Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The claim that Flores man is a separate human species is being revived again.

The Liang Bua 1 (LB1) cranium, shown in right side view. (Credit: Photo courtesy of P. Brown)

The claim that Flores man is a separate human species is being revived again.


Ever since the discovery of the remains in 2003, scientists have been debating whether Homo floresiensis represents a distinct Homo species, possibly originating from a dwarfed island Homo erectus population, or a pathological modern human. The small size of its brain has been argued to result from a number of diseases, most importantly from the condition known as microcephaly.

Based on the analysis of 3-D landmark data from skull surfaces, scientists from Stony Brook University New York, the Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen, and the University of Minnesota provide compelling support for the hypothesis that Homo floresiensis was a distinct Homo species.

Given that even fabled Neanderthal man is probably not much of a separate human species any more, you’d think … oh, wait. The basic problem is that Darwinism needs separate human species in a way that no other widely accepted theory of human origins does.

So, guess they’ll just have to keep inventing them.

But there IS progress. At least this isn’t a fraud, like Piltdown Man.

See also: Missing link still missing

Also: When you “find” him, lose him again, will you?

Elizabeth Liddle:
Does ID need it not to be a separate humans species?
Unlike Darwinism, ID is not about something people need to be true. Define "separate human species." The phrase is nonsensical. Mung
wd400, I want to apologize for saying 'you are a fool' as that was too harsh and mean. But I will stick by the much more subdued observation that I hold you to be gullible in what you accept as proof for ‘The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science’. You simply have are no where near that level of proof! bornagain77
Well wd400 don't you find it the least bit suspicious that you can't even show me how a single gene or protein was arrived at by Darwinian processes in the first place and that now you want to claim that genes, which you can't even explain the origination of, prove that 'humans are apes'. Moreover, as I'm sure you are well aware, the gene studies of Darwinists are notorious for 'cherry picking', i.e. assuming their conclusion, in the way they collect data so as to match what they believe beforehand. It is all a crock wd400 and you are a fool to swallow it hook, line, and sinker! bornagain77
BA, That's the number of genes that are homologous to a human gene. Not the number of shared-differences in nucleotides. wd400
I wonder what the odds are that kangaroos and humans would also share significant portions of their genomes, or do odds only count when they support your position and not count when they go against your position: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals "Junk DNA" Surprise - 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html And many other studies I can list that contradict evolutionary expectations in the same manner, but the main point being wd400 is that you have absolutely nothing solid within science (mathematical, empirical, or otherwise) that you can point to to support your grossly exaggerated claim that ‘The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science’. That statement is patently false and you are either lying when you say it or you are severely deluded as to what constitutes rigid proof for a particular hypothesis within science. bornagain77
Little john, [citation neeeded] BA, You can compare the odds of getting all the shared-differences humans and chimps have when compared to other genomes if not by common descent. It's as astronomical as any of the other numbers you mentioned here. I don't why you are going on about bacteria, to be honest. wd400
wd400 you claimed that 'The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science’ And I showed that that claim was false by showing that other theories of science are validated to stunning degrees of accuracy, yet Darwinism has no validation to any mathematical standard. In fact I showed you that Darwinian evolution has no mathematical basis in which to make accurate predictions with in the first place. I also showed you that insofar as math can be applied to Darwinian evolution through population genetics it falsifies Darwinian claims for how humans originated. Shoot wd400, I pointed out that you can’t even show me where one bacteria was transformed into another bacteria, much less an ape into a human. Yet you claimed that 'The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science’. I don't know which one wd400, but you are either lying through your teeth or you are completely insane if you think 'humans are apes' has any kind of rigid scientific basis, because without a mathematical basis, or even a empirical basis for the grandiose claims you are making you are certainly not operating within science but are operating within a faith based position with no actual support within hard science!. bornagain77
wd400 The so-called evidence that humans 'nest' with African apes (or any other animal for that matter), is based on models built on the presupposition that humans are descendants of apes. As such, the models are not conceived in such a way to allow for any other possible outcome, and any degree of similarity or difference that is used to distinguish between one kind and another is arbitrary and ambiguous, especially without having most of the ancestors present to compare objectively. So, the results and conclusions are predetermined by the model builders to confirm a fore-gone conclusion; and, although it is certainly possible that humans are related to apes, establishing that conclusion as a fact is not possible with the evidence at hand, and any such proclamation is unscientific and faith based. littlejohn
There you go with the spam again. Humans are apes, the evidence for this is so overwhelming many IDers accept it. Although the morphological and fossil eviedence would be enough to establish this fact by itself, DNA sequences provided difinitive prove we nest within the African Ape clade. I'm sure you'll now feel compelled to rip off 12 links to people that don't know how to calculate sequence homology, or think 98% is a magical number that evolutionists (sorry, "Darwinians" need to prove who are cousins are, or perhaps a write up on the gorilla genome from someone that doesn't get incomplete lineage sorting... wd400
wd400 you claim: "The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science," Oh Really? Please do tell. I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever demonstrating that Darwinian processes can generate a single molecular machine much less change a ape into a human. Whereas Quantum Mechanics and gravity are tested towards something like 13 of 14 decimal places of accuracy: "On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) Shoot it seems no one can even find a mathematical basis in Darwinism in which to make accurate predictions with: Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859." … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ "For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician Interestingly math, insofar as math is able to be applied to Darwinism through population genetics, it falsifies Darwinism: Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle - "Haldane's Ratchet" - Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford - 2013 Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage. Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as "Haldane's Dilemma" is very real. Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet". http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=46 Shoot wd400, you can't even show me where one bacteria was transformed into another bacteria, much less an ape into a human: Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 So wd400 why did you say that 'The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science' when that is certainly not the case? i.e. did you purposely lie to me or are you really that gullible to believe that? bornagain77
Well, you'll be amazed to learn BA, that I reject premise of that question. In this case we are talking about the origin of modern humans. The fact that we descend from apes is as well attested as anything science, so I really don't know what you are going on about. wd400
my question to you wd400 is ‘why do you so dogmatically defend a theory that has such an abject poverty of evidence supporting its claims and which has become synonymous with deception?’ It seems that a reasonable person would step back and take notice of such a thing. Why not you? bornagain77
wd400, I know you are enamored with all things Darwinian I'm actually quite un-Darwinian, as far as evolutionary biologists go. As you know, I don't read the link-spam. If you have a simple point to make, or a question to ask, please try and do that in your own words. wd400
wd400, I know you are enamored with all things Darwinian and probably have a shrine built to Darwin for all I know, but this quote of yours,,
But that’s not how evolution works.
has me scratching my head. I've asked Darwinists for years for an example of Darwinism 'working'. As in asking for just one example of a single molecular machine arising from scratch, and have NEVER been presented with or seen in the literature an actual demonstration of Darwinism working at all to produce a molecular machine. What I have seen is a lot of deception from Darwinists trying to sell snake oil instead of hard science that Darwinism can do what is claimed of it. For example:
“The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Thus my question to you wd400 is 'why do you so dogmatically defend a theory that has such an abject poverty of evidence supporting its claims and which has become synonymous with deception?' It seems that a reasonable person would step back and take notice of such a thing. Why not you? Further notes on the fossil record:
Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001) Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? - Casey Luskin - July 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying "a nice clean example" of "gradualistic evolutionary change," the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/human_origins_a_1061771.html Later Hominins: The Australopithecine Gap - Casey Luskin - August 2012 Excerpt: Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello, who served as head of the anthropology department at University College London, states that when it comes to locomotion, "australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn't just in the brain." The "something major" that occurred was the abrupt appearance of the human body plan -- without direct evolutionary precursors in the fossil record. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/later_hominins_062891.html “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246. (emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History) "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) First “Hobbits”, Now Pygmies? Excerpt: "INDONESIAN scientists have found a community of Pygmy people on the eastern island of Flores, near a village where Australian scientists discovered a dwarf-sized skeleton last year and declared it a new human species, a newspaper says. This latest discovery will likely raise more controversy over the finding of homo floresiensis." http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/05/first-hobbits-now-pygmies.html “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),
