Hobbit Declared a New Species as Debate Continues

New computerized casts of abnormally small Homo sapiens brains are reigniting the debate over the skeletal remains nicknamed "The Hobbit."


Ever since the 18,000-year-old remains of the three-foot-tall adult female hominid were unearthed in 2003 on the remote Indonesian island of Flores, scientists have argued whether the specimen was a human with an abnormally small head or represents a new species in the human family tree. The diminutive creature [image] had a brain approximately one-third the size of modern adult humans.

Some scientists named the specimen Homo floresiensis, a dwarfed offshoot of Homo erectus, a human ancestor that lived as far back as 1.8 million years ago.

Critics dismissed the remains as that of a human with a pathological condition called microcephalia, characterized by a small head, short stature and varying degrees of mental retardation.

A vote for "new species"

In the latest study, the evidence supports the claim of a new species. A team of scientists led by Dean Falk, a paleoneurologist at Florida State University, compared computer-generated three-dimensional reconstructions, called "endocasts," of brains from nine microcephalic modern humans with those of 10 normal modern-human brains [image].

"We asked, ‘Is there anything other than size of the brain that separates these two groups?'" Falk said.

According to the researchers, the answer is "yes." They found that two ratios, created using different skull measurements, could be used to accurately distinguish the normal humans from the microcephalics [image] nearly 100 percent of the time.

For example, dividing the distance from the front of the frontal lobe to the back of the occipital lobe of the brain by the front of the frontal lobe to the back of the cerebellum gives a ratio that reveals how much the cerebellum protrudes from the back of the brain.

"In microcephalics, the cerebellum tends to stick out farther back than in normal people," Falk told LiveScience. "We were able to quantify this with a ratio."

The other ratio quantified how wide the frontal lobes were for each skull and, according to the researchers, also could be used to distinguish normal humans from microcephalics.

Falk's team then applied this classification system to a virtual endocast of the skull of LB1. According to the researchers, LB1's features are closer to a normal human skull than to a microcephalic.

"We have answered the people who contend that the Hobbit is a microcephalic," Falk said.

As a control, the researchers also analyzed the skull of a human dwarf that, like LB1, also stood at about 3 feet tall. The technique correctly placed the dwarf skull in the same category as normal humans.

The team's findings are detailed in the Jan. 30 issue of the journal for the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.

Full link here
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070129/sc_livescience/hobbitdeclaredanewspeciesasdebatecontinues;_ylt=Ar ltoy3kDmIXGwbPRSCYDPfMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBH NlYwM3NTM-)

Evolution dead end?
Distant cousin to YZF?
There were giants in the bible, did hobbits live as well?


As more of these skeletons are discovered, the more we prove that evolution is becoming more of a solidified fact.

Carl Zimmer has a writeup too.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/01/29/on_my_fossil_wish_list_homo_su.php

The paper should be available online soon too (it's not currently)

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0609185104

they find some "new" supposed ape-man or "hominid" "ancestor" every year or so, and, like Lucy, they are always debunked

leave it to superhack to gleefully support darwinism....a true "Christian"

(or a true heretic)

Again you start on what you believe a 'Christian' is YZF....instead of the issue.
Subtle personal attack thereYZF, did you not learn from the ban?

The majority of people do not subscribe to your point of view...and I support God but not in your manner, what I believe that you do is heresy...a brainwashed assertion you have there Mini-Mark.

Making comments like this is exactly what the RCC did to Galileo...And we all know the earth is not the center of the universe now.

So where is your evidence that disproves Lucy? My point being, that the research done today is still in its infancy, only less than 150 years old. In time, and with enough research and discoveries I have no doubt that these ideas will be fully proven.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4256news5-5-2000.asp


Got anything credible you can point to?

do you?

Of course.

anything credible with your group is not credible with mine

Yeah, but "your group" is nothing more than (bad) apologetics. "My group" is the paleontologists and evolutionary biologists doing the actual work "your group" tries to tear down. Since they don't do any actual research themselves "your group" isn't anything more substantial than a bunch of monkeys flinging poo.

and the majority of people are on the highway to hell
the majority of people were buried alive in the Flood
the majority of people will believe the antichrist and his lies during the Tribulation, and be condemned
what's your point?
is the God's truth EVER popular? do you know ANYTHING about the scripture?
no....you don't


No your version of Gods truth is not the popular one....and we have shown here many times not a correct interpretation.

Jeez you don't get it, and your statements above prove that you have a small minority view of scripture, almost dogmatic...from the 'churh of the answersingenesis.org'


old news
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4256news5-5-2000.asp


Do you have anything other than this tripe, no credibility here. And you put your faith in these pages, hypocritical with your next statement, because thats all that you can come up with.


shows where your faith lies: in men, and the foolish "wisdom" of men
you're outside

Again with your personal attacks Marky, discrediting me in anyway does not prove your point....quit your sheep watching here.

before your group existed, ours always was

You're right. The God of the Gaps has existed for a long time. Don't understand how something happened? "Goddidit!"

