The evolutionary world has been going gaga recently over a new fossil find. From
Nature we read,
It sounds too incredible to be true, but this is not a hoax. A species of tiny human has been discovered, which lived on the remote Indonesian island of Flores just 18,000 years ago.
Researchers have so far unearthed remains from eight individuals who were just one metre tall, with grapefruit-sized skulls. These astonishing little people, nicknamed 'hobbits', made tools, hunted tiny elephants and lived at the same time as modern humans who were colonizing the area.
Why all the fuss? Well, the unique distinctiveness of modern humans, while blatantly evident, is virtually impossible to explain in evolutionary terms. Combine that distinctiveness with the relatively recent appearance of modern humans - what is sometimes referred to as the
Mind's Big Bang - and what you end up with is evidence for the Biblical account of mankind's origin. So finding an evolutionary relative, contemporary with modern humans, is cause for naturalistic celebration.
One should note that when the folks at Nature say
a species of tiny human, they aren't referring to a bunch of jockeys itching to ride the Triple Crown. Evolutionists will sometimes use the term "human" to refer to bipedal primates as far back as
Australopithecus,
or at least as far back as
Homo ergaster.
Rendering of
Homo floresiensis from
National Geographic.
Flores So-Called Man, according to the article, is considered to be an offshoot of
Homo erectus. If you'll note, in the following diagram, that
Homo floresiensis is at the tail end of a sliver spiking upwards from
Homo erectus.
No mention is made that, at present, there is no fossil evidence connecting the two.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of modern human uniqueness, evolutionists continue their quest for any shred of evidence that indicates humanity is not so special afterall. Henry Gee, in a Nature column titled,
Flores, God and Cryptozoology, concludes with,
Until now. If it turns out that the diversity of human beings was always high, remained high until very recently and might not be entirely extinguished, we are entitled to question the security of some of our deepest beliefs. Will the real image of God please stand up? (emphasis added)
The evolutionary biologists are drooling over the apparent fact* that
Homo floresiensis had "tools" 18,000 years ago, yet they seem to ignore the fact that
Homo sapiens explored art some 30,000 years ago.
What is it about that
Homo sapiens species that causes it to be so concerned with the abstract?
Further reference:
The Leap to Two Feet
RTB Response to: Up From The Apes
* the National Geographic article states,
The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools. There was no indication that the tools were found with the
Homo floresiensis fossils.
4 comments:
Paul,
You're probably not surprised that I completely disagree with you on this. I've heard the attempts to explain human distinctiveness away through naturalistic means and, in my opinion, they're all grasping at straws. Go rent PBS' Evolution series and closely watch The Mind's Big Bang episode. Listen to Steven Pinker describe how the changes in the human brain were immensely complex - upwards of a 100 billion nerve cells and 100 trillion connections - and isn't it fascinating how evolution wired this stuff to support evolution? [ed. note - missing is 'how' evolution could do such a thing] Or listen to the episode How Does Evolution Work and Geoffrey Miller posit that the complex human brain evolved through a guidance that "wasn't God," but through natural selection based on mate selection. [ed. note - Miller provides us with no evidence that his theory is correct, much less evidence to conclude that the guidance "wasn't God."]
These are but two examples of evolutionary explanations that assume the phenomenon arrived through natural means in spite of having no means to demonstrate it as such. I stand by my opinion that the evolutionary community has no clue as to how human distinctiveness arose.
By the Biblical account of mankind's origin, in the context of my comment, I mean that mankind arrived on the scene relatively recently (within the past 50,000 years) and that mankind is uniquely distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom (i.e., the qualities of the Image of God as posited by the Bible).
Paul,
Glad to have turned you on to the Evolution series. It was a very well produced piece of naturalistic propaganda. ;^)
I'm well aware of the way evolutionary scenarios are posited. However, to posit that a mechanism could perform a certain function is inherently different from demonstrating that the mechanism is capable of performing the function. So simply because connections in the brain are controlled by natural processes does not warrant the extrapolation that such processes, over long periods of time, can produce the complex brain that homo sapiens possess.
I wasn't claiming that humans didn't start artistic expression until 30,000 years ago, just that the particular example I showed was dated in that range. I'll have to check on the earliest artistic expression found among modern humans, but I believe it is around 40,000 years ago. If humans were created 50,000 years ago then we would expect artistic expression at that time as well. Keep in mind that Old Earth creationists put the creation of Adam and Eve anywhere from 10,000 to 60,000 years ago. Note also that the "complex" artistic techniques displayed were not due to technical knowledge but to artistic expression - an abstract quality.
Regarding erectus to floresiensis, I would expect much more than a 2 million year, half size gap. Extrapolations tend to be made based on philosophical bias rather than actual empirical data.
Hello Joseph,
Your argument regarding Middle Age mentality sounds eerily like the chronological snobbery that C. S. Lewis wrote about. I have a desperate need to believe in something because our culture is so unrewarding, and the facts will somehow set me free? Can you, without relying on “the facts,” demonstrate to me why I should trust “the facts”? What about this desperate need? Are you saying that “the facts” will satisfy or do away with that need? What about the need itself? Do “the facts” explain to me where this need came from, what it is comprised of, or even whether or not it really exists?
You’re new to my blog, but you probably won’t be surprised to hear that I disagree with your statement regarding human evolution. I would argue that what is beyond doubt is the fact of the lack of solid evidence that modern humans evolved from early primates. Finding a fossil of a species that has similar structure to humans is not sufficient. Reliable mechanisms must be posited which are capable of producing the changes necessary to, say: turn a quadraped into a biped, produce an inherently larger brain to body ratio, turn a species driven by instinct into one driven by reason, etc. The evolutionary paradigm has yet to do this.
I understand the scientific method and have no problem with it. In fact, I wholeheartedly support scientific research. My issue is with how scientific data is interpreted, and the worldview which drives such interpretation. I don’t recall ever stating that scientists put forth forgery in an attempt to grapple with the church (not that there may, in fact, be unscrupulous scientists out there who would do such a deed – but I have stated before that dishonest behavior is found in limited measure… limited to the human race).
A clarification on how I view the human body. While its genetic signature is unique, it is not unique in the sense that it resembles other species in physical structure or operation. With regards to my Flores man post I am primarily highlighting the uniqueness of modern humans with regards to abstract thinking (e.g., spirit worship, creative expression, concern with justice, concern with the afterlife, etc.).
Do you see how you address the data through evolutionary spectacles? The appendix is vestigial; its form (active) appears in every primate; they use it to process dietary items we no longer consume; conclusion? – we evolved from primates and the organ is no longer needed since we no longer consume the same dietary items. This is circular reasoning: your conclusion that we used to eat bark is based on the assumption that we evolved from bark eating primates; and your conclusion that we have the appendix as a remnant of our prior form again assumes that we evolved. Similarity in form and function does not mandate an evolutionary sequence. It very well may be that we evolved from bark eating primates, but the mere existence of an appendix does not demonstrate that.
The same could be said with your description of the esophagus. How do you conclude that most other species have had this evolutionary flaw removed by the process of natural selection?
And what of your description of our back problems? It would seem that natural selection, rather than changing a species, actually maintains it. You yourself seem to imply as much when you note that humans have circumvented the process of natural selection. Our increased knowledge and technology has allowed us a better quality of life, but at the price of larger bodies.
One feature of design that is overlooked by critics is that of intention – namely, the designer’s intention. If the intention is unknown or, worse yet, misidentified, then conclusions about the soundness of the design may be flawed. Anyone involved in engineering is familiar with the concept of design intentions as well as: trade-offs, functional lifetime, operating environment, redundancy, cross-checking, feedback loops, extraneous parameters, etc.
The idea of non-functionality for the appendix seems to be eroding (see this Scientific American link). Of course, the evolutionary response could be that the appendix evolved from helping to digest bark to that of helping the immune response system.
If humans wouldn’t bite off more than they can chew, then they’d choke a lot less. The pharynx and esophagus work fine when food is ingested in true bite-size chunks. It’s also interesting to note that the design allows humans to produce a wider variety of sounds.
I agree that science has no need for propaganda; it’s those entrenched in the belief that "nature is all there is" that do.
Regards
Hi Joseph,
No need to apologize for some jumbled thoughts… I’ve been there many times myself.
To get a better idea of my viewpoints on the evolution debate, you might want to check some of my past posts:
How certain aspects of the planning process apply to intelligent design arguments:
I didn't plan it this way
What are your intentions?
Attributes of a designer
A scheduling nightmare
My critique of H. Allen Orr’s review of Dembski’s No Free Lunch:
Part 1
Part 2
My attempt to realistically portray methodological naturalismRegards
Post a Comment