ahh, I see what you mean. sort of like saying, if he did it twice, then surely she did it twice, without evidence to say that she did in fact do it twice.
inductive reasoning, I think it is? and science is what, deductive? hmm. . .
what was interesting in the article that jar linked was that it was claiming mircocephaly to be the cuase. Haven't other hobbits been found on the island? If so, wouldn't that tend to favor the new species argument?
especially since microcephaly is really, really rare?
The skull and bones of one adult female, and fragments from up to six other specimens, were found in the Liang Bua limestone caves on Flores Island, which lies at the eastern tip of Java.
So you could have a dwarf species with one specimen with micrencephaly and get the same results ....
A major problem is that there appears to have been some tampering with the original fossils before any proper casts were made, so the original information may have been lost (the information is upthread).
A second problem is that this find has not (yet) been replicated.
Personally I doubt the "micrencephaly theory" but I'll wait for more information.
I also seem to remember the claim that hobbits lived on Flores for 800k years. Whatever the basis of that claim, Eckhardt must address it. I wonder how he plans to do it; the sneak preview articles so far ignore the issue.
Edited by Barbarian, : English punctuation differs from the Hungarian one ...
A recent study led by the Smithsonian shows that the wrist bones of H. floresiensis are much closer to extant (non-human) apes and early hominids than they are to Homo. In fact, if I'm reading the article correctly, it may be that this species might be removed from the genus Homo.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
The wrist structure is shared with Australopithecines, early Homo and other apes, indicating that the seperation of Homo sapiens & Homo floresiensis between .8 & 1.8 Ma ago but there's nothing in the paper to indicate that they should be removed from Homo.
From the paper:
quote:This difference between human and nonhuman primate trapezoid shape is concomitantly reflected by the shapes and articular configurations of the carpals that articulate with the trapezoid, and all of these carpals are derived in modern humans in comparison to those in other primates (Figs. 2 and 3) (9, 13). Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens and Neandertals share these derived morphological features with modern humans, suggesting that they are most likely inherited from a recent common ancestor (13). A capitate attributed to Homo antecessor (16) and dated to 0.8 million years ago (Ma) (17) also shares the derived condition (13, 16). Thus, the current paleontological evidence suggests that this complex of wrist features evolved by at least 800,000 years ago.
quote:The wrist morphology of LB1 may ultimately help falsify or support specific hypotheses regarding the phylogenetic position of H. floresiensis (1, 5, 7). Unfortunately, no carpals are attributed to Homo erectus sensu lato, which is otherwise well represented in the fossil record between 1.8 and 0.8 Ma, with the exception of a partial lunate from Zhoukoudian (32). However, if hominin carpals that date within this period of time are discovered, their primitive or derived morphology will allow a firmer assessment of their phylogenetic relationship to other Pleistocene hominin species, such as modern H. sapiens and H. floresiensis.
I just read the lastest report and they claim it is a monkey.Kind of funny when you think about it because of all the hype it made.Seems like these things are making evolutionist look like cryptozoologist in search of the long lost manape.
Well I can't find it anywhere on Discovery if that isn't where you meant maybe you could give some more direction. I think you are going to have to produce a link or be more specific, for a start the Discovery channel news site doesn't even have an evolution section.
The latest 'Flores man' article I could find on Discovery was from April and didn't suggest that they were chimps at all but rather that they were merely diminutive Homo sapiens.
So could you please provide a link that works or something to lead us to this article?
I would if i could remember which science news site it was.Theres only thousands of them.Any way if you cant find it im sure it will be out in all of them very soon.I wish i could remember the guys name who closed the investigation that would very helpful.He said the wrist bones are monkey absolutely and that the case was closed.