[Huck]

Are you trying to say that scientists, and paleoanthropologists in particular, don't make up an industry?

No. Nice straw man you have attempted to construct. You need to argue that they do first, then I will argue that they do not. I said that the science industry is made up of people who sell things. Not scientists.

With regard to the paleoanthropology industry, Flores Man is a huge discovery.

Are these the people who make Flores Man bobble-heads? Calling something an industry in an attempt to imply corruption and profit motive is a tad weak on this issue. What would the God industry say? Perhaps we need commercials like Coke vs Pepsi but in a God vs. Science way.....wait a minute. Is this really about the movie Angels and Demons?

[Huntster]

Creationists and Evolutionists is an ideological war

the dispute has little effect on the state of science

But it is having a social effect, and you have heard of social sciences, haven't you?

evolution and creationism are processed equally with a scientific method

Yes, among scientists who adhere to the scientific method, but not among those in society who are using either science or religion as a weapon against the other "ideology".

What offends people is the denial of what is plain and verifiable.

Or the claims that something is plain and verifiable, but is not.

If creationists insist on a war it won't be between God and Darwin's Legend, it will be between people

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

Social science is a wonderful thing, is it not?

and I'd put my money on the people who routinely crack open atoms just to see what's inside

As if many of those people aren't religious?

Careful with your money. Perhaps a bit of economic science is due for study?

It is just what it says it is.

And it is not if it isn't observable, empirical, and verifiable.

Science is simply limited to that which is observable, empirical, and measurable.

People dig up some strange things, they name it and talk about it - what's your point?

People are digging up shit and calling it science in their ideological war against religion. That's my point.

[Suska]

People are digging up shit and calling it science in their ideological war against religion. That's my point.

No, if it isn't verifiable it isn't science, theory is just what it is - take it for what its worth. If there is a war I haven't seen it, at most a little bickering and definitely from the evangelical side a lot of bitching and whining and making much of nothing - mostly because they don't understand what science is.

You really have nothing tangible to say about anything do you Huntster...?

[Huntster]

The science industry is made up of the people who make microscopes and test tubes and such. If it doesn't have to do with selling beakers, why would they discuss it?

Are you trying to say that scientists, and paleoanthropologists in particular, don't make up an industry?

No.

Then just what is it that you're trying to say?

Nice straw man you have attempted to construct.

Answer the above question so that we can see if the man is constructed of straw or stone.

I said that the science industry is made up of people who sell things. Not scientists.

Do you know the meaning of the word "industry"?

huntster wrote:
With regard to the paleoanthropology industry, Flores Man is a huge discovery.

Are these the people who make Flores Man bobble-heads? Calling something an industry in an attempt to imply corruption and profit motive is a tad weak on this issue.

Where did I "attempt to imply corruption and profit"?

Are you a mind reader? If so, you are a poor one. And is mind reading "scientific"?

(Testing your grasp of the language) Is linguistics a science?

What would the God industry say?

About Flores Man? Nothing. It isn't a religious subject.

What does the clothing industry say about it?

Is this really about the movie Angels and Demons?

I haven't seen the flick. I'm not much for Hollywood. I was born there, and got tired of Fantasy Land in my teens.

[Huntster]

People are digging up shit and calling it science in their ideological war against religion. That's my point.

No, if it isn't verifiable it isn't science

Quite correct. In fact, I've already written that in this thread.

If there is a war I haven't seen it, at most a little bickering and definitely from the evangelical side a lot of bitching and whining and making much of nothing - mostly because they don't understand what science is.

Granted, there is much whining and carping from the evangelical side about "The Descent of Man". Frankly, I think they have merit. Thus my question about Flores Man, which none of you have even begun to discuss. You're too busy attacking me for perceived..............whatever.

You really have nothing tangible to say about anything do you Huntster...?

Try reviewing my initial post in this very thread regarding Flores Man, review what came afterward from "others", and review your question.

[dudekebm]

Thus my question about Flores Man, which none of you have even begun to discuss. You're too busy attacking me for perceived..............whatever.

Actually I did address it before Spotacus' post that seems to have kicked off this side issue.

[Suska]

Flores Man

I don't get what your beef is with this, anyway people have already answered any issues you might have. The science part of it says, "Hey guys, look at this wierdo freak skeleton we found" after everyone's had their look people can say what they want, maybe its significant to evolution - probably its an anomaly, its doesn't matter what people say with regard to it there is no canon of accepted lore, just theories that seem to fit or don't. Flores Man doesn't really suggest anything to me personally, except maybe, yeah - we need a reminder now and then that nature experiments. Why should that be construed as a difficulty to scientists? I'm sure Darwin himself said as much.

The Descent of Man". Frankly, I think they have merit.

Its odd to me how in some ways Evangelicals are the most Faithless people on Earth.

[Huntster]

Huntster wrote:
Thus my question about Flores Man, which none of you have even begun to discuss. You're too busy attacking me for perceived..............whatever.

Actually I did address it before Spotacus' post that seems to have kicked off this side issue.

Yes, you did. Thank you. I'll respond.

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

Not really a hushed silence like they're hiding anything. They have one partial fossil.

I agree that nobody is hiding anything. However, the remarkable find is just not generating much fanfare. Granted, the peer review process is such that it contributes to that fact.

There is more than one partial fossil. While there is a single site, there is one largely complete subfossil skeleton, a complete jawbone from a second individual, and parts of seven other individuals. All are of tiny hominids. It is a rich site, indeed.

There is a controversy whether it's actually a new species or whether its part of population of homo erectus (or one of the descendant species) which experienced odd environmental influences or whether its an isolated find of an anomaly. I'm guessing until they find more (or it's published that they find more) fossil evidence then there's really nothing to report.

I disagree. There are a number of factors which make this a remarkable find. The mere fact that parts of the find are a mere 12,000 years old make Flores Man the longest-lasting non-modern human, surviving long past Neanderthals. The size of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self-awareness and is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain is significant. Flores Man lends strength to the Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek phenomena, and Henry Gee is one of the supporters of this.

It's not really a transitional fossil (i.e. any sort of 'missing link') so there's really no added incentive for further research into the nature of Homo floresiensis until more fossil evidence is uncovered.

The mere fact that it is the most recent example of pre-modern humanity found makes it a very real potential contender as a "missing link", especially if a relationship between Flores Man and Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek can be established.

[Huck]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

They were existing at the same time as other hominids. They are not a single link in a singular chain, but an end to one of many.

Then just what is it that you're trying to say?

The science industry is made up of the people who make microscopes and test tubes and such. They do not sell Ideas, but equipment.

Answer the above question so that we can see if the man is constructed of straw or stone.

I did answer the question. I am actually saying that there is no conspiratorial group of scientists fighting against the very idea of God or religion. If you say they are, then it is you putting forth some new idea and, therefore the onus of proof is yours. What proof is there of such an adversarial relationship?

Do you know the meaning of the word "industry"?

Yes. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/industry

Where did I "attempt to imply corruption and profit"?
Are you a mind reader? If so, you are a poor one. And is mind reading "scientific"?

By stating that science is simply another effort for people to make money from the manufacture of some THING, like in the auto INDUSTRY or the oil INDUSTRY. These are industries, paleontology is a persuit or study.
That second question is off topic, but no, I am not. It would help if I were, seeing how you create theories and then portray them as though they are widely held.

(Testing your grasp of the language) Is linguistics a science?

Again. Dodging and side stepping and changing the subject while you turn your argument against me personally will not make your point, if you have one.

About Flores Man? Nothing. It isn't a religious subject.
What does the clothing industry say about it?

Profits are down. Clowning around is up. This is simply a deflection. If you want to claim paleontology in general is profit driven at its core I'll argue with that.

[Huntster]

people have already answered any issues you might have. The science part of it says, "Hey guys, look at this wierdo freak skeleton we found"

No, science is not saying, "Hey guys, look at this wierdo freak skeleton we found".

It appears that you don't know what "science" is saying about it, or even what they found.

Flores Man doesn't really suggest anything to me personally, except maybe, yeah - we need a reminder now and then that nature experiments.

Does that profound bit fit with the evolution of man?

Why should that be construed as a difficulty to scientists?

Because it isn't yet established scientifically.

The Descent of Man". Frankly, I think they have merit.

Its odd to me how in some ways Evangelicals are the most Faithless people on Earth.

And it's remarkable to me how some attribute faith to science in one breath, but will condemn it with the next.

[Suska]

No, science is not saying, "Hey guys, look at this wierdo freak skeleton we found". It appears that you don't know what "science" is saying about it, or even what they found.

Science is the scientific method, the academic community is a bunch of people who generally have a lot of respect for the scientific method. Scientists have discovered a fossil, they offer theories according to what the fossil suggests, but no one pretends they've got infallible insights (not anymore anyway) and no one thinks they have or says they have - except the fundamentalists, who think they every time a scientist says "I found this, i think its such and such" they're really saying a lot more and making promises. Further proof is your own paranoia that they have some agenda to attack Religion. The fact is you just don't know what youre talking about.

Because it isn't yet established scientifically.

There is no "Established Science" other than the facts. someone did such and such a test and the results were such and such, or someone found such and such as in this case. Beyond that people can say what they want and interested, intelligent people can come to some informal agreement about what seems likely to have given these results. That's what Science as a topic is, facts and likely suppositions - no one is saying there's no chance there's a mistake, unlike fundamentalists, scientists don't make assumptions - if they do they wind up with a reputation for it.

And it's remarkable to me how some attribute faith to science in one breath, but will condemn it with the next.

You know that really pisses me off. Are you seriously as dense as you sound?

Huntster : I think there's a trend toward Evil
Suska : For 'one of the faithful' you sure are lacking in faith
Huntster : you don't have any right to use the word Faith

You don't know me. Right now I'm applying my greatest restraint not to tell you off. I have been trying to answer your questions and all i get in return is this 2 dimensional bullshit..? You really need to go postal or get over it, in all the world there's no one better to blame for your lack of faith than yourself, and if you cant see that hoping for an apocalypse is revealing your lack of faith I'm totally done listening to you.

[Huntster]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

They were existing at the same time as other hominids. They are not a single link in a singular chain, but an end to one of many.

Henry Gee has suggested that it hasn't ended.

Then just what is it that you're trying to say?

The science industry is made up of the people who make microscopes and test tubes and such. They do not sell Ideas, but equipment.

Wanna' try again?:

–noun, plural -tries for 1, 2, 7.
1. the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product: the automobile industry; the steel industry.
2. any general business activity; commercial enterprise: the Italian tourist industry.
3. trade or manufacture in general: the rise of industry in Africa.
4. the ownership and management of companies, factories, etc.: friction between labor and industry.
5. systematic work or labor.
6. energetic, devoted activity at any work or task; diligence: Her teacher praised her industry.
7. the aggregate of work, scholarship, and ancillary activity in a particular field, often named after its principal subject: the Mozart industry.
8. Archaeology. an assemblage of artifacts regarded as unmistakably the work of a single prehistoric group.

Answer the above question so that we can see if the man is constructed of straw or stone.

I did answer the question. I am actually saying that there is no conspiratorial group of scientists fighting against the very idea of God or religion.

If you say they are, then it is you putting forth some new idea and, therefore the onus of proof is yours. What proof is there of such an adversarial relationship?

Welcome to the New Scientist.

Where did I "attempt to imply corruption and profit"?
Are you a mind reader? If so, you are a poor one. And is mind reading "scientific"?

By stating that science is simply another effort for people to make money from the manufacture of some THING, like in the auto INDUSTRY or the oil INDUSTRY.

Please cite where I stated "that science is simply another effort for people to make money from the manufacture of some THING, like in the auto INDUSTRY or the oil INDUSTRY".

These are industries, paleontology is a persuit or study.

Scientists are not paid?

(Testing your grasp of the language) Is linguistics a science?

Again. Dodging and side stepping and changing the subject while you turn your argument against me personally will not make your point, if you have one.

It is you who have attacked me "personally" with your lack of understanding of the word "industry" or desire to paint me as a Creationist.

[dudekebm]

I disagree. There are a number of factors which make this a remarkable find. The mere fact that parts of the find are a mere 12,000 years old make Flores Man the longest-lasting non-modern human, surviving long past Neanderthals. The size of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self-awareness and is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain is significant.

Okay I'll give you that one.

But keep in mind the environment H. floresiensis was native to. Basically the island of Flores has been an island separated by a respectable amount of surrounding sea for quite some time. It basically had no contact with any other species of hominid until relatively recently. It's survival until recently was probably due to the fact that it indeed was somewhat isolated. There was a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that H. Sapiens Neanderthalis pretty much went extinct mainly due to competition with H. Sapiens Sapiens.

