Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another species of “hominin” still alive?

Categories
Human evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Between Ape and Human: An Anthropologist on the Trail of a Hidden Hominoid by [Gregory Forth]

No, it does not make nearly that much sense. The Flores people were real.

Meanwhile, here’s the story by anthropologist Gregory Forth, author of Between Ape and Human (2022) — a summary of his book, more or less — advancing a remarkable claim about still-missing “hominins” at The Scientist:

Coming from a professional anthropologist and ethnobiologist, my conclusions will probably surprise many. They might even be more startling than the discovery of H. floresiensis—once described by paleoanthropologist Peter Brown of the University of New England in New South Wales as tantamount to the discovery of a space alien. Unlike other books concerned with hominin evolution, the focus of my book is not on fossils but on a local human population called the Lio and what these people say about an animal (as they describe it) that is remarkably like a human but is not human—something I can only call an ape-man. My aim in writing the book was to find the best explanation—that is, the most rational and empirically best supported—of Lio accounts of the creatures. These include reports of sightings by more than 30 eyewitnesses, all of whom I spoke with directly. And I conclude that the best way to explain what they told me is that a non-sapiens hominin has survived on Flores to the present or very recent times.

Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

So no one has ever found one of them but we are supposed to take this seriously?

Also:

Lio folk zoology and cosmology also include stories of natural beings, specifically humans, transforming permanently into animals of other kinds. And they do this, in part, by moving into new environments and adopting new ways of life, thus suggesting a qualified Lamarckism.

Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

Which is supposed to make the evidence stronger?

Our initial instinct, I suspect, is to regard the extant ape-men of Flores as completely imaginary. But, taking seriously what Lio people say, I’ve found no good reason to think so.

Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

There is no evidence for the existence of any such life form.

Okay. Untraceable hominins. Elves, fairies, the Abominable Snowman? So this is all “science” now?

Note: The Scientist story riffs off Flores Man, which was a genuine find.