The 'artistic license' taken by Darwinists in their 'reconstruction' of the parade of apes in their march to man is just plain fraudulent:
Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." "National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow." “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140
One can see that fraudulent 'artistic license' for human evolution being played out on the following site.
10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013 http://listverse.com/2013/03/18/10-transitional-ancestors-of-human-evolution/
Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists' reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were. ,,, Yet, despite the fraudulent nature of these reconstructions, this is what is continually impressed upon the public's imagination although it is, in the words of Henry Gee, editor of Nature, complete nonsense.,, Here is a much more apt depiction of man in the grand scheme of things than those deceptive march of apes cartoons:
The Vitruvian Man - Leonardo da Vinci - Drawing https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg/441px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg "Speaking as one who has examined the original Vitruvian Man drawing, I can say that Leonardo was looking for a numerical design scheme that informs the proportions of the human body. The drawing began as an illustration from Vitruvius’ book, De Architectura where Vitruvius justifies the use of the square and circle as design elements because those shapes are integral to the human body: a man’s height is equal to his width (with arms outstretched) as a square, and a circle drawn with the navel as center and feet as radius is coincident with the hands’ reach. Leonardo also notes the other proportional relationships from Vitruvius such as the head height measures to the whole as well as the arms and hand sections. Leonardo then continued measuring (from the evidence of pin point indentations made by walking dividers, especially along the left vertical edge) to find more proportional relationships. He would take a measure of a part of the figure with the dividers and walk that measure along the height to see if the measure would fit an even number of times. From this drawing and others where Leonardo was working on the same type of problem it is evident that Leonardo believed there was a something like a unified field theory of design where everything in nature was related by numerical and geometrical design systems. He was one of the original ID thinkers." - Dr. Ford Of note: The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci c. 1487. It is the one commonly associated with the science of physiology
Verse and Music:
John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Mary Mary - Shackles - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=K77WKWNX
tjguy. Well, yeah, butit's kind of obivious that there isn't a minutely mapped out path from ape to us among the fossils we have - otherwise why would there be competing theories! The point about hating the "march of progress" and the way people depict human origins is precisely that it makes people think the only interesting fossils are those few that are ancestral to us. But that's not how evolution works. We can learn about our origins by sudying all human species, and mapping their traits and their relationships. Of course, no one thinkgs the "hobbits" are ancestral to modern humans, which makes O'Leary's take on this all the stranger. wd400
Here are the papers that question whether homo floresiensis is a separate species:
"We hypothesize that these individuals are myxoedematous endemic (ME) cretins, part of an inland population of (mostly unaffected) Homo sapiens. We show that the fossils display many signs of congenital hypothyroidism, including enlarged pituitary fossa, and that distinctive primitive features of LB1 such as the double rooted lower premolar and the primitive wrist morphology are consistent with the hypothesis. We find that the null hypothesis (that LB1 is not a cretin) is rejected by the pituitary fossa size of LB1, and by multivariate analyses of cranial measures. We show that critical environmental factors were potentially present on Flores, how remains of cretins but not of unaffected individuals could be preserved in caves, and that extant oral traditions may provide a record of cretinism." Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?, Proc. R. Soc. B, 2008
Here we examine cretin postcrania to see if they show anatomical mosaics like H. floresiensis. We find that hypothyroid cretins [having thyroid issues] share at least 10 postcranial features with Homo floresiensis and unaffected humans not found in apes (or australopithecines when materials permit).... Sixteen features can be rendered metrically and multivariate analyses demonstrate that H. floresiensis co-locates with cretins, both being markedly separate from humans and chimpanzees. We therefore conclude that LB1 and LB6, at least, are, most likely, endemic cretins from a population of unaffected Homo sapiens. This is consistent with recent hypothyroid endemic cretinism throughout Indonesia, including the nearby island of Bali. <a href="Here we examine cretin postcrania to see if they show anatomical mosaics like H. floresiensis. We find that hypothyroid cretins [having thyroid issues] share at least 10 postcranial features with Homo floresiensis and unaffected humans not found in apes (or australopithecines when materials permit).... Sixteen features can be rendered metrically and multivariate analyses demonstrate that H. floresiensis co-locates with cretins, both being markedly separate from humans and chimpanzees. We therefore conclude that LB1 and LB6, at least, are, most likely, endemic cretins from a population of unaffected Homo sapiens. This is consistent with recent hypothyroid endemic cretinism throughout Indonesia, including the nearby island of Bali." Post-cranial skeletons of hypothyroid cretins show a similar anatomical mosaic as Homo floresiensis, PLoS ONE, 2010
Note that both have the same three authors, including the well known Charles Oxnard. I also haven't read these papers, or the newest one mentioned above. JoeCoder
These evolutionists need to take a deep breath or a time-out session, read some literature on phenotypic plasticity, and stop jumping to wild conclusion based on slightly altered fossil morphologies. This is a great introduction to PP, and explains how commonplace such phenomena is, and how the exact same species of animal can exhibit extremely varied phenotypes based on different environmental conditions. "What is Phenotypic Plasticity and Why is it important?" http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs/whitman-and-agrawal-2009-Ch_1-Phenotypic-Plasticity-of-Insects.pdf One can only wonder how many times the fossils of creatures of the same genotype living in different terrains or climates have been chalked up to some "radiation" of different species due to morphological variation. lifepsy
Wd400, you only got half the point. Wood have some very interesting advice as well as some revealing admissions about ape to man claims. He said to take most new claims with skepticism. He said that human origins are still quite muddled and that it is a very difficult job to piece it all together. So at least this evolutionist thinks that it is no where near as clear as we are led to believe. You seem to have missed the best part of the article. Gotta love it when evolutionists themselves make your point for you. Sure, he still believes it, but at least he admits the evidence is hard to pin down and is unclear. tjguy
First the clue is to examine the females. if they show they would of had pain at childbirth because of their skeleton's ability to deliver the kid then its a human. Only female people have this unique skeleton issue that gives pain at childbirth. i remember when they said Australian natives were another species of mankind because of looks and dumbness as they perceived it. They dropped that theory these days. Again brain size is invoked for smartness. Who said that brain size is a indicator for smarts. evolutionism only says this. Why don't they do it today for the different races and sexes , anmd go public, if they think thats true. Do ID people think its true about brain size?? YEC don't because its only our soul that thinks. No brains need be involved. Robert Byers
Wouldn’t really matter much
Wouldn't matter to "Darwinists" either. Clearly the flores were closely related to us. The more evidence we get, the better chance we will have of finding out just how close. Elizabeth B Liddle
tjguy, Yes, that figure absolutely did not happen, and in fact the person who drew it knew that to be the case and wasn't trying to illustrate a lineage. The "march of progress", as the figure is called, is almost universally hated by people who study human origins. Google should point you toward critiques of the diagram that are based on what we actually know about human origins (rather than the weird interjections at CMI) wd400
I'm sorry, news, you'r really going to have to tell me who reporting on this study is an example of "Darwin's deplorable culture". This is science. People propose explanations, then they test them. In the case, the evidence is very much for H. floresiensis being a distinct species. What's deplorable about that? wd400
There is an excellent article called "Icon Illusion" on the CMI'S website where two prominent evolutionists claim the famed chimp to man graphic illustration is an illusion. Not that they don't believe it didn't happen, but that the graphic is totally misleading. They claim that human origins are notoriously hard to pin down and end by telling people to take new pronouncement a with a grain of salt. Bernard Wood was one of them. Worth a read! http://creation.mobi/a/6450 tjguy
Wouldn't really matter much. But the pop science media on these subjects speak volumes about Darwin's deplorable culture, and that matters to some of us. News
Does ID need it not to be a separate humans species? Elizabeth B Liddle
I'm sorry, no one thinks they "were just small". In fact, the problem the few people who think they were sick have is trying to argue why sick modern humans would have skeletal characters that mimic other extinct human species. It's not a matter of "needing" other human species. There are plenty of them, the hard part is working out how they relate to each other. wd400
Others think they were just small. But let's face it, some need other human species, others don't. Svente Paabo is right; there are more paleontologists in the world than important fossils. Until that changes, Darwin's men will tell whatever stories they need to tell, to pop science writers. News
No. Some people have argued the skeletons where sick modern humans, but it's never been the accepted (or even particularly well supported) position. The neanderthal genome is utterly irrelevant to the question of Homo floresiensis, and hasn't done what you think it has to neanderthals either. wd400
It's been under fire for some time, actually. The Neanderthal genome didn't help. News
The basic problem is that Darwinism needs separate human species in a way that no other widely accepted theory of human origins does. I'm sorry, what are the other "widely accepted theories of human origins"? You don't mean scientific theories, surely? FWIW, the claim isn't being "revived", as it was never discarded. This just tips the evidence further. wd400

Leave a Reply