Is The Boskop Species of Mankind Evidence Against Evolution?

originally posted by: strongfp
Any species that is extinct today, is just more evidence that evolution does exist. Sorry to say, but they didn't make the cut. Nice try, maybe their genetics will live on somewhere down the line.

Is it, or is it evidence of intelligent design? You are just assuming "it must be evolution."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What does evolution translate to you?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Blaine91555
...
Sounds like a classic case of making the evidence fit the theory to me.

Wouldn't the same be said about the "theory" that the boskop man is modern humans as well, except with bigger heads which were not caused by deformities, or illnesses like encephalitis?

After all, no matter how much some would like to claim it is still a theory, just like evolution is a theory, just like the big bang is a theory.

Yes of course it's all theory, but in this case Boskop Man has been debunked by credible anthropologists and disregarded as bad science.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: strongfp
Any species that is extinct today, is just more evidence that evolution does exist. Sorry to say, but they didn't make the cut. Nice try, maybe their genetics will live on somewhere down the line.

Is it, or is it evidence of intelligent design? You are just assuming "it must be evolution."

You mean like you are assuming that this is evidence against evolution? Right from the OP you start off with your own interpretation of what the MES postulates with your rant about higher complexity etc... evolution doesn’t have a goal. Complexity isn’t a necessary part of the process. Passing on enough genes for species survival is the only actual end goal for evolution.

As for your earlier reply to me, thanks for showing that you have absolutely nothing to support your claims of special genes that made them smart and instead utilizing the same paltry ad hominems as always when your back is in the corner.

originally posted by: peter vlar

You mean like you are assuming that this is evidence against evolution? Right from the OP you start off with your own interpretation of what the MES postulates with your rant about higher complexity etc...
...

Ah, so puting the topic as a question is assuming?... Not to mention the fact that I excerpted directly from Britannica pointing out that many anthropologists have associated the boskop skulls as another race.

It would not be the first time in which orthodox scientists have been wrong.

Here, let me try to help you comprehend what you are reading.

...
Many anthropologists have associated the Boskop skull with a hypothetical Boskop race because of discoveries of apparently similar skulls at other sites in Africa.
...

www.britannica.com...

A question, as i made it in the op, implies possibility but it certainly does not imply "assumption."

Who could take your argument seriously when you can't even comprehend what you read?

You should take some reading comprehension classes, it will help you immensely.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One of the main problems here is that there are not enough examples of this hominin to say too much about them. For all intents and purposes, it was just a Homo sapien with a larger than average (understatement) cranial capacity.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One of the main problems here is that there are not enough examples of this hominin to say too much about them. For all intents and purposes, it was just a Homo sapien with a larger than average (understatement) cranial capacity.

There were several such skulls found, not just one, and the bones in their skulls were also thicker than the skulls of homo sapiens.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Alrighty then, because all I have seen is talk about a partial skull. The thickness of the skull is not indication of another species. One needs more than that.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One of the main problems here is that there are not enough examples of this hominin to say too much about them. For all intents and purposes, it was just a Homo sapien with a larger than average (understatement) cranial capacity.

There were several such skulls found, not just one, and the bones in their skulls were also thicker than the skulls of homo sapiens.

Even IF they were a different species, and even IF they were more intelligent (and I'm not saying either of those is true; instead I'm just hypothetically stipulating that for this debate so we can get to the rest of your argument), how would that be evidence against evolution?

As I mentioned before, intelligence is not the goal of evolution. Evolution is not necessarily doing everything it can to funnel a species towards intelligence.

IF (big if) Boskop Man was hypothetically a more intelligent species of the genus "Homo", that does not necessarily mean he would be uniquely well-suited to advance his genes forward in the environment he lives. Intelligence could help, but maybe they later hit an evolutionary roadblock caused by changing environmental, and they did not evolutionarily adapt fast enough in other physical ways to that changing environment.

In addition, part of what led Homo sapiens to eventually be the only remaining species under the Homo genus might have been luck and not just evolution. We may have narrowly escaped extinction not just because we were better suited by evolution to do so, but maybe because we were in the right place at the right time -- and maybe the hypothetical "more intelligent" Boskop Man was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As I said above, maybe their specific environments in which they originally thrived changed too quickly for the natural engine of evolution to keep up with those changes.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Or maybe they ceased to exist, at least on Earth, because of intelligent design. No matter how much you, or anyone else, want to deny it, there is proof that mankind hasn't been alone and we have been visited by several alien species. There is also the fact that most ancient cultures also acknowledge that other alien races helped mankind. Some cultures even state they came from other planets and not from Earth.

There are ancient stories about races like the Tuatha De Dannan in which it is stated they were smarter than mankind. In fact they were seen as a magical race who left Éire because they were defeated by the Celts. Some people want to dismiss the stories of ancient cultures as "myth," but Troy was also once considered a myth until Heinrich Schliemann used the directions in The Iliad and found Troy.

The boskop humans not only had bigger brains but their bone structure was thicker which would have made them stronger than humans as well. As an intelligent, and strong species they would know how to adapt to changes better than homo sapiens would know. The Tuatha De Dannan sound like they could have been the boskop. Such an intelligent version of mankind would have been seen as "magical" by the less advanced humans, the Celts.

I am not saying this is 100% proof the Boskop were the Tuatha De Dannan, but they could have been for all we know. Or like I wrote before, perhaps they were not supposed to be as intelligent as they were and were taken out of the equation. It could even be possible, as some have suggested, that they left Earth.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Brain size has little to do with intelligence...many animals have equal or larger brains than humans and are not even close to our intelligence

The basic test for intelligence is encephalization - which is the ratio of brain volume to overall body size. Assuming that the Boskop body was similar to the average human, then we can assume it was more intelligent. But without more data we would only be making assumptions.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
One of the main problems here is that there are not enough examples of this hominin to say too much about them. For all intents and purposes, it was just a Homo sapien with a larger than average (understatement) cranial capacity.

This is perfect. This is what I've been trying to say about all transition fossils. There is not nearly enough examples to say too much about them, yet the theorists are quick to jump and say it fits their theory. The Boskop skull was a complete skull and you're saying it is insufficient, so what does this say about all the "missing links" that are missing most of their skull? Take for example "Lucy" a supposed transition fossil



Astonishing how it was deemed a transition fossil despite how much is missing. Evolution is based on junk science and vast extrapolations.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Brain size has little to do with intelligence...many animals have equal or larger brains than humans and are not even close to our intelligence

The basic test for intelligence is encephalization - which is the ratio of brain volume to overall body size. Assuming that the Boskop body was similar to the average human, then we can assume it was more intelligent. But without more data we would only be making assumptions.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
One of the main problems here is that there are not enough examples of this hominin to say too much about them. For all intents and purposes, it was just a Homo sapien with a larger than average (understatement) cranial capacity.

This is perfect. This is what I've been trying to say about all transition fossils. There is not nearly enough examples to say too much about them, yet the theorists are quick to jump and say it fits their theory. The Boskop skull was a complete skull and you're saying it is insufficient, so what does this say about all the "missing links" that are missing most of their skull? Take for example "Lucy" a supposed transition fossil

Astonishing how it was deemed a transition fossil despite how much is missing. Evolution is based on junk science and vast extrapolations.

The encephalization quotient isn’t used to assess intelligence. Brain structure is. Encephalization Quotient is only used to compare brain size of organisms with similar body size. For example, Neanderthal, on average, had slightly larger cranial capacity than modern humans. But they weren’t more intelligent period, let alone because of the ratio of body mass to their brains. Their brains were organized differently than ours with a larger occipital love hence the larger Occipital Bum at the back of their skulls. Endocranial casts show within a fairly small margin of error how the Neanderthal brain was organized and we know that their brains had adapted to living in lower light condition of Pleistocene Europe prior to the LGM.

Consequently, you can not determine intelligence of “Boskop” which is a BS term that rightfully hasn’t been used in half a century because we now know definitively that they are in fact the ancestors of the Khoi San people. There are no complete crania and very limited post cranial remains. Compared to your follow up example of Lucy, there may as well be zero evidence at All Of small Faced large brained South Africans.

As for your comments on Lucy, your point may be valid if Lucy were the only example of Australopithecus Afarensis. However, this isn’t the case and it’s been a domaines dozens of times yet you still trot out Lucy as if she somehow falsifies the MES. All you demonstrate by repeating the same error is your unwillingness to learn new information. And for what it’s worth, A. Afarensis isn’t actually transitional between Ardipithecus Ramidus and the Homo genus. The most likely candidate for an Australopithecus progenitor of our own genus is A. Sediba.

What is really astonishing is how you reuse the same debunked examples time and time again while misrepresenting what the data actually says to more easily accept your version of events which isn’t based on much science.

originally posted by: peter vlar

As for your comments on Lucy, your point may be valid if Lucy were the only example of Australopithecus Afarensis. However, this isn’t the case and it’s been a domaines dozens of times yet you still trot out Lucy as if she somehow falsifies the MES. All you demonstrate by repeating the same error is your unwillingness to learn new information. And for what it’s worth, A. Afarensis isn’t actually transitional between Ardipithecus Ramidus and the Homo genus. The most likely candidate for an Australopithecus progenitor of our own genus is A. Sediba.

What is really astonishing is how you reuse the same debunked examples time and time again while misrepresenting what the data actually says to more easily accept your version of events which isn’t based on much science.

The Boskop skull in the OP is more complete than any known Australopithecus Afarensis skull.



So you can say all the words you want, but this Boskop skull is more complete than any of the other cranial remains that you praise as dogmatic proof of your baseless theory. Your double standard exposes your lack of objectivity.

a reply to: cooperton

Funny you show a skeleton which actually does tell you a LOT about the form and function of the hominid, and then you get all excited about a partial Skull, where a larger than average brain capacity is the only evidence you hold for it beign a different species.

Oh and every fossil is a transitory one. We've had this discussion before.

a reply to: cooperton

You will grasp at any straw without looking at it first provided you are Able to convince yourself that it somehow falsifies the MES. In this case, you once again betray your true intent because the allegedly complete cranium you believe belongs to a so called Boskop Man is nothing of the sort. It's a recreation of what someone wants a complete Boskop cranium to look like based on the bits and pieces found. If you look through the OP, below the magical cranium you cite as a complete Boskop cranium is a comparison of another recreation next to an image of a modern day HSS Cranium. The so called Boskop illustration shows the actual miniscule amount of physical remains this splendid recreation is based on. Between all of the remainder claimed to be no, can you cite an actual complete cranium?

The point is that no, the real double standard exposing a lack of objectivity and dogmatic blindness is your own.

Furthermore, when you have multiple sets of remains, you don't need a singular complete crania to know what the average exemplar of the species in question looked like when the crania are consistent. A. Afarensis demonstrates this. Boskop does not. And all of your foot stomping, finger pointing and whining doesn't change the simple fact that genetically, those Boskop remains are Khoi San. Not magical super geniuses who fled the planet in their antigravity rocket ships.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

You will grasp at any straw without looking at it first provided you are Able to convince yourself that it somehow falsifies the MES. In this case, you once again betray your true intent because the allegedly complete cranium you believe belongs to a so called Boskop Man is nothing of the sort. It's a recreation of what someone wants a complete Boskop cranium to look like based on the bits and pieces found. If you look through the OP, below the magical cranium you cite as a complete Boskop cranium is a comparison of another recreation next to an image of a modern day HSS Cranium. The so called Boskop illustration shows the actual miniscule amount of physical remains this splendid recreation is based on. Between all of the remainder claimed to be no, can you cite an actual complete cranium?

Proof it's a replication?

It has skeletal fractures and accurate cranial fissures:



Or are you just calling it a replication because you will continually disagree with everything I say for the sake of disagreeing?

a reply to: cooperton

discovermagazine.com...

It wasn't a full skull, they found fragments and reconstructed the rest, like they do for many species with fragments found. Look at the diagram that shows the shaded components that were found.

Boskop Man is now considered a modern human. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative but that is the prevailing understanding currently.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Homo capensis: In the early 1910s, two farmers stumbled across hominid fossils, including bits of a skull, near Boskop, South Africa. The bones were passed around to many anatomists—including Raymond Dart, who later discovered the first Australopithecus fossil—before ending up in the hands of paleontologist Robert Broom. Broom estimated the brain size of the skull (PDF): a whopping 1,980 cubic centimeters (the typical modern person’s brain is around 1,400 cubic centimeters). Broom determined that the skull should be called H. capensis, also known as Boskop Man. Other specimens from South Africa were added to the species, and some scientists became convinced southern Africa was once home to a race of big-brained, small-faced people. But by the 1950s, scientists were questioning the legitimacy of H. capensis. One problem was that the thickness of the original skull made it difficult to estimate the true brain size. And even if it were 1,980 cubic centimeters, that’s still within the normal range of variation for modern people’s brains, anthropologist and blogger John Hawks explained in 2008. Another problem, Hawks pointed out, was that scientists were preferentially choosing larger skulls to include in H. capensis while ignoring smaller skulls that were found in association with the bigger specimens. Today, fossils once classified as H. capensis are considered members of H. sapiens.

Thread over.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

discovermagazine.com...

It wasn't a full skull, they found fragments and reconstructed the rest, like they do for many species with fragments found. Look at the diagram that shows the shaded components that were found.

Boskop Man is now considered a modern human. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative but that is the prevailing understanding currently.

The main point I made about this discovery was that scientists fall for insufficient evidence and perceive it as ample evidence. This is exactly the same game evolutionists play. I wanted to show the double-standard in which evolutionists accept any data extrapolation that fits their narrative, while rejecting any evidence of the contrary.

But yes, good find, it was just skull fragments, and therefore not sufficient to come to any conclusions: just like the rest of the "missing link" remains.

originally posted by: cooperton
The main point I made about this discovery was that scientists fall for insufficient evidence and perceive it as ample evidence. This is exactly the same game evolutionists play. I wanted to show the double-standard in which evolutionists accept any data extrapolation that fits their narrative, while rejecting any evidence of the contrary.

But yes, good find, it was just skull fragments, and therefore not sufficient to come to any conclusions: just like the rest of the "missing link" remains.

Your main point is bunk then. Science did not have as much scrutiny and peer review back then as it does today. The species was mis-categorized. It happens. Thanks to peer review and science building on itself, they have discovered it is homo sapien. You are the one playing games here. You are trying to suggest that an error in the past means that there are no standards today with the discoveries when that is FAR from the truth. You are desperately combing for anything you can possible throw in the face of science.

LOL @ suggesting this means that all "missing link" remains are false or wrong. You are completely unable to even turn your bias off for a second. You are using double standards, not any evolutionary biologists or paleontologists. You blindly deny all of them over a handful of mistakes, when there are COUNTLESS CONFIRMED SPECIMENS.

originally posted by: Barcs

You blindly deny all of them over a handful of mistakes, when there are COUNTLESS CONFIRMED SPECIMENS.

I hate to ruin your mythology, but there are no complete skulls of supposed "missing links". Definitely not "countless confirmed specimens". Which was my point. Your evolution religion is faith based because there are no complete samples to demonstrate its validity. Show me otherwise.