Stone Age humans needed more brain power to make big leap in tool design (w/ Video)

an extinct ancestor of humans

If our ancestors are extinct, then we don't exist.

We're not descendants of neandertthals, therefore they're not our ancestors. They and we do share a common ancestor though.

their brains evolved a greater capacity for complex though

Since evolution of the brain from simple to complex is not possible, it means that the whole article is fallacious. In fact the brain itself as such cannot evolve from any no-brain state whatsoever. If anyone wants to argue the point they of course need to falsify the statement by demonstrating that some kind of brain can evolve from one cell. Not just speculate how it might have happened.
The human brain was fully developed from day one, fully capable of complex speech, artistic expression and design and manufacture of tools etc. No evolution required. The idea that the human body evolved from another kind of non-human specie is just daydreaming and worshipping at the altar of evolution.

A question to ask is how did the forerunners supposedly survive whilst their brains developed the ability to walk and search for just the right stone to bash into a tool? What did they do for food if they couldn't walk - or crawl for that matter?

In fact the brain itself as such cannot evolve from any no-brain state whatsoever.

There is very strong, physical evidence in the abundance of ancient human fossils. The older they are, the smaller the brain cavity in the skull.

If anyone wants to argue the point they of course need to falsify the statement by demonstrating that some kind of brain can spontaneously pop into existence, fully evolved. Not just speculate how it might have happened.

Kevin, with all due respect from a fellow conservative, the theory of evolution is the result of intense study and thought, supported by an abundance of physical evidence. No scientist claims to know EXACTLY how it all happened, that's why it's an ongoing study. There is, however, so much physical evidence to support it and the idea of random cellular mutation, mixed with natural selection, over very large periods of time, that once one understands that, it's exceedingly difficult to argue against it. "Faith" in it is not required

Continued...

The study of evolution, therefore, is science, not religion. There's no supernatural necessity to explain evolution. There's nothing in it that requires a break in the laws of physics. Religion, on the other hand, is based on the supernatural, the breaking of the laws of physics. Since there's no strong physical evidence, it REQUIRES "faith" to accept, unlike scientific theory.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this proves religion wrong. God can still exist and the Christian Bible could still be right even within an evolved universe, as long as you consider the word "days" in Genesis to be symbolic for "phases". On top of that, consider how the order of events of creation in Genesis coincide with the order of events in evolution. They're practically the same, just the time scale is longer in evolution. Jesus was known to use stories to demonstrate an idea. Why would you consider Genesis to be any different?

Continued...

I grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt, attended Methodist & nazarine & 7th day Adventist & (oh, what's that one that LIKE Catholic, that isn't?) church and Sunday school, attended Baptist nursery school, Lutheran Grammar school, and Catholic high school. None of them preached against evolution, except for the Nazarines, my grandparents church. I was quite happy accepting evolution and Christianity growing up.

Today, I reject neither, but I constantly question both. I've also turned my early scrutiny of other religions onto myself and put the same standard of "prove it" onto my own fundamental beliefs. My results? I couldn't come up with an argument for my own religion that someone from another religion couldn't also use in support of theirs. In short, "stalemate". Therefore, I have no choice but to remain undecided not just on WHICH religion is the right one, but if ANY is. Therefore, the best label for me is "agnostic".

Therefore, I will not belittle your religious beliefs. I will, however, ask you to consider, "What IF?"

A question to ask is how did the forerunners supposedly survive whilst their brains developed the ability to walk and search for just the right stone to bash into a tool? What did they do for food if they couldn't walk - or crawl for that matter?

I like your questions. You should apply that same scrutiny to everything, ESPECIALLY those ideas that make up your fundamental beliefs. It's fascinating what happens when you do. Play "devil's advocate" (no religious pun intended) for a while against any, random belief you have (doesn't have to be a religious one.)

Since evolution of the brain from simple to complex is not possible, it means that the whole article is fallacious.

Care to tell us how it isn't possible?

If anyone wants to argue the point they of course need to falsify the statement by demonstrating that some kind of brain can evolve from one cell. Not just speculate how it might have happened.

I'd suggest you take a look at cephalopods. Your evidence is swimming beneathe the seas at this very moment.

The human brain was fully developed from day one

Please define "day one" and the design process behind the brain in that instance. Also please inform us as to why all known examples of the brain in nature have similar design specifications.

A question to ask is how did the forerunners supposedly survive whilst their brains developed the ability to walk and search for just the right stone to bash into a tool? What did they do for food if they couldn't walk - or crawl for that matter?

Obviously, the first thing you should do to find an answer is to look at other life forms that fit your description, yet continue to survive. Then you've found your answer.

