Evolution And Bricks

[ERayR]

We've worked very hard at this, and have finally done it. We've created a new species of animal;

Humanus Ludditicus Americanii. Common name is Dumbicans.

 

. No kidding. (Ugh!)

 

You all have finally located a mirror.  Congratulations.

[ERayR]

"Cal if one spends a little time searching you can find evidence of higher technology in the distant past."

If you read what I stated again, you will see I am arguing for there being evidence of higher technology left around when there has been higher technology present, not for the complete absence of such.

 

Sorry

[Calm]

No proble, it wasn't the clearest of posts and probably needed the additional clarification. I appreciate you being willing to take the time to correct my understanding.

And it would appear that cdowis thinks I am wrong anyway or that there may be uncommon sites not stumbled across yet which who can argue with. I was thinking of areas where there was enough time spent to accumulate stuff. I shouldn't drop into the middle of a conversation.

I will now wander off again as these conversations only grab my attention here and there.

Edited April 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

You're telling me, and everyone else who reads your posts that these stones were cut by.........wait for it...........ALieNs????

 

references please.

 

I'll ask my wife's daughter and her fiancé, who just returned from Bolivia, his home country, what Bolivians think of those hyped up sites that claim marvels from strange planets.

Who said anything about aliens? What are you smoking? The apparent machine cuts in the stones were done by an ancient civilization which obviously possessed a high degree of technology that was no longer had or present when the Spanish conqurers came.

[katherine the great]

"So please explain to me, as an archaeologist,  how the development of tools is evidence of evolution.  Please help me understand."

 

I don't think you want to understand.  Did you watch that video?  Those skulls were different species of humans.  He wasn't just talking about the tool kits that have emerged since we became fully modern humans.  And if you put your listening ears on, you will notice that he is not just talking about the tools.  Those were the visual aids he was using.  Listen to what he says about the brain and the face.  If those are not evidence of evolution than there is no evidence that will meet your burden of proof.

[ERayR]

"So please explain to me, as an archaeologist,  how the development of tools is evidence of evolution.  Please help me understand."

 

I don't think you want to understand.  Did you watch that video?  Those skulls were different species of humans.  He wasn't just talking about the tool kits that have emerged since we became fully modern humans.  And if you put your listening ears on, you will notice that he is not just talking about the tools.  Those were the visual aids he was using.  Listen to what he says about the brain and the face.  If those are not evidence of evolution than there is no evidence that will meet your burden of proof.

 

One argument for evolution is that higher cognitive abilities evolved then the use of tools and the ability to use them evolved

 

The skulls are only different species of human because that is how someone has interpreted the information.  They may have or may not have been arbitrary in their interpretation.

[cdowis]

Cdowis:

 

1. There are good reasons for how Chimps don't build Saturn 5 missiles. Intelligence is the main one. Without the corresponding brain cavity it is impossible to stuff the requisite human brains inside a Chimps skull. The best they can do is simple rudimentary tools.

 

If you go back to the discussion, we were talking about a video discussing human evolution, not about protozoa building rockets.

 

2. Horse powered chariots work and serve valuable functions. Why did we invent automobiles?

 

Read my post.  That was a key point in my post.

 

Why do ball players need wear helmets fitted to their skull size?

Huh?

 

Bach, Mozart, Einstein were very much evidence of evolution.

 

 

OK, tell us the process of evolution of homo sapiens that occurred between Bach and Mozart, between Newton and Einstein,  and demonstrate how the changes that occured over the decades between these two individuals show "evidence of evolution."   Your brain works very differently from mine, but give us the official explanation of the evolutionists.

 

My point was that the development of tools had to do with individuals with unique abilities, and nothing to do with the evolutionary principles.  But please educate me,

Edited April 22, 2014 by cdowis

[katherine the great]

One argument for evolution is that higher cognitive abilities evolved then the use of tools and the ability to use them evolved

 

The skulls are only different species of human because that is how someone has interpreted the information.  They may have or may not have been arbitrary in their interpretation.

Are you implying that Neanderthal was the same species of human as habilis?

[cdowis]

"So please explain to me, as an archaeologist,  how the development of tools is evidence of evolution.  Please help me understand."

