproduced?

But I did just an hour ago. Now you don't have the handwaving objection any more.

I appreciate your honesty, let me just state that you are agreeing with my position thus far.I would go further and say there only a tiny amount we can glean from fossils unless we have a large number of specimens.

Really? Because we send people to death row for a couple of hair samples. This assertion must be rooted in a lack of knowledge about how paleontology and paleoanthropology works. They don't just unearth a fossil, look at it, and deem it to be genus X, species Y. They compare it to other known fossils - as I just mentioned - and even if it is a new fossil that comparison will provide a lot of information about how that species is related to other species. The most common method is multivariate analysis.
Multivariate analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely what im saying.You cannot take rare fossils or sometimes even tiny fragments and say they are the rule.It makes no sense.

No, what makes no sense is assuming that classifcation of fossils takes place in a vacuum. This objection makes even less sense coming from Creationists when, according to them, these fossils shouldn't even exist as all!

or just these fossils found have no descendants therefore making them invalid.They could of been diseased specimens,hence a different appearance.

The "diseased" canard has been around in Creationist circles forever and it's been fully debunked. Diseases don't cause changes that are mistaken for slight variations between one species and another.

What if the starting premise is wrong to begin with?

You should be asking yourself this question with regard to your line of "reasoning".

Seems my questions in my posts have the plague.

Sense, this post made none.

 

[interested in life]

We don't know if that individual reproduced

Honest answer.

, but since individuals don't pop out of no where

Im not claiming they pop out of nowhere.

live solitary lives and then die

My question isnt regarding their lifestyle,its whether they reproduced.A scarcity of fossils would suggest they didnt.Excuse me for being pedantic.

leaving a fossil skull the individual would have lived in a population and that individual a type specimen that represents the species.

Now you are assuming.

Type (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An example of one we know didn't reproduce is the Taung Child who was too young to be sexually mature, but none the less is the type specimen for A. africanus.

Fair enough,can we discuss individual fossils further after this post?

No, it's impossible to assign an IQ to these beings - or any being other than humans for that matter

So why are we?

- since we can't have them sit down and take a Stanford-Binet. But to act like we cannot arrive at conclusions about their intelligence by other methods is simply not in accordance with the facts. There are measurements like the encaphalization quotient that has been linked earlier in the thread.

I read about cranium to body mass.You missed my comment regarding chimps having roughly the same as humans.Its only a very very rough guide and i saw shrews having a greater EQ.

We can see what sort of tools hominids left behind
and how simple or sophiticated they were.

No possibilty they were eaten and it was hunters who left tools behind?

And sometimes we get lucky and, as is the case with Taung Child, we find an endocast or a fossil showing what the soft brain tissue looked like.
Endocranial cast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next post please.

 

[USincognito]

Did anyone else's jaw just drop? This guy must be a joke. No one can be this immature.

Yea, it's a troll. I declare it.

Does this mean you're going to stop replying to AV?

 

[interested in life]

Once again, I am not a paleontologist. I have no idea what a definitive list of factors is.
Maybe number of specimens counts, maybe not. I am not in a position to say one way or the other.

Alright.

Well gee, thanks for the permission.

No problem.

You need to go to another forum then. Absolute true and false is not going to be found in science.

Not sure if you have the authority to say what is true and what is false seeing as noone human has that ability and oversight.We can agree to disagree on this.I believe that monkey to man and what i believe arent compatible.Im merely falsifying so excuse my wanting to get to the heart of the matter.

Oh.. Dear... "justify monkey to man". And here was I thinking we were actually having a conversation.

You want me to type out monkey ancestor to man.And i thought i was pedantic.

Consider me stepped out. Let me know if you are ever interested in shucking off your shell of willful ignorance and actually learn something.

Dont take it personally ,its scientific methodbless.

 

[interested in life]

You completely misunderstood what he was saying

No i didnt.Anyone can go back and see what you said.I even took the quotes for posterity.You cannot tell whether an individual reproduced from looking at a skull.Whether you meant to agree with me,well...

(and it was phrased inelegently).

no,theres no misunderstanding.

While the fossils are very important parts of the evidence for evolution,

That contradicts the other guy and his 0.01%.You see what a problem that is when even naturalists cant agree?

and form one half of the double nested hierarchy that is fomed when comparing fossil and genetic evidence, we could construct phylogenetic relationships between animals with DNA analysis even if we didn't have a single fossil.