A question to ask is how did the forerunners supposedly survive whilst their brains developed the ability to walk and search for just the right stone to bash into a tool? What did they do for food if they couldn't walk - or crawl for that matter?

What a poorly constructed question.

Kevin, do you really think that evolution implies that we were formless masses of meat that spontaneously grew the necessary components for survival? Are you really paying Ray Comfort to lie to you like this?

Jeez Csharpner, nice Wall-O-Text.

1 question to all the evolution doubters: Does your faith really require you to hold the stories in Genesis to be factually infallible? No one here is attacking Jesus, or Moses, or Joseph. All we are saying is that there is a massive pool of evidence contradicting the creation stories. So does your faith really require you to reject the observable world to uphold the accuracy of Genesis?

Or rather, do you simply believe that the scientists are dumb, or maliciously deceptive, or both?

If our ancestors are extinct, then we don't exist.

My grandparents are dead and I exist or am I a figment of your imagination?

LOL Raven, i almost made the same comment. Its so funny when someone thinks they are making a logical argument, but they are really just showing how dumb they really are.

My grandparents are dead and I exist or am I a figment of your imagination?

Your grandparents are deceased. Their race is not extinct as evinced by the fact that YOU exist. Neanderthals are NOT our ancestors. Neanderthals are a branch off the same line as us. We and Neanderthals do share a common ancestor, but we're NOT descendants of Neanderthals. The neanderthal line died out (went extinct), therefore, they have no descendants now. That's what extinct means. Did you seriously not know that?

Creationists say that the Bible must be interpreted literally, that every word is the literal truth as revealed by God. They forget that this is the same argument the Catholic church used hundreds of years ago to uphold the Earth centered universe. Kevin, do you still believe the Earth is the center of the universe? Why do you disbelieve those portions of the Bible that say the sun circles the Earth but insist everything else is absolute. Your own arguments are so tangled in dogmatic thinking that you cannot/will not see shortcomings inherent in them.

Acheulean handaxes appear FAR earlier that Faisal says! He says they appeared at 600,000 years ago. He seems to have ignored Archaeological sites in Kenya: ie. Olorgesailie = 700K, Kariandusi = 900K, Kilombe = 1 million. Most important of all is Nariokotome at 1.7 million and many very early Acheulean sites at Koobi Fora, especially the Karari area.

The author is waaay off and clearly has not done his background research!

Really? They still have descendants, they are just extinct descendants. We also have extinct descendants. Also, there is compelling evidence that Humans and Neanderthals interbred, and 1%-4% of our genome came from Neanderthals. While they are not our direct descendant, they are indeed an ancestor of ours.

But that is beside the point. You said: "If our ancestors are extinct, then we don't exist." Which is just patently false. Both Humans and Neanderthals HAVE descendants that are extinct. A descendant does not need to be alive to be a descendant.

human body evolved from another kind of non-human specie is just daydreaming and worshipping at the altar of evolution.

Uh, huh. As opposed to belief in christian creationism, which is based on a collected set of fables and folk myths that don't even pass the test of internal consistency, let alone consistency with the external universe. Not to mention that creationism has never made any falsifiable predictions, and has in fact failed on every single comparison with observations. Might as well believe that Loosey Goosey created the universe. There's just as much evidence...

A descendant does not need to be alive to be a descendant.

I assume you meant "an ANCESTOR does not need to be alive to HAVE descendants."?

Also, there is compelling evidence that Humans and Neanderthals interbred

Oh yah! I had almost forgotten that I heard about that not too long ago. If that's true, then technically neanderthals aren't extinct. Or, it fuzzies up the definition.

Yah, it's not as clear as I was first thinking when I posted that. The statement itself though (that an extinct species has descendants) sounds ludicrous on it's face.

The next obvious question is, what's the definition of "species"? If they can interbreed, are they really different species or just races? This has been brought up on this site before with no clear answer.

I will, however, go along with the idea that we ARE descendants of them, if we do have some Neanderthal DNA from prior interbreeding. But then, it's hard to say that they're really extinct then... It gets fuzzy.

If our ancestors are extinct, then we don't exist.

We're not descendants of neandertthals, therefore they're not our ancestors. They and we do share a common ancestor though.

I understand what you're trying to say but you are incorrect. As an example, Homo heidelbergensis
is generally considered to be a common ancestor to both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertals. While we are descended from Heidelbergensis, we are Homo Sapiens. Homo Heidelbergensis no longer exists as a species so it is extinct. Heidelbergensis is extinct, Homo is not extinct. Do you see the difference?

I do cede your point though. Thanks!

Both Humans and Neanderthals HAVE descendants that are extinct

Not sure what you meant hear, but from the literal meaning of your words, I agree 100%... IF the human race, in its short time (relatively speaking in evolutionary timescales) has had offshoots directly from it that didn't survive. I'm not aware of any, of hand, but it certainly could have been.

an extinct ancestor of humans

If our ancestors are extinct, then we don't exist.

We're not descendants of neandertthals, therefore they're not our ancestors. They and we do share a common ancestor though.

Okay I believe this has been cleared up

LOL Raven, i almost made the same comment. Its so funny when someone thinks they are making a logical argument, but they are really just showing how dumb they really are.

"Research shows what you say about others says a lot about you"
http://www.physor...319.html

Your comment not just shows a lot about you, but it rolls right off my back. I don't need confirmation from you. My own abilities, skills, education, and dare I say it? Yes, I think I will: My consistently high IQ test results prove the opposite of your poorly concluded opinion.

lol, Sharpner. Yeah, that was a pretty mean spirited comment from me. However as already thoroughly hashed out, your original statement had a number of problems. But to then get all defensive and throw out IQ scores?? Come on, your better then that.

And honestly, i thought you were an anti-evolutionist, young earther based on your first comment, so I miss judged your intent.

However, on the topic of ancestors going extinct: Just because a descendant caries some genes from the ancestor, to me, does not make the ancestor still alive. Their contributions to evolution are still being used by new creatures, but they do not exist any longer.

It's kinda like the damaged boat analogy: If you replace 99% of the beams and structures that make up a ship, is it still the same ship? Comes a little down to philosophy at this point. On a similar analogy, i would argue that just because I like to read Wordsworth, the Romantic Period is not still active. It is influencing us, but the period is long gone.

Species do not really exist at all, they are merely artificial classifications created by the mind. So if you view evolution as a fluid process, then deciding where a species starts and ends is a very artificial and rigid process that has very little to do with actual evolution.

Species do not really exist at all, they are merely artificial classifications created by the mind. So if you view evolution as a fluid process, then deciding where a species starts and ends is a very artificial and rigid process that has very little to do with actual evolution.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

again, my err in not thinking of cross breeding. If there's no crossbreeding, then an extinct species has no descendants. of course, that's now a moot point in this discussion, because there likely was. now the definition of extinction becomes fuzzy. to me, I've always accepted the definition to mean, stopped reproducing. with that definition, our ancestors (ignoring neanderthals for the mement), are not from an extinct species, but earlier members of an existing, evolved species.

in any case, I definitely agree that we very well could be descendants of neanderthals. I cede that point (again).

Species do not really exist at all, they are merely artificial classifications created by the mind. ...Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course they're exist, as the mechanisms of reproductive isolation or hybridization barriers prevent the members of two different species that cross or mate from producing offspring, or which ensure that any offspring that may be produced is not fertile. This adaptive divergence is actually an evolutionary feature, which allows eukaryotic species to evolve faster, then the prokayrota with fast generation cycle.

Of course they're exist, as the mechanisms of reproductive isolation or hybridization barriers prevent...

I think the point that CSharpener and others are trying to make is that it's not as clearcut as the difference between makes and models of cars. If you take (as one example I've read about) species of birds that live part of the year in the arctic circle (let's just pick geese for the halibut), the geese that regularly summer in Alaska can breed with the geese that summer in eastern Russia, but not with those 1000 miles farther west. However, the geese in Eastern Russia CAN breed with those. There are lots of examples of this, where one species flows smoothly into another over a geographic range, and individuals separated by more than THIS MUCH (holds hands out) can't interbreed. Sometimes there are visual differences, sometimes not so much. How do you cut it off?

... and of course this puts the total kibosh on creationists' concept of 'kinds', where they're all distinct. Levels of ability to interbreed necessitates levels of relatedness, which is just one of umpteen actual observations that disprove the creationist fantasy.

On that basis, I guess I have to concede that the creationists ARE making falsifiable statements. Unfortunately for them, the statements always are proven false -- and it doesn't slow them down a bit.

@CSharpner,

consider how the order of events of creation in Genesis coincide with the order of events in evolution

Um... I wouldn't go THAT far.

Arguably, Earth (in its present form, + Moon) emerged long after the Sun and its light. And it was a molten ball of magma; hardly dark. And there was no "deep" or "waters" on Earth yet. And certainly the first land surface did not emerge from beneath a global ocean. And the sky isn't blue with an inverted celestial ocean, either. Granted, none of that is "evolution"-related, but as goes the start, so goes the rest.

Certainly, grasses, seed-bearing plants, and fruit-bearing trees did not emerge before animals did. Nor did they emerge prior to the appearance of the stars, the Sun, and the Moon in the sky. And saying that whales and birds emerged simultaneously is a bit of ... erm... stretch. And "creeping things" (worms? snakes? insects?) certainly did not emerge only after all the aforementioned.

I mean, honestly. Come on.

Your grandparents are deceased. Their race is not extinct as evinced by the fact that YOU exist. Neanderthals are NOT our ancestors. Neanderthals are a branch off the same line as us. We and Neanderthals do share a common ancestor, but we're NOT descendants of Neanderthals. The neanderthal line died out (went extinct), therefore, they have no descendants now. That's what extinct means. Did you seriously not know that?

@CS

Hold on there buddy. Few things to understand about DNA, Neaderthal, and Human Evolution...

Humans are some of the most diverse organisms within a species. We see this elsewhere but typically in groups that diverged, evolved into almost seperate species, and then merged again. Example: Baboons. Neanderthals couldn't have been more than a million years diverged, while baboons are almost 2 million years diverged from each other. When baboons of different types breed, you see a huge explosion of novel traits...

Many of these traits are not found in either parent organism but are passed on to subsequent offspring.

It is very possible that as homo sapiens left Africa, that they interbred with the various other offshoots of the homo family tree and brought these massive diversification events upon us. We've found that neanderthals have a closely constructed malfunctioning NCR1 gene for pigmentation that we have. The have an exact, and I mean EXACT, match for the FOXP1 gene which is related to group communication.

There is a very strong possibility that we are not purebred. We are very likely to be a mongrel species. The article above indirectly lends support to this hypothesis and creates a strong case for neaderthals being an integral part of our heritage.

If anyone wants to argue the point they of course need to falsify the statement by demonstrating that some kind of brain can evolve from one cell. Not just speculate how it might have happened.

Burden of proof Kev. I believe they have demonstrated it, now you must analyze and refute their data. Have you found Dr. Russell's teapot yet?

It is very possible that as homo sapiens left Africa, that they interbred with the various other offshoots of the homo family tree and brought these massive diversification events upon us.

There is a very strong possibility that we are not purebred. We are very likely to be a mongrel species. The article above indirectly lends support to this hypothesis and creates a strong case for neaderthals being an integral part of our heritage.

Agreed, SH.

As an aside, I don't know how closely all of you have looked at the facial/body reconstructions of our precursor species, but, I have noticed, upon occasion, living people that bear almost identical features- both facewise and buildwise. I've always thought, that, even if not outright mongrels, then we must at least be carrying forward our(more or less entire) genetic heritage, even if only from a morphology perspective.

As an aside, I don't know how closely all of you have looked at the facial/body reconstructions of our precursor species, but, I have noticed, upon occasion, living people that bear almost identical features- both facewise and buildwise.

Funny you should say that because I've had the same thought ever since seeing tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who, IMO, has strong Neanderthal features (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way).

They actually did a study where they put makeup and latex masking on an individual and had him ride the subway all day for a month appearing exactly as a Neaderthal reconstruction appears to us in the natural history museum.

No one gave him a second glance. It is very possible that we didn't even recognize them as a different species when we encountered them. They would have simply appeared as a larger group of humans to us, different, but still human.

Gosh what a grumpy discussion. Nothing at all said about the article itself. Lastly, a person with literal religous beliefs would not change those beliefs even if evidence (as it many times is) is right in their face - that goes for most religions with possible one exception, Budism (if considered a religion in the first place of course).

I like your questions. You should apply that same scrutiny to everything, ESPECIALLY those ideas that make up your fundamental beliefs. It's fascinating what happens when you do. Play "devil's advocate" (no religious pun intended) for a while against any, random belief you have (doesn't have to be a religious one.)

You should not coddle the religious deceptionist. His lies are evil in their intent.

No one here is attacking Jesus, or Moses, or Joseph

Speak for yourself. These cartoon characters did not exist as the evidence or lack thereof PROVES.

There is a very strong possibility that we are not purebred. We are very likely to be a mongrel species

-In addition to 1000s of yrs of domestication, selecting for the affinity for religious insanity, for example. Which explains kevins thorough self-deception and denial of reality.

No one gave him a second glance. It is very possible that we didn't even recognize them as a different species when we encountered them

-Only as a different tribe and thus competition, to be conquered, hunted, eaten, the women 'assimilated'.

As neanderthal reproduction had most likely become seasonal like most other temperate species, they could not recover battle losses as quickly as the tropical cromags. So their distinction faded and was lost.

Gosh what a grumpy discussion. Nothing at all said about the article itself. Lastly, a person with literal religous beliefs would not change those beliefs even if evidence (as it many times is) is right in their face - that goes for most religions with possible one exception, Budism (if considered a religion in the first place of course).

But they need to be countered and their lies exposed at every opportunity. The disease is not benign, and is extremely dangerous. It threatens the pursuit of science and the existance of civilization. It is the obligation of all rational people to resist religion. It will not die by itself.