Yeah. They were short. So?
From The Scientist:
New research suggests that Homo floresiensis—ancient hominins often called “hobbits”—lived closer in time to modern humans than previously thought. Researchers from the University of Wollongong in Australia have found evidence that modern humans were using fire on the Indonesian island of Flores as far back as 41,000 years ago, whereas the hobbits lived until roughly 50,000 years ago, the team reported today (June 30) in the Journal of Archaeological Science.More.
Enough. Can we call off the Darwinian search for a lesser type (species) of human? Isn’t this getting, um, weird?
See also: The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
11 Replies to “Flores hobbits lived alongside other people”
Yeah, that was, like, the only thing different about them, right? 😉
It is weird calling it a “Darwinian search for a lesser type (species) of human” but there’s nothing weird about wanting to learn about history (at least, I don’t think so). So I say let them keep digging and investigating.
Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism.
Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. No one else needs it, and it is total crap for human societies.
goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness.
Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism.
Thanks, but it seems to do quite well without it.
Darwinism is built on scientific racism… You know those black people who are just above the gorilla and just below the white man? You know the stuff Francis Galton proclaimed based on Darwin’s grand scientific claims and voila, the system of apartheid was born because some white men thought it true….
Darwin was the original architect of apartheid.
Actually, Darwin believed that there was quite a gulf between man and apes. It was Darwin’s polygenist and “Chain of Being” opponents that denied there was a gap. Darwin believed that to find intermediates one had to look for fossils.
That’s so wrong it’s hard to know where to begin.
Apartheid officially began in the 1940s with the election of D. F. Malan, but precursors to that system goes back at least a couple centuries (and the precursors were, in many ways, even worse). D. F. Malan claimed that Apartheid “is part and parcel of the South African tradition, as practiced since the first Dutch settlement at the Cape in 1652.”
Darwin visited South Africa during his voyage on the Beagle in the 1830s and was appalled at the system of extermination that was going on. Just about everyone was predicting that the black race would soon be eliminated in South Africa and many welcomed it; the clearing of the land of Africans for the white race was being compared to the clearing of the land of Springboks.
Malan also explained the purpose of Apartheid:
“The Afrikaner’s traditional fear of racial equality (equalitarianism) between White and Black derives from his aversion to miscegenation. The Afrikaner has always believed very firmly that if he is to be true to his primary calling of bringing Christianity to the heathen, he must preserve his racial identity intact. The Church is, therefore, entirely opposed to intermarriage between Black and White and is committed to withstand everything that is calculated to facilitate it… The Bible is accepted as being the Word of God and the Dutch Reformed Church accepts the authority of Holy Writ as normative for all the political, social, cultural and religious activities in which man indulges.”
Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd is often called the “architect of Apartheid.” In 1948, H.F. Verwoerd told South Africa’s parliament, “The party accepts the Christian trusteeship of the European race as the basic principle of its policy in regard to the non-European races” and “is emphatically opposed to any mixture of blood between European and the non-European races.”
As one can see, the focus of Apartheid was anti-miscegenation. Almost everyone during Darwin’s time was opposed to race-mixing, especially Darwin’s opponents. These beliefs were passed down to later opponents of evolution, and could be seen in anti-evolutionist institutions like Bob Jones U even into the 21st century.
Darwin, in contrast, argued that race mixing wasn’t deleterious at all and even may have healthy benefits.
South Africa during Apartheid was essentially a Christian theocracy, with education run by the “Christian National Education” system which banned the teaching of Darwinism or evolution.
I am a South African and the natives land act was the official start of apartheid.
Francis Galton cousin of Darwin the guy who started scientific racism was to thank for that…
You know nothing John Snow!
South Africans know all to well the consiquences of Darwin’s scientific racism… We live through it still.
Apartheid “officially” started in 1948. But indeed the 1913 Native Lands Act was a precursor to Apartheid, and was later a part of Apartheid. As I mentioned, there were many precursors to Apartheid, it wasn’t radically different than the system previous to it, and so if one wants to argue that it really started prior to 1948 (even prior to 1859) I wouldn’t argue against it.
I’ve read dozens of works prior to Darwinism that claim to establish racism on science.
Pick up any text in the decades prior to Darwinism that talks about human races, and chances are it’s going to claim that the races are separate species, and that blacks are intermediate between apes and whites, and there’s a good chance that it’ll even say that blacks are closer to apes than they are to whites.
The most popular works dealing with human races in the decades previous to 1859 are books such as Types of Mankind by Nott and Gliddon, The Races of Men by Knox, and Gobineau’s Essay on the Inequality of the Races (which is where “Aryanism” started).
They were all vehemently anti-evolution and all argued for polygenism, which was the leading theory prior to Darwinism. Other leading scientists, such as Agassiz, taught the same thing. It’s not even uncommon to find works openly calling for the extermination of the “lesser” races.
(Modern readers might be puzzled why Darwin spends so much time in Descent of Man arguing for the close affinity of the human races and even questions whether the races are true races – it’s because he was arguing against the polygenists.)
Galton, btw, wasn’t remotely as racist as those previous authors.
Making claims is easy.
The South Africans I know disagree.
Calling Apartheid a consequence of Darwinism also runs counter to all common sense, considering the history of Apartheid and its policies.
It was Darwin’s scientific racism promoted by his cousin Francis Galton that was the catalyst for what happened in my country. An embarrassing fact for both the old national party and now the governing party is that the first governer of South Africa was not even a white guy so we did not start in South Africa with racism. That came with Darwin and his Victorian buddies.
If you don’t think that slavery and a couple centuries of attempted genocide is racist; or the skinning and taxidermically stuffing of blacks to put on display is racist (a common practice that prompted Karl Marx to famously complain of “the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of black-skins,”) then, I don’t know what to tell you. I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree translated… Goodusername does not know what he is talking about. Got you.