Interesting,so really the fossil record isnt important then.You said 50% a few lines ago.And i realise theres commonalities in our DNA with other animals.

Why don't we conclude they were placed there by space aliens or the devil? Why don't we conclude they were figments of our imagination? Why not conclude any possible explanitory scenario we can come up with? They're all equally valid right?

Im not interested in talking about the fringe element in our society but it would be reasonable to conclude if billions of people believe(for whatever reason)one theory or another,you would tend to investigate the more popular theories.Makes sense.

Well, the reason we don't is because they're not. We don't find fragmentary bones that indicate an individual was 20 feet tall or had 6 eyes or had wings like a bat. We don't find hominids with fossil swim bladders or reptilian jawbones. The fragments we find are recognizable bone structures that can be compared to known species type specimens and it can be determined if they belong to a previously known species or if they represent a new one.

So lets just make sure we are on the same page.
.1.We cant tell whether individuals reproduced,unless they are surrounded by population.I wonder how many "transitional" fossils are found in large populations.
.2.We cant tell how intelligent these "super monkeys" are.EQ isnt accurate.
.3.Following on from this,if theres a paucity of fossils,and the remains look different from other species than its most likely a mutation.The idea of finding sometthing that looks different and attributing a whole population to it without any back up proof.hmm.

Really? Because we send people to death row for a couple of hair samples.

Not really on topic.

The "diseased" canard has been around in Creationist circles forever and it's been fully debunked. Diseases don't cause changes that are mistaken for slight variations between one species and another.

Not true,ricketts causes skeletal defects.Ricketts has been debunked?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is this thread still going on?

The evolutionists still have not provided any evidence for their fairytale.

That's in your (uninformed) opinion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does one know from looking at a skull whether that particular specimen had descendants or not?What can we look for in teeth ,jawbones, or craniums to decipher whether the specimen had reproduced?
We have established that its impossible to judge intelligence from the size of a cranium without soft tissue.
Im eager to learn here.

Are you really as 'eager to learn' as you claim? I've already explained to you one way in which we could judge the intelligence of early hominids, but you've ignored it entirely, so I'll post it again:

It's not a direct contradiction. I explained it to you. We can get around the problem of not having direct access to the soft tissue of early hominids. One way is to input mean group size into Dunbar's equation and thereby calculate approximate neocortical volume (since, as I've said, neocortical volume is positively correlated with mean group size). Then, using data on cranial capacity we can work out a ratio of neocortical volume to sub-cortical volume. We don't need to observe the soft tissue directly to make inferences about it. We can make inferences about it by using the data that is available to us. Data on mean group size in early hominids, Dunbar's equation, and data on cranial capacity of the early hominids that we are studying.
​

 

[interested in life]

Are you really as 'eager to learn' as you claim? I've already explained to you one way in which we could judge the intelligence of early hominids, but you've ignored it entirely, so I'll post it again:

It's not a direct contradiction. I explained it to you. We can get around the problem of not having direct access to the soft tissue of early hominids. One way is to input mean group size into Dunbar's equation
and thereby calculate approximate neocortical volume (since, as I've said, neocortical volume is positively correlated with mean group size).
​

Sorry no didnt ignore just been thinking,how can you calculate mean group size when theres only a specimen or two to work off or only jawbones and teeth?

Then, using data on cranial capacity

I see how this works in large pops,or if we have a living reference.

we can work out a ratio of neocortical volume to sub-cortical volume. We don't need to observe the soft tissue directly to make inferences about it. We can make inferences about it by using the data that is available to us.

The only data we actually have is monkey or human.I keep repeating that a larger skull doesnt mean more intelligence.
And yes im learning,dont take this as a challenge of your manhood.
​

 

[USincognito]

Honest answer.

And dishonest parsing of my post. I write in paragraphs and complete sentences for a reason. I'll thank you for not responding like this in the future.

Im not claiming they pop out of nowhere.

My question isnt regarding their lifestyle,its whether they reproduced.A scarcity of fossils would suggest they didnt.Excuse me for being pedantic.

Now you are assuming.

No, were not assuming. And you're failing to grasp what I'm saying. Individuals that die and leave remains that can be fossilized didn't appear without parents and a population in which they lived. They had to have come from a population. And you're not being pedantic thinking scarcity of fossils suggests lack of reproduction, you're being incorrect. The scarcity of fossils is explained because fossilization, especially for larger animals, is a very rare occurance. How many bison fossils have you seen? Passenger pigeon fossils? Heck, white-tailed deer fossils?

And it doesn't matter if that individual reproduced or not. As has been explained in mine and other posts, we can do analysis of the fossils and determine how they relate to other fossils and determine if the individual represents a known or new species.

Fair enough,can we discuss individual fossils further after this post?

Feel free, you're the OP.

So why are we?

Either you're not being forthright here or you misread what I wrote. Here it is again: "No, it's impossible to assign an IQ to these beings - or any being other than humans for that matter - since we can't have them sit down and take a Stanford-Binet."

Where are your examples of "we" giving Stanford-Binet tests or assigning an IQ to beings other than living humans? You do understand there's a difference between IQ (something that is measurable) and intelligence, which can be qualified even if it can't be qualtified right?

I read about cranium to body mass.You missed my comment regarding chimps having roughly the same as humans.Its only a very very rough guide and i saw shrews having a greater EQ.

You mean the comment about 800cc/3ft. tall that everyone who has replied to it pointed out was incorrect?

No possibilty they were eaten and it was hunters who left tools behind?

Well then, were are the cut marks on the bones? Where are the trash middens of these imaginary tool using hunters filled with hominid bones? Where are the ornaments and trophies made from hominid remains found in these imaginary tool using hunters campsites?

Without any sort of evidence to consider this being any more possible than aliens planting the tools, or time travelling Homo's, no, there is not possibility of that scenario.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does this mean you're going to stop replying to AV?

Meh, he's mature. Silly beliefs, sure, but he's at least civil (and internally consistent!). He genuinely believes what he believes, bless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry no didnt ignore just been thinking,how can you calculate mean group size when theres only a specimen or two to work off or only jawbones and teeth?

Scientists have been able to ascertain how many early hominids lived. That is, what they ate, what they hunted, where they moved, and who they socialised with. Etc, and how big their 'clans' were by reference to more than just fossils. I don't know the precise details; suffice it to say that we've developed a very good sketch of how our early ancestors lived, and by extension, the relative size of their social networks.

The only data we actually have is monkey or human.I keep repeating that a larger skull doesnt mean more intelligence.
And yes im learning,dont take this as a challenge of your manhood.

You're right, a larger cranial capacity does not necessarily mean more intelligence. But the presence of more neocortex does. And we can predict the volume of neocortex in our ancestors by reference to both their known cranial capacities and estimates on their mean group size (these estimates having been obtained from other studies that focus on social networks in early hominids). Because neocortex volume is positively correlated to mean group size, by knowing mean group size we can calculate neocortical volume and then represent this as a percentage of total brain volume (given that we know the cranial capacity of the specimen of interest). Taken together we can observe other correlations too. For example, we might find a significant increase in neocortex in Homo habilus, which is what we'd expect given that we know him to be the first hominid to use tools.

 

[interested in life]

And dishonest parsing of my post. I write in paragraphs and complete sentences for a reason. I'll thank you for not responding like this in the future.

My bad i just like to highlight points that you are making,i find it faster to do it this way.Ill use italics next time.And label the italics as mine.I do warn you that i usually get interrupted during posts so its not a dishonest attempt its just a method i find quicker.

No, were not assuming. And you're failing to grasp what I'm saying. Individuals that die and leave remains that can be fossilized didn't appear without parents and a population in which they lived. They had to have come from a population.

My issue is that it seems mutated individuals are being attributed characteristics that may or may not be true.Theres a very real possibility(something you are resisting,yet i find valid)that these individual specimens arent actually a true representation of the population.

And you're not being pedantic thinking scarcity of fossils suggests lack of reproduction, you're being incorrect. The scarcity of fossils is explained because fossilization, especially for larger animals, is a very rare occurance. How many bison fossils have you seen? Passenger pigeon fossils? Heck, white-tailed deer fossils?

I know this but you seemed to miss my point regarding the fact that we have a living frame of reference to base them off. we know what bison are,we saw pigeons before we shot them all,yet this doesnt match up with super intelligent monkeys.Monkeys with increased human like intelligence.Who has seen any of these?Please dont point to fossils lol.

And it doesn't matter if that individual reproduced or not.

