New twist in Hobbit-human debate

New twist in Hobbit-human debate

news.bbc.co.uk

The row over the origins of "Hobbit" fossils found on the Indonesian island of Flores has taken a new twist.

An Australian team claims the little people were not a new human species, but modern humans with a form of dwarfism caused by poor nutrition.

In 2004, international researchers announced the discovery of the ancient remains in the Liang Bua Cave.

There has been debate since then over whether the bones are from diseased humans or a new human "cousin".

The latest theory, published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, claims the Hobbits were true humans, but did not grow to normal size because of environmental factors.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Gullibility of Evolutionists
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread100659/pg20
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread264904/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread327017/pg1&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes

[edit on 3/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Another painful blow to the already teetering theory of evolution. Seems that the another once thought transitional species just needed some Flintstones chewables and they would've grown to be like you or me. Yep just regular humans with a vitamin deficiency.



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

There was a member in the Origins forum who had been asking about any new updates on the Hobbit Man. I'll try to find his thread.

It seems like evolutionary scientists want so desperately to believe this is more than it is but it mostly likely isn't. Let's build a time machine, you and me, and take them back some of those Flintstones Vitamins you mentioned. Or milk. It does a body good. It will help those Hobbits grow up big and strong.

Or if we do such a thing and alter history, would we then be haggling over the bones of giants?

[edit on 3/6/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Yeah Ash if we alter history instead of hobits they'll find this



Well back on topic. Here's a modern human 24" tall.

Er... I don't see what that would have to do with making evloution fall. Many being adapt to a isnland by shrinking. It's called Insular dwarfism, and there is evidence reaching back to the age of the dinosaurs. It's where the lack of food and small space causes the animals to move for a smaller body size.
So it makes sense that when they found the skeleton of the small humanoid it was initially thought to have been a island dwarf.
But this is why studies are done, so that we find out what the truth is. The truth is the dwarf was suffering from malnutrition.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Having observed two creationist threads and participated in one, it appears that this is a common tactic. Find a couple of problems here and there, and then declare the whole theory bunk.

The same tactic is also seems to be applied to other subjects people disagree with. "All or nothing" is the newest rage. Bathwater tossed out with the baby. Short-sighted.

That's just how religious zealots think. No getting around it really. Their dogma is so rigid and structured that when one bit of it isn't true the whole house of cards comes crashing down. They try to apply this to science, but sorry chump... it just don't work that way.

I never even knew there was a serious debate over hobbits. Any real-life example has always clearly been a dwarf as far as I've ever known.

>
Man am I not up to speed... a lot of recent findings supporting true speciation. No conclusive and intact DNA recovered yet, so I'm on the fence until then.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by apc]