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.


Homo floresiensis: a stone cast in the eye of the Human Evolution theory?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by The angel of light
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, it is very well accepted theory, but that comes from the fact that matches, in almost everywhere, perfectly with the fossil records of the life on the earth, so it is mainly supported by its remarkable consistency.

The problem with the remains that were found in the Island of Flores is that appearantly they are breaking such so solid consistency that evolution has shown until now.

There is no way to claim that evolution remains intact as a theory when we have a none extinct Austrolopythecus entire community still living in the same time in which the very first foundations of the oasis of Jericho, in the middle east, started the Civilization around the 9200 BC !

Why not?

Modern humans are unusual in that we're living in a time when there are NO OTHER hominids/humans. 100,000 years ago you'd find archaic homo sapiens along with two or three distinct "varieties" of Australopithecus and Neanderthals as well:

The Hobbit will necesarily change all our present conceptions of how the life supposely evoluted in the planet, if not , if really they evoluted at all?

No. It adds data. It makes more complete the picture of how life came to be. The bones tell the story of their humanness.

Since this discovery can even force the scientist community to analyze deeper if we were or not , following the Darwin's conclusions, just trying to find the way to link extincted forms of life, that were actually separated species all the time, on the last 200 years?.

Anthropologists have been discussing the fossils intensely. Everyone agrees that they are some type of human. The question is "which group did they come from."

Pygmy tribes in Africa don't change the concept of evolution. Pygmies don't challenge the idea of evolution.

The Hobbit doesn't, either.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Come on Byrd,

Even checking the so nice link you are providing:

Any casual observer can see that the very last specimens of the subspecie of the Austrolopythecus genre, the robustus one, disappeared about a million and five hundred thousand years ago and not just 100000 years as you believe.

Taking in account that the Hobbit is more similar to the very first type of Austrolopythecus, the affarensis one, we can say from that same chart that we would have a creature that supposely existed more than 3 million years ago sharing space with homo sapiens subspecies, that is not only a visible contradiction of what evoution have taught, but even breaks all the paradigms in which the theory is founded.

We are not talking about a more modern hominid that lived just 100000 years ago, like the subspecies of Homo erectus, or even the Homo abilis that lived 1.6 millions of years ago, or any archaic Homosapiens coexisting with the Neanderthal or the Cromagnon but for a trully living fossil that represents a huge contradition of the validity of the evolution estimates.

If the supposed ancestor of the ancestor of the ancestor of some specie suddenly appears, living together with the pretended descendent, the only logical conclusion to which any objective and scientific mind can arrive is that the hypothesis that these two species evoluted one to the other must be completly wrong, there is no way to find Austrolopythecus living 10000 years ago if they trully evoluted toward most modern hominids.

So having as it is now remains of Austrolopythecus living in almost historic times, we can conclude that something is really very wrong in this theory.

Now since these remains are already proven to be not any kind of pygmee Homo sapiens, please you must read more about that, but a remarkable other hominid specie, we have at hand the material proof that the evolution has dealing to much time with really dared and dubious assumptions.


it is true that on August of 2006 many members of the scientific community were claiming that these remains were just a pygmee homo Sapiens but now there is no more space to such speculations.

After all, this is not the first time evolution has shown to the scientific world really terrible fiascos, in the past following that line of thinking, the modern biological sciences assumed for many decades as valid what it was actually just hoax, product of bad conclusions, forgery and poor analysis, like the famous cases of the Piltdown man, the Nebraska man or the supposedly patagonian one "discovered" by Florentino Ameghino.

New questions appeared now as consequence of this discovery:

So is this methodology really Science or just a series of mistakes that were based in judging the facts only just from their appearences and repeated from one generation to the next of researchers?

Are these extincted species of ancient apes really the ancestors of the humanity or just only species that disapperad for ever of the planet without leaving any descendence?

Can we assume that similarities in certain morphology is enough evidence to support evolution in between species?


Are we only arriving to terrible mistakes like to pretend to relate species through evolution when they are not linked in any way only because they look similar to our eyes?

In other words we could say following this way to "make" science to terribly erroneous conclusions like to claim that a Koala, a Panda and a Grizzly bear are all members of the same evolution branch when they actually have nothing to do each to other regardless of how similar they can look?

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in