 

I don't think you want to understand.  Did you watch that video?  Those skulls were different species of humans.  He wasn't just talking about the tool kits that have emerged since we became fully modern humans.  And if you put your listening ears on, you will notice that he is not just talking about the tools.  Those were the visual aids he was using.  Listen to what he says about the brain and the face.  If those are not evidence of evolution than there is no evidence that will meet your burden of proof.

 

Did you read my post.  I made absolutely no reference to skulls but tools.  He made the assertion that the development of tools shows evidence of evolution and I gave a specific argument how that was utter nonsense.

 

Stop being insulting, and stop wasting our time, please.  Do not "refute" an argument that I did not make.

 

The discussion over skulls, and what constitutes "human", "protohuman" vs ape, etc is beyond the scope of this discussion.  If you insist, may i suggest that you open a separate thread on that subject.   

Edited April 22, 2014 by cdowis

[katherine the great]

Did you read my post.  I made absolutely no reference to skulls but tools.  He made the assertion that the development of tools shows evidence of evolution and I gave a specific argument how that was utter nonsense.

 

 

It is not utter nonsense.  Your argument is utter nonsense.  You are comparing the myriad of tools that our complex minds use today to the tools that less advanced-thinking humans used millions of years ago.  Of course our intraspecies tool use is incredibly variable.  Our ancient ancestors did not have the brain capacity to use or develop the many tools we use today because their brains were different.  Modern humans could get along just fine using Oldowan tools in certain environments, but our capacity for abstract thought makes it possible for us to develop the different kinds of technology we use today.  Homo erectus did not and could not do that.  

[cdowis]

 Strawman arguments hold no interest for me.... until you quote my post, and respond to  what I *actually* said.  Let me know when you are willing to have an intelligent discussion rather than sophistry and phony arguments.

Edited April 22, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Based on our discussions here, may I now offer clear proof of evolution.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3492095265001/

Edited April 22, 2014 by cdowis

[katherine the great]

 Strawman arguments hold no interest for me.... until you quote my post, and respond to  what I *actually* said.  Let me know when you are willing to have an intelligent discussion rather than sophistry and phony arguments.

Lol!  

[ERayR]

Are you implying that Neanderthal was the same species of human as habilis?

 

Not at all.  Even an old farm boy like me knows better than that.

Edited April 22, 2014 by ERayR

[halconero]

Did you read my post. I made absolutely no reference to skulls but tools. He made the assertion that the development of tools shows evidence of evolution and I gave a specific argument how that was utter nonsense.

Stop being insulting, and stop wasting our time, please. Do not "refute" an argument that I did not make.

The discussion over skulls, and what constitutes "human", "protohuman" vs ape, etc is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you insist, may i suggest that you open a separate thread on that subject.

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.

[katherine the great]

Not at all.  Even an old farm boy like me knows better than that.

That's good to know.     (I thought you were an accountant)

[ERayR]

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.

 

I don't profess to be an expert but it seems to me, according to this table, the cranial capacity of neanderthal puts them in the running to have developed super computers.  Am I wrong?  If so please explain why.

 

Examples of cranial capacity:

• Orangutans: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Chimpanzees: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Gorillas: 340–752 cc (20.7–45.9 cu in)
• Modern Human, Australian Aborigines: 1,199 cubic centimetres (73.2 cu in) ^[17]
• Modern Human, Japanese: 1,551.8 cubic centimetres (94.70 cu in) ^[18]
• Neanderthals: 1,500–1,800 cc (92–110 cu in.

 

 

By cranial capacity measurements whales, elephants and dolphins should have the most advanced tools.

 

BRAIN SIZE

1. Cross species: (Cranial volume/capacity)

     a. Gorilla .. 500cc

     b. Chip .. 380cc

     c. Human .. 1350cc

2. Adjust for body weight:

    a. Sperm Whale .. 7800g .. .02%

    b. Elephant .. 7500g .. .15%

    c. Dolphin .. 8400g .. .74%

    d. Human .. 1500g .. 2.10%

[ERayR]

That's good to know.     (I thought you were an accountant)

 

 

Farm boys can multi-task.

[Calm]

I don't profess to be an expert but it seems to me, according to this table, the cranial capacity of neanderthal puts them in the running to have developed super computers.

 

By cranial capacity measurements whales, elephants and dolphins should have the most advanced tools.

Wouldn't it depend on what part of the brain is most developed?

[thesometimesaint]

You all have finally located a mirror.  Congratulations.

 

I strongly object to calling katherine the great a Luddite.

[halconero]

I don't profess to be an expert but it seems to me, according to this table, the cranial capacity of neanderthal puts them in the running to have developed super computers.  Am I wrong?  If so please explain why.

 

Examples of cranial capacity:

• Orangutans: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Chimpanzees: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Gorillas: 340–752 cc (20.7–45.9 cu in)
• Modern Human, Australian Aborigines: 1,199 cubic centimetres (73.2 cu in) ^[17]
• Modern Human, Japanese: 1,551.8 cubic centimetres (94.70 cu in) ^[18]
• Neanderthals: 1,500–1,800 cc (92–110 cu in.

 

 

By cranial capacity measurements whales, elephants and dolphins should have the most advanced tools.

 

BRAIN SIZE

1. Cross species: (Cranial volume/capacity)

     a. Gorilla .. 500cc

     b. Chip .. 380cc

     c. Human .. 1350cc

2. Adjust for body weight:

    a. Sperm Whale .. 7800g .. .02%

    b. Elephant .. 7500g .. .15%

    c. Dolphin .. 8400g .. .74%

    d. Human .. 1500g .. 2.10%

 

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

Edited April 22, 2014 by halconero

[thesometimesaint]

I don't profess to be an expert but it seems to me, according to this table, the cranial capacity of neanderthal puts them in the running to have developed super computers.  Am I wrong?  If so please explain why.

 

Examples of cranial capacity:

• Orangutans: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Chimpanzees: 275–500 cc (16.8–30.5 cu in)
• Gorillas: 340–752 cc (20.7–45.9 cu in)
• Modern Human, Australian Aborigines: 1,199 cubic centimetres (73.2 cu in) ^[17]
• Modern Human, Japanese: 1,551.8 cubic centimetres (94.70 cu in) ^[18]
• Neanderthals: 1,500–1,800 cc (92–110 cu in.

 

 

By cranial capacity measurements whales, elephants and dolphins should have the most advanced tools.

2. Adjust for body weight:

    a. Sperm Whale .. 7800g .. .02%

    b. Elephant .. 7500g .. .15%

    c. Dolphin .. 8400g .. .74%

    d. Human .. 1500g .. 2.10%

 

Only one of set two has opposable thumbs.

[katherine the great]

Wouldn't it depend on what part of the brain is most developed?

Thank you Cal.  That makes a big difference.  Our giant frontal lobes have a lot to do with the way we process information (of course there is probably much more we don't understand yet.)  Also, like SS mentioned, our thumbs and precision grip lacking in other animals gives us the fine motor skills to make small, intricate tools, develop written language, art, etc.  Once we had the capacity for symbolic thought, those types of innovations started showing up in the archaeological record.

[ERayR]

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

 

Not being in the field I have to ask.  It has been my understanding that soft tissue does survive the aging process well.   I also understand that to test how the brain processes information one would need a functioning brain (neuron pathways, etc.).  Am I incorrect in my understanding?

[thesometimesaint]

Not being in the field I have to ask.  It has been my understanding that soft tissue does survive the aging process well.   I also understand that to test how the brain processes information one would need a functioning brain (neuron pathways, etc.).  Am I incorrect in my understanding?

 

Soft tissue doesn't survive well, out side of artificial preservation. It 99.999% of the time doesn't survive at all. What little we have still shows massive mineralization.

 

Partially correct. Neurons survive quite well when artificially preserved. We can count the connections them. There are at least 100 Trillion, and that is at least 1,000 times the number of stars in our galaxy. It is the biochemical electrical pulse across the synapse that indicate functioning. MRI's of the human brain functioning have been observed and rudimentary measurements have been made. We're just starting to understand how they all work together to make human thought.

Edited April 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint