Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

The whole push of the evolutionist argument is that there IS undeniable evidence that evolution occurs. Thats why to me, its seriously a one sided debate. One side makes perfect sense, the other doesn't make any sense, or even present any argument thats vaguely credible, or explains the timeline of events etc (somthing I requested from a creationist point of view a while back - to no avail. Of course no one did a timeline, for the simple reason that attempting it would in effect disprove creationism in itself). That creationists continuously ignore how blase (how do I do a little line over the "e"?) they are treating rock hard evidence that goes directly against what they believe, it can sometimes make certain people (who understand the evolutionary point of view, and undeniable scientific truth it carries) feel creationists are being well... stupid. Not stupid as in general intelligence, but just stupid as in refusing to see the evidence with the WEIGHT that it truly carries, continually brushing off (the truth) with nothing more than a hand over the ear and a raise of the nose.

If it is so one sided, then why the debate? Clearly this is not the case. Most evolutionists don't have faith, but have a plethora of unanswered questions and unproven theories, but yet they 'believe' their evolution. Is this true behavior or thought processes for everyone who believes in evolution? I would think and certainly hope not. No one should make those generalizations, nor should anyone make such generalizations of "hand over the ear and a raise of the nose". Case in point, there are extremes on both sides of the debate that are as close minded as the other. There are reasons to consider both possibilities and to not discount either possibility. Preconceived ideas play a huge role in not being able to see the other persons 'point of view'. I have seen prideful atheists and prideful creationists publicly proclaim their 'truth'. With this pride comes blind acceptance of ONLY THEIR TRUTH and no one else's. Even if all the evidence in the world were presented, neither individual would budge. You calling something true doesn't make it true for me.

After my buddy and I got done working out, we were looking at his anatomy book and seeing how each muscle is connected and what each muscle enables us to do. The more I looked at it, the harder it was to accept the fact that we were not the product of chance and probability, but a product of intelligent design. I say "intelligent design" because it in some ways enables a atheist to not hear the "god" word and immediately shut down because of prior beliefs.

 

[Zardoz]

If it is so one sided, then why the debate?...

Because so many people have such unshakeable faith in their chosen belief systems. They refuse to accept the validity of anything that may tend to negate or disprove their beliefs, no matter what.

 

[James2097]

There is nothing remotely accurate in saying scientists "believe" in evolution, or are motivated by pride (to the extent where if a better theory comes along they won't budge). Please, not again. I thought we'd covered this ad nauseum.

There is nothing about "belief", "ego" or "pride" or whatever regarding human emotion that makes a scientist think evolution is the best idea, its simply a rational process of thinking of logical explanations for things, all based on what we can actually see. There is seriously ZERO emotion to cloud whats the best idea. We'll happily change tack if a better explanation comes along. This is the ultimate in open-mindedness, the whole concept of science has again eluded the religious-minded. Science is ABOVE the concept of belief. This is important to acknowledge to have any chance of understanding it. It seems this is soo at odds with the way religious people 'think' that they just won't get it. Ever.

Again, evolution is proven. Completely. I know you don't "believe" me, but hey. The evidence IS there. Go look at it, fully. Understand the concept completely, then try and pick holes in it. Its seriously impossible to come up with a logical flaw in the theory. If someone does, then I'll take note! After that, possibly you'll be able to make an informed decision at least.

Attempting to punch holes in evolution (and failing every time) isn't positive evidence that creationism is true. These holes are being filled constantly. Everything fits PERFECTLY, from all over the world, from different scientists, from different cultures etc.... What about the gaps in Creationism? Like EVERYTHING about it?! There is ZERO positive evidence to back up creationism, which doesn't even put it in the running IMO.

Of course all the muscles in a human body are there for a purpose, thats how evolution works! If an animal has a muscle that doesn't do anything important, that muscle will just be evolved out, as the most successful animals dictate how the species evolve. Of course we are designed well, we're a thriving species having a lot of success! Evolution is a process which makes good design not only probable, but logically garaunteed! Please. Feeling a sense of wonder and awe at the good design of humans is perfectly understandable! EVOLUTION is amazing isn't it?

Seriously:
ANYTHING that one might question about the validity of evolution as a theory can be explained logically and rationally (and has been constantly in this thread). Everything really does fit. It works. 100%. Until someone PROVES it doesn't with a really bone-shakingly contrary piece of evidence, evolution is IT. This hasn't happened. At all.

In the past, the track record for science disproving previously held religious ideas has been...

Science: wins EVERY single time,
vs
Religion: 0.

Evolution is no different, its just taking a bit longer (to persuade everyone) than normal due to the complexity of the concept (one has to actually see the evidence and understand it to accept the overwhelming logic of it - this is hard to see if one is an average dude living in a religious community). The problem is that it takes a little bit of energy to grasp the concepts. The concept of a REALLY long time.. An understanding of biology, of genetics, etc... There is a reason why every scientist firmly backs evolution (as do most people with high IQs), but the regular Joe doesn't. Its totally understandable. Everyone will get it eventually. This I am certain of.

It goes without saying that evolution throws up many questions (unlike religion, science doesn't try and answer things we don't know yet - you have to simply be happy with gaps existing until they're filled with real evidence). But all these questions ARE being answered, and there hasn't been anything pop up that really doesn't fit, nothing that disrupts the core concept. This in itself is very telling.

The only reasons people haven't jumped behind evolution, is because (A) they don't understand it fully, and (B) they already have a personal emotional investment in religion. These people are going to be the least rational people in society by default and the won't agree with evolution no matter what. They want to go to heaven. They want to feel they're special. Thats fine.
If you would like to know things based on reality, then people have to face up to some big truths, like God not existing. No wonder evolution isn't "popular".

None of this stops the debate from, in all actuality, being completely one sided.

 

[Zardoz]

From The Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2005

The Dark Side of Faith

By Rosa Brooks

Its official: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.

This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.

Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust.

Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same.

Of course, the red/blue divide is only an imperfect proxy for levels of religiosity. And while Paul's study found that the correlation between high degrees of religiosity and high degrees of social dysfunction appears robust, it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around.

Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs.

We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.

This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist.

The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?

Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent.

My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful.

To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry.

And that, of course, is what makes it so very dangerous.

 

[niky]

I've never been in this thread before... and hopefully never will be again. This issue is just so damn old, and it really doesn't matter outside of the US (the only thing in conflict in high schools outside the US is History, but that's another kettle of fish)

@James2097: Evolution is not perfect. There are inconsistencies and jumps in speciation and differentiation from one progrenitor species to its descendants. Sometimes, the changes are drastic and far too quick for the normal evolutionary process. These holes are being filled, but Evolution isn't the complete answer. Random mutation rates higher than those at present count for some of the speciation, as well as tremendous environmental pressures on relatively small, isolated groups create a lot of new species. Not everything in nature is gradual (as per classical evolutionary theory).

And yes, scientists can be as dogmatic and close-minded as even the most fundamentalist of the religious sects. Some ideas and theories seem to percolate through the scientific community only very slowly. This is partly due to the fact that most of them don't trust anything that they haven't thought of themselves, and partly because they'll wait for verification from their peers.

And they can be caught up by "fads", too. I remember quite a few jumping on the "cold fusion" bandwagon before it was revealed as a load of crock.

That said, I am a believer in the validity of evolutionary theory, but we've got to keep things in perspective. If we don't accept the contradictions that ARE present, it just gives the Creationists a foothold in the argument. Stressed point, a theory is a theory, not a claimed universal truth. If we claim it as a 100% uncontestable, universal truth, we're just as close-minded as the other side.

 

[Touring Mars]

I've never been in this thread before... and hopefully never will be again.

That's a shame, you seem to have a pretty balanced view of this debate, which can only be a good thing in this thread...

Evolution is not perfect. There are inconsistencies and jumps in speciation and differentiation from one progrenitor species to its descendants. Sometimes, the changes are drastic and far too quick for the normal evolutionary process. These holes are being filled, but Evolution isn't the complete answer. Random mutation rates higher than those at present count for some of the speciation, as well as tremendous environmental pressures on relatively small, isolated groups create a lot of new species. Not everything in nature is gradual (as per classical evolutionary theory).

I'd say that how ever it happens, evolution is evolution, however gradual or fast it happens. Although to say that evolution 'happens' is a bit of a misnomer. Something doesn't just 'evolve' like something might just explode or die, evolution is a sequence of events beginning with genetic mutations, and proceeding via natural selection/survival. Because a species survives, it is part of the evolutionary chain.

On isolated islands, like the Galapagos or that island where they found the 'Hobbit' (Flores I think), evolution 'appears' to happen more quickly, because the results are not diluted within the greater population , and creatures can evolve to have the most outlandish appearances and properties... but that doesn't necessarily mean that actual process by which they have evolved is any different to normal, just that the results and the rapidity with which those results have appeared is different.

 

[niky]

As for not appearing in the thread, it's just that we went over this time and time again at my former boards. It's hilarious to me how this is a big issue in the US, while here in the Philippines, where we have a lot of Catholic fundamentalists and splinter sects, it's hardly EVER brought up. That said, we STILL allow prayer in public schools. It's live and let live, and religion and science seem to get along just fine, unless its a matter related to politics and birth-control.

The problem with 'Classical' Evolution is it entails gradual, adaptive change based on environmental and survival factors. Under extreme ecological stresses or conditions, this model simply doesn't seem to hold up. There are postulations regarding higher radioactivity and the amount of "junk" DNA floating around in our genes and their possible links to sudden, rapid mutations in the past.

The only problem is, these abrupt species shifts often occur without leaving tangible evidence, or, as is the case with most ancient history, the evidence is often lost. That's part of what fuels the Creationism debate. Physics is unassailable from outside the scientific community because most of its theorems can be proved over and over again under testing conditions. The theory of Evolution can NOT be proved via laboratory tests, merely inferred from empirical evidence. Much like History and Socio-Anthropology. I can remember more than a few "mistakes" and hoaxes in Anthropology and Paleontology that were only exposed after many years. (Piltdown, the "Hobbits" (there are rumors that they're NOT a sub-species... still under debate), cavemen here in Asia... etc.)

It's never going to be 100% critic-proof. We just have to accept that. A lot of Paleontologists are devout Christians, and they recognize the fine distinction between theology and science. They take Evolution NOT as a disproof of Creationism or "Intelligent-Design", but recognise it as a MECHANISM of species development.

It's not a debate on whether or not God created the universe. It's a debate on how. One set of debaters is trying their best to find out. The other is relying on the secondhand opinions of post-neolithic sheperds. It's one thing to believe in God. It's quite another to take words written ABOUT God by fallible men as GOSPEL.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just remembered about this new advert for Guinness..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4315894.stm
excellent ad, and relevant to this thread.... sort of...
You can watch the whole thing at the Guinness website, but you must be over 18 to view it (since it is an alcoholic product, for those of you who don't know - all three people on planet Earth who have never heard of Guinness that is... )

 

[Famine]

The problem with 'Classical' Evolution is it entails gradual, adaptive change based on environmental and survival factors. Under extreme ecological stresses or conditions, this model simply doesn't seem to hold up. There are postulations regarding higher radioactivity and the amount of "junk" DNA floating around in our genes and their possible links to sudden, rapid mutations in the past.

The only problem is, these abrupt species shifts often occur without leaving tangible evidence, or, as is the case with most ancient history, the evidence is often lost.

I covered this earlier - HSP-90, a heat-shock protein and chaperonin molecule.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

Of course all the muscles in a human body are there for a purpose, thats how evolution works! If an animal has a muscle that doesn't do anything important, that muscle will just be evolved out, as the most successful animals dictate how the species evolve. Of course we are designed well, we're a thriving species having a lot of success! Evolution is a process which makes good design not only probable, but logically garaunteed! Please. Feeling a sense of wonder and awe at the good design of humans is perfectly understandable! EVOLUTION is amazing isn't it?
*snip*

So....in this statement you are implying that we used to have a whole bunch of muscles and the ones that aren't important have evolved away?

[sarcasm]
Right....sure. I believe that.
[/sarcasm]

niky,
Welcome to the thread, and thanks for your valued input.

 

[ledhed]

Pako , you look at the muscles and see a wonder . I look at them and see a very simple organic way of moving bones around .

 

[niky]

@Famine: Sorry, haven't finished reading the whole thread. As usual, your knowledge impresses. 👍

As for muscles: Beauty and simplicity are inherent in nature. Evolution is a mechanism by which all natural things are pared down to the simplest, most efficient design. Ever notice how monsters in popular media and fiction seem to have too many arms, legs, teeth and whatnot? Know why they scare and unnerve us? It's because we instinctively see how wrong they are.

The endpoint of evolutionary design looks beautiful to us because it feels right. The most successful predators are those which perform one task simply, cleanly and quickly. An extreme example would be snakes, but you can see this in big cats and other large predators. Though driven by biological urges and natural selection, the result of millions of years of development is usually a sleek shape, with no wasted muscles, appendages or organs.

Nature is beautiful. There is wonder in everything around us. Hey, we're all car fanatics here, right? And what do we like about cars? Efficient design and engineering. Sleek bodywork which flows with the purpose of the car. Cars follow their own rules of evolution, just like animals. Those which seem beautiful are so because they are pure of form and function. That's the way a well designed creature is. That's how the religious among the scientific community solve the paradox. They find the wonder in God's creation and seek to understand the mechanisms by which this is achieved.

If there is a God, it would be nice to know that he didn't stop with us when we came out of the oven. It would be nice to think of him tinkering and tinkering, remolding us until he got us just right.

I'm willing to bet he's not done... not just yet.

 

[Zardoz]

...Beauty and simplicity are inherent in nature. Evolution is a mechanism by which all natural things are pared down to the simplest, most efficient design...The endpoint of evolutionary design looks beautiful to us because it feels right...

Exactly. As I said a couple of times before, how could evolution lead to anything other than that which works well? That's what "natural selection" is all about. What doesn't work gets tossed and only what is "beautiful" and "efficient" is left.

Of course, if you really do think this planet is only 6,000 years old, then its easy to see why it seems to you that somebody had to design-in all this beauty. But if you accept as fact that nature has had hundreds of millions of years to work things out, it isn't such a cosmic mystery, is it?

 

[Famine]

@Famine: Sorry, haven't finished reading the whole thread.

Sorry the earlier answer was short - my co-worker was being an absolute beyotch today.

Anyway, HSP-90 is a chaparonin. Chaparonin molecules exist to ensure proper folding of proteins. Proteins can fold incorrectly on their own or as a result of a translation/transcription error or simply because the DNA is mutated. However it occurs, HSP-90 sits by and makes sure incorrectly-folded proteins fold correctly.

This means that HSP-90 can mask a whole host of mutations. However, the primary function of HSP-90 is to protect the cell from heat shock (HSP = Heat Shock Protein). So when there's a sudden heat shock - like a meteor strike - it is diverted from its chaparonin duties and sods off to protect the cell, leaving less efficient chaparonins to cover for it. They aren't as good at ensuring correct folding - OR masking mutations - as HSP-90 is.


This has the effect that, in response to an extreme environmental trauma, a rapid change in cell biochemistry can occur, as all of the mutations previously masked by HSP-90 are allowed to be expressed.

 

[niky]

@Zardoz: I personally don't (believe the world is 6000 years old... everyone knows it's only 4000! ) and I hope no one else here does.

@Famine: That's utterly cool. So catastrophic global warming could cause mass mutation to become apparent? Are we going to have real live "X-Men" in the next hundred years or so?

 

[s0nny80y]

Not sure whether if this is a repost, but this is taken from the Funny Pics thread in the Comedy Corner:

 

[James2097]

@James2097: Evolution is not perfect. There are inconsistencies and jumps in speciation and differentiation from one progrenitor species to its descendants. Sometimes, the changes are drastic and far too quick for the normal evolutionary process. These holes are being filled, but Evolution isn't the complete answer. Random mutation rates higher than those at present count for some of the speciation, as well as tremendous environmental pressures on relatively small, isolated groups create a lot of new species. Not everything in nature is gradual (as per classical evolutionary theory).

