1. Nobody destroyed the bones, Orrin. If you think the damage done to them was willful, what do you think "they" were trying to cover up?

2. Why does this story fascinate you so? It's almost as if you think it puts a dent in the theory of evolution.

Because it's funny.

Funny it is. Hobbits!

creeper, be assured we understand very well how nothing ever puts a dent in the theory of evolution.

Correct, Peter. That is not to say that nothing could put a dent in the theory of evolution, just that nothing does in any sense that calls the whole modern synthesis into question. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but has not been falsified, while creationism and/or ID are not falsifiable or, to the extent to which for example literal creationism is falsifiable, it has also been falsified.

If someone here indeed thinks that the hobbits somehow falsify the theory of evolution, then could they please explain how? Orrin keeps mongering some kind of conspiracy theory, but the so-called hobbits, whether a separate species, variation or simply somehow diseased and growth-stunted primates, don't prove anything new about the theory of evolution either way.

creeper: You're being willfully obtuse here. Go back and read all the articles that came out after the "hobbit" announcement. They are full of triumphant proclamations that here we have ironclad evidence for evolution at work, via speciation through environmental pressures. oj's glee is over the fact that what we actually have is at best utter scientific incompetence and at worst outright fraud. Along with the over-the-top reporting, it's a huge black eye for the scientific establishment.

"it's a huge black eye for the scientific establishment."

In an area (evolutionary biology) which seems to accumulate more than you'd expect from mere statistics. It's a subject that seems to attract people who are either incompetent or willing to commit fraud.

b,

"Go back and read all the articles that came out after the "hobbit" announcement. They are full of triumphant proclamations that here we have ironclad evidence for evolution at work, via speciation through environmental pressures."

I don't recall such triumphalism being rampant, nor would there be, for the simple reason that the potential existence of homo floriensis doesn't falsify the theory of evolution, nor does it specifically add any out-of-the-ordinary confirmation for same.

To humor you, though, I looked through, first, the articles that Orrin linked to in his previous comments on the matter, second, googled 'homo floriensis' and went for any scientific sources among them, and third, went to a couple of pro-evolutionist sites (pharyngula, corante) to see what they said about the 'hobbits' back when the story broke. No sign of this evolutionary triumphalism that you accuse me of willfully ignoring. If I'm being obtuse, it is not willful; it is because there appears to be nothing to be obtuse of.

This doesn't mean that there is nobody at all on this planet who might have made such claims, and so you're of course welcome to bring some choice links to the party. To be much more succinct: got a link?

"oj's glee is over the fact that what we actually have is at best utter scientific incompetence and at worst outright fraud."

The tale of this finding is indeed one of a pathetic and shameful turf war among rival scientists, to the detriment of the subject under investigation. Incompetence on the part of Teuku Jacob of Gadjah Mada University indeed.

Fraud? Possibly, but there is no indication of such, not even on the part of Teuku Jacob, nor is there a possible motive in the absence of this impacting the theory of evolution either pro or con. Perhaps there was a scientist here trying to make a name for him- or herself. Feel free to point them out. I don't detect a creationist/evolutionist controversy here.

Contrary to Orrin's claim, the bones were never destroyed, though they were damaged by incompetent handling. Claiming that this was a fraud was a charge so flimsy that it even made Orrin blush .

If you think that the 'hobbits' somehow falsify the theory of evolution, then could you please explain how?

"In an area (evolutionary biology) which seems to accumulate more than you'd expect from mere statistics. It's a subject that seems to attract people who are either incompetent or willing to commit fraud."

Keeping in mind that a mere rattling off of a supposed fraud or two (regurgitating Piltdown man or the peppered moth, for example) will not justify such an insulting charge, considering the number of scientists involved in evolutionary biology, would you be willing to back up such a vague, meaningless slur with any kind of meaningful facts?

Every example the Darwinists have ever offered has turned out to be either intentional fraud or willful inorance. The honest ones, like Mayr and Darwin himself, just acknowledge the lack of evidence.

creeper:

They're anti-Darwinian because they're human, which is why they're unlikely to be actually fraudulent, just willfuilly misinterpreted. The bones are real, the Darwinist explanations are fraud.

creeper: From the National Geographic article authored by the "discoverers": "The dwarfing seen on Flores is powerful evidence that humans aren't exempt from natural selection." See the April 2005 issue for further details. In other words, they claim that this is game, set, and match for modern evolutionary theory.

I never implied that the "hobbits" falsify evolution. The question is why the scientific establishment (and the journal Nature IS the scientific establishment, in all its modern orthodox "glory") was so quick to jump on this story when they should have been far, far more cautious. Extraordinary claims were made, and have already completely fallen apart. Once the bones were "accidentally" damaged to such an extent that no one can verify the claims of the original authors, they might as well have never existed.

creeper:

Remember the Monty Python sketch that featured
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"? I see a modern update with you screaming: "Nothing falsifies the theory of evolution".

Would you pleae address b's cogent and well-ariculated points and stop with the cant?

One at a time.

Orrin,

"Every example the Darwinists have ever offered has turned out to be either intentional fraud or willful inorance. The honest ones, like Mayr and Darwin himself, just acknowledge the lack of evidence."

Mayr acknowledging a lack of evidence to support the theory of evolution is based on quote mining. Darwin acknowledging such a thing is only partially meaningful, since he (along with Wallace) proposed a new theory some of the predictions of which were only shown to be true once other scientific discoveries had been made and/or other fields had been explored. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

To find examples, Orrin, all you have to do is actually make it through one of Mayr's book or follow one of the links that I've provided for you.

b,

"From the National Geographic article authored by the "discoverers": "The dwarfing seen on Flores is powerful evidence that humans aren't exempt from natural selection." See the April 2005 issue for further details. In other words, they claim that this is game, set, and match for modern evolutionary theory.

Even if there were a scientific controversy regarding the theory of evolution, the claim that the 'hobbits' aren't exempt from natural selection does not all of a sudden settle such a controversy, nor does it provide fodder (if perceived honestly) to those who are eager to see the theory of evolution torn to shreds.

"I never implied that the "hobbits" falsify evolution."

It would be good of you if you didn't, because they don't; however, once you jump into baseless accusations or implications of supposed conspiracy (by making vague insinuations about the motivations of the incompetent scientist who damaged them), you actually are implying that.

"The question is why the scientific establishment (and the journal Nature IS the scientific establishment, in all its modern orthodox "glory") was so quick to jump on this story when they should have been far, far more cautious."

The journal Nature is hardly synonymous with the scientific establishment. From what I've seen of the reaction by the scientific community, they did not go ga-ga as regards this proving or disproving the theory of evolution. That issue was entirely secondary to them, from pretty much every interested account I have seen.

What is happening here (apart from the shameful behavior of Teuku Jacob of Gadjah Mada University), is simply the scientific community examining the available evidence.

"Extraordinary claims were made, and have already completely fallen apart. Once the bones were "accidentally" damaged to such an extent that no one can verify the claims of the original authors, they might as well have never existed."

The most "extraordinary claim" you've found to date was that it confirmed a scientifically utterly uncontroversial point - no scientists claim that humans are exempt from natural selection, Orrin's wild imagination to the contrary.

It really is quite simple:

1. An unusual find was made. The fact that it was unusual made headlines. The find was in line with current scientific understanding and was uncontroversial as far as the theory of evolution went, though it represented a potential addition to the phylogenetic tree, albeit in line with current understanding of evolutionary biology.

2. An absurd regional turf war between rival scientists erupted. One scientists took the fossils and, via incompetent handling, damaged (not destroyed) them. The damage is not "convenient" in the sense that it potentially obscures something that creationists or IDers believe would be there to confirm their notions over the theory of evolution. The 'hobbit' bones are simply irrelevant to these alternative notions.

3. Scientists are debating the significance of these bones. Whether they represent a new species or simply diseased individuals of existing species is interesting to scientists, but of no significance to creationists/IDers.

Again, if someone here indeed thinks that the hobbits somehow falsify the theory of evolution, then could they please explain how? And if there is no such explanation, what exactly is the alleged fraud that is supposed to cover up what?

Barring an answer to these questions, could y'all drop the vague tinfoil-hat insinuations of some vague conspiracy?

C'mon Peter, you're smarter than this.

"Remember the Monty Python sketch that featured
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"? I see a modern update with you screaming: "Nothing falsifies the theory of evolution"."

Since you're stooping to inanities, I take it you've run out of coherent rebuttals. No problem, we can easily squabble about something else on the morrow - this has nothing to do with the 'Darwinism/creationism' bickering anyway.

"Would you pleae address b's cogent and well-ariculated points and stop with the cant? "

They weren't that cogent, and I did above, twice. You're welcome to respond.

Of course, modern synthesis is, itself, an attempt to patch up a gaping whole in Darwinism.

David,

The modern synthesis was a successful attempt to integrate Darwin's theories and various post-Darwin discoveries (DNA etc.) into a coherent whole.

Ernst Mayr: There was a very crucial period in the early part of the last century during which the so-called evolutionary synthesis took place. And up to that time, meaning the period between 1859 and the evolutionary synthesis, which was in the 1940s, there was a great turmoil in evolutionary biology. There were at least four if not five major basic theories of evolution, for instance. But anyhow, the evolutionary synthesis, initiated by Dobzhansky and then joined by people like myself and Julian Huxley and Simpson and Stebbins and so forth, the evolutionary synthesis sort of put a stop to the major theorizing, particularly in the evolutionary field. And what is very interesting, then you have Avery showing that nucleic acids rather than proteins are the genetic, evolutionary material. And then came Watson-Crick. And then came all the developments in molecular biology and finally the developments in genomics. And each time one of these major upheavals occurred, we expected the theory of the evolutionary synthesis to have to be rewritten. But the fact is, and I don't know whether any molecular biologist has complained about it, or expressed regrets, that none of these major upheavals in the factual structure of this new biology from Avery to genomics, none of these changes really affected what is usually referred to as the Darwinian paradigm, the set of theories that make up modern Darwinism, from let's say the 1950s, let's say from Watson-Crick to today. And new books come out all the time in which the author tries to prove that Darwinism is invalid. Well, I think even if you're a neutral outsider, you will admit that none of these books has been a success. And in the end, it has always been showed that Darwinism was and is correct.

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotle's concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin's founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

ERNST MAYR: One of the surprising things that I discovered in my work on the philosophy of biology is that when it comes to the physical sciences, any new theory is based on a law, on a natural law. Yet as several leading philosophers have stated, and I agree with them, there are no laws in biology like those of physics. Biologists often use the word law, but for something to be a law, it has to have no exceptions. A law must be beyond space and time, and therefore it cannot be specific. Every general truth in biology though is specific. Biological "laws" are restricted to certain parts of the living world, or certain localized situations, and they are restricted in time. So we can say that their are no laws in biology, except in functional biology which, as I claim, is much closer to the physical sciences, than the historical science of evolution.

"Patch up a gaping whole" indeed.

books...in which the author tries to prove that Darwinism is invalid

does not falsify the theory

creeper, what other scientific theory can you think of whose proponents spend so little time trying to substantiate the theory by addressing gaps and deficiencies and focussing so much on the nonsensical proposition that it can't be disproven, which every logician knows is a philosophical impossibility? You are shrewd enough to realize that Darwinism cannot be falsified for the exact same reasons it cannot be proven scientifically, but we are too, so why do you keep beating this horse as if anyone were saying otherwise?

Do you really believe that it was just scientific discovery and debate in glorious isolation from other world events that led the modern synthesis to be dreamed up in the 1940's and '50's. That trusty old natural selection was proving a little too hot to handle in those years, wasn't it? Suddenly "red in tooth and claw" is out and hugs and cooperation as survival mechanisms are in. Throwing in random mutation watered it down to the level of political acceptability, provided a ready-made explanation for anything that ever happened and guranteed the theory would never be falsifiable.

Orrin, instead of shoehorning clarifying Mayr quotes into my post, why not just put together your own post and claim it properly as your own contribution to the discussion?

For the information of others, in my post at 2:11 a.m. above, the first and last paragraph as well as the first Mayr quote (the one in blockquote) constitute my comment; the rest has been added by Orrin just because I misrepresented Mayr.

creeper: As you know, I think that modern synthesis still puts too much emphasis on natural selection, which doesn't actually exist other than tautologically. But it seems perfectly clear that even the insufficient reduction in natural selection's importance represented by the modern synthesis tore the heart out of Darwinism.

Which is why Mayr concedes it's a philosophy, rather than a physical science.

creeper:

I said: "I never implied that the "hobbits" falsify evolution."

You said: "It would be good of you if you didn't, because they don't; however, once you jump into baseless accusations or implications of supposed conspiracy (by making vague insinuations about the motivations of the incompetent scientist who damaged them), you actually are implying that."

Nonsense. I implied no such thing. You're being far too defensive about this whole thing, which is completely inexplicable. First of all, my "vague insinuations about the motivations of the incompetent scientist who damaged them" show that you missed the point, which may at least partially have been my own fault. Shortly after the initial "discovery" it was revealed that there are villages full of pygmy modern humans living very close to the "hobbit" cave. The fact that the "discoverers" did not mention this leaves 2 choices:

1) they were not aware of this fact, in which case they are utterly incompetent and should be laughed out of the anthropological/palaeontological world.

2) they were aware of this fact, in which case their failure to mention this fact that would effectively shoot down their theory of speciation through environmental pressure rises (in my mind) to the level of fraud.

The fact that the samples were then "accidentally" damaged so badly as to prevent further analysis is either amazingly convenient or evidence of a pathetic attempt to cover up an inept fraud. If you think that inept fraud doesn't happen by established scientists, read about the recent Bell Labs fiasco where identical plots were used in different papers, purporting to show entirely different things, by a "star" researcher.

As far as I can tell, you're essentially saying "nothing to see here, move along." Your arguments that this was merely "unusual" is utterly unconvincing. The find was mentioned by National Geographic (one of the main sponsors of the research) as the most significant palaeontological find of the past half-century. Now, if you want to condemn the scientific press for blowing this all out of proportion, go ahead, but you don't even seem to be able to do that.

Your dismissal of Nature's status is rather surprising, and is completely incorrect. It is basically the New York Times of the scientific community. It is THE voice of scientific orthodoxy.

I'll offer some friendly advice (really!)--don't waste any effort defending these losers. It only makes one wonder what other garbage research you'd be willing to defend no matter what. I really should be your ally on this--I have a PhD in a physical science and have been author of a bushel-full of papers in the leading journals in my field. I don't work in academia anymore, but I have plenty of friends who do. In other words, I know how science works, and have absolutely no axe to grind against it. But if that means that one must defend research and results that are obviously as grossly flawed as the "hobbit" fiasco simply because they fit in with scientific orthodoxy and are opposed by anti-Science (capitalization is crucial...) types, then no thanks. I already belong a Church, and ain't interested in joining another.