Dooface, please note that the disagreements I listed are points that evolutionists themselves are making and are contained in the link I provided.

You have perfectly proved my point about the snobbery involved here.

After a number of paragraphs digesting the various components in the article, I say:

"but no doubt none of the groups would ever have the intelligence or, given intelligence, the courage, to wonder if the same questions might apply to other 'evidences' of evolution. Evolution is a FACT we know nothing about other than its right and YOU'RE wrong you cretinist pig!"

Now, when given the opportunity to scrutinized the foundations of evolutionary theory, even though I NEVER said it was a win for the creationist side, that's exactly what you inferred I was saying:

"So any time that there is an unanswered question, this is a "win" for the Creationist side?"

But I never said it was a win for the creationist side, did I?  All I wondered was whether many more 'evidences' of evolution are actually 'unanswered questions.'  You turned that around as an argument or 'win' for creation, which only goes to prove the larger point that evolutionists can't stand on their own two feet.  They can only stand themselves up by attacking creationists.

I would suggest that rather than trying to make this a 'creation vs evolution' debate, see the point I was making where you have a 'evolution vs evolution' debate, returning to the question:  Do we really know anything from evolution?

If all of the component pieces are disputed, how can we possibly embrace the whole?  And all of the component pieces are disputed by the proponents of the whole!  No need to invoke Creationism.  Every aspect of evolutionary theory is challenged except the alleged 'fact' of evolution.

Now invoking God.  Is there any particular reason why you can't simply talk about evolution on its own terms?

I'm getting EXTREMELY frustrated with my posts being misrepresented and misunderstood both in this thread and in others.  It's seriously getting on my nerves.

"All it said was a skull believed to be a primitive human could in fact be a diseased modern human."

My point was why couldn't that question be posed about EVERY primitive human?  In fact, I know that there are some evolutionists that say just that about some of them.  Why not all of them?  In fact, that was the very question I put in the first post.  I wonder how it was missed.

"Neither conclusion was proved definitively. Neither conclusion would call into question any aspect of the theory of evolution."

Uh, if it could be said about all of them, that obviously would be one conclusion that would call into question at least one aspect of the theory.  Perhaps we have different understandings of what the word 'aspect' means.  See above.

"The article doesn't say this at all. You simply asserting it doesn't make it true."

[extremely bitter rhetoric snipped] I didn't assert anything. I asked a question.

Here:

On the other hand, maybe the Hobbit is just a diseased homo sapien?

An interesting question! This is precisely what I and thousands of others have wondered about the Neanderthal or all sorts of other homo erectus remains.

Probably can't know that, either. Was the Hobbit healthy and an evolutionary exception, or is it an unhealthy specimen and therefore no evidence for evolution? Can't know. That's science, I guess.

I asked two questions.  In my next post trying to clarify things for whatshisface, I extended it by asking whether or not the argument here couldn't be applied to other things.  You and whathisface (the new guy) are smoking some serious crap if you read into what I am saying as being an attempt to represent the evolutionists.  In fact, I said:

"no doubt none of the groups would ever have the intelligence or, given intelligence, the courage, to wonder if the same questions might apply to other 'evidences' of evolution."

So its just dishonest to suggest that I was suggesting that any of them were suggesting anything like that they were suggesting evolution was in doubt.  I explicitly said that 'no doubt' none of them would ever think to do that.  Naturally, I said it in an insulting way, because I do think it reflects a certain close-mindedness prevalent on the subject and certainly doesn't make 'science' out to be very reliable when such things are allowed to be considered a 'scientific fact'.  But I DID SAY 'no doubt.'

"Now, I'm not a biologist, but I don't think this "law" about brain size that they talk about is all that ironclad. Just because it holds true in most cases doesn't mean there are no exceptions."

Oh, I absolutely believe you are right.  When it works, the law holds.  When it doesn't, it's only an 'exception.'  That my friends we call 'falsifiability.'

"Further, how do these remains indicate any evidence whatsoever of a divine creator? The best you can hope for to show signs of this is that they are diseased modern humans."

Hmmm.  I'm sitting here wondering where the [expletive of your choice] I said anything about this arguing for creationism.  You have proved yet again the tagline point to the first post:

"Evolution is a FACT we know nothing about other than its right and YOU'RE wrong you cretinist pig!"

We now have two atheists who have looked at this criticism of mine and mistakenly believed I was arguing for creationism.  Where is the malfunction here?  I will say it yet again:  can evolution stand on its own two feet, or not?