I think I've already said something to the effect that evolution doesn't neccessarily happen at a constant rate. Of course different environmental conditions can have a big impact on the evolutionary happenings for different species. When did I prescribe to the "constant rate" idea, or classical evolutionary theory? I was only ever talking about evolution in terms of the general concept being "on the right track". It would be arrogant in the extreme to ever proclaim one knows exactly how life works down to the minutest detail. I think we can get pretty close however (within our own little world).

I would say that evolution (in the broadest possible sense) CAN explain things, but our current understanding of it cannot (well not 100% accurately). Hence the point of the thread. I know we understand enough of how evolution IS occurring to ackowledge that we're on the right track, and that creationism cannot possibly be correct. That we can be certain about.

And yes, scientists can be as dogmatic and close-minded as even the most fundamentalist of the religious sects.

This kind of scientist isn't a scientist IMO. I applaud the general concept of the scientific method, as these types of dogmatic scientists always get shown up for who they are. Ultimately, the better theories prevail.

And they can be caught up by "fads", too. I remember quite a few jumping on the "cold fusion" bandwagon before it was revealed as a load of crock.

But these types of things ARE always revealed as fads, so whats the problem?
Evolution isn't a fad.

If we don't accept the contradictions that ARE present, it just gives the Creationists a foothold in the argument.

Erm, no. Just because theory (A) has minor contradictions due to our current knowledge, it does not give theory (B) any increase in validity. There is still zero positive evidence for Creationism or ID, so there is no reason to give theory (B) any more sway than theory (C) - the flying spaghetti monster, at this point. The overwhelming positive evidence supporting theory (A) still points to the GENERAL CONCEPT of evolution being correct. This general concept we CAN say is 100% on the right track. Do we understand it perfectly? No, of course not. If we thought we did, we wouldn't be too scientific would we?

So....in this statement you are implying that we used to have a whole bunch of muscles and the ones that aren't important have evolved away?

[sarcasm]
Right....sure. I believe that.
[/sarcasm]

No, thats not what I was implying. It was a simplified hypothetical situation I invented to make a point. It would be more accurate for me to say that we always had muscles that were important, as only the most succesful of our kind survived. Mutations causing changes adversely affecting our design wouldn't persist, as if we possessed these bad design features, we wouldn't exactly be the "fittest" of our kind and wouldn't survive. Hence why only good design features tend to make it through, and why the human body's design seems so wonderous.

However, I'm not so sure we're perfect, we can improve a few things...
Personally, I think testicles are a bad design choice, waaay too delicate for a mean-fightin' male who's supposed to go hunting . The advantageous decrease in temperature due to the testies being outside the main body area doesn't exactly outweigh the increase in the possibility of a nasty accident causing one to not be able to breed, surely the most important function of any species. Seems strange to me, thats all. Sorry for talking about that. Umm... yeah.
What about women's periods? Thats gotta be improved. What about some clever contained system where the excess 'stuff' is just dissolved back into the bloodstream or perhaps to the regular waste disposal section?
What about appendix? What's with that? What about tonsils? What's with them? What about people getting wisdom teeth that screw up people's jaws and need to be pulled out? What's with that?

I think in the far future we'll obtain the ability to digest Maccas food and not get fat.

We're not perfect, but in a permanent state of evolution... maybe some of these niggling problems can be ironed out in the future!

 

[niky]

@James: Yes, fads do get shown up and go away., but some hoaxes and fads take a godawful long time to do so. There are more scientists who are willing to believe things without proof or unwilling to believe things that are proven than you might think. What I was pushing at is that they are still fallible.

Yes, Evolution isn't a fad, thank God (oops, wrong choice of words. )

As for the contradictions, I'm not saying it makes their (the Creationists') position stronger. What I meant was it gives them something to latch onto. Simply, they can point out even the tiniest flaws in the theory, while bilthely ignoring the flaws in their own arguments. While they can stay on the offensive, in their minds, they have nothing to prove about their own position.

 

[Famine]

Just remembered about this new advert for Guinness..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4315894.stm
excellent ad, and relevant to this thread.... sort of...
You can watch the whole thing at the Guinness website, but you must be over 18 to view it (since it is an alcoholic product, for those of you who don't know - all three people on planet Earth who have never heard of Guinness that is... )

Or download it here.

(5.8Mb)

 

[James2097]

Yes, Evolution isn't a fad, thank God (oops, wrong choice of words. )

The Guinness advert was BRILLIANT!

 

[Zardoz]

Thanks for the ad, Famine! Its incredible!

BTW, here's more info on the tiny little folks they've been digging up on Flores Island in Indonesia :

More Homo Floresiensis finds

It appears to be a long-term population. The big mystery, of course, is how they got onto that island in the first place so long ago.

 

[a6m5]

Thanks for the ad, Famine! Its incredible!

BTW, here's more info on the tiny little folks they've been digging up on Flores Island in Indonesia :

More Homo Floresiensis finds

It appears to be a long-term population. The big mystery, of course, is how they got onto that island in the first place so long ago.

I read little bit about this during lunch break. Fascinating article. Does it pretty much mean that there were race of these "hobbit-like" people living on this island? Is Flores island really that isolated?

 

[niky]

Thanks for the ad, Famine! Its incredible!

BTW, here's more info on the tiny little folks they've been digging up on Flores Island in Indonesia :

More Homo Floresiensis finds

It appears to be a long-term population. The big mystery, of course, is how they got onto that island in the first place so long ago.

At least it turned out not to be a fluke.

Dwarfing is really severe in the case of big mammals. Surprising that it also would affect intelligent species that much. Still, there are pygmies around nowadays... just not that small.

 

[ledhed]

National Geographic has lots of stuff on my midget buddies.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/when-hobbits-hunted/2004/10/28/1098667866272.html

 

[Burnout]

National Geographic has lots of stuff on my midget buddies.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/when-hobbits-hunted/2004/10/28/1098667866272.html

Those little creatures are pretty neat.

While the elephants, "large, buoyant, strong swimming herd animals", could have paddled across to Flores and the rodents could have caught a ride on some flotsam, the humans must have built their own rafts.

That made them the earliest sailors ever identified. And, most controversially, it suggested they could talk.

"The complex linguistic organisation needed for people to build water craft capable of transporting a group across significant water barriers implies that they had language," he said.

That's pretty funny, though. If that isn't the most preposterous presumption I've ever seen, I don't know what was.

"They, uh, they looked kind of like humans. So they must have made boats. Oh, and they talked too, because we know they did, you know, with the boats that they made and all."

 

[Zardoz]

...That's pretty funny, though. If that isn't the most preposterous presumption I've ever seen, I don't know what was.

"They, uh, they looked kind of like humans. So they must have made boats. Oh, and they talked too, because we know they did, you know, with the boats that they made and all."

At first it seems crazy to think that Homo Erectus could be capable of building rafts and making their way across 25 kilometers of water. But if they couldn't do it, then how did they get to the island? A "breeding population" must have all gone there at once. It must have been a deliberate marine migration. What other circumstance could have got them there?

The discovery of their stone tools on Flores is apparently going to force everyone to revise their thinking on what they were really like, and what they were capable of.

(We've made mistakes and underestimated the capability of ancient peoples before, haven't we? There are still some out there that think the Egyptians, Mayans, and Aztecs could never have done what they did on their own, so it must have been extraterrestrials that showed them how!)

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

You can teach a helluva lot alongsides Evolution but here's two NOT to teach alongside creation ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

The planet is understood to be elder than self-reflections of our species which may not be a true species , acting as it's own agent responsible.

 

[Famine]

Do not test the might of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is, of course, at least as valid as all traditional monotheistics "creation" myths).

Nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves) - who has also chosen to register and post here.

 

[James2097]

I have a lot more respect for FSMism as a theory once I found out about the string (noodle) theory connection. Now this makes sense to me. 👍

LMAO.

That beer volcano would have a fair head on it I'd assume. Awesome.

 

[Zardoz]

I just discovered this:

Dinosaur Adventure Land

Words fail me...