Interesting....

ExOrienteLux · Oct 29, 2004

I make no judgements one way or the other on this, but I think this story would be of interest to the folks in this forum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346939/?GT1=5472

Have a field day, folks.

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 29, 2004

I'm sure the creationists will leap on the rather sensationalist talk of "rewriting human evolution" and "smashing established models" and so on, but actually it's little more than an additional paragraph in the story.

They will do this to mask the fact that this creature should not exist at all under creationist models.

owen_rocks · Oct 29, 2004

Probably just an ancient midget.

Wonder what evolutionists would think if they dug up a distant relative
of Tom Thumb?

http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/searchlm.php?function=find&exhibit=thumb&browse=thumb

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 29, 2004

A midget with a brain/body ratio the same as a chimpanzee, not a human.

This is not a midget.

Vance · Oct 29, 2004

Very interesting creature. Features of both apes and modern humans, but not either. Some definite ape-like features, but walked upright and lived very much like early humans, using tools, cooking their food and hunting in groups. Just like Neandertal in that it co-existed with humans for a while, but seems to be from a branch of the tree much further back (homo erectus), extending forward to almost our own time.

Nothing contrary to the theory of evolution, but actually supporting it by providing yet another example of a hominid that is not human. Entirely unexpected, though, who would have thought that an isolated species of hominid existed cut-off from the rest of the world.

United · Oct 30, 2004

Interestingly enough they believe the specimen evolved from a full sized homo erectus (ie it shrunk over many generations). So far, the only justification I have read is that it parallels a migit elephant also found on the islands (which is believed to have evolved from the larger variety). I'm guessing the arugument is that it didn't have any competition & the shrinking part was purely by chance. However, it was apparently around for a hell of a long time - it doesn't say much for natural selection. Any thoughts?

versastyle · Oct 30, 2004

If this animal/human got to Australia it means it was pretty intelligent. I mean.... building a raft to sail across the Indian Ocean would be quite a feat for a monkey.

grmorton · Oct 31, 2004

Vance said:
Very interesting creature. Features of both apes and modern humans, but not either. Some definite ape-like features, but walked upright and lived very much like early humans, using tools, cooking their food and hunting in groups. Just like Neandertal in that it co-existed with humans for a while, but seems to be from a branch of the tree much further back (homo erectus), extending forward to almost our own time.

Nothing contrary to the theory of evolution, but actually supporting it by providing yet another example of a hominid that is not human. Entirely unexpected, though, who would have thought that an isolated species of hominid existed cut-off from the rest of the world.

Knee jerk reactions. Why don't people actually read the article upon which this report is based before deciding what it means?

This creature is not ape-like and does not have ape-like qualities. This creature made stone tools, attached them to spears, they made and controlled fire, and according to legends about him(he may have lived until the 1500s) he had a language but no humans spoke it. His anatomy would seem to verify that because the base of his skull is curved in a way that is required for speech (our basal cranium is curved as well.

The creature is clearly a descendant of H. erectus, which makes us a sister species to it because we also descended from H. erectus, but we didn't descend from them or they from us.
There are lots of ways this guy resembles H. erectus. No, he isn't exactly like him but one shouldn't expect that.

The article in Nature clearly says: "Indices of cranial shape closely follow the pattern in H. erectus" P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1056

"In common with Asian, and some African, H. erectus a deep fissure separates the mastoid process from the petrous crest of the tympanic." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1057

"There are bilaterally double mental foramina, with the posterior foramina smaller and located more inferiorly. Double mental foramina are common in Indonesian H. erectus." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1058

In posterior view the parietal contour is similar to H. erectus but with reduced cranial height P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1056

The endinion is positioned 12mm inferior to the inion, which is within the range of H. erectus

and Australopithecus. P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1057

Bilaterally there is a recess between the tympanic plate and the entoglenoid pyramid. These two traits are not seen in modern humans, and show varied levels of development in Asian and African H. erectus and Pliocene hominins. P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1057

"The inferior surface of the petrous pyramid has numerous similarities with Zhoukoudian H. erectus, with a smooth tubular external surface as in chimpanzees, and a constricted foramen lacerum." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1057

"The brain mass for LB1, calculated from its volume26, is 433.2 g; this gives an encephalization quotient (EQ)27 range of 2.54.6, which compares with 5.88.1 for

H. sapiens, 3.34.4 for H. erectus/ergaster and 3.64.3 for H. habilis, and overlaps with the australopithecine range of variation." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1060

There is an amazing implication for the theological views when it comes to fossil man. H. floresiensis
appears to be a direct descendant of H. erecutus. While H. sapiens is also a direct descendant of H. erectus, we are both sister species. Yet, it appears that both species engage in the same kind of behavior--making fire, making stone tools, and even speech. The implication of this for apologetics and the way we Christians treat the hominids must change. Here is why.

Alan Turing presented his Turing test to determine whether or not an artificially intelligent computer had been created. The test is this:. If normal humans interacting with the computer can't tell the difference between the responses of a computer and the responses of another human, then the computer must be considered to be intelligent. This is a behavioral definition of AI. But this type of test also applies to the current situation. The only way we have of determining who is spiritually aware and who isn't is based upon their behavior. While we can't definitely claim that the Liang Bua people had a religion, in all other respects they seem to have behaved like us. And there in lies the problem.

We have a four choices as I see it (there may be others).

1. Acknowledge that since both us and the Liang Bua people do the same thing, that our common ancestor (H. erectus) was also spiritually aware and thus move Adam way back in time.
2. Claim that the Liang Bua people are just fancy animals, which means that we ignore their tool making, their means of hunting, the hafting of stone points on wooden spears, use of fire and the likelihood of language
3. Take Dick Fischer's view that Adam was a late representative of humanity and was tested for all of us.
4. Claim that the Scripture simply isn't historically valuable (which seems to be a popular view on this list).

Number 1 goes against the tide of Christian apologetical thought where it comes to humanity being recent and allows in human evolution. But the data seems, to me at least, to support this viewpoint.

Number 2 seems almost racist. There is probably a very very small possibility that we actually might find these people someday in some isolated jungle valley. Surely we can't treat them as animals should that day arrive.

Number 3 now would have to be modified to allow a Neolithic Adam represent an entirely different genetic line.

Number 4 seems to me to border on driving one away from Christianity. I know lots of atheists who simply say they don't beleive the Bible because it isn't historically true. It is hard to argue against their logic, imo.

The problems and issues raised by these fossils could easily have been anticipated (indeed was at least within the framework of my views). But too many Christians, want to have nice compact little answers that ignore huge amounts of observational data. Until Christians begin to deal with the data, and then build theories which can be tested against observation, we will always be the south end of a north bound bull when it comes to dealing with reality.

herev · Oct 31, 2004

the main thing it shows to me is that we TE's view evolution as a theory, and thus, still an open book, we don't presume to know all the hows and all the whens, but we recognize that the more we discover about the earth from the earth, the closer we get to to real history

gluadys · Nov 1, 2004

United said:
Interestingly enough they believe the specimen evolved from a full sized homo erectus (ie it shrunk over many generations). So far, the only justification I have read is that it parallels a migit elephant also found on the islands (which is believed to have evolved from the larger variety). I'm guessing the arugument is that it didn't have any competition & the shrinking part was purely by chance. However, it was apparently around for a hell of a long time - it doesn't say much for natural selection. Any thoughts?

Actually, it does say something for natural selection. It takes a lot of energy to maintain a larger body. That means a lot of food to be found. On a small isolated island, it can be advantageous to have a smaller body to use the limited resources more effectively. Especially if one doesn't have to defend oneself from larger predators.

So, the reduction in size need not have been mere chance, but the effect of natural selection.

United · Nov 1, 2004

gluadys said:
Actually, it does say something for natural selection. It takes a lot of energy to maintain a larger body. That means a lot of food to be found. On a small isolated island, it can be advantageous to have a smaller body to use the limited resources more effectively. Especially if one doesn't have to defend oneself from larger predators.

So, the reduction in size need not have been mere chance, but the effect of natural selection.

Hi Gluadys,

Thanks for the response. This topic identifies one of the issues I have with natural selection as the primary evolutionary mechanism. It can be used to argue almost any possible position, even though the resulting theory may be highly improbable. In the above case, it would be far more logical to argue that a small isolated island would result in less food (due to the limited availability even amongst humanoids), more competition and a far higher probability of larger humanoids.

TwinCrier · Nov 1, 2004

Millennia ago, Flores was a kind of a looking-glass world, a real-life Middle-earth inhabited by a menagerie of fantastical creatures like giant tortoises, elephants as small as ponies and rats as big as hunting dogs.
It even had a dragon, ...

Tolkien is probably turning over in his grave. But it does my heart good to hear this coming from such scholarly educated scientists. I'm sure it will not fluster our TE friends one bit. Ahh, the wisdom of men.

TwinCrier · Nov 1, 2004

statrei · Nov 1, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
I'm sure the creationists will leap on the rather sensationalist talk of "rewriting human evolution" and "smashing established models" and so on, but actually it's little more than an additional paragraph in the story.

They will do this to mask the fact that this creature should not exist at all under creationist models.

I don't know what creationist models are but it is false to assume that whatever they are they adequately represent what actually happened in creation.

Gold Dragon · Nov 1, 2004

TwinCrier said:
*

I like the pic and it is often accurate.

The only problem is that the bible doesn't give insights on how to interpret fossils while Darwin and evolutionary theory does.

herev · Nov 1, 2004

TwinCrier said:
*

I don't like the pic, it suggests (at least in this forum) that TE's have a lower respect for the Bible than creationists and I think TC has been told that is not the case repeatedly

TwinCrier · Nov 1, 2004

Darwin and evolutionary theory doesn't give insights on how to interpret God's word while the Holy Spirit does.

statrei · Nov 1, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Darwin and evolutionary theory doesn't give insights on how to interpret God's word while the Holy Spirit does.

I'm not certain exactly what this is leading to. Is the assumption that the Holy Spirit had no influence on Darwin's work?

Gold Dragon · Nov 1, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Darwin and evolutionary theory doesn't give insights on how to interpret God's word while the Holy Spirit does.

Of course not. But evolutionary theory should be used to interpret origins data like fossils, not the bible. The bible also talks about origins but I wouldn't use evolutionary theory to interpret what those verses in the bible are talking about.

The Holy Spirit and dilligent bible study reveal the poetic nature of the origins story in Genesis, independent of evolutionary theory.

statrei · Nov 1, 2004

Gold Dragon said:
Of course not. But evolutionary theory should be used to interpret origins data like fossils, not the bible. The bible also talks about origins but I wouldn't use evolutionary theory to interpret what those verses in the bible are talking about.

The Holy Spirit and dilligent bible study reveal the poetic nature of the origins story in Genesis, independent of evolutionary theory.

I don't know what all that means. However, it seems to me that it is dangerous to continue on the assumption that evolutionary theory is valid without acknowledging the fact that according to evolutionary theory evolution could not have happened. As I said in another post, evolution works at the population level. It requires a large population. (This is not an abiogenesis question).

Interesting....

The thread killer

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Active Member

hopeless guide

Senior Member

CL--you are missed!

Legend

Active Member

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

CL--you are missed!

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency