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
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