Wrong.Matters a whole bunch.It doesnt reproduce then whatever super characteristics its apparently evolved,well they dont get passed on.Now if theres only a small amount of fossils discovered,its not fantasising to say well these things were an anomaly.That they died without evolving further.

As has been explained in mine and other posts, we can do analysis of the fossils and determine how they relate to other fossils and determine if the individual represents a known or new species.

My issue is that monkey like specimens are being found and instead of treating them as a species of monkey,they are being given artificial intelligence.Something in my previous posts ive pointed out that the methodology being used is akin to voodoo.

 

[Cabal]

My issue is that it seems mutated individuals are being attributed characteristics that may or may not be true.Theres a very real possibility(something you are resisting,yet i find valid)that these individual specimens arent actually a true representation of the population.

It's not an unreasonable point, but given that established lines of descent tend to trace over millions of years and several geological layers, for this to hold any weight you'd have to have every single supporting fossil being that of a mutant. One is possible - but only finding mutants, over those kind of timescales? Hardly likely at all.

 

[interested in life]

Either you're not being forthright here or you misread what I wrote. Here it is again: "No, it's impossible to assign an IQ to these beings - or any being other than humans for that matter - since we can't have them sit down and take a Stanford-Binet."

i agree.

Where are your examples of "we" giving Stanford-Binet tests or assigning an IQ to beings other than living humans? You do understand there's a difference between IQ (something that is measurable) and intelligence, which can be qualified even if it can't be qualtified right?

Well i just learnt something again,but not sure whether its on topic.

You mean the comment about 800cc/3ft. tall that everyone who has replied to it pointed out was incorrect?

Chimps arent 3 ft tall and have around 800 cc?Its smaller than that?What you have to also understand is ive got more than you replying to me plus we got kids in our threads spamming it up,forgive me if miss corrections.At least i know ,if im wrong someone will point it out to me.

Well then, were are the cut marks on the bones?

On the fragments you mean?Habilis was a mess when it was discovered.

Where are the trash middens of these imaginary tool using hunters filled with hominid bones? Where are the ornaments and trophies made from hominid remains found in these imaginary tool using hunters campsites?

Probably ate on the run,probably never thought that not making nice piles for us to discover would cause such a furore,and you dont need a campsite.If you are really hungry you might not even bother with lighting a fire.A fire would be untraceable after a while anyway.The trophies are probably on the wall at home.The bones could of been ground down as used as a powder.Or super monkeys decided they liked flesh.Let the reader decide the more plausible explanation.Wait.. i forgot where i am.Of course its the super monkeys.

Without any sort of evidence to consider this being any more possible than aliens planting the tools, or time travelling Homo's, no, there is not possibility of that scenario.

I think your belief we evolved from monkey ancestry is as faith based as believing an invisible God made us.

 

[interested in life]

Scientists have been able to ascertain how many early hominids lived. That is, what they ate, what they hunted, where they moved, and who they socialised with. Etc, and how big their 'clans' were by reference to more than just fossils. I don't know the precise details; suffice it to say that we've developed a very good sketch of how our early ancestors lived, and by extension, the relative size of their social networks.

Im guessing you are talking about erectus and yes theres plenty of evidence to suggest that they lived communually,had intelligence and even had culture.Sounds like my hometown.

You're right, a larger cranial capacity does not necessarily mean more intelligence. But the presence of more neocortex does. And we can predict the volume of neocortex in our ancestors by reference to both their known cranial capacities and estimates on their mean group size (these estimates having been obtained from other studies that focus on social networks in early hominids).

Im suggesting these early hominids you are talking about were actually human.I know there is a fair amount of erectus fossils discovered.I understand that theres a big variation in the size of fossils discovered that go under the erectus banner,however that could include individuals with disease hence the differing appearances.

Because neocortex volume is positively correlated to mean group size, by knowing mean group size we can calculate neocortical volume and then represent this as a percentage of total brain volume (given that we know the cranial capacity of the specimen of interest). Taken together we can observe other correlations too. For example, we might find a significant increase in neocortex in Homo habilus, which is what we'd expect given that we know him to be the first hominid to use tools.

Well you had me until you mentioned habilis and mean group size.There wasnt many habilis fossils discovered and some were in such a mess,i would suggest putting a skeleton together would require a particular skill with plaster of paris.My point stands regarding tool usage,as i referred to in my previous post to US.They could quite easily have been dinner.