Most people are smart enough to progress with technology. Not you Bronze Agers though.

the best physicists were creationists

:roll:

Good one. :bigthumb:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

clueless...

There is not way to misinterprete that...pretty clear.

But the sad thing is that you think you are on that path by your actions (especially today). Do you think that you are showing Christ by knocking down your fellow man with your words and actions, expressing a dogmatic view of ? Clearly you are not on this path if your believe so.

Clueless? Yes your actions speak that you have no idea on how to walk this path, and you yourself Marky have entered into a false gate.

before your group existed, ours always was


We were here first!...we were here first!

So whats your point? That scientists can't be Christians? This makes no sense and is a means to try to discredit nothing? Bad assertion.

Maybe I should get the 'Mark Strong Decoder' and figure out what you are trying to prove.

Way to hijack the thread BTW....turn this all onto you again Marky.

We were here first!...we were here first!

So whats your point? That scientists can't be Christians?

No. His point is that prior to modern science all Christians were creationists, and that the bible was believed to be infallible. Of course, he's wrong about that too (see Augustine and/or biblical canon), but there's no reason to junk your thread any further with that argument.

the rise of modern secular religion

:roll:

secular
adj.
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows

atheism is a religion

If you say so. *shrug*

you cannot be a darwinist or believe in vast imaginary epochs and at the same time claim the Bible is God's Word...incongruent

Yes you can...but you like to confuse the issue by thinking that Darwinism is a doctrine instead of what it really is, an evolution theory, scientific in nature.
There is no Darwin Church of Evolution as you so want to have.

And the more that science discovers evidence to support evolution with discoveries like this the more it will be come fact.

Imaginary time spans.....there’s more proof to that a universe that is billions of years old then the YEC 6000 years. Sell it to someone else YZF, no one here is buying that load of BS. There have been so many times you want to turn the Bible into a scientific document but each time the attempt fails. There is nothing in the Bible that says or supports your YEC assertions....

Some one sold you a misrepresentation of the bible and you bought into it. Now your ego won't allow you to give up your precious false belief.

there is no proof of anything

there is the speed of light measured in a vacuum, but it has been proven the speed of light is not constant in anything but a vacuum

WOW, this has got to be the single dumbest thing you have ever said....

FIRST, space is a vacuum, so the speed of light there is, well, constant....

SECOND, the speed of light outside of a vacuum is SLOWER, not faster, than the speed of light in a vacuum......So, if you are intending to say that the light travels much faster than the "tens of thousands of years" commonly mentioned, you totally just tripped on your own dick yet again.....in the vacuum, it is constant....outside a vacuum, it is SLOWER, not faster....

Good going!!!! If this were WWII, you would be France, no doubt--fighting so hard to win the enemy's battle for them. Good job, retard

note excerpt from your "attached"....

This profoundly different zone of timelessness shows up in the
mathematical cornerstone of my theory

THEORY, marky....not anywhere close to fact by any means. THEORY.....

and the big bang is proven fact?

hardly...it's nothing more than a story for atheists

Funny--I am not debating the big bang theory with you. In fact, not once in my life have I ever said that thats what I believe to be true! I merely pointed out errors you made in your quest to think you have owned everyone on teh intarweb.

Do try sticking on track, ol chap....this diversionary bullshit is way too obvious for someone who is supposed to be as smart as you claim to be.

note excerpt from your "attached"....


THEORY, marky....not anywhere close to fact by any means. THEORY.....

theory. Small "T". Not to be confused with Scientific Theory. Big "T". They mean completely different things.

theory. Small "T". Not to be confused with Scientific Theory. Big "T". They mean completely different things.

sorry for that, thanks for the clarification. I only capped it all for emphasis.

sorry for that, thanks for the clarification. I only capped it all for emphasis.

No big deal. There's a serious language barrier to the evolution/creation "debate" that most people don't seem to be aware of. Most people seem to think that "Theory" means a hunch or a guess. I just wanted to clarify for those that didn't know that a scientific Theory is something that's stood up to serious scrutiny, and that it means something entirely different from its colloquial usage.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. :bigthumb:

sure...."microbes to man" and "millions of years" is as robust science as gravity

Yup. Some would even say there's more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

what a steaming pile of dung that assertion is

Whatever. You don't have to believe it, understand it, or like it...it's still true.

Evolution "B" (speciation), yes...Evolution "A" (neo-darwinism), no

Neither of your ridiculous strawmen is real. Evolution IS speciation.

wild extrapolation of empirically observed speciation to a theory of origins is hardly a "strawman", it's what you loons do day in and day out

Sorry try again. You'd fail intro Bio.

Wow, that's deep Yoda. :rolleyes:

The 'tard is strong in this one, Master Kenobi. :bigthumb:

sure...."microbes to man" and "millions of years" is as robust science as gravity


heh, we don't know what gravity even is, evolution is pretty well defined, for those who pay attention to that "science stuff".

and the majority of people are on the highway to hell

Riding sportbikes, no less

the majority of people were buried alive in the Flood

Don't you mean 'drowned'? It was a flood, not a global mudslide.

