The Hobbit on the see-saw

The science or study of primitive societies and the nature of man.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Postby Digit » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:12 am

The noise you can hear FT is me laughing! Not because I disagree with what you have said, in fact as I recall your summary of the evidence to date is spot on. I also posted, in agreement with your view and that of RS, about the need for further, and independent, examination and more examples.
No, my mirth was based on the fact that Neandertal man was condemned to being a shaggy haired, slack jawed, bow legged cretin based on a single example!
Now the club won't move till they've got a bus load!
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Postby Ishtar » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:35 am

I think it's built on the prejudicial view that new = progress and better, while old = primitive and savage and just generally 'a bad thing'.
Ishtar
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:41 am
Location: UK

Postby Minimalist » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:56 pm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=flores-hobbit-root-canal

And on it goes!

And you thought Frodo had it hard. In what is shaping up to be a battle of Tolkienian proportions, the tiny remains from Flores, Indonesia--paleoanthropology's hobbit--have once again come under attack.

Most paleoanthropologists believe that the hobbit belongs to a new species of human, Homo floresiensis. But now comes word that the specimen used to define the species--a largely complete female skeleton known as LB1--appears to have had some dental work. If so, it would mean that, rather than being an 18,000-year-old representative of a new species, the hobbit was just a modern human with a growth disorder that left it with a brain the size of a grapefruit, among other odd traits, which is what critics have argued all along.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15443
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Beagle » Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:25 pm

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31433/title/Hobbit_wars

COLUMBUS, Ohio —Defenders of a small humanlike species that lived on an Indonesian island more than 12,000 years ago have launched their latest scientific counterattacks against critics of their position. Remains of Homo floresiensis, also referred to as hobbits, display no signs of growth disorders proposed by researchers who regard the fossils as those of modern humans, says Dean Falk of Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Instead, Falk and Florida State colleague Angela Schauber suspect that H. floresiensis—especially as represented by a partial skeleton called LB1—adapted to a challenging island environment by evolving into a smaller but proportionally equivalent version of an ancestral species, possibly Homo erectus.



More Hobbit wars. 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:48 pm

Minimalist wrote:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=flores-hobbit-root-canal

And on it goes!

And you thought Frodo had it hard. In what is shaping up to be a battle of Tolkienian proportions, the tiny remains from Flores, Indonesia--paleoanthropology's hobbit--have once again come under attack.

Most paleoanthropologists believe that the hobbit belongs to a new species of human, Homo floresiensis. But now comes word that the specimen used to define the species--a largely complete female skeleton known as LB1--appears to have had some dental work. If so, it would mean that, rather than being an 18,000-year-old representative of a new species, the hobbit was just a modern human with a growth disorder that left it with a brain the size of a grapefruit, among other odd traits, which is what critics have argued all along.


:lol: :lol:

"Homo Floresiensis", eh? Looks suspiciously like another case of projection and jumping to conclusions, doesn't it?
Rokcet Scientist
 

Postby Beagle » Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:26 pm

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/dental-filling-brown-refutation-2008.html

The left first mandibular molar of LB1, Homo floresiensis, is heavily worn. Most of the enamel has been removed from the occlusal surface. The remaining enamel forms a ridge on the buccal and lingual margins, and there is a thin platform of remaining enamel in the disto-lingual quadrant. The softer dentine is somewhat scooped out and has a flat white appearance. There is some adhering sediment on the occlusal surface. Absolutely no evidence of any dental work, temporary filling or anything else. The tooth wear and oral health of LB1 are in all respects typical of older palaeolithic and hunter/gatherer humans, and living apes, and distinct from the mesolithic and more recent human burials in the Holocene layers at Liang Bua.


The hypothetical dental work has been disproven.
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

New Species

Postby FreeThinker » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:54 pm

My pint of Guinness says HF is a new species!
Science: the PROOF shall set you free
FreeThinker
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:35 pm

Previous

Return to Anthropology and Primitive Societies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron