Differences between human and ape

[Glee]

Hey all. So what exactly are the differences between a human and an ape? By reducing each difference down to their component level, why is it considered by some that it is just not possible for humans to have evolved from them? What individual change cannot be the product of 'microevolution', and when does it change to 'macroevolution'?


I shall use the dog as an example for microevolution in some cases, as they all developed from the same 'kind' via 'micro'...

For example:

Skeletal structure? - The number of bones is almost identical at certain stages of development. The lengthening of certain bones and fusing of others really isn't that much of a jump to make in terms of microevolution. If a jack russel and a great dane evolved from the same animal via microevolution, how is this change any different? Same goes for size.

Skull shape? (tied in with skeletal structures)- The difference between a greyhound and a bulldog?

Hair? Really, there are a lot of really hairy people out there, and some that have no hair at all. Is it that far a strectch to image a minor genetic change that reduced the amount, or that once some ansector was that hairy?

Intelligence? See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=31235 - most of the difference in intellignece are because of different levels of hormones in the body. The hormones are all there, just different quanitites regulate the size of growth and brain development. We have many genetic conditions today which create different levels of hormones which influence intelligence, growth and development within humans already today. Is there really that much of a difference?


Is there any single change which is not possible between the two? Where is the line drawn for microevolution?

[Glee]

What could cause our nose cartilage to grow?

Most mammals do have some nasal cartilage. Apes of all sizes have it. I think the theory goes that humans relied less and less on their ability to smell and hearing, and used mostly their sense of sight to warn them of danger. And thus in future generations the ability to hear and smell became less of a selection criteria, while we developed a more refined eyesight than most other mammals. Causing the nose and ears to shrink somewhat.

Which is why humans don't have an advanced sense of smell or hearing, like some other mammals have.

Here is a fun little page to read about why there might have been a change in the nose.

As an aside, the science show on ABC radio just did a report on intelligent design and the age of the earth, and brings up some interesting points about the deveopment of humans from quadrapedal to bipedal, etc...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/sto ... 493225.htm for the transcript...

There is obvious evidence against such an idea operating in living creatures. The gut is supported by being enclosed in a big membrane called the peritoneum. The peritoneum is attached to the backbone. This is fine for a four footed animal, however, given an animal with an upright posture, for example us, the gut falls to the bottom of the abdominal cavity. The common outcome may be various types of hernia, prolapse of the uterus and vaginal wall and haemorrhoids.

The big maxillary sinuses or cavities are behind the cheeks on either side of the face. They have the drainage hole in the top, which is not much of an idea in terms of using gravity to assist drainage of the fluid. Ear, nose and throat specialists sometimes have to knock a hole through the side of the nose near the bottom of the sinus to help drainage of puss. Apart from horses, which have a very small opening, most four-footed animals operating with head down rarely get sinus problems. It would seem that knowledge of gravity has not been a strong point in the repertoire of the intelligent designer.

The digestive system of grass and herbage eating animals includes a large organ next to the secum, the vermiform appendix in which cellulose is digested. In the human it’s rudimentary, it gets matter caught in it, becomes inflamed sometimes causing sever peritonitis and death. Why the intelligent designer put it in at all is conjectural, unless in fact it is an evolutionary remnant from an earlier beneficial function.

One of the marvels of backboned animals is the eye. Indeed, Dr William Paley, a clergyman, whose writings were used to challenge Darwin considered it as the shining example of intelligent design. Paley likened the situation to that of finding a watch abandoned in an open field: it must have a maker who formed it for a purpose. The eye might be compared with a designed instrument such as a telescope, he concludes, ‘that there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it’. That is the eye must have had a designer just as the telescope had.

In considering the eye as the marvel, there are facts now known which were not known in Paley’s time, about 1801. In our eye and of all other vertebrates the optic nerve carries over a million fibres each leading from a cell in the retina. It is part of a system receiving data from about 125 million photocells. Whereas it would seem a designer would point the photo cells towards the source of light with the wires leading back to the brain, it would be poor design to have the photo cells pointing away from the light with their nerve processes departing on the side nearest the light. This is what happens in all vertebrate eyes, the wires or nerve processes have to travel across the surface of the retina to a place where they all go through a hole, creating what is called the blind spot, to form the optic nerve. The design principle is really not very good. The extremely interesting fact is that with the octopus the wires from the photocells don’t point to the light but do indeed go backwards. The octopus eye in this respect is a better-designed effort by the putative intelligent designer than the eye of mammals. How did this come about?

Well, Ernst Mayr, the great Harvard biologist argued that photo receptors in some form evolved independently some 40 to 60 times in animals ranging from worms, molluscs to vertebrates. In the octopus eye it is formed by an infolding of the surface cells on the head, which become thickened to form eye components and it is internalised. In the vertebrate however, the eye is formed from an extension out of the mid brain but with the lens developing from overlying skin surface layer of cells. The distinguished French Nobel Laureate, Francois Jacob stated that the evolutionary process is one of gradual tinkering over large or vast periods of time.

So, gut membrane, sinuses, the apendix, the eye being inferior to other species. Why design like that? Surely it suggests deveopment from a quadrapedal origin of extremely similar genetics and build...


ALSO:

Why can't we rule out human evolution in Africa now that all varieties and types of human fossils have been discovered in one great assemblage in the Pit of Bones in Spain?

You get funnier every day! That's a good one!

Uhhh...have you, by any chance, actually read any of those references you've given us about the Pit of Bones? You initially cited Stringer's 1993 News and Views in Nature (vol. 362 p.501) as evidence for your statement. Now you cite the BBC's discussion of it. Have you noticed yet that even Stringer, who identifies features similar to H. sapiens, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis, finds that these different features are not on different individuals? We're talking about one flavor of people here (if you like the term "people" better than "species"), not three different kinds. They have what creationists dislike, a "mosaic" of characteristics.

This is the problem with relying on people like Lubenow and Behe as your "experts." They start out with a pre-conceived answer, and then misrepresent the facts to make it look like their answer is right, and science is wrong.

Thanks for that.

[jcrawford]

Why can't we rule out human evolution in Africa now that all varieties and types of human fossils have been discovered in one great assemblage in the Pit of Bones in Spain?

Have you noticed yet that even Stringer, who identifies features similar to H. sapiens, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis, finds that these different features are not on different individuals? We're talking about one flavor of people here (if you like the term "people" better than "species"), not three different kinds. They have what creationists dislike, a "mosaic" of characteristics.

This creationist loves a "mosaic" of characteristics in human fossils. They prove that classic H. sapiens, neantherthal and erectus people commonly interbred and passed on their 'special' characteristics to their common descendents.

Human beings don't speciate. Their features just come in a great variety of shapes, shades and sizes. It's called biological diversity.

[Glee]

Why can't we rule out human evolution in Africa now that all varieties and types of human fossils have been discovered in one great assemblage in the Pit of Bones in Spain?

Have you noticed yet that even Stringer, who identifies features similar to H. sapiens, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis, finds that these different features are not on different individuals? We're talking about one flavor of people here (if you like the term "people" better than "species"), not three different kinds. They have what creationists dislike, a "mosaic" of characteristics.

This creationist loves a "mosaic" of characteristics in human fossils. They prove that classic H. sapiens, neantherthal and erectus people commonly interbred and passed on their 'special' characteristics to their common descendents.

Human beings don't speciate. Their features just come in a great variety of shapes, shades and sizes. It's called biological diversity.

H. Erectus had around 74% of the brain capacity of H.Sapiens. Fossils have been found as far back as about 1.8 million years ago (according to fossil records) yet not a single H. sapien fossil was found in that time. The Homo heidelbergensis (found in the pit of bones) shows a possible step in the development to H. Sapien, with more H. Sapien features and still some remaining H. Erectus features.

So where does Homo habilis fit in? Are they an apes or humans? Biological deversity is great and all, but where is the line drawn? at an average 4'3, brain half the size of a human, but also bipedal and tool using. However, their arms were disproportionately longer comparitively to H.sapiens. Are they just a diverse brach of humans?

[jcrawford]

H. Erectus had around 74% of the brain capacity of H.Sapiens.

You seem to be confusing and equating "brain capacity" with cranial capacity based on human skull measurements, and completely unaware of the fact that the cranial capacity in human beings today ranges from 800 cc to 2000 cc.

Fossils have been found as far back as about 1.8 million years ago (according to fossil records) yet not a single H. sapien fossil was found in that time.

The KNM-ER 1470 fossil skull dated at 1.9 Mya. and classified as H. rudolfensis by neo-Darwinist race theorists is within the cranial capacity range of modern humans. Dean Falk and Ralph Holloway both concur that Broca's area is present in the skull and Philip Tobais says: "If having the brains to speak is the issue, apparently Homo had it from the beginning."

The Homo heidelbergensis (found in the pit of bones) shows a possible step in the development to H. Sapien, with more H. Sapien features and still some remaining H. Erectus features.

H. heidlebergensis IS an early form of H. sapiens. What and where do you think H. sapiens sapiens in Africa evolved from, if not an earlier form of H. sapiens in Africa like H. rhodesienses, otherwise called and known by the Kabwe cranium?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... enhill.htm

Confused? Don't blame me. I don't go around inventing names for human 'species' anymore than I call people members of differents races.

[quote}So where does Homo habilis fit in? Are they an apes or humans? [/quote]

You tell me. I don't confuse African people with apes. Do you?

Biological deversity is great and all, but where is the line drawn? at an average 4'3, brain half the size of a human, but also bipedal and tool using. However, their arms were disproportionately longer comparitively to H.sapiens. Are they just a diverse brach of humans?

Most experts agree that Homo habilis is a false taxon because it mixes the remains of ape fossils like Lucy's with those of small (pygmies, children, females?) humans. As one famous neo-Darwinist said, "If H. habilis didn't exist as a taxon, we would have to invent it."

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

the cranial capacity in human beings today ranges from 800 cc to 2000 cc.

In modern humans the range of braibcase sizes is 1400 to 2000 in adults. The average is 1850.

» Wilson, A.C. and Cann, R.L. "The recent African genesis of humans." Scientific American 266 (4) 68-73 (1992).

The KNM-ER 1470 fossil skull dated at 1.9 Mya. and classified as H. rudolfensis by neo-Darwinist race theorists is within the cranial capacity range of modern humans.

No it is not.

Dean Falk and Ralph Holloway both concur that Broca's area is present in the skull and Philip Tobais says: "If having the brains to speak is the issue, apparently Homo had it from the beginning."

Since soft brain tissue(where Broca's area is located, not in the bones of the skull) is not likely to survive 1.9 million years these three gentlemen are making this conclusion based on what???

H. heidlebergensis IS an early form of H. sapiens

H. heidlebergensis is probably a forebearer of H. Sapiens. Where does one draw the line between human-like ape and ape-like human? Brainsize(800cc+-) suggests this is too early.

You tell me. I don't confuse African people with apes. Do you?

There is no confusion, humans(all of us) are apes with a little more brains and a little less hair.

Most experts agree that Homo habilis is a false taxon because it mixes the remains of ape fossils like Lucy's with those of small (pygmies, children, females?) humans. As one famous neo-Darwinist said, "If H. habilis didn't exist as a taxon, we would have to invent it."

Not only can you slander evolutionists, but you can quote them out of context as well. Prof. S. J. Gould commented on the perfect fit of Habilis into evolutionary theory when it was discovered by saying the above quote, which was taken from a lecture on Habilis on how well it supported predictions Gould had made of the fossils yet to be find. Most real scientists agree that Habilis is an important find in outlining the evolution of man. To say it is false or mixed is a deliberate falsehood(bearing false witness) on your part.

Grumpy

[Jose]

This creationist loves a "mosaic" of characteristics in human fossils. They prove that classic H. sapiens, neantherthal and erectus people commonly interbred and passed on their 'special' characteristics to their common descendents.

Human beings don't speciate. Their features just come in a great variety of shapes, shades and sizes. It's called biological diversity.

No, mosaic characteristics do not prove interbreeding. You share many characteristics with squirrels, like mouth, eyes, feet, etc. Yet, you have differences as well. Squirrels appear to be a mosaic of characteristics. Do you interbreed with them? Stupid question, right?

It is true that human features come in great variety, just as the characteristics of any species do. That's one of the essential requirements for evolution: that there be variation. Do human beings speciate? Not one at a time. You don't need to worry about waking up some morning and being a different species. You couldn't do it even if you wanted to. Nor does there seem to have been enough time for our one species of humans (what you call "the human race") to develop enough variation between groups that any group can be called a different species.

[Glee]

H. Erectus had around 74% of the brain capacity of H.Sapiens.

You seem to be confusing and equating "brain capacity" with cranial capacity based on human skull measurements, and completely unaware of the fact that the cranial capacity in human beings today ranges from 800 cc to 2000 cc.

Slip of the tongue, of course i meant cranial capacity, 'Brain capacity' would be impossible? to measure. Was in a rush. The 74% of course, is based on the average capacities as well.

The KNM-ER 1470 fossil skull dated at 1.9 Mya. and classified as H. rudolfensis by neo-Darwinist race theorists is within the cranial capacity range of modern humans. Dean Falk and Ralph Holloway both concur that Broca's area is present in the skull and Philip Tobais says: "If having the brains to speak is the issue, apparently Homo had it from the beginning."

Umm... no. ER 1470 seems to be a very debateable issue by itself, as a google seach will tell you. Cranial capacity 'varies' from site to site, talkorigins(evo) lists it at 750cc, trueorigins(cre) lists it at 810cc, and other seemingly neutral websites at 775cc. which is unfortunately under your 800cc limit of the range of human head sizes. For a nice little graph of time relative cranial capacities, there is this page... who made this graph...

Also, the naming of ER 1470's species seems to be a little confusing as well. Some put it in the Homo habilis, some in the H. rudolfensis... i'll check up on why this is.. ahh, found it I think. See the bottom for that.

H. heidlebergensis IS an early form of H. sapiens. What and where do you think H. sapiens sapiens in Africa evolved from, if not an earlier form of H. sapiens in Africa like H. rhodesienses, otherwise called and known by the Kabwe cranium?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... enhill.htm

Confused? Don't blame me. I don't go around inventing names for human 'species' anymore than I call people members of differents races.

The only thing I am confused about is why you posted this link. It fits in quite nicely with the rest of the evolutionary bush, doesn't it?

Biological deversity is great and all, but where is the line drawn? at an average 4'3, brain half the size of a human, but also bipedal and tool using. However, their arms were disproportionately longer comparitively to H.sapiens. Are they just a diverse brach of humans?

Most experts agree that Homo habilis is a false taxon because it mixes the remains of ape fossils like Lucy's with those of small (pygmies, children, females?) humans. As one famous neo-Darwinist said, "If H. habilis didn't exist as a taxon, we would have to invent it."

Apart from what Grumpy has said, you might want to check out these links...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_habilis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/invalidtaxon.html

What creationists do not understand is that when scientists say that habilis may consist of two or more species, they are not saying that habilis is an invalid species. The reason is that one of those species is Homo habilis. Habilis would be an invalid species if, and only if, its type specimen, OH 7, was determined to belong to a previously defined species. That has not happened and almost certainly will not happen, for the reason that OH 7 differs from all previously named species. (Note that some scientists, for example Wood and Collard (1999), have argued that habiline fossils should be reassigned to the australopithecines, but they are not saying habilis is an invalid species, merely that it should be Australopithecus habilis, not Homo habilis.)

That was written back in 2004, i believe the habilis debate has resulted in some of the habilis fossils moving from the species Homo habilis to the species Homo rudolfensis because of shared common features, including the ER1470 skull. (Acutally, it seems to have happened a little while before that but talkorigins has a habit of putting the two species in the same category. Which isn't in istelf totally incorrect but maybe a little behind the 8ball in terms of naming...)

Just saying, Gish thought 1470 was an ape, Lubenow thinks it is a human. Doesn't that lead itself to being ripe for being an intermediate fossil?

[jcrawford]

In modern humans the range of braibcase sizes is 1400 to 2000 in adults. The average is 1850. - » Wilson, A.C. and Cann, R.L. "The recent African genesis of humans." Scientific American 266 (4) 68-73 (1992).

They are just grabbing those figures out of thin air like most neo-Darwinists do. According to Lubenow, Juan Luis Arsuaga says that the average brain size is usually said to be 1350 cc and that 10% of normal modern humans have a brain capacity of less than 1,100 cc. Anatole France and an Australian Aboriginal named Topsy, each had a cranial capacity under 1000 cc. A. H. Schultz cited a Melanesian with a cranial capacity of 790 cc as the lowest on record for an normal human.

Marvin Harris of the University of Florida claimed that the variability of human cranial capacity starts at 850 cc. Stephen Molner has stated that "there are many persons with 700 - 800 cc.

So who are we supposed to believe in? Grumpy, Wilson and Cann or Lubenow? Why should creationists believe in anything neo-Darwinist racial theorists have to say?

The KNM-ER 1470 fossil skull dated at 1.9 Mya. and classified as H. rudolfensis by neo-Darwinist race theorists is within the cranial capacity range of modern humans.

No it is not.

Yes, it is.

Dean Falk and Ralph Holloway both concur that Broca's area is present in the skull and Philip Tobais says: "If having the brains to speak is the issue, apparently Homo had it from the beginning."

Since soft brain tissue(where Broca's area is located, not in the bones of the skull) is not likely to survive 1.9 million years these three gentlemen are making this conclusion based on what???

Don't ask me, since those three gentlemen are all neo-Darwinist racial theorists.

H. heidlebergensis IS an early form of H. sapiens

H. heidlebergensis is probably a forebearer of H. Sapiens. Where does one draw the line between human-like ape and ape-like human?

If neo-Darwinists can't tell the difference between humans and non-humans, Grumpy, then they are not scientifically qualified to theorize that African people originally evolved from African ape and monkey ancestors.

I don't confuse African people with apes. Do you?

There is no confusion, humans(all of us) are apes with a little more brains and a little less hair.

Speak up for yourself and neo-Darwinist African people if you so desire. Just don't include the rest of the human race in your neo-Darwinist family tree.

Most experts agree that Homo habilis is a false taxon because it mixes the remains of ape fossils like Lucy's with those of small (pygmies, children, females?) humans. As one famous neo-Darwinist said, "If H. habilis didn't exist as a taxon, we would have to invent it."

Not only can you slander evolutionists, but you can quote them out of context as well. Prof. S. J. Gould commented on the perfect fit of Habilis into evolutionary theory when it was discovered by saying the above quote, which was taken from a lecture on Habilis on how well it supported predictions Gould had made of the fossils yet to be find.

Funny. Lubenow quotes Milford Wolpoff as being the originator of this quote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropolgy 89, no. 3 (November 1992): 402.

Most real scientists agree that Habilis is an important find in outlining the evolution of man. To say it is false or mixed is a deliberate falsehood(bearing false witness) on your part.
Grumpy

No, it's not a falsehood or false witness on my part, Grumpy. Lumping human and ape fossils into a taxon supposedly reserved for human fossils amounts to bearing false witness by neo-Darwinist race theorists.

[Glee]

So we have some confusion on which skull belongs to which species, blah blah blah. Can't you see this is because the skulls are -so- similar? If human skulls can be that diverse, and ape skulls can be that diverse, so much so that they look identical and we have people arguing over which species they belong to, havent we reached the conclusion that an ape to human skull transformation is entirely possible?

The differences between the two are so much more miniscule than the internal variance within the species.

Therefore, we can conclude that given time, the same microevolutional changes/bio-diversity that affects diversity in an ape's skull can eventually change it into a human skull. Agree/disagree? (don't make me post those dog skulls again...)

Are there any other parts of ape-to-human evolution that would be 'impossible' via 'microevolution' that have not been covered?

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

Since you seem to think falsehoods are valid proof I thought I would post some valid information to counter your creationist misinformation. The complete article is available at the site below:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html

All emphasis is mine(mainly to point out what an idiot Lubenow is)

Brain sizes(*) vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains. As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men, and Pygmies will have smaller brains than Zulus, but the average intelligence of all these groups is, as far as we can tell, the same.
(*) Note: for convenience, I use the term "brain size" instead of "cranial capacity". Because the brain does not fill the cranial cavity, the brain size is smaller than the cranial capacity, but the latter value is, obviously, the only one that can be determined from a skull.

Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc (cubic centimetres). The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc. S.J. Gould, in "The Mismeasure of Man", reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of 600 skulls which ranged from 950 to 1870 cc (and 25% of this sample was of small-statured Peruvians, so the figure of 950 cc is, if anything, lower than it might be for 600 randomly selected humans). Morton also catalogued his skulls by race, with the lowest average for any racial group being 1230 cc.

Various sources, some of them creationist, give lower limits for human brain size of 900 or 830 cc. The prominent British anatomist Sir Arthur Keith in 1948 gave 855 cc as the lowest known human brain volume (compared with 650 cc as the then highest known brain volume for a gorilla). Normal humans with even smaller brains have been found, but they are very rare. Microcephalics, who are subnormal in intelligence, can be as low as 600 cc, but this is a pathological condition and such skulls cannot be considered normal.

Hrdlicka (1939) examined the extremes of brain size in the 12,000 American skulls stored in the U.S. National Museum collections. Of these, the smallest 29, or fewer than 1 in 400, ranged from 910 to 1050 cc. Hrdlicka states that the smallest skull in this collection, at 910 cc, appears to be the lowest volume ever measured for a normal human cranium. The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small. (Compare the Turkana Boy skull and a modern human here.)

Compare the above figures with the 5 measurable Java Man skulls. These average 930 cc, less than the minimum of the 600 modern skulls cited above, with the smallest being 815 cc. Moreover, unlike modern humans with low brain sizes, these skulls are very robust, with flattened braincases and large brow ridges.

These figures also show how extraordinary the Turkana Boy is. As an adult, he would have been around 183 cm (6'0") tall, large even by modern standards. Modern men of that stature would be expected to have a larger than average brain size, but the Turkana Boy's estimated adult brain size of 910 cc is smaller than all but a fraction of 1% of modern humans of all sizes and both sexes. For comparison, 900 cc is a typical brain size for a modern child of 3 or 4 years weighing 15 kg (33 lbs).

Creationist Marvin Lubenow (1992) states that the lower limit of human cranial capacity is 700 cc, a much lower figure than anyone else. His source is Races, Types and Ethnic Groups by Stephen Molnar. Molnar says that "there are many persons with 700 to 800 cubic centimeters", but provides no source for this information, and none of his sources appear to do so either. In fact, one of his sources contradicts Molnar (and Lubenow). Tobias (1970) says that according to Dart, "apparently normal human beings have existed with brain-sizes in the 700's and 800's" (maybe Molnar's claim is a mis-statement of this), and that the smallest cranial capacity ever documented is 790 cc.

This strongly contradicts Molnar's claim that "many" modern humans have a cranial capacity below 800 cc, and Lubenow's derived claim that anything above 700 cc is a "normal" value. Instead, it appears from a variety of sources that values below 900 cc are exceptionally rare, and values below 800 cc virtually nonexistent.
Even if exceptional humans were found as low as 700 cc, it would still be implausible for Lubenow to claim that ER 1470, at 750-775 cc, is "well within the normal human range". (One might equally validly claim that an adult height of 122 cm (4'0") is well within the normal range on the grounds that some people are only 107 cm (3'6") tall.) Such cases, if they even occur, are obviously exceptionally rare, and the probability of finding a fossil human skull with such a small brain is essentially zero. It is far more probable that 1470 was a fairly typical member of its population. This is what we find: other habilis fossils, very similar to 1470, are even smaller, and well below Lubenow's lower limit of 700 cc.

Chimpanzees have a brain size between 300 and 500 cc, with an average of 400 cc. Gorillas have an average brain size of 500 cc, with large individuals going up to 700 cc, or even 752 cc in one reported (but unverifiable) instance. Hominids are best compared with the similar-sized chimpanzees than the much larger gorillas.

Lubenow states that "the crucial element is not brain size but brain organization. A large gorilla brain is no closer to the human condition than is a small gorilla brain". Lubenow's point is correct. If evolution is true, transitional creatures with brain sizes between 650 and 800 cc must have existed, but finding a skull with such a brain size does not prove that its owner was a transitional form. To be a convincing transitional form, a skull should not only have an intermediate brain size, but also an intermediate morphology.

This is exactly what is found in some H. habilis fossils. While there are no habiline fossils for which both brain and body size can be measured, it is fairly clear that they were smaller than humans, and many times smaller than male gorillas, the only apes with comparable brain sizes. Nor do H. habilis skulls have the crests and bone ridges found in large ape skulls. In addition, the insides of their skulls show many modern features (Tobias 1987). They are both larger and more modern, internally and externally, than the skull of any comparably sized ape.

Between species, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size is applied, is a fair indicator of relative intelligence. The results are approximate, because they depend on which formula is used, and also on brain and body size, both of which are difficult to estimate for most fossil hominids. However it seems australopithecines were roughly as smart as, or probably a bit smarter than, chimps. Homo habilis and erectus were intermediate between chimps and modern humans. Walker and Leakey (1993) and Tobias (1987) have good overviews of attempts to estimate the relative intelligence of hominid species.

Several things are evident from the above article:

1.Creationist Marvin Lubenow does not do his own research, but relies on others to do his work. Unfortunately for him the so called "scientists" he relies on are just as poor in the research department as he is. This makes any conclusion drawn by Lubenow no more accurate than idle speculation.

2.Molnar,Tobias and Dart, whatever their affiliation, are not any more accurate in their assessments than Lubenow. GIGO.

3.ER1470 was a Homo Habilis, not Homo Sapiens, and thus, as I stated in my last post "No it is not."

4.The Scientific Method once again proves it's worth in separating the wheat(valid research and evidence) from the chaff(creationist misinformation and "pull it out your butt" speculation)

Don't ask me, since those three gentlemen are all neo-Darwinist racial theorists.

You are the one quoting the misinformation. If you can't justify it, we can ignore such blather.

If neo-Darwinists can't tell the difference between humans and non-humans, Grumpy, then they are not scientifically qualified to theorize that African people originally evolved from African ape and monkey ancestors.

It is not theory that man descended from ape-like forbearers, it is fact(even you). The theories only try to determine when and how we became human. Since there is disagreement about what characteristics indicate the transition, there are differences of opinion about when it happened. The dividing line between species are arbitrary and artificially imposed by us, in reality it is a continuum from less human like apes to ape-like humans to modern man with side branches, dead ends and 'backward" steps along the way. In evolutionary terms chimps and gorillas are our near cousins and you should go visit them at the zoo more often, they're family, after all. And we all are Africans in our origins(yes, even you), this fact doesn't bother me, if it bothers you then which of us is the real racist??? When people fling crap around(like your cousins, the monkeys) they run the risk of getting dirty themselves.

Funny. Lubenow quotes Milford Wolpoff as being the originator of this quote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropolgy 89, no. 3 (November 1992): 402.

And we've determined just how accurate Lubenow isn't. Whether Gould originated the quote or not, he did use it in his lecture, whether he attributed it to someone, I do not know.

No, it's not a falsehood or false witness on my part, Grumpy. Lumping human and ape fossils into a taxon supposedly reserved for human fossils amounts to bearing false witness by neo-Darwinist race theorists.

I'm baffled how reporting the facts and nothing but the facts causes creationists to lose their intelligence. The fact that we descended from ape-like forbearers is as undeniable as the Earth going around the sun. It is confirmed by every new find in paleoanthropology. There is no doubt about these facts among real scientists, the "controversy" is made up out of whole cloth by creationist pseudo-scientists, most of whom are in it for a buck. No valid scientific evidence has ever been produced or submitted for peer review(as all evolution evidence has been) which supports their positions. Their only answer is "God did it". That may be good enough for a religion, it doesn't cut it for a science.

Grumpy