The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest 125 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  ... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution

  Shelby this is on a par with the claim that several scientists believe in a flat earth. A lifetime is not long enough to study all the evidence for evolution including human origins.

  There is no scientific debate about the fact of evolution but there is a great deal to learn about the details. Maybe somebody else has the patience to go into detail I just find it tiresome. Thank god the UK doesn't suffer from the level of science denial that seems to be so prevelant in the USA. Your country's future is in jeopardy unless you grow out of it.
• 

  NomadSoul

  Aguest,

  Did you read the next two paragraphs?

  The feud has played out in top scientific journals. But a growing consensus has emerged among experts on human origin that this is indeed a separate and primitive species that lived in relatively modern times - 17,000 to 100,000 years ago. The November issue of the highly respected Journal of Human Evolution was dedicated to the Flores findings and included a dozen studies supporting the hobbit as a new species.
  
  Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said the critics are "very much in the minority now." He said that he just returned from a meeting in Arizona of more than two dozen experts on human origins and found widespread support there for the new-species theory. No one, he said, "took the view that this was some weird, pathological freak."
• 

  Twitch

  Religion, faith and belief are subjective, scientific method isn't. Apples and oranges.

  Evolution is still a theory but it's the best one so far based on the evidence collected, analyzed and studied by many people of different fields. And will continue to be. As cofty said, there is much to learn and know but that doesn't mean what's known is invalid because of that; it validates the method and evidence collected.

  They haven't changed the law of gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, the speed of light or many other discoveries that have been proven, I say proven for all to see, measure and believe in beyond a doubt, have they?

  Otherwise, I have no choice but to think YOU "religious"... in your apparently largely unfounded beliefs regarding human evolution. In spite of your long lists of "discoveries" (some of which have been shown to include hoaxes from time to time).

  The theory of evolution is now a "belief"? You find a few articles that casts doubt in your favor and all of a sudden science is on a par with faith? Really now,..

  And there's never been a religious hoax has there? lol

  Think as you will. So will I :)
• 

  NomadSoul

  Aguest, How about this. Those are news articles. Post a link to any scientific journal of your choice of a critic that poses the hypothesis of homo floresiensis being a deformed human and let's go through it.

  And just so you know, we did not come from homo floresiensis. Critics are only arguing if it was a new species or not. So that means that even if the critics are right it does not affect the theory of homo sapien evolution.
• 

  unshackled

  I think Cofty's post is worthy of repeating...

  Shelby this is on a par with the claim that several scientists believe in a flat earth. A lifetime is not long enough to study all the evidence for evolution including human origins.

  There is no scientific debate about the fact of evolution but there is a great deal to learn about the details. Maybe somebody else has the patience to go into detail I just find it tiresome. Thank god the UK doesn't suffer from the level of science denial that seems to be so prevelant in the USA. Your country's future is in jeopardy unless you grow out of it.

  If Terry is still jonesing for " indepth analysis of thought-provoking issues" he won't find it on this thread topic.
• 

  Twitch

  it is also true that "science" often states as FACT... something that is later shown/proven not to be fact at all."

  It is fact that these articles now prove the theory of evolution wrong?
• 

  AGuest

  May you all have peace! And may you see that you entirely miss my points. Entirely. As I said, it was not an attempt to discredit evolution. Had nothing to DO with evolution, per se. Evolution was only the issue used to make the point, again:

  "... that many here take great issue with the changing "beliefs" in religion (as do I)... but get all sweaty when someone points out that "science" tends to do the same thing. While it's true that religion does contrive their changes, it is also true that "science" often states as FACT... something that is later shown/proven not to be fact at all."

  I get it that some of you have your faith unwaveringly in science. I GET that. How, though, when science is subject to change, too, does that make you ANY different from those who put their faith in the "changing" doctrines of religion? How, when science says, TODAY, that "all life originated in Africa" and/or "there are no other 'homo' species"... versus, "We THINK all life originated in Africa, but we're not absolutely SURE," or "We THINK there are no other 'homo' species, but we haven't covered every square inch of the earth's crust, so we really can't say..." can we say... WITH CERTAINTY... that they are right when they present something as "fact"... that has so many "missing links"?

  There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None. The little evidence that does exist only suggests human evolution. There IS evidence that makes it APPEAR that that MIGHT have occurred. In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood. At least, there is evidence that makes it APPEAR that that MIGHT have occurred. What is the difference, truly?

  Now, I get it that you disagree with me. You don't have to agree with me. Religionists would disagree with me, too. My point is that, as someone who has NO faith in one (religion)... and only some (albeit, a lot in that which has been PROVEN) in the other (science)... I can't see the difference. Truly. Seriously. I have NO problem with those who put their faith in UNPROVEN theories. I just think such ones really have no ground to take issue with others who put THEIR faith in things "unproven", as well. That is hypocrisy.

  Do you "see"? No, I know you don't... as hypocrites rarely "see" their hypocrisy. But that's okay. I'm sure others DO see... and that's what really counts for me.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  My point is that many here take great issue with the changing "beliefs" in religion (as do I)... but get all sweaty when someone points out that "science" tends to do the same thing. While it's true that religion does contrive their changes, it is also true that "science" often states as FACT... something that is latter shown/proven not to be fact at all. In both instances, what/who is a person to believe? It really cannot be known because "things" always seem to change.

  I have a big problem with many in science who state things as "fact" when it will change later. I know what you mean about that. It seems they do this because it comes off as more authorative and they are competing for the same money for funding. That doesn't make it right.

  Proper science recognizes that new data will cause old data to be thrown away. Darwin was huge, but a guy in the 19th century at the infancy of discovering evidence of evolution was bound to be wrong on many things. Same with many other theories along the way.

  The little "people" do indeed challenge long-held theories and it shows we don't know as much as some scientists say we know.

  But this find only serves to show that evolution is true, we just don't know all the facts. The article seemed to cover that well with "Almost overnight, the find threatened to change our understanding of human evolution. It would mean contemplating the possibility that not all the answers to human evolution lie in Africa, and that our development was more complex than previously thought."
• 

  cofty

  There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None. The little evidence that does exist only suggests human evolution. There IS evidence that makes it APPEAR that that MIGHT have occurred.

  The proof of human descent from a common ancestor of all living things is written in every cell in your body. If a single fossil had never been found it would make no difference. If you reject the proof from the genome please tell the judge if you are ever called for jury duty. The proof that you and I share an ancestor with a chimp is precisely the same science that may be presented concerning the guilt or innocence of an accused. Precisely the same.

  Of course you could just ignore all that tedious "evidence" and just ask whatshisname

  In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood. At least, there is evidence that makes it APPEAR that that MIGHT have occurred

  No there isn't; we clearly have a very different understanding of the word "evidence"
• 

  AGuest

  THANK you for that, Jer, truly! And... peace to you!

  As you can guess, for ME, it's a bit of the same: "new light". As you can guess, I'm leary of anything that smacks of "new light"... or threatens to be exposed/overruled by "new light." I just don't get it that one group will take issue with another group for speculating... while they themselves speculate. Again, this was NOT about evolution (we've had that discussion and beat THAT horse to death!). It was about what I perceive to be another form of man's hypocrisy.

  Thank you VERY much for your candid and forthright comment and, again... peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA