the rapid brain growth hypothis and the evolutinarypeak etc

[: D]

It disproves your baseless assertion that brain size tripled overnight. Perhaps you could address that point first?
Can you please point to the area in this graph where brain size tripled in just a million years?

How do you determine if a fossil is an ape or not? What criteria are you using?

I never said brain sized tripled over night, although a million years is almost over night in evolution terms.
are you saying the rapid brain growth hypothesis is bunk ?

im pretty sure an "ape fossil" is classified by it being called an "ape fossil".

I would love to use your very pretty graphic....however.....it appears to only be for entertainment purposes.
the graph is headlined as "brain mass as percentage of (extrapolated) body mass",
in reality this graph is "brain mass as a percentage of an unknown number filled in with assumptions about body mass",
but more than this, under the graph it states its function is to "not provide maximum statistical rigor",
in other words it is guess work and should not be taken as accurate or factual.

strange that don't you think,
im sure your fans will be furious : )

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said brain sized tripled over night, although a million years is almost over night in evolution terms.

Where did it triple over a million years?

im pretty sure an "ape fossil" is classified by it being called an "ape fossil".

I'm pretty sure that H. erectus is classified as a hominid transitional species.

I would love to use your very pretty graphic....however.....it appears to only be for entertainment purposes.
the graph is headlined as "brain mass as percentage of (extrapolated) body mass",
in reality this graph is "brain mass as a percentage of an unknown number filled in with assumptions about body mass",
but more than this, under the graph it states its function is to "not provide maximum statistical rigor",
in other words it is guess work and should not be taken as accurate or factual.

Please show what these assumptions are and why they are invalid.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can also go with absolute size, if you wish.

Where is this tripling in brain size?

 

[: D]

That's obviously not true. Humans are primates....

is that true ?

evidence please.

(the actual physical evidence states other wise)
reasons humans are not primates -

bones - thinner lighter than all other primates
skulls/brains - impossible to compare to other primates
head hair - constant growth unlike all other primates
nails- constant growth unlike all other primates
skin - not adapted to sunlight exposure like other primates
muscles - 5 to 10 times weaker for relative size compared to all other primates
adipose tissue - 10 times more body fat than all other primates
locomotion - human locomotion different than all other primates
speech 1 -throats completely different than all other primates
speech 2 -brain construction different than all other primates
penis bone - missing unlike all other primates
genetic disorders- 4000 not in primates (as far as we can tell)
chromosomes - 46 compared to the primate 48

etc.....

 

[Papias]

however, since when do ape skulls of differing size support the idea they turned into man ?

The data clearly show an increase in brain size over time. I'm not sure how much better you could expect the data to be. Hypothetically - say that humans really did evolve from earlier apes. If so, what would you expect the fossil record to look like?

y
and where is the evidence for the tripling of the human brain size within a million years?

Who has claimed that human brain size tripled within a million years? Can you quote the post that says that? or provide a link?

"ape fossils" are still ape fossils. sorry.

OK, then, which of the points on the graph are you saying are (non-human) "apes"? All of them? Just A. afarensis? somewhere in between? This is a pretty simple question, right?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

is that true ?

Yes.

http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

 

[bhsmte]

As I stated , you would get some folks willing to engage you.

 

[: D]

Where did it triple over a million years?

I'm pretty sure that H. erectus is classified as a hominid transitional species.

Please show what these assumptions are and why they are invalid.

if apes are apes and humans are humans and lets just assume we are discussing rapid brain growth at some point in the last million years,
"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled" is correct, no?

is H. Erectus human ? yes/no

the graph was invalid because it said underneath that the graph should not be taken seriously as factually correct.

 

[bhsmte]

if apes are apes and humans are humans and lets just assume we are discussing rapid brain growth at some point in the last million years,
"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled" is correct, no?

is H. Erectus human ? yes/no

the graph was invalid because it said underneath that the graph should not be taken seriously as factually correct.

You seem to be evading his question and the point you made, he is asking you about.

