>>> Glenn Morton <email@example.com> 13/10/97 12:37:47 >>>
>Among the anti-evolutionist there is a tendency to view some of >the fossil
>men as less than human because of their brain size.
This tendency is not restricted to anti-evolutionists. The following
is characteristic of _evolutionary theory_ and appears in:
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology (Vol. 49, No. 4)
Brain Size Matters: A Reply to Peters
J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON and C. DAVISON ANKNEY
University of Western Ontario
... "Rushton (1995) provided an evolutionary hypothesis for why East Asians have the largest brains. The currently accepted view of human origins posits a beginning in Africa some 200,000 years ago, an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a European/East Asian split about 40,000 years ago (Stringer & Andrews, 1988). Evolutionary selection pressures were different in the hot savanna where Africans evolved than in the cold arctic where East Asians evolved. According to Rushton (1995), the further north the populations migrated, out of Africa, the more they encountered cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children during prolonged winters. As the original African populations evolved into Europeans and East Asians, they did so in the direction of larger brains, greater intelligence, slower rates of maturation, and other traits that differentiate these populations."
>But brainsize is not important for the definition of humanity
>he knew of a normally intelligent Australian aborigine woman with >a brain size of 750 cc. There has been one normally intelligent >human, alive in this century, having a 650 cc brain
What's more both evolutionists, anti-evolutionsists and unfortunately you yourself, Glenn, would appear to fall into the trap of equating 'intelligence' (whatever that is and whatever 'normal' intelligence is) with 'humanity' (again this term needs to be defined).