An excavation team under the leadership of Australian and Indonesian scientists have unearthed the remains of eight human beings of rather short stature and small brain volume in the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. The fossils were ascribed the name Homo floresiensis (Flores Man) after the island on which they were discovered.
One skeleton, estimated to be that of a woman in her 30s and calculated to be some 18,000 years old, was only 1 metre tall. The brain volume of the woman in question was a mere 380 cc. That is significant since it may be regarded as small even for a chimpanzee. Investigations into the findings, estimated to belong to at least eight individuals, show that H. floresiensis lived in this cave between 95,000 and 12,000 years ago. The common opinion of the scientists who examined the tools and animal bones unearthed in the cave is that H. floresiensis individuals exhibited complex behaviour requiring the capacity for speech, in other words that they were social and intelligent human beings with creative ability. Stones carved and sharpened for particular purposes discovered in the cave, and animal bones, show that these people were successful hunters, capable of catching animals larger than themselves.
What you have read so far are the objective facts regarding the findings unearthed. Now let us examine the distortions perpetrated by evolutionists in order to fit these findings to the evolution myth and see how a discovery that actually deals a severe blow to Darwinism has been turned into a propaganda tool by the Darwinist media.
This article responds to the evolutionist claims concerning H. floresiensis made in the framework of the October 28, 2004, report on Ntvmsnbc.com titled "Revolution in Anthropology: The Hobbits." In this report, Ntvmsnbc.com announced the H. floresiensis discovery under the caption "new human-like species unearthed," and claimed that these creatures emerged on the island of Flores as the result of "an unforeseen process of evolution." The reasons why these claims possess no valid scientific validity are set out below, and Ntvmsnbc.com's blind support for Darwinism is revealed.
The "new human-like species" deception
The reason why scientists have elected to give the fossils in question the name H. floresiensis is this: when researchers who have accepted the idea that human beings came into being through evolution right from the outset lay their hands on fossils belonging to old human races they name them in such a way as to accord with the evolutionary myth they have present in their minds. The method of doing this is based on exaggerated interpretation of the variations (*) among old human races and between them and modern man, and thus the declaration of the fossils as a "new species."
The H. floresiensis fossils are also a product of this method, and their description as a new species rests solely on evolutionist preconceptions.
The fact is that the description of H. floresiensis as a new human species provides no support at all for the theory of evolution, but on the contrary reveals how forced the claims regarding it actually are.
1. It is impossible to gauge species boundaries by looking at bones
The concept of the biological species is used in the present day for organisms included in the same category that are able to mate and produce healthy offspring. This definition is based on mutual reproducibility as setting out the boundary criterion between species. There is no means of knowing, however, just by looking at the fossilised bones of organisms that lived in the past which were able to reproduce with which.
Classification based on degrees of similarities between bones (in other words the variations exhibited among these) may not reveal scientifically definite conclusions. That is because although some species (such as the dog) exhibit wide variation, others (such as the cheetah) are known to exhibit only narrow variation.
Accordingly, when fossils belonging to extinct living things are discovered the variation observed may stem from one of two reasons. This variation either belongs to a species exhibiting wide variation or to a few separate species exhibiting narrow variation. Yet there is no way of knowing which of the two actually applies. Indeed, Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania State University paleoanthropologist, and also an evolutionist, admits this fact by saying that one cannot know whether or not a fossil is representative of the community to which it belongs. He further states that one cannot know whether it comes from one of the ends of the species range, or from somewhere in the middle. (i)
Richard Potts, another evolutionist and anthropologist, as well as director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, accepts the same truth in the words: "To my mind it is very difficult to say, just from the bones, where the species boundaries lie." (ii)
2. It is a mistake to generalise the features of a species from just a limited number of fossils
Evolutionists define the H. floresiensis fossils as a separate species, and regard its small brain volume and short skeleton as characteristics of that species. The fact is, however, that individuals may not carry all the features in the population gene pool (the collection of genes giving rise to a species) in their bodies. To put it another way, the features exhibited by individuals may not be those generally exhibited in the population. That being the case, the smaller the number of fossils analysed, the greater the risk of error in assuming that their features are those of the general population to which they belong. Robert Locke, editor of the magazine Discovering Archaeology, has elucidated this with a simple analogy. He said that if a paleoanthropologist of the future discovers bones belonging to a professional basketball player, then twenty-first century man may well seem to have been a giant species. He further stated that if the skeleton belongs to a jockey, on the other hand, then we will seem to have been short and puny bipeds. (iii)
In short, the definition of H. floresiensis as a separate species based on its small brain volume and short skeleton, and the assumption that all individuals possessed those same features, is a mistake. These fossils may well be regarded as variations seen in old human races living in the moment. In reality, the truth that, if the analysis of H. floresiensis is not restricted to its anatomy is created.
H. floresiensis: an ancient human race
A person may be a dwarf, a small brain, a slightly protruding jaw or a narrow forehead. He or she can also walk bent over with a hunched back due to a disease of the joints. But we do not make the anatomical features that people of a non-human species.
Modern DayDwarves live documentation of this. According to the website of the Guinness World Records, the American Tamara de Treaux 77 cm (2 feet 7) top film actor. The Filipino Weng Wang is another actor in the short to 83 cm (2 ft 9 in) tall. The shortest pair is the Brazilian Douglas da Silva (90 cm / 35 inches) and Claudia Rocha (93 cm / 36 inches). (Iv)
Just like these people, H. floresiensis possessed creative and linguistic capabilities, led a social life and are intelligent.H. floresiensis is of course an important discovery in relation to the show that people actually have a brain so small.
So, how is it that these people possessed such small brain and short-skeletons?
In their article published in the journal Nature, (V, VI), the scientists who discovered floresiensis touch on two possibilities in relation to the size of these fossils. The first is abnormalities emerged as a result of a genetic mutation. Aof the leading names of the research team, paleoanthropologist Peter Brown, describes in an interview on the website of the magazine Scientific American published it as a brain volume is extremely low in people with such abnormalities (pituitary dwarves or microcephalic dwarves). Brown says that there were no traces of such anomalies in anatomy floresiensis is not reported, but it is also difficult, the possibility (vii) to ignore. The second way in which scientists havefocuses more in the fact that H. floresiensis may, by a process known as island dwarfism had been hit.
Island dwarfism describes living things by geographic isolation from the country's population is gradually shrinking the physical scarcity of food resources by a local split. This process is also known mammalian fossils found on the islands. For example, it is estimated that 1 meter elephants on Sicily and Malta in dwarfs discovered in less than 5,000 yearsafter being stranded on the islands and divided by 4 feet high elephant. (Viii) This statement is distorted and H. Ntvmsnbc.com floresiensis is claimed "to experience a process of evolution on the island have unexpected." In fact, however, nothing of island dwarfism supports the theory of evolution. A living thing entering into a process of shrinking in size, it acquires a new trait, and not turn into another living being. There is only reducedallowed within the limits of his gene pool. Since no new living thing or feature of the complex genetic information emerges, they are based, we can speak of an "evolution" to be here. For example, a mini-radio produced by engineers, a radio and still no progress, so that was his job as a TV can. In the same way that the mini-radio does not develop into a television, so floresiensis is not to develop other types of accommodation. Therefore Ntvmsnbc.com 'sComplaints regarding groundless Darwinist propaganda that floresiensis.
The instruments used are the proof that floresiensis was an ancient human race
According dwarfism scenario, it is assumed that the line floresiensis descended from Homo erectus. The justification for this belief is as follows: in 1998, MJ Morwood reportedly one of the researchers who discovered floresiensis, who have discovered stone tools excavated from about 800,000 years earlieron the island. (Ix) Not only do these tools are similar to those of Homo erectus, but H. anatomy of the face floresiensis' usually also resembles that of H. erectus. (X) In addition, the East Asian region, where the island is one of the regions where H. erectus for a longer period. An article in Science magazine in 1996 listed evidence that H. erectus had published on Java, the Indonesian island of Flores until no later than 27,000 years ago have survived. (Xi)
This shows that H.H. floresiensis is a variation of Homo erectus, and that both can coexist for tens of thousands of years. (Although described as a separate species from modern man by evolutionists, H. erectus is actually an ancient human race. For more details HERE and HERE).
Evolution of the National Geographic Deception
Closer examination shows that organs such as the mouth, nose and ears that can not be determined from the bones were represented, in a mediationApe-like appearance. Virtually all the news agencies used this most famous of reconstruction misleading in reporting the discovery of Homo floresiensis. A fossil that actually runs counter to the evolutionary scenarios was totally distorted and then shown to millions, as if there was proof of Darwinism.
Floresiensis suggests that the myth of
For more than a century, evolutionists have claimed that an increase in brain volume duringthe imaginary process of human evolution. They also relate the myth that during this process the human mind and fictitious powers of creativity and language that are acquired in parallel to the growth of brain volume. None of these stories is any scientific value, however. Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature and an evolutionist who has written many articles and books on evolution, admitted as much in his book In Search of Deep Time:
For example, the[Alleged] evolution of man is driven by improvements in posture, brain size and the coordination between hand and eye, the technical achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools and the use of language have been distributed. But such scenarios are subjective. They can not be confirmed experimentally, and therefore are not scientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific evidence, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. (XII)
With the discovery of H.floresiensis, the myth that human intelligence with an increase in the volume of the brain is even less credible than before. This is because floresiensis with a brain no bigger than the volume of a chimpanzee, displays behavior not unlike that of a large human brain, which shows that human intelligence and mental capacity is proportional to the volume of the brain.
This is the exact meaning of words in the interpretation of the discovery of H. Gee Henry floresiensis, "Theidea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely away from this discovery. "(XIII)
"Thinking About Little Lady of Flores Forces of human evolution"
The real shock for evolutionists came from learning that an alleged hominid with a small brain volume lived not millions of years ago, but only 18,000 years ago. Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London is his astonishment thus:
"Here is a creature with a brain the size ofa chimpanzee, but apparently a machine tool and hunter, and perhaps the world's first sailors came from. Its existence shows how little is known about human evolution. I never could have imagined a creature like this, living as recently as this. "(XIV)
Peter Brown, a leader of the research team, describes his astonishment when he measured the skull, and admits that H. floresiensis is totally incompatible with the evolving crisis of "small stature is easy toaccommodate, but small brain size is a bigger problem - it still is." (xv)
The Nature journal news service that published the discovery of H. floresiensis summarizes the dilemma facing evolutionists in the headline it chose, "Little Lady of Flores Forces Rethink of Human Evolution."
Problems, astonishment, confused statements, a theory in need of a rethink...
Evolutionists' own statements reflect the heavy blow the fossil in question has dealt to the illusory scenario of human evolution. Furthermore, the depiction of these fossils as evidence for evolution in the media shows once again that Darwinism is a belief system kept blindly alive in the face of the facts, since evolutionists still refuse to abandon their theory in the face of the fossil findings that have recently totally demolished the myths they recounted so tirelessly for so many years. Evolutionists gloss over every new blow dealt to their scenarios by new discoveries by saying, in effect, "that means we evolved not in this way, but in that," and still attempt to keep the myth of evolution they support so blindly alive behind a scientific mask.
Conclusion:
The game played by evolutionists by interpreting variations in ancient bones according to their own preconceptions consists of window-dressing scenarios of human evolution in any way they choose. It needs to be realized that telling fairy tales based on the similarity of bones is a pointless activity in the face of the true facts.
Organs possessed by human beings, such as the eye, ear and heart, exhibit a complexity that cannot be explained in terms of random occurrences. Modern science has revealed that chance has no power even to produce a single one of the tens of thousands of proteins in one single cell among all the trillions in the human body, let alone an entire organ.
With the perfect organs and systems they possess, human beings exhibit an evident design. Medical textbooks and encyclopaedias document the scale of the complex information on which that design is based. There can be no doubt that the origin of a human being with such a perfect, information-based design, is "creation."
It is Almighty God, the Creator of All, Who creates human beings, and He has no partners in His creation. This truth has been revealed in the Qur'an:
"Do you then disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a drop of sperm, and then formed you as a man? He is, however, God, my Lord, and I will not associate anyone with my Lord." (Qur'an, 18: 37-38)
(*) The term variation is used in biology to describe differences from a known form, function or structure. The term is also used to describe an organism that exhibits such differences.