 

[Loudmouth]

if apes are apes and humans are humans and lets just assume we are discussing rapid brain growth at some point in the last million years,
"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled" is correct, no?

No, it isn't.

No tripling of brain size in the last 1 million years.

is H. Erectus human ? yes/no

H. erectus is not an anatomically modern human.

 

[sfs]

is that true ?

evidence please.

Yes, it's true. The classification "primates" was invented by Linnaeus in the mid-18th century, and humans have been classified as primates ever since. The classification doesn't imply evolution (although it is explained by evolution); Linnaeus worked long before Darwin.

 

[: D]

Yes.

http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

the "tree of life web project" ? sounds balanced : )

humans are different from primates,
please see the list up thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

the "tree of life web project" ? sounds balanced : )

They give all of the scientific peer reviewed papers that support the classification. Did you miss that part?

We could also look at DNA. As it turns out, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with any other ape or primate. If chimps are an ape, so are we. If chimps are a primate, then so are we.

humans are different from primates,

Chimps are different from gorillas, yet they are both apes and both primates.

 

[sfs]

They give all of the scientific peer reviewed papers that support the classification. Did you miss that part?

The scientific evidence doesn't even matter in this case. The word "primate" (referring to animals) means something. When it was coined, it was explicitly defined to mean a group of animals that includes humans. It has always been used with that meaning, and is used universally today with that meaning. "Humans are not primates" is simply wrong, even if we didn't evolve from other primates.

 

[: D]

"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled" is correct, no?

No, it isn't.

No tripling of brain size in the last 1 million years.

remember you said H.Erectus was not human. and it is accepted that humans have appeared within the last million years.
remember ?

well the following......
"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled."
"Brain size increases rapidly

From 800,000–200,000 years ago

Human brain size evolved most rapidly during a time of dramatic climate change. Larger, more complex brains enabled early humans of this time period to interact with each other and with their surroundings in new and different ways. As the environment became more unpredictable, bigger brains helped our ancestors survive"

..is from the Smithsonian institute.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains


glad you think the Smithsonian human evolution story is complete nonsense,
welcome to the real world brother

: D

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientific evidence doesn't even matter in this case. The word "primate" (referring to animals) means something. When it was coined, it was explicitly defined to mean a group of animals that includes humans. It has always been used with that meaning, and is used universally today with that meaning. "Humans are not primates" is simply wrong, even if we didn't evolve from other primates.

Very true. When we group species based on shared features as Linnaeus did, we find that humans belong with other primates. We can construct these groupings without ever using evolution, as Linnaeus did.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

We can construct these groupings without ever using evolution

Is that supposed to be a defense for evolution? Because it seems like the opposite to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled" is correct, no?

It isn't correct.

remember you said H.Erectus was not human. and it is accepted that humans have appeared within the last million years.
remember ?

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I said that H. erectus was not an anatomically modern human just as a chimp is not a gorilla, but both are still apes. All species in the Homo genus are considered human, but where you draw the line for each genus is really arbitrary. You could put chimps in the Homo genus if you so chose. In fact, some biologists have suggested doing just that:

"A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

Human brain size evolved most rapidly during a time of dramatic climate change. Larger, more complex brains enabled early humans of this time period to interact with each other and with their surroundings in new and different ways. As the environment became more unpredictable, bigger brains helped our ancestors survive"

..is from the Smithsonian institute.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains


glad you think the Smithsonian human evolution story is complete nonsense,
welcome to the real world brother

: D

I missed the part where they say that the size of the brain tripled. Could you please point to that section?

 

[sfs]

Is that supposed to be a defense for evolution? Because it seems like the opposite to me.

It's just a fact, one that the previous poster was ignoring. It does happen to be a fact that is quite suggestive of evolution, however.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that supposed to be a defense for evolution? Because it seems like the opposite to me.

It is a verification the nested hierarchy is evidence that is independent of the theory, not a product of the theory. What Darwin discovered was the mechanism that produced the nested hierarchy. In fact, you can find this Eureka! moment in his journal.

That was the moment that the theory came into focus. He realized that he had found the process that created the classifications Linnaeus described.