Slashdot Mirror
Hobbit Is A New Species
Migraineman writes "Over the last year or so, archaeologists in Indonesia unearthed skulls and bones from eight proto-humanoids. Critics have claimed the meter-tall specimens were either pygmies or "aberrant individuals with a pathological condition" like microcephaly. A recent article in Science[subscription] rebuffs the critics, and claims that the specimens are actually a new species - Homo floresiensis. There's a summary article over at Nature."
Obviously, this is the skull of Frodo or Bilbo (or maybe Sam), and Indonesia is where Valinor once existed. That's why they were so far from England.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Because nobody notices scientific discoveries when the topic isn't hot.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So in that way of dealing with things, even when you find the 'missing link' (which has already occurred), people start asking you about the missing link between that 'missing link' and humans. You find the missing link between the 'missing link' and humans, and you'll be asked for a new missing link. By seeking the fossil record to be a continuum, only an infinite number of missing links will satisfactory as a 'missing link'.
it makes you look like unscientific amateurs.
Yes, scientists are far too serious to give something such a frivolous name.
And yet you still think that some guy who wrote about god creating the earth in seven days is more right than the scientific community? Now, given, the scientific community can be categorically wrong at times, but the people who brought you "creationism" are the exact same people who brought you the belief that the world is flat, and they are also the same people that told you to kill your neighbor if he works on the sabbath.
After all, scientists are never wrong about this sort of thing..
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Some portions of the Bible address specific cultures and societies. Also, I missed the verse that said the world is flat... oh well! I don't trust the historical accuracy of the Bible, and my views on Creation are not directly based on it. I do trust the guy who told me "love your neighbor as yourself", and who has supported me throughout my life.
The thing that makes these little guys amazing, if it all pans out, is the apparent preservation of advanced tool making and using abilities even as their brains became smaller. If this all stands up to scrutiny, it means the book on brain size and how it effects abilities may have to be rewritten, which could have a major influence on how we understand on our own evolution from the common ancestor with Flores Man.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't think that particular explanation of what is a valid point is going to fly or even make much sense to those who you're trying to discount.
That's the whole problem, isn't it?
So first of all, you already have your mind made up, and then second of all, you pull up an article and act as if it's some sort of counterargument.
This sort of relationship is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Bananas and humans are far more closely related than the truly ancient groups of life like bacteria. They have been around significantly longer than any multicellular organisms.
What you have invoked is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Worse, you don't even seem to understand the basic tenets of the theory, so that what is in fact a key prediction of the theory verified by observation is translated by you, somehow, to be an argument against it.
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that is incompatible with this religious belief. Biblical literalism is not the sum and total of Christianity, and is itself a very young notion. Worse, it simply does not fit with the natural world we observe, and to insist upon a literal reading of Genesis makes the book look utterly absurd.
Evolution has been observed. The theory makes key predictions about what we'll find when we look into the genomes of different organisms. If these do not appear as predicted, then evolution will be overthrown. Unfortunately, for the Biblical literalist, the evidence keeps confirming the predictions.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species. It's not a "strawman" and is hardly and invention of creationists. A species capable of breeding with both (1) humans and (2) some breed of ape would fully satisfy the definition of a missing-link (between man and ape).
As for punctuated equilibrium, you are going down a whole nother path. First of all, Darwinism, as expressed by Darwin himself, predicts a smooth (ish) transition. Many scientists still maintain that this is how the fossil record would look if it were just more complete. Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records, but it is still a contested model for evolution in its various forms because not everyone agrees on how the geologic evidence should be interpreted.
There is plenty of shared ground to be found between creationists and evolutionists in regards to modern critiques of Darwinian evolution. But there are many other theories of evolution besides the straight-Darwinian model. So, inconclusion, don't mindlessly charge into an argument just because you think the otherside is "a sham."
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
And even if Stalin and Hitler were Darwinists, and even if Darwin was a serial killing child rapist, can you explain where the actual argument against evolution is? This is nothing more than a classic logical fallacy, the hope being that if you invoke big bad dudes that somehow a scientific theory will collapse. It's nothing more than dishonest debating tactic, and rather reflects upon any claim that you or the guys at Answers to Genesis are really very Christian at all.
Oh, and evolutionary theory != atheism. Evolution, like all sciences, has nothing to say on the existence of god(s).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Either this is an inadequate definition, or biologists really aren't all that interested in rigor. By this definition we ought to consider Canis chihuahuaensis and Canis lupocanishibernensis different species, but both Mexican Shorthairs and Irish Wolfhounds are Canis domestica even though they obviously can't interbreed on their own. (And why would anyone want to help the process along?)
And the brethren went away edified.
I am not at all convinced that Hitler accepted evolution, at least actual evolutionary theory. He had the idea of breeding people, but eugenics was hardly a new idea, and certainly was around before Darwin's time. Other than some tapes of questionable legitimacy, all accounts indicate that Hitler thought of himself as a Christian. Evolutionary theory has no notion of "better" or "worse", which was a central tenet of Hitler's racist beliefs. Those ideas, sadly, have deep roots, and to blame them on a theory that didn't even exist until the middle of the 19th century is completely inaccurate. (I'll not you've now backed right away from the claims about Stalin, which were so obviously false that I would have to question the depth of the knowledge of the individual making the claim) As to evolutionary theory, it is simply that, a theory. It's rather like saying General Relativity is wrong because people made atomic bombs using aspects of the theory. As to Creationism, it's scientifically worthless. You don't need bogeymen to show that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are English units of measurements named "Jack" (3/4 pint) and "Jill" (1/4 pint). In computing, half a byte is a nibble. (A really bad pun.) Physics has "sausage instabilities". I won't comment on the fact that Americium is highly unstable. Maths has the "Butterfly Effect" and irrational numbers.
Science is cluttered with anthromorphic personifications, plays on words, jokes, puns, brain-twisters and conundrums. It's interesting that the brightest of the bright are notorious for skipping class and having fun, and that those who listen to deadly-dull teachers loath and detest science. Personally, I think that it shows there's a serious flaw in the system.
Anyways, to get back on topic, if someone wants to call these people after a fictional species (which is descriptive but rather useless), how is that any different from the old biological technique of looking at a plant or animal and calling it the latin name of the first thing they see?
Sure, "yellow spots" tells you something. It tells you that you can't use that name to distinguish it from any other object in existance with yellow spots.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't hold the ancient peoples of any place in the world at fault for their beliefs on this matter. They merely came up with the best explanations that they could based on the evidence they had. It's the idea of Biblical literalism, which forces its adherents to basically toss out any actual data that violates what clearly are, in literal form, ludicrous ideas.
The ancient Hebrews can be forgiven their ignorance. Modern Biblical literalists cannot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That makes no sense at all, why would God create either imperfect animals (I.E. those that would need to evolve to better suit their environment), or give his creations the ability to develop into something he did not intend through diversification? Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? I'm not saying its fact, but wouldn't it be much simpler to say that all life diversified from a single genetic strain rather than adding the complexity of an unknowable god into all of this?
You kinda remind me of Ptolemy, developing a needlessly complex theory becuase you are unwilling to bend from your preconcived notions even when you realize something else must be going on. You are halfway there, intelligent enough to realize that speciecs must be evolving and changing, but at the same time unwilling to give up you pre-existing belief that god must have created life, and at an already complex stage to boot.(Note I am not ruling out the fact that some being created that original strain, at least not in this post)
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
Evolutionary theory has no notion of "better" or "worse"
Huh. I thought "Survival of the fittest" was a basic concept of Evoloutionary theory. The organisims with mutations "best" suited to their environment prosper. These mutations become more common and the species "Evolves".
As to Creationism, it's scientifically worthless.
That's true to a point. It's difficult to prove creation, we haven't been able to create anything in controlled setting and no one was there to observe Creation (or whatever happened) so Creationism is "scientifically" worthless.
OTOH, macro-evolution is almost as worthless for the same reasons. Obviously micro-evolution exists and is reproducable in the laboratory, but to jump from the conclusion that to the idea that every living thing came from amoeba is a huge jump. Again, we can't recreate it, the only evidence we have is a fossil record that is at the very least incomplete and difficult to authenticate and no one has been around long enough to see the process in action. The primary reason that Evolutionary Theory is so widely accepted is because the only other idea that fits the facts is Creationism and many people will reject that because it requires belief in some kind of "Supreme Being".
I think everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, my biggest annoyance with the whole Evolution vs. Creation argument is that there is no definitive way to prove it - at least not definitive enough for me. As you said, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity can be applied to create an atomic bomb, but Evolutionary Theory cannot be applied to show macro-evolution.
Personally my feeling is it's a really stupid thing to argue about. Present the facts, let people draw their conclusions, but don't present this idea of life coming out of some primordial ooze as fact if you can't prove it.
Find coupons in Greeley
And religion has *never* been used as an excuse for atrocities.
Oh wait...
- 9/11
- The Crusades
- The Inquisition
etc.
Why? When I tell my 8 year old why the sky is blue, I don't go into quantum theory to explain why shorter wavelengths are scattered more than longer wavelengths of light.
The writings in Daniel were designed to show God's blessings upon Israel, not get sidetracked in a discussion on celestial mechanics. Medieval monks may have debates on irrelevancies like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
You forgot to add: to my finite brain which is completely incapable of comprehending the intent and purpose of a being vastly more intelligent than myself.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Thats a complete assumption, you assume that a god would be more intelligent than us, but if he designed is in him image wouldn't we have that same intelligence and just not have reached our full potential yet? Also you infer that if there were a creator, he would have done so for a purpose, is it not possible that we are an experiment, or a recreational activity or some such thing without a specific intent?
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
I've been wondering how plant and animal breeding is not an example of macro-evolution.
t m Heike Crab which evolved a human face.
Wild strawberries are primarily for birds to eat and generally have a stronger and bitter taste compared to domesticated strawberries, their size is smaller concentrating the seeds on a smaller surface area. Only in the past 500 years or so have strawberries been domesticated to the way we now buy them in stores. Is this not an example of evolution? The plant has (been) adapted to prosper under different conditions.
I think in the strawberries case most of the intermediate plants were not kept, maybe records of them have been. But, if people don't keep their in-betweens why would nature? And I doubt that if you did search for in-betweens in this case it would be very easy to find them. Just like it being difficult to find fossils of plants and animals from even further back in time.
An interesting page that I read in the past which shows another and better written example is Carl Sagans' http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sctien/samurai_crabs.h
Ahhh, but you ignore the fact that Christianity is exactly the same.
No, Christianity is not the same, in fact it's the opposite. The Christian Bible teaches love, tolerance, acceptance ("turn the other cheek", "Love your neighbor", etc..) but Christians, over the centurys have twisted their faith to do bad things. Men can do evil things, and sometimes misguidedly blame Christianity, but the true faith is one of love, peace and charity.
Find coupons in Greeley