reply to post by Slugworth
It's still one giant red herring. It doesn't prove anything about evolution or interventionism.
1. You cannot prove that human intelligence is special or immeasurable. Methods of studying it in 94 may not have been perfect for humans, but
scientists can make pretty good estimates of a creature's intelligence quotient based on learning ability, social behavior, use of tools, teaching of
offspring, problem solving, hunting methods, survival skills, etc etc etc. Countless studies have been done in the last decade alone. You use google
scholar, so it shouldn't be a problem finding them. I guess you'll have to debunk every single one of those studies to prove your case. Tons of work
has been done with teaching and studying the intelligence of chimpanzees, gorillas, and plenty of other great apes. An IQ of 40 in a human would put
them at mentally handicapped status, which is about the equivalent of the average adult male chimp. To act like there's no way to measure
intelligence is beyond absurd, I'm sorry. Some article from 94 that dismisses IQ testing based on race of humans and other questionable factors does
not prove otherwise. If the claim is that intellectual capability is not quantifiable, then you are essentially claiming we can't tell the difference
between a human and a chimp intellectually. The problem is we can tell the difference, and everything you were arguing for before with chimps not
being able to pass down complex info is evidence that we can determine it, even if it's an estimate. It's similar to dating fossils. There is always
an error margin, but the estimate is accurate within a certain span.
2. Neanderthal, homo erectus and others had comparable brains to modern humans. You continue to ignore this point, but it is true, regardless if
they had a technological revolution. Just because no comparable species is still alive, does not mean it hasn't happened. In fact, homo erectus
developed his brain separate from humans. Erectus is not our direct ancestor, but like chimps, we share a common ancestor with them down the line,
but we both increased our brain size quite a bit within a 500,000 year period, separately from one another. Erectus was around for over a million
years, and there is a noticeable difference from the beginning brain size and the most recent samples that put them at 1200 cc, just below the modern
human average, but still in the range and comparable to many people today. If they hadn't die out, they would probably be at equal levels to human or
more today. Was there a homo erectus intervention as well? Sorry, your claim that human intelligence is a unique trait holds no ground.
3. Pistol claw shrimp ancestor proves unique traits can emerge. Funny how you consider an advanced form of running not unique because other
creatures run, yet don't hold the same standards for having a more advanced brain when other creatures think.
4. Even if you could prove that human intelligence is more unique than other creatures (it's just a fallacious appeal), it still proves nothing about
humans being engineered. This is why I keep saying red herring. I'd rather get to the meat and potatoes of intervention, than sit around arguing
about evolution and semantics about what qualifies as unique.
edit on 27-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)