It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Top Scholars gather for 'Hobbit' debate at SBU

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:12 AM

Nicknamed 'Flo' and referred to as a 'Hobbit' due to its brain size (about a third of the size of modern humans) and small physical stature, the enigmatic Homo floresiensis has emerged as one of the most fascinating and perplexing twists to the story of human evolution in recent history. Dated to only 17,000 years ago, these 'hobbits' possessed a shocking number of primitive morphologies more reminiscent of earlier Homo erectus or even Australopithecus, than modern humans.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:20 AM
If the Professors find an absolute human link to 'Hobbits' will we have to rewrite our known evolutionary history(that we really don't understand in the first place)?

Could mankind possibly be found in the beginning of his existance in multiple continents all at once?

Just think about what that means. We are not from one woman but rather many different types of women

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:20 AM
I would expect this to be considered nothing more than an aberration, or the result of a disease, etc. The questions that florensis being valid would bring up, from myriad angles, arent something that evolutionary biology has any interesting in facing. Eventually, it will likely get accepted as valid, once yet another convoluted explanation is cooked up. But not before then, I dont think.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by Aubryish

Having been following this for a bit, the debate seems to be whether the "hobbit" is a pygmy human through genetics, or through a deficiency. While an interesting debate, it wouldn't do much to put in disarray our evolutionary history, regardless of the outcome.

Mostly what it shows is, while shorter, the species is something of a throwback, or a direct descendant to a earlier hominid species.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by RuneSpider]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:46 AM
I see what you're talking about.
I wanted to know if there were any instances when a person living now was swabbed or DNA was extracted from a fossilized human specimen (not found in Africa) and there were no traces of African ancestry.

Can this be possible?

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by Aubryish

Not that I know of, my understanding of the genetics involved with the migration theory shows that all humans share ancestors, that eventually settled into their particular points of the world.
As far as we re concerned as a species, the differences are much slighter than what you would have with many of the animals who converged along similar lines.
Point of example is, if we all evolved separately, then we would have significant troubles trying to interbreed.
We can interbreed successfully, meaning our offspring can successfully produce offspring.
Unlike, for example, lions and tigers, They can produce one generation of offspring, however that generation is sterile. They don't continue to reproduce.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:16 PM
Hey, I just thought of something else because of your comment. What if the lost civilizations could not properly breed with us?

Meaning: If some human like beings were here first and then our ancestors found them and breed with them but their kids could not have kids earth looses an entire race of human like beings.

This might explain why certain unearthed colonies disappeared with no sign of trauma.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aubryish]

new topics

top topics


log in