It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More proof of evolution!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Sorry if this has already been covered. This is more amazing than any myth....
news.nationalgeographic.com...


Heres the first paragraph of the 2 page report..


EDIT: sorry bout the shotty quoteing I still don't know how to quote external sources.



Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
October 27, 2004
Scientists have found skeletons of a hobbit-like species of human that grew no larger than a three-year-old modern child (See pictures). The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits, lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia 18,000 years ago.



[edit on 10-4-2006 by edwardteach]

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 14-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I can't remiber if it was on discovery or not but i watched something about that, but they had found that it was a genetic disorder and not a real ansestor.
although it could have been a different skull/...different story i don't know lol



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Some have questioned if florensis isn't just some diseased freak, but most scientists agree that its a genuine new species.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
The pygmy elephants would make a great pet. Is that some form of natural selection? The smaller the elephants, the less food they need to take in, and on an island, that is vital. So the smaller ones of the litter eat less food, and they keep getting smaller to where they can sustain a large population without eating all the food on the island. Or something along those lines. What are your opinions? Am I on the right track or way off?

[edit on 15-4-2006 by edwardteach]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
how is the discovery of small humans proof of evolution?



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
This is actually fairly old, read about this a few months back.
Pretty fascinating stuff actually, to think that there were a hobbit race, almost exactly as tolkein described (hobbits being an offshoot of the race of men). It's not proof of evolution exactly, but more of proof that at one time (and maybe still today) there were other humans on this planet.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Assuming that these "Hobbits" are an off-shoot of the human race...

Did they evolve "down" or did we evolve "up"? (As in size and stature).

If they are an off-shoot of humans, that would imply they came after/partially as a result of humans.... meaning they evolved down. How could this be and what environmental factors would cause this?



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Assuming that these "Hobbits" are an off-shoot of the human race...

Did they evolve "down" or did we evolve "up"? (As in size and stature).

If they are an off-shoot of humans, that would imply they came after/partially as a result of humans.... meaning they evolved down. How could this be and what environmental factors would cause this?


If you mean they evolved down as in stature then correct. But just because it's an offshoot doesn't mean it has to evolve upwards or downwards, they could've offshooted and evolved parallell to us.
unfortunately the brain cases of the hobbits were MUCH smaller than humans. and since there is still speculation as to whether or not size effects intelligence, it's still up in the air as to whether or not the hobbits were as intelligent as modern day humans.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I also don't see how it is proof of evolution but it does do one thing that science does not like: it forces science to take myth, legends and superstition a lot more seriously than they have been.

That is a good thing... proof that tall tales can be true rather than explained away as analogy or fantasy.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Yea I suppose your all right about it not being proof. But it does show that evolution does occur, if they were in fact a seperate species. They arrived on the island as normal sized humans, and thru a process of evolution became smaller, just like the elephants, to better cope with their surroundings. And the pygmy elephants shows a mechanism of evolution, doesn't it? If they evovled then why not humans?
Another interesting thing they were saying on that program was the locals on the island had tales of small beings that resembled the hobbits that vanished mysteriesly (sp?) only 300 years ago, not sure that has anything to do with the topic but interesting nonetheless.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
How do you think we turned wolves into little rat sized dogs?-selective breeding
That is an example of genetic manipulation by man, but the same process happens naturally hence evolution occurs. I'm not trying to say it is a fact that humans evolved from monkeys, but here is some further proof-why do have an appendix?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Seems the "hobbit" was not part of the evolutionary chain:

"The new analysis, done by Indonesian, American, Australian and Chinese researchers, purports that the claims of a new species, "Homo floresiensis," are incorrect."
www.foxnews.com...

Guess we have more digging to do.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I'm not so sure that's argument turning proof..
Not that I'm against evolution.
Could the shire and Atlantis be one in the same?!
Undoubtedly.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Seems the "hobbit" was not part of the evolutionary chain:

"The new analysis, done by Indonesian, American, Australian and Chinese researchers, purports that the claims of a new species, "Homo floresiensis," are incorrect."
www.foxnews.com...

Guess we have more digging to do.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by saint4God]


Hi Saint!!

Interesting. I'll probably download the (primary) article... will read at some point in the semi distant future.

It brings to light an interesting point though. I've never been a huge enthusiasiast of fossil evidence. Don't get me wrong, I think digging up bones from old dead things is something I likely would be enthusiastic about doing... but in terms of qualifying them as hard evidence for anything other than being old dead things, I have difficulties.

These types of situations highlight the difficulties I refer to perfectly. In any given species of animal there can exist considerable morphological variation. Take the domestic dog: Whether or not it's even a separate species from the wolf is dubious at best. The two can obviously interbreed, the offspring are fertile, etc. In any case, consider a wolf, a tea cup yorkie, a saint bernard, a chihuahua, and a pit bull.

Were you to compare their skulls you would see considerable morphological variation, massive jaws vs. tiny jaws, a massive thick skull, like the one on my pit bull oscar who endured a line drive to side of his head without even a whimper, to that of the tea cup who you could likely easily crush in the palm of your hand. And while I wouldn't be surprised if oscars brain was smaller than the tea cup's, I doubt this is so. I would imagine his brain is considerably larger in size - not more complex but larger in size, something that of course can't be determined without more-or-less two in-tact brain specimens... something that is... ummm... rare in the fossil record.

Things like disease complicate the issue even further. Disease, in addition to various other environmental factors such as, nutrition, activity level, exposure to radiation, etc., can affect morphology. Scientists speculate that people have gotten taller not because were 'evolving,' that is not because height genes are mutating to 'taller alleles,' but because people are simply better fed: more high quality proteins, more high quality fruits and vegetables, consistent and adequate nutrition throughout childhood. Hygiene is better, etc. All this, not mutating genes has led to a species that is on average taller (in isolated populations like industrialized countries) than it was in recent recorded past.

Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that jaw development, that is size of the bones themselves and overall muscularity is thought to be affected significantly by diet. If I recall correctly, the inference is based off of data concerning the necessity of wisdom removal with diet type. To make a long story short, a diet that requires considerably more mastication... that would be a less processed diet... results in significantly (statistically) increased jaw size, and ultimately obviates the need for wisdom teeth to be removed.

These types of influences on morphological variation could greatly affect the inferences that one makes from fossils.

Back to the dogs: Were we to find these varieties of dog buried, in a time when dogs didn't exist and there was no historical knowledge of dogs, and if we further found fragments of these animals, and not entire skeletons, might we infer that they were different species? I don't think this is unreasonable. In fact, it seems we would likely assume different species. I certainly could be wrong about this, this is far from my area of expertise, but one that I am familiar with on more than just a colloquial level.

So... IOW I believe that intraspecies morphological variation (IMV) can pose a considerable risk and hazard in making inferences from the fossil record. It's risky in that IMV can be significant, perhaps suggesting new species when there are none, and a hazard in that entire categories of scientific evidence are based on what could be described as a weak inference.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
It might prove micro-evolution, i.e. birth defects and/or inbreeding, but not macro-evolution.

Plus there's only one of 'em is there?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Things like disease complicate the issue even further. Disease, in addition to various other environmental factors such as, nutrition, activity level, exposure to radiation, etc., can affect morphology. Scientists speculate that people have gotten taller not because were 'evolving,' that is not because height genes are mutating to 'taller alleles,' but because people are simply better fed: more high quality proteins, more high quality fruits and vegetables, consistent and adequate nutrition throughout childhood. Hygiene is better, etc. All this, not mutating genes has led to a species that is on average taller (in isolated populations like industrialized countries) than it was in recent recorded past.

So... IOW I believe that intraspecies morphological variation (IMV) can pose a considerable risk and hazard in making inferences from the fossil record. It's risky in that IMV can be significant, perhaps suggesting new species when there are none, and a hazard in that entire categories of scientific evidence are based on what could be described as a weak inference.


Wow! Hit the nail right on the head!


You have voted mattison0922 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


And, I learned something from the complete post you have above. Thank you. Oh mattison0922, you may be interested to know after years of being away from college, I've been inspired to re-enroll. Two classes until i get my bachelor's degree. Tomorrow is my Ecology class. I'd taken it before but D doesn't count as a "pass" when you're a Biology major.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
And, I learned something from the complete post you have above. Thank you.

Good deal, and no problemo.



Oh mattison0922, you may be interested to know after years of being away from college, I've been inspired to re-enroll. Two classes until i get my bachelor's degree. Tomorrow is my Ecology class. I'd taken it before but D doesn't count as a "pass" when you're a Biology major.

Excellent.
Glad to hear it. Don't take any baloney lying down either.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
This whole planet has been seeded by higherly evolved star people. They travel into other higher dimensions. People from those dimensions can see us but we can't see them.

Humans are a unique experiment. We are the DNA combination of many differant star people races and the primates found on this planet. Each human race is a differant mixed combination of star people and primates. Only primates have the A, B, AB, and O blood types. Also, a person from the government who attended to an injured star person(grey alien) revealed to the world that it had a type A blood type.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

But it does show that evolution does occur


If evolution doesn't occur then the YECs are in desperate trouble, since their entire theory of how Noah kept all the species on the Ark depends on massive and accelerated evolution occurring afterwards - more rapid than actual evolutionists believe is possible - in order to populate the world with the variety it has today after just 6000 years.

It's because this would also require "macroevolution" that the micro/macro shenanigans has now been dropped by AIG and other pioneers at the forefront of creationist windbaggery. The up-to-date thing these days is to use circular arguments about information theory. You guys need to get with the program, your creation science is falling way behind.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonN
If evolution doesn't occur then the YECs are in desperate trouble, since their entire theory of how Noah kept all the species on the Ark depends on massive and accelerated evolution occurring afterwards - more rapid than actual evolutionists believe is possible - in order to populate the world with the variety it has today after just 6000 years.

It's because this would also require "macroevolution" that the micro/macro shenanigans has now been dropped by AIG and other pioneers at the forefront of creationist windbaggery. The up-to-date thing these days is to use circular arguments about information theory. You guys need to get with the program, your creation science is falling way behind.


I see, so instead of discussing the topic or defending evolution, you find that the best defense is a good offense? There's a half-dozen threads about Creationism, but you choose to bring it up here. Why? How about addressing the topic?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join