• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How many sorts of humans are there?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maccie

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2004
1,227
114
NW England, UK
✟1,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would be very interested to hear the views of Creationists on the following news item:-

Scientists have discovered a new and tiny species of human that lived in Indonesia at the same time our own ancestors were colonising the world.

The 18,000-year-old specimen, known as Liang Bua 1 or LB1, has been assigned to a new species called Homo floresiensis. It had long arms and a skull the size of a large grapefruit.


This has been reported in reliable and reputable newspapers and TV news. The reporting on this, which was first written up in "Nature" is not a hoax.
 

NamesAreHardToPick

All That You Can Leave Behind
Oct 7, 2004
1,202
120
✟24,443.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
If you are interested in hearing our side, here it is. If you are trying to start a debate, you'll get reported quickly.

Maccie said:
Scientists have discovered a new and tiny species of human that lived in Indonesia at the same time our own ancestors were colonising the world.


There are so many hypotheticals in that statement it's unreal.

The 18,000-year-old specimen, known as Liang Bua 1 or LB1, has been assigned to a new species called Homo floresiensis.

1 Specimen? It could have been a midget or just a dwarf, but the evolutionists are already saying that it's a missing link. What skepticism! :rolleyes:

Any time someone says an age for a fossil or for the age of the earth, either Creationist or Evolutionist, they are using uniformitarianism as their basis. Without it, the age of the earth is a question.

It had long arms and a skull the size of a large grapefruit.


Uhh, so? What percentage of this fossil was found? Most "missing links" they only find a very low percentage of and then paint it the way they want.

Or as Collin Patterson says:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’ The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.


Why I can respect Patterson is because he was skeptical, what I cannot respect about many scientists is that they are in love with their theory, rather than actually applying skepticism. Evolution cannot and will never stand the test of skepticism.



This has been reported in reliable and reputable newspapers and TV news. The reporting on this, which was first written up in "Nature" is not a hoax.
This is nonsense. How long was Piltdown Man considered to be a legit fossil? Try 40 years. I could list hundreds of examples where evolutionists have falsely portrayed things, but Jonathan Wells does it so much better in his book.

Evolutionists have NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO evidence that has stood the test of time. Everything has been debunked of theirs, so they must rely on the "newest evidence" to have their sorry theory.
 
Upvote 0

NamesAreHardToPick

All That You Can Leave Behind
Oct 7, 2004
1,202
120
✟24,443.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Soggy dwarf bones

An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans

by Carl Wieland, Australia

28 October 2004

Homo floresiensis. That’s the scientific name given to skeletal remains just discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores.1 The name implies that they belong to a different species from people living today, Homo sapiens.

The researchers found the skull and part of the rest of the skeleton of what might be a female, plus at least a tooth from another individual. From preliminary reports, this relative of ours (a term used in some of the articles on the find) was only about one metre (3’4”) tall!

There is every reason to believe that assigning a separate species name is not justified at all. These remains, despite their smallness, give every indication of humanity. The site gives evidence of the controlled use of fire, and shows that they made sophisticated stone tools. There is evidence that they hunted the pygmy elephants on the same island. And of course, the question arises of how they reached the island. It would suggest that these people or their ancestors had substantial seafaring skills.
Interestingly, the bones, found in a cave, were apparently not fossilized (mineralized), and due to the damp climate had the consistency of ‘wet blotting paper’. One would think that given this, long-agers would themselves get a bit wary about the ages assigned to them. (The youngest ‘date’ for the bones themselves is said to be 18,000 years, ranging to more than 38,000, though stone tools have been ‘dated’ such as to indicate that the date of occupation of their settlement ranged back to 800,000 years ago).

The remains have many features strikingly similar to Homo erectus, which we have also long maintained is really just a variety of Homo sapiens. The researchers who discovered the Flores bones apparently think that they are dwarfed descendants of Homo erectus. We would agree.

‘Progressive creationists’ who follow the teachings of Hugh Ross would seem to be in a dilemma. If they admit that these individuals were humans, i.e., descendants of Adam, they would have to reject the hundreds of thousands of years in the above datings of tools. They have shown themselves unwilling to accept the humanity of Homo erectus (see Skull wars: new ‘Homo erectus’ skull in Ethiopia and the response to a critic), presumably because the whole reason for long-age ‘reinterpretations’ of the Bible depends upon the supposed validity of secular dating methods. And having rejected erectus as human, it might be embarrassing to hold a contrary position on such miniature versions of erectus.

If, however, these specimens are to be written off in the usual Rossist approach as ‘soulless non-humans that look a bit like humans’, it raises the awkward question of non-humans doing all those things mentioned, that only humans do today.2 It seems much simpler and more consistent to accept that these were descendants of Adam, part of the post-Babel dispersion.

So how do they happen to be so diminutive? We have written much about natural selection and adaptation as non-evolutionary realities (see Q&A: Natural Selection). The same forces and genetic pressures can apply to human populations. Islands have long been known as places where special adaptive pressures are rife. For example, the loss of wings in birds and beetles, detrimental elsewhere, becomes an advantage on a small windswept island where to fly means risking being blown out to sea (see Beetle bloopers: Even a defect can be an advantage sometimes).

There are also many instances of mammals becoming a dwarf or pygmy variety on islands. A classic example is the 1-metre high fossil elephants on Sicily and Malta—and indeed, the pygmy elephants these dwarf humans hunted! These may well have arisen because places with limited resources favour the transmission of already-existing genes which consume less of those resources—e.g., the genes for ‘smallness’.

Even a mutational stunting, like some hereditary instances of dwarfism today, might be favoured in such a situation and come to dominate a population. Such losses of information, and genetic shifts based on existing genes, are of course not evidence for ‘goo-to-you’ evolution, which relies on the continual appearance of creative genetic novelty. Stunting of humans, and shuffling/culling groups of genes by selection, gives no evidence of such a process.

Small brains, big achievements

The brain of ‘Flores Man’ (or should that be Flores Woman?) was significantly smaller than that of modern humans, even when their body size is taken into account. But interestingly, some of the tools appear to be so sophisticated that even some evolutionists are speculating that perhaps modern humans ‘dropped in’ to the island and left them behind! It reminds us of the fact that brain size and intelligence do not correlate well. Less likely, but possible, is that the ancestors of Flores Man not only made the sea journey to this island, but made the more sophisticated tools, and generations later we are seeing their mutationally degenerate offspring.

Conclusion

In short, the discovery is exciting and interesting. Evolutionists are surprised and astonished by it. However, they will doubtless find ways to fit it into their ever-flexible evolutionary framework, even using it to reinforce evolutionary notions. The Flores discovery fits very nicely into a biblical view of history. But it seems somewhat awkward, to put it mildly, for those who attempt to marry the millions of years and the Bible (see also Refuting Compromise ch. 9).3

Finally, the quite unfossilized, fragile condition of these bones should raise serious doubts in thoughtful people about the whole long-age framework. For more on this, see Q&A: Radiometric Dating and Q&A: Young Age Evidence.

Addendum

Some very short modern people:

According to the Guiness Book of Records website, the shortest-ever actress in a lead role was America’s Tamara de Treaux, who was 77 cm (2 ft 7 in) tall as an adult. Normally proportioned, she played ET in Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster. The Filipino paratrooper and black-belt martial arts exponent Weng Wang, who also starred in films and performs all his own stunts, measures just 83 cm (2 ft 9 in) tall. The shortest married couple were the Brazilian pair Douglas da Silva and Claudia Rocha. When they married in 1998, they were 90 cm (35 in) and 93 cm (36 in) respectively.

NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human. They are those of a (miniature) Homo erectus, a variant of the modern type, but within the human kind (see also How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?). Like the evolutionist anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and his allies, who are also aware of the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens, we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens. The human kind/species had a greater range of variation than exhibited today.
Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1028dwarf.asp
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What we are looking at here is most likely a human dem (kind of like a race) that was subject to the enviromental presssures as the elephants and other creatures that lived in the region. They used tools that they fashioned themselves, used fire to cook their food and most likely seafarers at one point. Apes and chimps simply don't do this.

Don't let the size of the skull throw you there are people in our day and age that are remarkably simular to these little people.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. I wonder if this forum couldn't use a thread that discusses the hominid fossils from a creationist perspective. :idea:
 
Upvote 0

Beowulf

Active Member
Sep 6, 2004
301
18
Midvale, Utah
✟526.00
Faith
Non-Denom
mark kennedy said:
P.S. I wonder if this forum couldn't use a thread that discusses the hominid fossils from a creationist perspective. :idea:

/Lady
But, I'm just not feeling all that well doc.

/Doc
Well, we ran the tests. Nothing showed up.

/Lady
But I just have no energy. I can't sleep and I have no appetite.

/Doc
Look lady, are you a doctor?

/Lady
well, no.

/Doc
We ran the tests. Want to look at the results and explain to me why you're sick?

/Lady
But I'm not a doctor.

/Doc
Then there's nothing wrong with you.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.