Posted on 08/21/2006 2:21:11 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
The skeletal remains found in a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, reported in 2004, do not represent a new species as then claimed, but some of the ancestors of modern human pygmies who live on the island today, according to an international scientific team.
The researchers also demonstrate that the fairly complete skeleton designated LB1 is microcephalic, while other remains excavated from the site share LB1's small stature but show no evidence of microcephaly, since no other brain cases are known. Microcephaly is a condition in which the head and brain are much smaller than average for the person's age and gender. It can be present at birth or develop afterwards and is associated with a complex of other growth and skeletal anomalies.
"Our work documents the real dimensions of human variation here," says Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, professor of developmental genetics and evolutionary morphology, department of kinesiology, Penn State. He notes that "LB1 looks different if researchers think in terms of European characteristics because it samples a population that is not European, but Australomelanesian, and further because it is a developmentally abnormal individual, being microcephalic."
Teuku Jacob, laboratory of bioanthropology and paleoanthropology, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia, was granted permission to study the original bones by Radien P. Soejono, National Archaeological Research Center, Jakarta, Indonesia. The analysis by Jacob's full research team, including Eckhardt and others mentioned below, demonstrates that claims of a new species – "Homo floresiensis" -- commonly called hobbits, are incorrect.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mongabay.com ...
At least the article wasn't short on details.
Why do you think I excerpted it?
Tall tale?
Hmm....looks like the scientists jumped the gun on this one. Mistakes were made.
small miscalculation
Wow pinhead pygmies.
and is thus the oldest known specimen of Homo Liberalis.
ping
These guys need to get to work on the 'long legged toads' next :o)
other remains excavated from the site share LB1's small stature but show no evidence of microcephaly, since no other brain cases are known.Oh, and they also conclude that none of these guys and gals could walk, because none of the remains were found with feet.
Would that be "scientists"?
Where do you think they got the idea for those shrunken heads?
But the hobbit's discoverers and others who have also studied the original specimens are unimpressed. "Complete nonsense," snaps Peter Brown of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, who did the original anatomical analyses. The paper "cherry-picked features and ignored counterevidence," adds Susan Larson of Stony Brook University in New York, who has linked the hobbit shoulder to an ancient human species, H. erectus (Science, 19 May, p. 983). "Nothing they say has caused me to question my assessment."
(Science. 2006, 313, 1028-1029.)
Remember I wrote "If not the last word, it's the latest on another fossil that was used to further evolutionary claims."
It seems some media sources were cherry-picking which interpretation of the evidence was favorable towards evolution, but you know Freepers. Gotta provide both sides.
These scientists just disagree about the interpretation of the specimen and its status, which is no big surprise. It just adds to my claim that evidence doesn't speak for itself and must be interpreted. The only reason these scientists aren't under attack is because they haven't been branded as creationists yet.
Did you receive the link in the FReepmail I sent you?
I did! Haven't gotten to it JUST yet. I'm leaving, so I'll try and post it this afternoon. Thanks for sending it, though!
It seems some media sources were cherry-picking which interpretation of the evidence was favorable towards evolution
How do you mean? Neither is more "favorable" towards evolution than the other.
The only reason these scientists aren't under attack is because they haven't been branded as creationists yet.
Ehh? Why would they be attacked for being creationist? Do you have any reason for thinking they're creationists?
Seems to me you're being a bit twitchy.How so? I'm not trying to, and I am sorry if I came off that way.
How do you mean? Neither is more "favorable" towards evolution than the other.One interpretation of a "missing link" over another.
Ehh? Why would they be attacked for being creationist? Do you have any reason for thinking they're creationists?My point was, if creationists had published this paper, the same scientists would be scoffing far louder, if they paid any attention at all.
You seem to perceive that this story has some critical significance to evolutionists when this isn't so. From my point of view, it's either a case of a new species of hominid (Cool!) or a case of the discovery of an unusual archaelogical pathology specimen (Cool!), and I don't see why it's impossible for a creationists to see this discovery in the same light (why can't God have made an itty-bitty hominid as well as the bigger ones?) Assuming it's a new species it's a new island species that represents an off-shoot from our ancestral tree, not really an example of a species either directly related to us or indicative of what our ancestors may have looked like. So I wouldn't describe it at all as a "missing link."
I'm afraid that while a lot of Christians are involved in science, not a lot of young earth creationists are. It's hard to get really interested in researching in a field when you think 99% of it is bunk. (It must take a very particular kind of person to spend the better part of a decade memorizing things that that person believes to be fraudulent and nonsensical.) Since creationists spurn the procedures and methodology used in archaeological research, they really don't have a lot to contribute, which results in the lack of publications by creationists and the general disregard for "creation science" by practicing scientists.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.