bcuzbcuz Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Give me a serious argument and I will respond accordingly.No, seriously. I mean it. You win 1
ERayR Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Cranial capacity as measured by the encephalizaiton quotient puts humanity at the top of the list (#1! #1! #1! Booooyaaahhhh). The encephalization quotient also gives us rough estimations of intelligence, rather than the raw brain-to-body mass ratio. When including allometric effects (Anatomical, physiological and body shape) it is easy to see why we're smarter than a whale. As for Neanderthals, their EQ was smaller than Homo Sapiens, also their brain structure was somewhat different, giving them different social patterns. If you want a less-simplified, but more accurate statement than my previous: Increased encephalization quotient is associated with greater tool complexity. Edit: Here are two great articles which discuss EQ http://www.reasons.org/articles/neanderthal-brains-make-them-unlikely-social-networkers http://www.academia.edu/1792664/Encephalization_in_Pleistocene_Homo_revisited Given that soft tissue does not survive well and we don't have any surviving, working Neanderthal brains how can the above be anything but guesses or wishful thinking.
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Given that soft tissue does not survive well and we don't have any surviving, working Neanderthal brains how can the above be anything but guesses or wishful thinking. Just chance finds of enough DNA, a few stone tools, burial sites of their bones, pictures drawn on walls of caves, that type of stuff.
ERayR Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Just chance finds of enough DNA, a few stone tools, burial sites of their bones, pictures drawn on walls of caves, that type of stuff. Yep guesses or wishful thinking
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Just chance finds of enough DNA, a few stone tools, burial sites of their bones, pictures drawn on walls of caves, that type of stuff.Just kind of interesting that on one side of the globe you have a civilization who is placing rovers on Mars and performing surgeries with robots and lasers while just around the other side we have tribes using stone tools and chasing Lions (or being chased by them). So, how can one be sure that in ancient times while some tribe was carving a picture of an Elk into a cave wall that on a different part of the planet a civilization was building buildings of all manners, working with steel and making machinery and tools and building trade boats, were weaving clothes, had written languages, had star and planetary charts and had a high degree of civilization? Edited April 22, 2014 by Rob Osborn
cdowis Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 cdowis, the discussion of tools and skulls can't be separated. Archaeological evidence points to greater cranial capacity being associated with increasingly complex tools. Simple as that. Thanks for sharing your interpretation of the evidence. I have dealt with that interpretation in detail in my posts.
cdowis Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) cdowis, the discussion of tools and skulls can't be separated. I agree that, for a devout disciple of the tenants of evolution, it is impossible to separate the two. It is an article of faith that the two are inseparably connected Archaeological evidence points to greater cranial capacity being associated with increasingly complex tools. Simple as that. I have already responded to the issue of interpretation of evidence. I note that you say "points to", indicating the subjunctive mood in your assertion. May I suggest that such interpretation "points to" faulty assumptions (subjunctive mood), that the sophistication of tools indicate individual aptitude and social patterns within a culture, rather than the size of the brain pan. Please respond to post #230. Edited April 22, 2014 by cdowis 1
Recommended Posts