It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
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.
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?
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."
Guess we have more digging to do.
[edit on 26-8-2006 by saint4God]
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.
You have voted mattison0922 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Originally posted by saint4God
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.
But it does show that evolution does occur
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.