Homo floresiensis - The "Hobbit"

What's "meaningless" about claiming that the little people of Flores Island (or the Neanders, for that matter) were intelligently designed?

Ad hominin attacks only serve to distract and derail threads when posters fail to design intelligent responses to others.

 

That is a rather arrogant approach to intelligent discussions about the little people. Are you so fixated on the pseudoscience of evolution as to preclude the possiblity that the Ebu Gogo were intelligently designed if not also created?

 

UTE:

"The question is whether they are modern humans or not. The morphology shows that they were not modern humans. If you disagree, then say why."

Of course, they weren't "modern humans" any more than Shakespeare, Aristotle or Noah were modern humans. The morphology of skeletal remains which were described as resembling "mashed potatos" can hardly be conclusive of anything except the intelligent design of natural decompositional processes which seem to follow intelligently designed laws of material decomposition.

"To go down the ID path on this subject is beside the point. They may or may not be ID, but that does not change whether they can be shoe-horned into a YE paradigm or not."

The Ebu Gogo can't be "shoe-horned" into an evolutionary pattern either unless of course, it is intelligently designed, naturally.

"The ID path adds nothing to the discussion. It is only a distraction to avoid the subject."
====================================

What is the subject, pray tell, if not an intelligent investigation into the intelligently designed origins of these wee folk and a subsequently intelligent discussion thereof?

 

We need to remember that this find is a relatively new find, and is subject to peer review. Also, a single find may not necessarily be sufficient evidence to answer many of the questions that arise, which may only be answered by the discovery of additional similar finds and subsequent peer review.

 

The discussion, as first begun by you in your original post, was open to anyone interested and didn't specify any framework or reference within which the topic might be discussed.

I happen to see much more evidence of the apparently intelligent design of these tiny people than I see any evidence of evolution, and see no need to limit the discussion to your favorite one-sided "side-line" of evo hypotheses.

You certainly seem to have an imperialistic attitude about science. Might I suggest that you temper some of your high-fallutin opinions about your scientific omnipotence and open your mind to the reasonable opinions of some others on this forum?

 

Now's the time to show us. Don't tell us how great it is; show it to us.

You'd be a whole lot more effective for your point of view, if you could present some evidence, instead of personal attacks.

 

Look for yourself. If you can't see intelligent design in nature without my assistance, how can I possibly show it to you any more than you can possibly show me evolution if I can't see it?

It is not in my interest to make personal attacks any more than it is to present evidence in order to be "effective."

 

Well, you haven't changed any,karl. When you learn some facts, come on back and we can talk about them.

 

Ok, Karl.