Also given its isolation, there is a lot of evidence supporting insular dwarfism, in which case this is may really not be a new species. Interesting from say proving an origin of localized legends, but it isn't necessarily a new species as such (i.e. it would be H. Erectus basically influenced by insular dwarfism). Remember also that the island Flores was also home to a dwarf stegodon (elephant) around the same time period that H. floresiensis was around, as well as several other rather odd variations of creatures exhibiting both insular dwarfism and insular gigantism.

...Flores Man lends strength to the Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek phenomena, and Henry Gee is one of the supporters of this.

The mere fact that it is the most recent example of pre-modern humanity found makes it a very real potential contender as a "missing link", especially if a relationship between Flores Man and Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek can be established.

H. floresiensis not a transitional fossil. I don't think you're using the term 'missing link' properly.

You're addressing the relationship between H. floresiensis and two cryptids (i.e. mythical beasts which may have had sightings). The relationship might be the population of H. floresiensis gave rise to the myths about such cryptids and there may have been sightings.

But H. floresiensis does not show an evolutionary relationship between one well-known well-documented species of homonid (extinct or living) and another. Therefore H. floresiensis is NOT a missing link.

[Huntster]

Because it isn't yet established scientifically.

There is no "Established Science" other than the facts.

And facts establish something scientifically.

Are all pseudoscientists challenged linguistically?

And it's remarkable to me how some attribute faith to science in one breath, but will condemn it with the next.

You know that really pisses me off. Are you seriously as dense as you sound?

1) Apparently so, but it isn't nearly as dense as thee.

2) I'm not pissed off at all. I'm rather amused.

Huntster : I think there's a trend toward Evil
Suska : For 'one of the faithful' you sure are lacking in faith
Huntster : you don't have any right to use the word Faith

Cute. You'll never find me writing something and attributing it to somebody else.

I'm not that "dense".

You don't know me. Right now I'm applying my greatest restraint not to tell you off.

Go ahead. Let it go. It'll make you feel better.

I have been trying to answer your questions and all i get in return is this 2 dimensional bullshit..? You really need to go postal or get over it

I'm not a mailman.

in all the world there's no one better to blame for your lack of faith than yourself, and if you cant see that hoping for an apocalypse is revealing your lack of faith I'm totally done listening to you.

1) My faith in God is absolute

2) My lack of faith in man is absolute

3) I have no faith whatsoever in science because faith has no business in science

4) I don't hope to see any apocalypse, but have already seen a few things that felt and looked like apocalypse

[Godstud]

Welcome to the New Scientist.

That was ONE article in a magazine stating some opinions and nothing more. You didn't even look at it did you? You read the title and made an assumption.

Throughout history it has been neither science nor religion that has caused the ills of the world, but those who spread their dogmatic view of either.

So what is the alternative to dogma? Here science does have a role, not in teaching people what to think, but how to think. Our morals, values and world view can be derived from religious belief, atheist or otherwise, so long as it is informed by scientific reason.
From the article... I think it's a pretty telling statement.

3) I have no faith whatsoever in science because faith has no business in science

Science forgets that it too is based on faith: in particular that the universe is an orderly place with rules; and that information received by our senses is true.

Do these scientists really believe the cosmos is a replacement for God? Atheists will look at the cosmos and realise, as my science teacher says, that our lives are so insignificant; a religious person will look to the cosmos and be awed by (God's) creation. This is not a way to defeat religion.

Many scientific discoveries only make people more awed by their God. Why do scientists want to get rid of religion, when religion has driven scientists for hundreds of years?

Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK

Also from the article you didn't read.

[dudekebm]

Just a small request: Can we get off the Godzilla versus Mothra ... er, Atheist vs. Non-Atheist battle and back to the actual scientific subject which shouldn't really be addressing matters of theology/philosophy and opinions on which one is right?

[Huntster]

I disagree. There are a number of factors which make this a remarkable find. The mere fact that parts of the find are a mere 12,000 years old make Flores Man the longest-lasting non-modern human, surviving long past Neanderthals. The size of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self-awareness and is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain is significant.

Okay I'll give you that one.

But keep in mind the environment H. floresiensis was native to. Basically the island of Flores has been an island separated by a respectable amount of surrounding sea for quite some time. It basically had no contact with any other species of hominid until relatively recently. It's survival until recently was probably due to the fact that it indeed was somewhat isolated. Remember that H. Sapiens Neanderthalis pretty much went extinct mainly due to competition with H. Sapiens Sapiens.

Also given its isolation, there is a lot of evidence supporting insular dwarfism, in which case this is may really not be a new species.

All that are valid considerations.

Interesting from say proving an origin of localized legends, but it isn't necessarily a new species as such (i.e. it would be H. Erectus basically influenced by insular dwarfism).

The currently accepted H. Erectus timeline would have to be altered dramatically to accept Flores Man, not to mention the large occipital and brow ridge differences.

More importantly, the localized legends make Flores Man even more interesting. Maybe the 12,000 year recent date can be moved closer with more "discovery"? That, of course, would dispel any "missing link", but brings out exciting co-habitation possibilities.

Remember also that the island Flores was also home to a dwarf stegodon (elephant) around the same time period that H. floresiensis was around, as well as several other rather odd variations of creatures exhibiting both insular dwarfism and insular gigantism.

Agreed. A thought is that a volcanic event may have brought much of that unique fauna to an end, but the localized legends suggest it may not have ended, at least not 12,000 years ago.

Flores Man lends strength to the Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek phenomena, and Henry Gee is one of the supporters of this.

The mere fact that it is the most recent example of pre-modern humanity found makes it a very real potential contender as a "missing link", especially if a relationship between Flores Man and Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek can be established.

H. floresiensis not a transitional fossil. I don't think you're using the term 'missing link' properly.

Why isn't even insular dwarfism considered transitional if it was evolved away?

You're addressing the relationship between H. floresiensis and two cryptids (i.e. mythical beasts which may have had sightings). The relationship might be the population of H. floresiensis gave rise to the myths about such cryptids and there may have been sightings.

That would be non-evolutionary if they still existed. If they no longer existed, wouldn't thier disappearence be "evolutionary"?

If not, why is the disappearence of other hominids considered so?

But H. floresiensis does not show an evolutionary relationship between one well-known well-documented species of homonid (extinct or living) and another. Therefore H. floresiensis is NOT a missing link.

The reason Flores Man does not show an evolutionary relationship with any other hominid fossil is that no other related group of such fossils have shown such diminutive size. Thus, unless microcephaly or another such condition is established (and suggestions of such are losing favor), they are a unique line of hominid evolution, even if they are considered to be insular dwarfs.

[Huntster]

Huntster wrote:
Welcome to the New Scientist.

That was ONE article in a magazine stating some opinions and nothing more. You didn't even look at it did you? You read the title and made an assumption.

Yes I read it and a number of other such writings.

Would you like more examples?

Throughout history it has been neither science nor religion that has caused the ills of the world, but those who spread their dogmatic view of either.

Absolutely correct. And it works both ways.

So what is the alternative to dogma? Here science does have a role, not in teaching people what to think, but how to think.

Absolutely incorrect. Science is to establish what can be established within the scientific method. All else must be accepted or rejected on the basis of faith or doubt, which are not included in the scientific method.

Our morals, values and world view can be derived from religious belief, atheist or otherwise, so long as it is informed by scientific reason.

That which cannot be established scientifically are accepted or rejected on the basis of faith or doubt, or one must remain neutral if one does not wish to utilize faith.

Huntster wrote:
3) I have no faith whatsoever in science because faith has no business in science

Science forgets that it too is based on faith

Many within science (as well as pseudoscientists) would consider that statement "heresy".

Do these scientists really believe the cosmos is a replacement for God?

If they "believe" anything, they are not basing their acceptance on the scientific method.

Many scientific discoveries only make people more awed by their God. Why do scientists want to get rid of religion, when religion has driven scientists for hundreds of years?

The scientists who do so are ideologically driven.

[Godstud]

The scientists who do so are ideologically driven.

No. They are merely scientists who can separate their faith from their science enough to remain objective and unbiased.

Science is not about disproving the existence of a god(s), no matter how much the religious people gripe about it. Religion has a past that is filled with the oppression of science when it doesn't fit in with religion's view of the world. This is merely another case of religion trying to cloud facts with bullshit.

[Huntster]

Science is not about disproving the existence of a god(s)

That's correct. That's why those who engage in such activity claiming to do so in the name of science are pseudoscientists.

Religion has a past that is filled with the oppression of science when it doesn't fit in with religion's view of the world. This is merely another case of religion trying to cloud facts with bullshit.

My, my. Such vitriol!

Is there somebody here who you are directing that at?