Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
An analysis of an 18,000-year-old fossil, described as the remains of a diminutive humanlike creature, proves that genuine cave-dwelling "hobbits" once flourished in southeast Asia, according to a US anthropologist who conducted X-ray studies of a skull.
Karen Baab, an anthropologist at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York, said her evidence is the most compelling to date bolstering the existence of a tiny early human ancestor who stood no more than 3 feet 2 inches (1 metre) tall.
They're the closest cousins in the evolutionary tree of life resembling fictional hobbits of Lord of the Rings yore. She posits the creature represents a new species in humanity's chain of evolution and is not a group of modern humans who were merely small.
Skull study evidence of 'hobbit' species, claims US anthropologist | Science | guardian.co.uk
:)
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
This debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.
When it was announced to the world a few years ago it made national news and Richard Dawkins went on Richard and Judy to proclaim how it finally proved evolution beyond doubt and that it put the final nail in the coffin for the God believers.
Unfortunately for him at least half of those evolutionary scientists who have actually worked on the 'Florensis' skeltal matter are entirely unconvinced that it is anything other than a diseased population of modern pgymy humans.
If the media ever actually reported on evolutionary mistakes then it would turn out to be highly embarrassing for them but sadly the news are only interested in the sensational claims of shocking evolutionary discoveries, which make the headlines all over the world. When they are invariably dumped a few years later it makes no news at all so in the minds of the public they are still genuine fossils, just like the average person thinks Neanderthals are a missing link, or that Brontosaurus is a real dinosaur.
Anwyay, it's not a new species of human, it's an entirely modern population of inbred pgymies suffering from microcephaly and other congenital defects.
It's quite telling that the Indonesian anthropologists who dealt with the discovery and conducted the first analysis have already rejected any notion of it being a missing link or new human species. It's only the Western scientists involved, eager to be the discoverers or identifiers of a new species of human and hence the mythical 'missing link' that continue to make a song and dance about the wrist bones in order to convince themselves they really have made one the greatest discoveries of all time.
It's a rather sad exercise in self delusion really.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.
When it was announced to the world a few years ago it made national news and Richard Dawkins went on Richard and Judy to proclaim how it finally proved evolution beyond doubt and that it put the final nail in the coffin for the God believers.
Unfortunately for him at least half of those evolutionary scientists who have actually worked on the 'Florensis' skeltal matter are entirely unconvinced that it is anything other than a diseased population of modern pgymy humans.
If the media ever actually reported on evolutionary mistakes then it would turn out to be highly embarrassing for them but sadly the news are only interested in the sensational claims of shocking evolutionary discoveries, which make the headlines all over the world. When they are invariably dumped a few years later it makes no news at all so in the minds of the public they are still genuine fossils, just like the average person thinks Neanderthals are a missing link, or that Brontosaurus is a real dinosaur.
Anwyay, it's not a new species of human, it's an entirely modern population of inbred pgymies suffering from microcephaly and other congenital defects.
It's quite telling that the Indonesian anthropologists who dealt with the discovery and conducted the first analysis have already rejected any notion of it being a missing link or new human species. It's only the Western scientists involved, eager to be the discoverers or identifiers of a new species of human and hence the mythical 'missing link' that continue to make a song and dance about the wrist bones in order to convince themselves they really have made one the greatest discoveries of all time.
It's a rather sad exercise in self delusion really.
Even if evolution did occur, that's not to say that God doesn't exist. Personally, I am open to believing that we did evolve from a more primative line. But I also think that if that WAS the case, then it was the hand of God that did it.
Thus, I could be described as an evolutionary theist. The truth is, I don't know, and don't have an opinion one way or the other. But they are not mutually exclusive points of view. Only short sighted assholes see it one way or another.
Science is hellbent on theories and laws. Well if that's the case, then they'd realize that the laws of entropy precludes the evolution of life from merely atoms that came together to form more complex structures, and eventually giving rise to life. It's a load of garbage, unless of course something bigger than our comprehension wanted it that way. Otherwise, NOTHING EVER BECOMES MORE ORDERED. IT BECOME INCREASINGLY RANDOM.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.
When it was announced to the world a few years ago it made national news and Richard Dawkins went on Richard and Judy to proclaim how it finally proved evolution beyond doubt and that it put the final nail in the coffin for the God believers.
Unfortunately for him at least half of those evolutionary scientists who have actually worked on the 'Florensis' skeltal matter are entirely unconvinced that it is anything other than a diseased population of modern pgymy humans.
If the media ever actually reported on evolutionary mistakes then it would turn out to be highly embarrassing for them but sadly the news are only interested in the sensational claims of shocking evolutionary discoveries, which make the headlines all over the world. When they are invariably dumped a few years later it makes no news at all so in the minds of the public they are still genuine fossils, just like the average person thinks Neanderthals are a missing link, or that Brontosaurus is a real dinosaur.
Anwyay, it's not a new species of human, it's an entirely modern population of inbred pgymies suffering from microcephaly and other congenital defects.
It's quite telling that the Indonesian anthropologists who dealt with the discovery and conducted the first analysis have already rejected any notion of it being a missing link or new human species. It's only the Western scientists involved, eager to be the discoverers or identifiers of a new species of human and hence the mythical 'missing link' that continue to make a song and dance about the wrist bones in order to convince themselves they really have made one the greatest discoveries of all time.
It's a rather sad exercise in self delusion really.
Even if evolution did occur, that's not to say that God doesn't exist. Personally, I am open to believing that we did evolve from a more primative line. But I also think that if that WAS the case, then it was the hand of God that did it.
Thus, I could be described as an evolutionary theist. The truth is, I don't know, and don't have an opinion one way or the other. But they are not mutually exclusive points of view. Only short sighted assholes see it one way or another.
Science is hellbent on theories and laws. Well if that's the case, then they'd realize that the laws of entropy precludes the evolution of life from merely atoms that came together to form more complex structures, and eventually giving rise to life. It's a load of garbage, unless of course something bigger than our comprehension wanted it that way. Otherwise, NOTHING EVER BECOMES MORE ORDERED. IT BECOME INCREASINGLY RANDOM.
Not necessarily, IMHO. If we can assume that there are many more ways to reach a state of disorder than there are ways to reach a state of order, then the entropy that you refers to more or less says it is is much more likely you will reach a state of disorder. This might explain why the earth as a more or less self contained system was around for a very very very long time before anything lifelike as we know it took shape. But once you start down that road towards more advanced life forms, the ground rules start to change. Things are no longer quite so random, other forces besides just entropy are in play.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.
When it was announced to the world a few years ago it made national news and Richard Dawkins went on Richard and Judy to proclaim how it finally proved evolution beyond doubt and that it put the final nail in the coffin for the God believers.
Unfortunately for him at least half of those evolutionary scientists who have actually worked on the 'Florensis' skeltal matter are entirely unconvinced that it is anything other than a diseased population of modern pgymy humans.
If the media ever actually reported on evolutionary mistakes then it would turn out to be highly embarrassing for them but sadly the news are only interested in the sensational claims of shocking evolutionary discoveries, which make the headlines all over the world. When they are invariably dumped a few years later it makes no news at all so in the minds of the public they are still genuine fossils, just like the average person thinks Neanderthals are a missing link, or that Brontosaurus is a real dinosaur.
Anwyay, it's not a new species of human, it's an entirely modern population of inbred pgymies suffering from microcephaly and other congenital defects.
It's quite telling that the Indonesian anthropologists who dealt with the discovery and conducted the first analysis have already rejected any notion of it being a missing link or new human species. It's only the Western scientists involved, eager to be the discoverers or identifiers of a new species of human and hence the mythical 'missing link' that continue to make a song and dance about the wrist bones in order to convince themselves they really have made one the greatest discoveries of all time.
It's a rather sad exercise in self delusion really.
the Indonesians; you should have seen their faces 40 years ago when we showed them that you can actuallty swim in the ocean without being consumed by evil.
They were running around in panic and trying to stop them going in,hold onto the Aussies that showed them.
Their navy was trained by our navy and it was well known that none of their navy could swim a stroke. The whole lot of them were creeping around the ships at least 4 feet in from the sides for years and years ;D.
Our boys used to say that if it came to war between us we could sit at home and relax and wait for the fire to burn itself out; In their case they would blow half of their own navy out of the water by the time they got to our northern shores,then we just go and clean up the remants;D.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.
When it was announced to the world a few years ago it made national news and Richard Dawkins went on Richard and Judy to proclaim how it finally proved evolution beyond doubt and that it put the final nail in the coffin for the God believers.
Unfortunately for him at least half of those evolutionary scientists who have actually worked on the 'Florensis' skeltal matter are entirely unconvinced that it is anything other than a diseased population of modern pgymy humans.
If the media ever actually reported on evolutionary mistakes then it would turn out to be highly embarrassing for them but sadly the news are only interested in the sensational claims of shocking evolutionary discoveries, which make the headlines all over the world. When they are invariably dumped a few years later it makes no news at all so in the minds of the public they are still genuine fossils, just like the average person thinks Neanderthals are a missing link, or that Brontosaurus is a real dinosaur.
Anwyay, it's not a new species of human, it's an entirely modern population of inbred pgymies suffering from microcephaly and other congenital defects.
It's quite telling that the Indonesian anthropologists who dealt with the discovery and conducted the first analysis have already rejected any notion of it being a missing link or new human species. It's only the Western scientists involved, eager to be the discoverers or identifiers of a new species of human and hence the mythical 'missing link' that continue to make a song and dance about the wrist bones in order to convince themselves they really have made one the greatest discoveries of all time.
It's a rather sad exercise in self delusion really.
Even if evolution did occur, that's not to say that God doesn't exist. Personally, I am open to believing that we did evolve from a more primative line. But I also think that if that WAS the case, then it was the hand of God that did it.
Thus, I could be described as an evolutionary theist. The truth is, I don't know, and don't have an opinion one way or the other. But they are not mutually exclusive points of view. Only short sighted assholes see it one way or another.
Science is hellbent on theories and laws. Well if that's the case, then they'd realize that the laws of entropy precludes the evolution of life from merely atoms that came together to form more complex structures, and eventually giving rise to life. It's a load of garbage, unless of course something bigger than our comprehension wanted it that way. Otherwise, NOTHING EVER BECOMES MORE ORDERED. IT BECOME INCREASINGLY RANDOM.
"Eye me heartie ,I like the cut of ya jib."
"Ye be welcome to sit at our table any night,drink dark rum and banter about the universal laws of spirituality, pirates and other things that matter and anti matter".:cool:
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect. :rolleyes:
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect. :rolleyes:
What this one?
Entropy (information theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Information entropy)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in information theory. For other uses, see Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >
why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect. :rolleyes:
What this one?
Entropy (information theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Information entropy)
Jump to:
navigation,
search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in
information theory. For other uses, see
Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In
information theory,
entropy (sometimes known as
self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a
random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the
Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an
expected value, the
information contained in a message, usually in units such as
bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average
information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by
Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "
A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >
why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?
Leave it to Andre to put up a thread stopping post where we all scratch our heads and wonder what the fuck he's talking about ;D
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect. :rolleyes:
What this one?
Entropy (information theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Information entropy)
Jump to:
navigation,
search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in
information theory. For other uses, see
Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In
information theory,
entropy (sometimes known as
self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a
random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the
Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an
expected value, the
information contained in a message, usually in units such as
bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average
information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by
Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "
A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >
why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?
Leave it to Andre to put up a thread stopping post where we all scratch our heads and wonder what the fuck he's talking about ;D
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
You panicked and posted twice ;D.
My job here is done..
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Actually if I think I'm understanding Andre correctly, he's asking why the seemingly contradictory theories of creation vs evolution can't coexist as the different sides of the same coin.
Well, the answer to that is if you just believe in an idea of God as a creator then it's no problem, God could be responsible for creation, and he could have started it all off through evolution.
However, if you believe in the Abrahamic God of the Christians, Muslims and Jews then the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed.
The Torah, Koran and New Testament all make it clear that death and suffering came into the world only as a consequence of Adam's sin and that prior to that no 'entropy' for want of a better word existed.
Evolution states that chaos, destruction and death were the very elements that combined to form the world as we see it today, a viewpoint completely incompatible with the Biblical and Islamic concepts of God.
The most prominent athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this better than most Christians and Muslims sadly.
The Christian or Muslim who attempts to graft Darwinism onto his religious beliefs and embrace evolution as merely God's method are sadly confused as and in a way deserving of the contempt that the likes of Dawkins and the athiestc heap upon them.
It's two diametrically opposed belief systems, take a stand for one or the other, attempting to sit on the fence and water down all the teachings of your faith in order to accomodate the current teachings of men in white coats is a wretched way to live imo.
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
You panicked and posted twice ;D.
My job here is done..
haha I was confused and disorientated ;D
Re: Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Von Milash
CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.
you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.
OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect. :rolleyes:
What this one?
Entropy (information theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Information entropy)
Jump to:
navigation,
search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in
information theory. For other uses, see
Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the
Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an
expected value, the
information contained in a message, usually in units such as
bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average
information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by
Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "
A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >
why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?
OK, in your quote, entropy is defined as the measure of uncertainty in a random variable. It's kind of a statistical concept. Uncertainty can lead to disorder if you can accept that there are many more possible ways that things can be disordered than ordered in a certain way. An analogy, though not a particularly good one, is that of a herd of monkeys at typewriters accidentally typing out the words to Space Ritual by Hawkwind.
Entropy does not say "nothing ever becomes more odered, things must only become more random". Entropy does say that things tend towards disorder, in a probablistic sense.
Here is a quote from the same wiki article you have quoted from above. It seems to imply the opposite, that evolution is not inconsistent with laws of entropy.
Entropy and life
Main article: Entropy and life
For nearly a century and a half, beginning with Clausius' 1863 memoir "On the Concentration of Rays of Heat and Light, and on the Limits of its Action", much writing and research has been devoted to the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and the evolution of life. The argument that life feeds on negative entropy or negentropy as put forth in the 1944 book What is Life? by physicist Erwin Schrödinger served as a further stimulus to this research. Recent writings[citation needed] have utilized the concept of Gibbs free energy to elaborate on this issue. Tangentially, some creationists have erroneously argued that entropy rules out evolution.[28]
In the popular 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, for example, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."[29]
Evolution related definitions:
- Negentropy - a shorthand colloquial phrase for negative entropy.[30]
- Ectropy - a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized.[19]
- Syntropy - a tendency towards order and symmetrical combinations and designs of ever more advantageous and orderly patterns.
- Extropy – a metaphorical term defining the extent of a living or organizational system's intelligence, functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth.
- Ecological entropy - a measure of biodiversity in the study of biological ecology.
In a study titled “Natural selection for least action” published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A., Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki describe how the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, showing how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. In this view, evolution explores possible paths to level differences in energy densities and so increase entropy most rapidly. Thus, an organism serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow successive organisms to transfer more energy within their environment.[31]
.......
Andre your question seems to ask, "couldn't it all be part of God's plan" I used to think so, in order to reconcile the existence of God with the implausibility of the Old Testament. But now, the whole idea that the evolution of earth's history over x billion years is all part of the grand plan of some supreme omnipotent being seems less plausible than the story that ends with, "and on the 7th day he rested".