Upon reflection, I realize that my view might not be well known.  I know I said it often enough before the hack, but perhaps not recently.  You both are running under the assumption that I feel compelled to contrast creation and evolution.  The truth is that I am not all that interested in discussing creation at all- and if I did, it would be on its own terms, not by constantly running after the evolutionists.  I think evolution FAILS without reference to creationism.   I don't disbelieve evolution because I believe in creation.  I disbelieve in evolution because I think it sucks, even proceeding on its own terms.  That frees me up to consider other possibilities.  But people refuse to examine evolution on its own terms, as we have seen now twice by responses that look at a criticism of evolution and somehow think a creationist argument has been posed.

Finally, I made the 'component part' statement as an explanation for why this might be significant.  I did not in anyway suggest that evolutionists themselves think of it in that way, no matter what you assert.  My question was really quite clear, and the significance pretty straight forward for anyone reading what I say instead of making up things that I say.   So, how about I REPEAT IT:

If one can say that one 'primitive human' is only a diseased homo sapien, why can't one say that about ALL primitive humans?  Indeed, if every 'primitive human' is actually a diseased human, that undermines any illusion of claiming to have real knowledge about human evolution.  WHAT IF <------

I'm going to pause here for a moment because there seems to be some ambiguity between question words.

When someone says 'what if' they are not:

1.  Alleging that the people who may be in question are actually saying such things.
2.  Asserting anything, actually

Because,

In the English language, 'what if' means a QUESTION IS FOLLOWING.

See also the word 'was.'   Also, look for such indicators as punctuation marks like this one:  ?

So,  WHAT IF all of the component parts are challengeable and challenged, even by those who themselves embrace the whole?  Does that not call into question whether or not we have any real knowledge about that whole?

Oh, and here is another question, while I'm at it.  See if anyone recognizes it.

"Is there any particular reason why you can't simply talk about evolution on its own terms?"

I'm not the one invoking God or creationism.  I sure would like to see a little more in depth response to my points, instead of inventing points and putting them in my mouth.

snt.johnny.  You ARE a thiest and creationist.  Some CANNOT see beyond that, bud.

"I haven't actually read up on this, but I'm going to assume that Neanderthals [....] meet the brain size test."

It would help to understand that the brain size test is derived by measuring intelligences (as well as we think we can, anyway) of modern species in proportion to their cranial size.   A pattern, rule, or law, is derived from these observations, and then is used in this context to apply to organisms that are no longer alive.

So, there is no real meaningful way to say that the 'Neanderthals meet the brain size test' except to look at them, measure their cranium, and then APPLY the rule, and assume the rule holds, and make your assessment.

When you find tools with something that confirms that some intelligence exists there, but absence of tools does not necessarily mean that there was no intelligence.

"I also don't know how many primitive human skulls have actually been discovered."

Not many.

"I'm willing to consider that the remains of every Neanderthal ever discovered were from diseased modern humans."

I will try to find the paleotologist's site that argues that they are the same species as us, and possibly either are diseased, inbred, or perhaps just a normal subset of variation like we see in modern humans.  In my search, I found this:

Click Here

No more than 200 specimens of 'primitive' humans exist according to this, and some constitute only a small part.  I read once that all the specimens could fit on a single lab table.

"Three questions then arise. What is the evidence for disease? What is the evidence for a more primitive species? Which evidence is stronger?"

Your questions are good, except for another entirely plausible possibility- they could also just be normal variations of the human genome.

My point in listing this article was not to live or die by the 'diseased' hypothesis.  My point was to highlight the weakness of 'knowledge' on such matters.  We say we 'know' these things 'but there is as much variation of the quality of 'knowledge' assertions within the scientific community as there is variation in the human genome.  When we say 'science knows...' it could mean just about anything.  I am speaking specifically of evolutionary theory.

So, with that in mind, I think the answers to your question would be- we can't KNOW whether they were healthy or not.  We can't KNOW whether cranial size really corresponded to intelligence according to the rule.  We can't even KNOW if they could not interbreed with modern homo sapiens.  Obviously, if they could, we could not consider them to be a different species according to the most common evolutionary definition of 'species' around right now.

I would think the case could be made a whole lot stronger if there was some sort of catalog available of various human bone structures as well as apes, chimps, etc, etc.  If we found a person walking around with a hobbit skull on top of their shoulders, that would be a pretty decisive blow to the idea that this is really a real ancestor.  Similarly, neanderthal.  Or if we found a gorilla somewhere with a neanderthal skull.

Of course, if we found both a living gorilla and a human with a neanderthal skull, that'd be pretty darn odd, but even I would concede that is evidence for evolution.

" If you don't wish to talk about creationism here, fine, forget it. Let's continue examining evolution."

I'm skeptical, but I have to take you at your word.  Absolutely- let's stay on the topic of evolution.

Okay, but what about this?:

Reporting his findings in the current issue of the Journal of Comparative Human Biology, Prof Henneberg concludes: "All hominims appear to be a single gradually evolving lineage containing only one species at each point in time."

Isn't that still evolution?