Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Viewer warning! on the Naledi find


File:A small cup of coffee.JPG First, the sensible stuff:

From BioLogic Institute’s  Ann Gauger Homo naledi as Spin Detector:

In reading the coverage of Homo naledi, as the species is called now, it seems clear to me that the spin put on the actual bones depends on the assumptions of the writers. What do I mean? Bones can only tell us so much. The rest is a matter of interpretation, and one’s point of view inevitably tends to color that interpretation.

Let me give two examples:

The first example is how writers interpret skull size. H. naledi had a small brain compared to ours, about the size of a chimpanzee’s. To some writers that seems to indicate the probable lack of high levels of cognition. Only species with brain sizes near our own are considered intelligent. The data used to support that claim are (a) our current knowledge of chimp and gorilla brain sizes, and their lack of rational, abstract thought; and (b) the claim that a gradual progression in brain size exists from australopiths to Homo erectus to Neanderthals to us, indicating a gradual progression in intelligence, which fits the evolutionary story.

There are two problems with these interpretations. First, modern humans exhibit a range in brain sizes, and those differences do not correlate with intelligence. The fossil skulls of Homo erectus, the earliest fossil judged to be “human,” exhibit a range in skull size also (but see Casey Luskin’s post on Homo habilis). Second, if we were to judge intelligence based on brain size, Neanderthals would be smarter than us since their average brain sizes were more than average human brain sizes. Maybe they were smarter? – More.

Okay, now the viewer warning: The US election season is upon us. That means Bimbette from Airhead TV is joining Bimbo from Dumbo TV to persuade low information voters that some candidate plans to stop all teaching of Darwin in the schools.

No surprise: Darwin in the schools is good news for fourth rate union science teachers who never keep up, but are reliable low information voters.

It might be good if some assembly actually did stop the teaching of Darwin the schools. That is, if you look at recent stories like: Human evolution: “Taxonomic and undefinable mess.” Some people would have to start keeping up.

But a good thing only IF it forces a serious look when all else fails. Fortunately, most people who are concerned are not asking politicians to get involved. These kinds of problems are better handled in camera, provided they are handled at all.

Darwinism is simply a source of funded corruption in science now. Funded corruption tends to last longer and be more damaging.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

goodusername Well apes look so much like people that it must be on the traits of difference that we decide what bag of bones is human or ape. All YEC/ID can do is question why THEY say its a human or ape or intermediate. I say the females are best bet. Only our women have birthing pains for anatomical reasons. Ape females do not. So this is a clue if they have a fe,ale bone selection. Comparative anatomy is not very doog evidence at all when making relationships. the past and gone results and processes are not in the bones anymore then in the rocks. Its just lines of reasoning from some presumptions. Robert Byers
One of the fun things about discoveries like this is to keep score among the Creationists and ID proponents on whether the fossil “just an ape” or “fully human” (the one thing, of course, they agree on is that it’s not intermediate). While not definitive, this OP looks like a point for the “fully human” side. goodusername
Good thread. AMEN. bones only say what bones say. It is interpretation, always wrong, in drawing conclusions from bones to bones about heritage where important evolution was needed. Brains are not evidence of smarts . AMEN. our souls are the smarts. Anyways I suspect also the spectrum in present brain/skull sizes in people , surely not relevant to smarts, would be greater then these old apes. Robert Byers
"Bimbette from Airhead TV is joining Bimbo from Dumbo TV" I have 2 daughters and a 1 granddaughter (so far, hoping for more). The English term for the talking heads on TV is "news READER". Both male and female "newscasters" simply read scripts written for them by off-screen Leftists. The days when any person reading "news" on TV was anything like a newspaper "reporter" ended back in the '60s, man. Some of the people (male & female) who get to do opinion pieces or participate in panel discussions are probably still "reporters", who pound the streets looking for actual "sources". But even the "anchors" for a "news" show are simply Readers. So, it diminishes your case by opening your appeal to logic by insulting ALL women in broadcasting, and apparently ALL women on the planet. For example, is Ann Coulter a "bimbo" or a "bimbette"? The problem is that in MANY fields (including Military Affairs) the News Readers have NO UNDERSTANDING of the field into which the scripted news falls. And so they blithely roll tape of an armored personnel carrier clanking down a dusty road and call it a "tank". So the fact that a News Reader, whose degree is in Communications or perhaps English, has absolutely ZERO personal knowledge of chemistry, physics, astronomy, or biology is one of the reasons they got the job as a READER in the first place: they will NEVER contradict on-air a script passed to them from the producers. mahuna
"The data used to support that claim are (a) our current knowledge of chimp and gorilla brain ..) Chimp comparisons are getting on my nerves. Makes me want to fling a poop. ppolish
Andre as to:
Anybody that still believe or advocate unguided Darwinian evolution as true, or as science deserves to be institutionalised.
But alas the deserving inmates are in many cases running the schools, (i.e. Coyne, Moran, and Myers, etc..) and spreading their delusions further still. Moreover, as far as I still know, if anyone openly opposes them in academia they are dealt with harshly. Enforced perpetual insanity in some (most?) of our schools if you will.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
Moreover, many times Darwinists also try very hard to enforce censorship outside the classroom:
How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLSwVRdNes Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe - September 22, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/id-theorist-mike-behe-was-refused-a-response-in-microbe/ The Letter that Science Refused to Publish - November 8, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin's Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest. See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/the_letter_that078871.html
Supplemental notes;
While Ranting about "Quote Mining" in "Creationists Texts," Paper in Scientific Journal Misquotes and Misrepresents Pro-ID Article - Casey Luskin - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: These following two articles, (published by people with backgrounds in the field of rhetoric, writing in journals dedicated to studying science communication), discuss how evolutionists seek to marginalize dissenters with ridicule and incendiary rhetoric, rather than meeting us head-on with arguments and evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/while_ranting_a094851.html Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities, - Inna Kouper - 2010 http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901%282010%29A02 Keeping the Rhetoric Orthodox: Forum Control in Science, - Dale L. Sullivan, - 2009 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10572250009364690#.VRsCPeHcBCB
Anybody that still believe or advocate unguided Darwinian evolution as true, or as science deserves to be institutionalised. Here goes; 1. DNA has a complex integrity checker 2. DNA has very elaborate repair mechanisms. 3. DNA has error correcting systems 4. DNA has multiple self destructs when the repair and integrity checks have failed. 5 When the integrity checks themselves are compromised the system shuts down completely. There is absolutely no way that such a system could ever in principle build itself amd them improve itself over time. Not in an infinite amount of universes is this even possible. Therefor unguided Darwinian evolution is false. Andre

Leave a Reply