Another species of “hominin” still alive?

_{News
April 21, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design

2}_{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

ET, good to see you, trust you are okay. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc: You can’t test ID and falsify it by showing some other theory (evolutionary theory) can’t account for something. Exactly.Fred Hickson_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes: For example, I never said ID was a theory and never connected evolutionary theory to origin of life. Glad you make that clear. I'll stop asking you to tell me what the Intelligent Design hypothesis amounts to and how it might be tested scientifically. Although if anyone else can supply that information, I'd be interested to hear it.Fred Hickson_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

SA: Of course I already know that ID doesn't specify a disembodied intelligence. I never said it did! It "leaves the option open". That's fine, I understand your motivation (wink). I'm simply pointing out that this "intelligent designer" that ID talks about must either be a complex physical organisms or not. (That's not a controversial statement, it's just the law of the excluded middle). And so we can consider both cases. In the case where ID's hypothesis refers to something without a complex physical body but still displays intelligence, then it refers to something that does not exist in our experience. And in the other case, where the Intelligent Designer is just another complex life form, then ID becomes just another theory like panspermia where life comes from ETs. There is no other option.
The fact that humans designed them [computers] means their cause was not deterministic.
Eh? First you seem to be assuming metaphyscial libertarianism, which is not a scientific fact. Second, we're talking about intelligent designers, and not the designers of intelligent designers.
You stated: “All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception.” That was refuted.
Ah, very good, yes! You included AI as something that displays intelligence. I am so glad you did :-)
You bounced off of that, without much reflection on your mistake, and went running in a different direction. In the end, you’re taking one fall-back position. “We don’t know.”
No, I have never changed my position of course. Nobody knows how the universe, or life, began. I couldn't be more clear.
The source of the intelligence in such systems cannot be deterministic, mechanism.
I have explained this to you multiple times. Pay attention: 1) At least some AI systems are capable of intelligent behaviors (you have already agreed about this) 2) All AI systems are deterministic 3) Therefore at least some deterministic systems are capable of intelligent behaviors In order to avoid this conclusion (which is fatal to ID), you insist on changing the subject, and talking about how the system came to exist. That is a different question. It doesn't matter how the AI system originated, the system itself is both deterministic and intelligent. Period. Again, one could (and people have) use the same tactic against ID, asking "Who designed the designer?" ID rightly rejects that as an argument against it, but then you try the same tactic against my argument. Just think of it this way: Let's say we have an AI system - it is intelligent. How did that arise? Maybe it was written by another AI system (there are of course AI systems that write programs). And how about that one? Well, maybe it was written by yet another AI system. Maybe it's just AI systems all the way down. You want to deny that - you want to claim that there is some magic in there somewhere, some res cogitans, some libertarian free will, something that isn't just mechanism. Well, you can believe what you want, but there isn't an iota of scientific thought or evidence to back you up.
The term “intelligence” is well understood in this context. Darwin knew what it was. Dawkins knows. All the anti-ID writers knows what is meant by intelligent design vs unintelligent cause. That’s the entire basis of the materialist system.
You just wrote five sentences explaining to me that everyone knows what the term "intelligence" means in the context of ID. It would have been easier for you to simply provide the definition :-)
Nobody knows. But it does not stop science from proposing inferences to reasonable explanations that are accepted by a consensus. Scientists don’t say “Nobody knows so it could be hot or cold”.
This is confused. Science proposes hypotheses, once confirmed they are theories that remain provisionally accepted as further research supports or disconfirms them. If there is no testable hypothesis, and no empirical confirmation, then there is no consensus, no scientific result at all. There are plenty of things that science just doesn't know. * How does general anesthesia work? * Why do we sleep? * What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for conscious experience? * How does turbulence work? * Is the number of protons in the universe even or odd? * What is Dark Matter? * How did the universe come to exist? * How did life first arise? Some things, we just don't know.
ID can be tested and falsified.
This is confused. You can't test ID and falsify it by showing some other theory (evolutionary theory) can't account for something. There is nothing that is inconsistent with ID, because ID refuses to define "intelligence" in a way that can be tested (in other words, there is nothing that "intelligence" in theory can't do). So ID can not be falsified.dogdoc_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Trumper
In response to all the “I don’t know” response supporters….that is not necessarily a dishonest response….. at best it is just an intellectually lazy response.
You're funny. I have been studying my entire life - religion, philosophy, physics, computer science. I have been fascinated by questions of ontology, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and origins for decades. What I think now is the result of countless hours of contemplation and analysis. Of course you may disagree with me, but it's pretty lazy of you to pass off my views as the result of intellectual laziness. I have said here I believe nobody knows the answers to the question of origins of the universe and of life, and questions of speciation. I also believe nobody knows if the number of protons in the universe is even or odd. Do you have a belief about that? No? What are you, an intellectually lazy agnostic?dogdoc_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Evolution attempts to explain the origin of all life forms beginning from the first (bacteria). Within that massive claim is the origin of morality, rational thought, spiritual awareness, consciousness and every human characteristic. Well, I'll agree that evolution assumes the existence of self-replicating entities. It does not however explain nor attempt to explain their origin. Be that as it may, I'm still not aware of an ID alternative.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. 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. The theory of evolution does not address the question of the origins of life - that was never Darwin's intention - but it does provide an explanation of how life diversified after it had appeared. What has been observed of life thus far is arguably consistent with the theory.Seversky_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
And can I point out again that evolutionary theory says nothing about life’s origin.
1. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution 2. 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 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Fred
Let’s agree that evolutionary theory is at best a very incomplete explanation for the diversity of life. I hope we also agree that it is all it is intended to explain. (Not life’s origin, not why the universe, not morality.)
Evolution attempts to explain the origin of all life forms beginning from the first (bacteria). Within that massive claim is the origin of morality, rational thought, spiritual awareness, consciousness and every human characteristic. Yes, it does not speak of the origin of the first life or of the universe. But I don't think we can minimize what evolution attempts to explain. Every life form has to come from the first for the single reason that the entire diversity of life (oak trees, dolphins, spiders, falcons, cheetahs, elephants and Mozart) was required for survival and reproduction. Bacteria, supposedly, had a hard time finding nutrition and they couldn't reproduce well enough - so they had to diversify. That's the theory in blunt language. But even still, ID is just saying that some of that diversity could not have been caused by blind, unintelligent causes. That which is irreducibly complex, or that which would require two or more simultaneous mutations - are outside of the sphere of probability (see Behe's "Waiting time for two mutations").
What I’m not clear on is whether there is any alternative mechanism for the observation that life on Earth is diverse yet related.
Intelligent design is the mechanism proposed by ID. Again, returning to Mozart: What is the mechanism Mozart used to create an entire symphony in his mind before he wrote it on paper? It's immaterial thought. The symphony was not a bunch of notes written on the gray-matter of his brain or stored on a physical hard-drive of consciousness. He designed the music in an immaterial manner. That's the alternative mechanism to mutations and selection.
I’m also unclear about what you mean by “intelligence”. In common usage, it refers to a property of sentient beings, usually humans, involving the ability to perform complex tasks. It’s a property that organisms possess to a greater or lesser extent. It’s hard to define, let alone measure.
Intelligent design refers to a purposeful action emerging from a decision-process and rational thought. Was Stonehenge a product of intelligence or not? We know what that question means. Was Martin Luther King killed by a deliberate (intelligent) cause or was it an accident (non-intelligent cause)?Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

FH, try current OP here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

And can I point out again that evolutionary theory says nothing about life's origin.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Jerry, you could just either tell me what the theory of ID is or concede there isn't yet a positive scientific theory of ID. No need to repeat that ID is an argument against evolutionary theory.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

I’m less clear about ID. I get that it is an argument against evolutionary theory
No. It’s an argument that there exist no good evidence for the origin of certain things. Given that there is no likely explanation for certain origins, it recognizes that these origins could be explained by an intelligence. So the possible explanations for certain origins are an unidentified natural process or an unknown intervention by some intelligence that is unknown. ID has examined all the known natural processes and accepts nearly all findings incorporating them except for a few instances where these process are apparently unable to account for some origins. In terms of evolutionary theory, the term micro evolution is often used. ID has no problem with what is referred to as micro evolution. It’s the origins of proteins and coordinated biological systems that involves often the simultaneous appearances of thousands of specific proteins that have no likely origin. Already irrelevant comments after this have been written. For example, I never said ID was a theory and never connected evolutionary theory to origin of life.
you could just either tell me what the theory of ID is or concede there isn’t yet a positive scientific theory of ID.

And can I point out again that evolutionary theory says nothing about life’s origin.
jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

I'm also unclear about what you mean by "intelligence". In common usage, it refers to a property of sentient beings, usually humans, involving the ability to perform complex tasks. It's a property that organisms possess to a greater or lesser extent. It's hard to define, let alone measure.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

SA Let's agree that evolutionary theory is at best a very incomplete explanation for the diversity of life. I hope we also agree that it is all it is intended to explain. (Not life's origin, not why the universe, not morality.) I'm less clear about ID. I get that it is an argument against evolutionary theory. What I'm not clear on is whether there is any alternative mechanism for the observation that life on Earth is diverse yet related.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

FH
So has a positive, testable, scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design finally been proposed?
ID is an inferential science of origins. In that, it is historical science. Darwin's friends cannot take the history of life on earth into the lab for testing. But, for some reason, we consider Darwinism a scientific theory. ID proposes, for example, that the first DNA code could only have been produced by an intelligent cause and not by blind, random nature. We can create and mimic similar code by use of intelligence. You or anyone can falsify the ID proposal. Just show us your results using a blind, unintelligent process. You can produce some functional code through a random character generator? Nice work - you have falsified the ID proposal. That is, if and when you can produce such code. Failing that, the ID inference stands. You're free to accept or reject it at this point. Rejecting it means choosing another inference in preference to ID. The "I don't know" solution means that you think blind, unintelligent matter can produce functional code. But again, we need you to show us the evidence for that. I can produce the code through an intelligent source. What can you do with an unintelligent source? If you can't do anything, then you've got the best inference available for you right here with ID.Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes: I responded with the fine tuning of the universe that points to a creator. Well, it's a reasonable idea that creation requires a creator. I wonder if we, the fruits of that creation, have the ability to understand or postulate on the methodology. We certainly have plenty of imagination.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

@ Silver Asiatic, So has a positive, testable, scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design finally been proposed?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

In response to all the “I don’t know” response supporters
This all started when Dogdoc made a snarky comment about the reference to elves, fairies in the OP about a supposedly hidden hominid. He brought up gods, angels, devils etc. I responded with the fine tuning of the universe that points to a creator. He then failed to address what I brought up and made a ludicrous comment. I responded later this was dishonest and off we went. Since then the comments have taken lots of turns. Right now it’s on probability. Who knows where it will end up. It has become a farce. But that is nothing new.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Trumper Good points. It can be very convenient to claim ignorance about the topic. Having to make a decision and accept the strong evidence can be troubling. So, the door is closed on that. The idea that there is a designer carries responsibility for further investigation. It's a lot easier to just say "nobody knows" and that way it does not have to be investigated. At the same time, if the answer really was "we don't know", then it would be legitimate to discuss various possible solutions. The same people who said they "don't know" also made it illegal to discuss ID in schools as one possible answer. So, it's really "our solutions don't work so we don't know what to do about it - but it's definitely not ID".Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, I find the "fine tuning" argument unconvincing. We have a sample of one. The idea that universes can be constructed with alternative values for various parameters is speculation without evidential support.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Jerry, all I can see in that comment are links to YouTube.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Where was that, Jerry
#35 I believe you referred to this comment in an earlier comment.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

In response to all the "I don't know" response supporters.... I fully get it... maybe one does not know ... and yeah....that is not necessarily a dishonest response..... at best it is just an intellectually lazy response. ... I have a few 'agnostic' friends that just don't want to engage intellectually and they try to just leave it at "I don't know".... I suppose they feel good at not wanting to know... but an example should expose this as just lazy thinking... suppose one gets pulled over and is cited for driving 20 over in a posted speed zone.... I guess the common response could be ' I didn't know'... and legitimately so... the person likely did not know...and did not pay attention... but we are all on this road of life... and one can believe what they wish to as to it's start and it's destination... it would be wise to pay better attention to the signs that are scientifically posted along the way instead of just claiming 'I don't know' .... maybe the more pressing question then to pose to those 'I don't know-ers' ...is what is more likely? Then if 'I don't know' follows... it just becomes a known echo of the ignorant agenda.Trumper_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes: Both were provided. Where was that, Jerry?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes, not to me: I find it funny that you are trying to discredit the ID argument based on irrelevant probability questions posed to me. I'd still like clarification on what the ID argument is, beyond evolutionary theory probably is wrong or insufficient. There's no alternative theory, is there?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

what is the probability that you would be alive today?
Almost infinitely higher compared to the fine tuning of the universe. I find it funny that you are trying to discredit the ID argument based on irrelevant probability questions posed to me.
Do you have a link or reference to this math?
Both were provided.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes: That you proposed this means you haven’t a clue about ID. They have done the math. Not to me so apologies for bufting in. Do you have a link or reference to this math? And math can't be relied on when it comes to reality. Bumble bees fly despite mathematical proofs to the contrary.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

@JHolo Post #18 that is a fascinating speculation... hmmmmTrumper_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next