If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, specifically it doesn't appear you have actually reviewed the evidence, and comprehended it. Try doing that before posting. Thanks.
Actually that would pertain to YOU. You seem to think studying the skulls of a handful of human remains is an accurate sample size of the 100 billion or so human beings that have lived on this planet...
You seem to think studying the skulls of a handful of human remains is an accurate sample size of the 100 billion or so human beings that have lived on this planet...
You're posts don't make sense.
A large number of skulls have been sampled, the mean is the mean, sampling more skulls won't get you a materially different mean. Just give it up.
A large number of skulls have been sampled, the mean is the mean, sampling more skulls won't get you a materially different mean.
No, a very small number have compared to the overall total. How many skulls have been sampled from anyone 1 era? Show me a number please.
Say human skulls from 10k years ago. How many? 10, 100?, 1000? those are SMALL numbers compared to the 100-200bn estimated humans that have walked the earth. That's a fraction of a percent. I can walk around my office right now, about 100 people, I can pick out the 10 shortest people (5'4 or shorter) or the 10 tallest of us (6'0 to about 6'6) and make two completely different assumptions about the local population either "hmm, they are all rather tiny" or "wow, this culture was very very tall".
No, a very small number have compared to the overall total. How many skulls have been sampled from anyone 1 era? Show me a number please.
Say human skulls from 10k years ago. How many? 10, 100?, 1000? those are SMALL numbers compared to the 100-200bn estimated humans that have walked the earth. That's a fraction of a percent. I can walk around my office right now, about 100 people, I can pick out the 10 shortest people (5'4 or shorter) or the 10 tallest of us (6'0 to about 6'6) and make two completely different assumptions about the local population either "hmm, they are all rather tiny" or "wow, this culture was very very tall".
Please, just shut up.
Thankfully smart people aren't going to shut up just because the dimwits want it to happen, sorry my clueless little buddy.
You've clearly never worked with math, the mean skull size of the upper Paleolithic will not change just because we sample more skulls, we have an adequate sample, and it's a 3M year pattern. And archaeologists did not "cherry pick", since all measurements available were used. Your silly example is called cherry picking.
Cranial capacity clearly increases for 3M years, then peaks in the upper Paleolithic.
It's basic math guys (the topic of course implies people are no longer able to do math) so let me...please drink coffee and attempt to follow along.
Assume you have a population of 7B with a mean IQ of 100, normally distributed, 15 standard deviation. Intelligence is hereditary, thus assume babies have the same IQ as the parents.
* Those within +/- 1 standard deviation of the mean (68%) have 2 babies.
* Those 1 std dev below the mean (16%) have 2.8 babies and an IQ of 85.
* Those 1 std dev above the mean (16%) have 1.8 babies and an IQ of 115.
Do the math [(.22*85)+(.65*100)+(.14*115)]...
The children are a population of 7.4B with a mean IQ of 99.8 (I didn't use a computer so excuse my rounding each step). So in our simple demonstration model above -- homo sapiens would lose 0.8 IQ points per 100 years. And that's just the dysgenic effect from breeding, we didn't factor in the cranial capacity loss from lack of meat consumption. The fact is there is simply no way intelligence can be increasing, and multiple lines of evidence demonstrating it is decreasing.
You've clearly never worked with math, the mean skull size of the upper Paleolithic will not change just because we sample more skulls, we have an adequate sample, and it's a 3M year pattern. And archaeologists did not "cherry pick", since all measurements available were used. Your silly example is called cherry picking.
You have absolutely no proof that the skulls they've found are adequate examples of the general population though. The number of intact skulls is just too small to have a realistic sample set. The only thing clear here is you are an elitist blow-hard that doesn't want to cite any real data. You keep linking pandas thumb crap (a site I've never heard of) and wikipedia.
Either cite some publications in peer reviewed journals that clearly list how many skulls, from what region, what the accepted age (and how they determined said age) are or SHUT UP. You are basing your claim on absolutely NOTHING.
You have absolutely no proof that the skulls they've found are adequate examples of the general population though.
Yeah, maybe we just dug up all the big-brained smart specimens by chance. :roll eyes: I'd also like to point out attempting to poke holes in the best theory going, does not propose a better theory.
You should stop embarrassing yourself and linking that site, it's not helping business.
Comment