Yet biblical scholars - the guys that actually study the bible as intensely as you claim to, only they eat, sleep, and breathe the stuff, and have done so since before answersingenesis.com existed - have conceedes that the the genealogical table given inGenesis doesn't include include the true black Africans, oriental Asians, the Finns or Lapps, the Australian Aborigines, or the natives of the Americas. It refers altogether to the Mediterranean races, the Aryans, the Cushites, the Phœnicians, the Hebrews, and the Egyptians. "The sons of Ham" were not negroid, but dark-brown races akin to Arabs. Which is par for the course with the Great Deluge of Genesis being a semihistorical account of when the Atlantic waters broke through the Pillars of Hercules at Gibraltar and flooded the Mediterranean basin, as I've shown you before.

So how did they survive, if Noah and his family were the only ones aboard the Ark?

is the God's truth EVER popular?

Popular enough for the Phoenecian and Babylonian writings, with a bit of editing, to live on in Judaism and Christianity.

heh, we don't know what gravity even is...It's the force that counteracts the helium in Mark's head, allowing him to keep his feet on the ground...

this was recently brought up

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp


That article was the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen. You could make a case for UFOs better than they could explain.

Then they try to warp Bable into this. What a crock of crap. They also brainwash in that article about those people who disagree. Pure cult tactic.

Consequences of false beliefs about the origin of races

*
Rejection of the Gospel

*
Racism

*
Bad influence on missionary outreach

So they say if you disagree with them, you are a "false" believer. MArky has been brainwashed by a cult!

this was recently brought up

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

Too bad they babble on with a lot of doubletalk focusing only on skin colour and the epicanthal fold, and overlook differences in skull shape, eye and hair colour tendancies, hair textures, and overall bone structure, stature and proportions that can be grouped as common racial characteristics.

And that's not even mentioning Chinese history, for example, going back to before when you say the flood occurred - yet their writings say nothing of a bearded semite leading giraffes and mosquitos two by two onto an ark.

interesting - since written records exist, but conflict with your speculation about the timeline, you refer to their existance as 'speculation' and assert your fantasies as fact.

What a fascinating insight into just how far gone you are.

so a linear history, written by the inventors of the clock and abacus, is 'inflated'

and yet suspicious maths games to conjur convenient biblical timelines according to whatever is preached in that old schoolhouse-made-baptist-church to differentiate themselves from the 'heathen catholics' one county over, is in your mind fact carved in granite.

I repeat: What a fascinating insight into just how far gone you are.

isn't it amusing you'll be buried and proven wrong?

you'll never prove anything...you'll make a few films no one cares about and drop dead

no one will care, certainly not God

Is'nt it amusing you've already been proven wrong? And that your only default argument is to cover your ears and yell "La la la I am not listening to you, Satan worshiper!"

meanwhile you'll make a few thousand more posts no one cares about and drop dead. My published works, and my descendants, will survive me. So remarks from a virgin about my mortality is but a pebble flung from a glass house.

what exactly did you prove?

"my Chinese history book is better than your Bible!"

well, yes, since Chinese history details dates, names, and happenstance in factual, non-exaggerated, non-parable, archaeologicly verified format.

Where's the ark, exactly? precisely how long do Noah live? in what exact year did he die?

you got nothin, Three Apples.

will that help you in hell?

ah, your tired old "you're going to hell and I'm not because I'm full of Christian penetance and judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged" refrain...

Better get to cleaning those windows, Marky. Glass houses have tons of 'em.

Chinese history in no way proves the dates of origin of the manuscripts

stupid argument

Translation: I can't answer your questions, so I'll evade, deflect, and attempt a topic change. I'm considering cutting and pasting a scripture in big text...

heheh "pencil neck", now. Talk about being in a factual argument with no ammo.

And glass tent? :rofl: Alright, I'll give you a break so you can breathe into a bag and regain your composure. You're acting an age befitting your height now, Ken Darby.

oh I know, you can bench 320 right now

sure you can....you'd go right through the floor:roll: :roll: :roll:

You're so damned pathetic, it's downright humorous.

Lame. :jerkit:

But then again, that's the story of your life, isn't it?

Nutcase.

3 year olds don't wear diapers, Mark. You'd probably know that if you ever took a break from worshipping yourself... :bigthumb:

Chris Rogers warned me what a liar you are years ago

This is supposed to mean something to me? :dunno:

edit: d/p

:rofl:

And that's supposed to hurt my feelings? Fuckhead PMs me after an army buddy of mine was killed by friendly fire from an American pilot, saying it was good thing he died... I show the PM to the forum owners and a few other members, and he got pissy.

And you somehow think I'll care what he says about me? You're really, really reaching now, three-apples :rofl: