Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens
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 at that time. Indeed, that is the truth which emerges when the analysis performed on H. floresiensis is not restricted to its anatomy.
H. floresiensis: An Ancient Human Race
A human being may be a dwarf, have a small brain volume, a slightly protruding jaw or a narrow forehead. He or she may even walk leaning over with a hunched back due to a disease of the joints. Yet those anatomical features do not make that person a non-human species.
Modern day dwarves are living documentation of this. According to the Guinness Records Internet site, the American Tamara de Treaux is a 77 cm (2 ft 7 in) tall cinema actor. The Filipino Weng Wang is another short actor at 83 cm (2 ft 9 in) tall. The shortest married couple are the Brazilian Douglas da Silva (90 cm / 35 in) and Claudia Rocha (93 cm / 36 in). (iv)
Just like these people, H. floresiensis individuals possessed creative and linguistic capabilities, led social lives and were intelligent. H. floresiensis is of course an important discovery in terms of showing that human beings can actually possess such small brain volumes.
So, how is it that these people possessed such small brain volumes and short skeletons?
In their articles published in the journal Nature, (v, vi) the scientists who discovered H. floresiensis touch on two possibilities with regard to the dimensions of these fossils. The first is abnormalities that emerged as the result of a genetic mutation. One of the leading names from the research team, paleoanthropologist Peter Brown, describes in an interview published on the journal Scientific American website how brain volume is exceedingly small in people exposed to such abnormalities (pituitary dwarves or microcephalic dwarves). Brown states that no traces of such abnormality have been encountered in the H. floresiensis anatomy, but it is also hard to disregard the possibility (vii). The second possibility, on which scientists have concentrated more is that H. floresiensis may have been affected by a process known as island dwarfism.
Island dwarfism describes living things divided by geographic isolation from the land population undergoing gradual physical shrinkage due to a local insufficiency of food resources. This process is well known from mammal fossils unearthed on islands. For example, it is estimated that 1 metre tall elephants discovered on Sicily and Malta turned into dwarves in as little as 5,000 years after being stranded on the islands and divided from 4 metre high elephants. (viii) This explanation is distorted on Ntvmsnbc.com and H. floresiensis is claimed "to have undergone an unforeseen process of evolution on the island." In fact, however, nothing about island dwarfism supports the theory of evolution. A living thing entering into a process of dimensional shrinkage in no way acquires any new genetic feature, and does not turn into another living thing. It merely decreases in size within the boundaries permitted by its genetic pool. Since no new living thing or feature based on more complex genetic information emerges there can be no question of any "evolution" here. For instance, a mini-radio produced by engineers is still a radio, and no progress that might enable it to function as a television has taken place. In the same way that the mini-radio does not evolve into a television, so H. floresiensis did not evolve into other living forms. Therefore, Ntvmsnbc.com"s claims regarding H. floresiensis consist of groundless Darwinist propaganda.
The tools they used are evidence that H. floresiensis was an ancient human race
According to the dwarfism scenario, it is assumed that the H. floresiensis line descended from Homo erectus. The justification for that belief is as follows: In 1998, M.J. Morwood, one of the researchers who discovered H. floresiensis, reported that they had unearthed stone tools dating back some 800,000 years in previous digs on the island. (ix) Not only do these tools resemble those made by H. erectus, but H. floresiensis" facial anatomy also generally resembles that of H. erectus. (x) In addition, the East Asia region in which the island lies is one of the regions where H. erectus existed for a long period. One article published in Science journal in 1996 listed evidence that H. erectus had survived on Java, an Indonesian island like Flores, until as recently as 27,000 years ago. (xi)
All this shows that H. floresiensis is a variation of H. erectus and that both may have existed side by side 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 further details click HERE and HERE.)
National Geographic"s Evolution Deception
Right; H. floresiensis skull.
Left; Darwinist "motifs" added to the skull by National Geographic.
Close inspection reveals that organs such as lips, nose and ears, which cannot be determined from bones, have been portrayed, and in such a way as to impart an ape-like appearance. Just about all the world"s most prominent news agencies used this deceptive reconstruction in reporting the discovery of Homo floresiensis. A fossil that actually totally undermines evolutionary scenarios was thus distorted and depicted to millions as if it were actually evidence for Darwinism.
What H. floresiensis Reveals about the Myth of Evolution
For more than a century now, evolutionists have been claiming that there was an increase in brain volume during the imaginary human evolution process. They also relate the myth that during this fictitious process human beings acquired the intellect and powers of creativity and speech they possess in parallel to the growth in brain volume. None of these tales is of any scientific value, however. Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature and an evolutionist who has written many articles and books on the subject of evolution, admitted as much in his book In Search of Deep Time:
For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. (xii)
With the discovery of H. floresiensis, the myth that human intelligence emerged together with increase in brain volume has become even less credible than ever. That is because H. floresiensis, with a brain volume no larger than that of a chimpanzee, exhibits behaviour no different to that of a large-brained human being, thus proving that human intelligence and mental ability are not proportional to brain volume.
That is the exact meaning of Henry Gee"s words in interpreting the discovery of H. floresiensis: "The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find." (xiii)
"Little Lady of Flores Forces Rethink of Human Evolution"
The real shock for evolutionists came from learning that an alleged hominid with such a small brain volume lived not millions of years ago but only 18,000 years previously. Chris Stringer from London"s Natural History Museum admits his astonishment thus:
"Here is a creature with a brain the size of a chimpanzee"s, but apparently a tool-maker and hunter, and perhaps descended from the world"s first mariners. Its very existence shows how little we know about human evolution. I could never have imagined a creature like this, living as recently as this." (xiv)
Peter Brown, one of the leaders of the research team, describes his astonishment when he measured the skull, and admits that H. floresiensis is totally incompatible with evolutionary accounts: "Small stature is easy to accommodate, 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.
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.
i Robert Locke, The first human?, Discovering Archaeology, July - August 1999, p. 36
ii Julianna Kettlewell, "Skull fuels Homo erectus debate", 2 July 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3857113.stm
iii Robert Locke, ibid
iv Carl Wieland, "Soggy dwarf bones", http://answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1028dwarf.asp
v Brown P. et al. Nature, 431. 1055 - 1061 (2004).
vi Morwood M. J. et al. Nature, 431. 1087 - 1091(2004)
vii Kate Wong, "Digging Deeper: Q&A with Peter Brown", 27 October 2004, http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=00082F87-7D35-117E-BD3583414B7F0000
viii Lister A., et al. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 69. 277 - 292 (1996); Marta Mirazon Lahr & Robert Foley, "Human evolution writ small", 27 October 2004, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/4311043a.html
ix Morwood M. J. Nature, 392. 173 - 176 (1998)
x Marta Mirazon Lahr & Robert Foley, "Human evolution writ small", 27 October 2004, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/4311043a.html
xi C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Antón, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A. Suprijo, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast
Asia" Science, Vol 274, Issue 5294, 1870-1874 , 13 December 1996
xii Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record To A New Hýstory Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 5
xiii "Hobbit" joins human family tree, 27 October 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm
xiv "Our not so distant relative", The Guardian, 28 October 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1337198,00.html
xv " Our not so distant relative", The Guardian, 28 October 2004.