Comments
Someone has reading comprehension issues: Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck.
I certainly don’t. Selection is the designing element. It is not random but biased.
Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity. And sheer dumb luck is all you have to explain the earth and living organisms.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
The difference between micro and macro evolution is artificial.
No, it isn't. For example no one can demonstrate the macroevolutionary even that led to the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes. That transition definitely required more than just a change in allele frequency over time. Endosymbiosis just accounts for one organelle- mitochondria in animals and chloroplasts in plants. Again, there aren't any known microevolutionary events that can be added up to macroevolution.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
Briefly algorithmic specified complexity is not a coherent concept and has no bearing on whether selection improves fitness in populations over time.
Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Even a loss of function can improve fitness.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
Individual evolutionary events are small changes but they can add up.
They can add up to an albino dwarf with sickle-cell anemia. There aren't any known microevolutionary events that add up to macroevolution.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Jerry
Selection only works in micro evolution/genetics.
Yes. Individual evolutionary events are small changes but they can add up.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Briefly algorithmic specified complexity is not a coherent concept and has no bearing on whether selection improves fitness in populations over time.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Are you sure yours is a consensus view among ID proponents?
It’s what ID is about. Some will emphasize the improbability of the information necessary for life but that is only part of ID. That is one of the ways to show no natural mechanisms can work in OOL and macro evolution.
Selection is the designing element
Selection only works in micro evolution/genetics. And even there it is limited. Nothing major has ever been brought into existence by continual selection. To say it designed something is absurd. I often make the point that natural selection is self refuting. If it actually did anything major, it would destroy the species. So it is limited to minor adaptations. Or essentially it is part of genetics but is limited even there.jerry
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
I’m very curious to (finally )find the answer about how in the world functional information emerge naturally.
Felsenstein's point in that article is very straightforward. Depending on whose definition of CSI one takes (there are several, Demsbki had one then changed it for another, KF has his own idiosyncratic one) Felsenstein concludes: 1. There is no known correlation between fitness, or any other measure of degree of adaptation, and the simplicity with which we can describe an organism's genotype or phenotype. 2. A proof that the high levels of fitness that we see in living organisms cannot be achieved by evolutionary processes such as natural selection would be a major refutation of modern evolutionary biology. William Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information attempted such a proof, but this proof fails, and Dembski's LCCSI is no longer discussed by proponents of Intelligent Design, except in occasional mistaken assertions that such a law has been proven in a form that shows that high levels of fitness cannot be achieved from lower ones. 3. By contrast, the ASC algorithmic complexity measure is argued to have proofs that can be made that, in effect, constrain how large a "randomness deficiency" can be achieved; in effect, how simple an algorithm can be achieved. Those purported proofs are disputed, with counterexamples provided by Tom English. 4. Nevertheless, it has become common to argue that the alleged conservation of ASC shows that there are limits on what evolution can do. Holloway, Uncommon Descent, and the Discovery Institute's website Mind Matters have all bought into this. 5. However, the connection to evolution is lacking. There is actually no explanation as what the short computer program is computing. Is the issue how simple an algorithm is needed to compute a binary string which represents the genome? It is not hard to imagine a binary string which has one pair of bits for each base in the genome. Is it that binary string that is being computed? Or is the issue how simple an algorithm is needed to compute a detailed description of the individual's phenotype? This uncertainty has not been addressed at all in the ASC arguments about evolving systems, rendering those arguments even more meaningless. 6. If, as I argue, there is no correlation between high ASC and high fitness, then natural selection will not tend to bring about high values of ASC (hence simpler descriptions of whatever-it-is that is being described), because there will be no fitness reward for doing so. Observing organisms that are well-adapted, we can be reasonably sure that they have high Specified Information, where the specification is fitness. But we have no reason to believe that they have high ASC. In finding that they have high fitness, that they are in some sense well-adapted, we have not observed anything that is relevant to how simple or how non-simple are any descriptions of their genotypes or phenotypes. 7. We may conclude that even if ASC of organisms could somehow be defined, and even if some limit on its change could somehow be proven, the non-increase of ASC would not establish any limits on what natural selection can do to improve fitness.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
"I cross posted" SA, We both saw that rotten banana right away. ;) Andrewasauber
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson I did. Click the word “link” in my comment. Here is a direct link to one article Professor Felsenstein lists
Not the link , quote the argument here ...if you know it of course. I'm very curious to (finally )find the answer about how in the world functional information emerge naturally.Sandy
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Andrew - I cross posted and you said it much better than I did. :)Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
FH
Due to selection, and with enough time, small changes can accumulate in populations to result in a large total amount of change. There’s no barrier.
I added emphasis to your comment. Behe's argument has to do with "waiting time" for mutations. But your last sentence really is the evolutionist's claim. They're not going to try to figure out a limit to what evolution supposedly does. It has to be capable of anything - including events that would require more than the age of the universe to be performed. Yes, miracles can happen.Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
"and with enough time, small changes can accumulate in populations to result in a large total amount of change" FH, How much time is enough time? Whatever it takes? lol What is a large amount of change? A lot? lol This is a joke. Andrewasauber
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
“Behe’s Edge of Evolution is wrong”. Ok, then what is the correct boundary of what evolution can produce? Answer: as above.
The difference between micro and macro evolution is artificial. Due to selection, and with enough time, small changes can accumulate in populations to result in a large total amount of change. There's no barrier.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
That’s a common tactic. “Dembski’s definition of CSI is wrong”. Ok, what’s the correct definition then? Darwinist wisdom has a ready-made answer: “We don’t know”.
The point Felsenstein makes is that Dembski's definition excludes selection.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
ET writes:
Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck.
I certainly don't. Selection is the designing element. It is not random but biased.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Sandy asks:
Why didn’t you post the quote of the argument ?
I did. Click the word "link" in my comment. Here is a direct link to one article Professor Felsenstein lists.
If is true then you could be a millionaire and a Nobel winner.
I doubt that.Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Again: How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. An Intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were so designed with the ability and information to evolve and adapt. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we infer they also produced its diversity. The bottom line is Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. And that means to falsify ID all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce the coded information processing systems that rule living organisms. To test ID all we need to do is find what is listed in 1 and 2.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
seversky:
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. However, Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.
It deliberately refrains from identifying the Designer or offering any hypothesis concerning its nature. It does not offer any hypothesis of how the designer accomplished its designs. Yet all of those issues are proper subjects of scientific inquiry if that is the purpose.
Clueless. ID is about the DESIGN. Only fools think that ID has to say something about the designer. Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observations of designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any determination about the designer or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Joe Felsenstein doesn't know anything about ID's concepts.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
That's a common tactic. "Dembski's definition of CSI is wrong". Ok, what's the correct definition then? Darwinist wisdom has a ready-made answer: "We don't know". Or another one: "Behe's Edge of Evolution is wrong". Ok, then what is the correct boundary of what evolution can produce? Answer: as above. Interesting how they can insist they know the origin of every life form on earth starting from the first bacteria. I never heard an evolutionist say "we don't know" when it comes to their theory which is "more certain than gravity" and which is was affirmed "there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory". But then IDists try to get some specifics on what the theory is saying, and suddenly "nobody knows".Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson Joe Felsenstein has addressed issue
:) Why didn't you post the quote of the argument ?If is true then you could be a millionaire and a Nobel winner. :lol:Sandy
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
You can’t test ID and falsify it by showing some other theory (evolutionary theory) can’t account for something.
If a blind, unintelligent effect could account for the origin of the thing observed, then the ID inference would be falsified. That's a basic test. We can show the intelligence can produce the effect. All you have to do is show the a blind, unintelligent action can produce it. That's what evolution has to show. That's what materialist origin of life has to show. You don't just get to make a claim without demonstrating it. Again, ID can demonstrate that intelligence is a cause that can produce the effect.Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
DogDoc
I’m simply pointing out that this “intelligent designer” that ID talks about must either be a complex physical organisms or not.
I'll just repeat. You're saying "you don't know" - and that means, a physical entity could be the cause of the physical universe. It also means that a blind, unintelligent effect could be the cause of first life and the development of all life. That's what "I don't know means". You then attack ID on the basis of your ignorance of ... everything. I have to turn the challenge to you. "I don't know because unintelligent causes we observe". That's your claim. Now you just need to demonstrate it.
Ah, very good, yes!
That's another way of saying, "Yes, I was mistaken about that and I built an entire argument on a false premise".
You just wrote five sentences explaining to me that everyone knows what the term “intelligence” means in the context of ID.
Yes, and instead of responding to what I said, you replied with sophistry and the pretense that you don't know what an intelligent cause is versus a blind, unintelligent natural cause.Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus writes: Any significant case of observing FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity without design would shatter the design inference. Joe Felsenstein has addressed issue in several venus and on several occasions. A recent comment of his:
(5 December 2019) Eric Holloway and others have been arguing that conservation theorems for Kolmogorov mutual information justified William Dembski's argument that Complex Specified Information cannot be achieved by natural selection. I have argued that this is wrong. Algorithmic Specified Complexity, put forward by Ewert, Marks, and Dembski, addresses how much unusually simple the description of a bitstring is. This has nothing to do with fitness or the achievement of adaptation. Dembski's CSI is at least defined in terms of adaptedness, but the whole Algorithmic Specified Complexity literature does not make any connection to fitness. I argue its total irrelevancy to what evolution can or cannot do.
linkFred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Your comment at 69 is very helpful, Jerry. Are you sure yours is a consensus view among ID proponents?Fred Hickson
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
I saw a volcano spitting a Tesla. I'm sending this message while driving that Tesla. The battery is full. Imbelievable. These things happen all the time in nature if blind forces made people that are more complex than a Tesla why volcanoes shouldn't do the same? PS: Who don't believes that it's science denier exactly like those who don't believe in the fact of evolution.Sandy
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
FH, start here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ and look at the Resources tab. Any significant case of observing FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity without design would shatter the design inference. You will see infinite monkeys theorem tests. KFkairosfocus
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Although if anyone else can supply that information, I’d be interested to hear it
It doesn’t exist. That’s not what ID is about. Originally some wanted to find some mathematical applications that would logically show ID was valid. I believe some are still pursuing it. ID is a set of conclusions that the origin of some phenomena is best explained by an intelligent intervention. There are a very few phenomena that ID addresses. One of the ways that this is done is to show that these phenomena are probabilistically impossible by the forces of physics. I frequently say that ID is Science+ and by that I mean ID accepts all valid science conclusions but adds to science in certain limited areas where the study has no explanation for its findings. A typical science project has four parts: Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions/Discussion. For some studies there are no valid conclusions. For some of these where appropriate, ID will suggest that some intelligence is the best explanation.jerry
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply