Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Fossils Strengthen Case for ‘Hobbit’ Species
The New York Times ^ | 08 June 2016 | Carl Zimmer

Posted on 06/08/2016 2:34:47 PM PDT by Theoria

Scientists digging in the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores years ago found a tiny humanlike skull, then a pelvis, jaw and other bones, all between 60,000 and 100,000 years old.

The fossils, the scientists concluded, belonged to individuals who stood just three feet tall — an unknown species, related to modern humans, that they called Homo floresiensis or, more casually, the hobbits.

On Wednesday, researchers reported that they had discovered still older remains on the island, including teeth, a piece of a jaw and 149 stone tools dating back 700,000 years. The finding suggests that the ancestors of the hobbits arrived on Flores about a million years ago, the scientists said, and evolved into their own distinct branch of the hominin tree.

But without other parts of a skeleton, such as the skull, hands or feet, they can’t be sure whether the newly discovered fossils also belong to Homo floresiensis or instead to some other ancient relative of humans (known generally as hominins).

“We have to be careful,” said Gert van den Bergh, a paleontologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia and a co-author of the new study. “Until we find those elements, we cannot really say much more about it.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: flores; fossils; gay; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; hobbit; hominin; homofloresiensis; inbreeding; indonesia; liangbua; liangbuacave; midgets; multiregionalism; munchkins; paleontology; pigmies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: Theoria

One fossil makes a species? Could it be a dwarf? Certainly they wold have considered this.


21 posted on 06/08/2016 5:49:17 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

>>One fossil makes a species? Could it be a dwarf? Certainly they wold have considered this.<<

Ahem:

>>“We have to be careful,” said Gert van den Bergh, a paleontologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia and a co-author of the new study. “Until we find those elements, we cannot really say much more about it.”<<

This is real science, not the organ grinder AGW nonsense that PC bribery has sullied true science with.


22 posted on 06/08/2016 5:56:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't mistake my silence for ignorance, my calmness for acceptance, or my kindness for weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Well. In reading the responses, it’s clear to me that all the pithy answers have been taken. So I’ll just say, “Thanks for the ping!”


23 posted on 06/09/2016 4:23:59 AM PDT by Monkey Face (I'm not much on seizing the day. I just kinda poke it with a stick. :o]))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Monkey Face

;’)

an additional topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3438288/posts


24 posted on 06/09/2016 4:32:53 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

;’)


25 posted on 06/09/2016 4:36:26 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; SunkenCiv
A 1:43 minute video below: (some pretty good pictures)

Archaeologists made a groundbreaking discovery that unveils the mysterious origins of real-life hobbits

26 posted on 06/09/2016 4:44:38 AM PDT by blam (Jeff Sessions For President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Busko; Theoria; freedumb2003; blam
Busko: "More Darwinian smoke being blown up the ass.
Trying to create a new falsehood to the drones."

Darwininian? Sure.
All the rest? Not so much.

The original evidence suggests ancient pre-humans, aka: "hominins," circa 100,000 years old.
Not our direct ancestors, but potential distant cousins.
As I understand, attempts at extracting their ancient DNA have proved unsuccessful, so much uncertainty remains.

The new evidence, found some 45 miles away from the original site, looks much older, circa 700,000 years, which would make those some form of homo erectus, possibly ancestors to "hobbits".

So, yes, there's plenty of uncertainty, but no "smoke" being blown, ahem, anywhere.

Thanks to blam for link to a great short summary:

Archaeologists made a groundbreaking discovery that unveils the mysterious origins of real-life hobbits

27 posted on 06/09/2016 7:31:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

>>Darwininian? Sure.
All the rest? Not so much.<<

Huh? That makes no sense and your post is also jumbled. By definition “our cousins” ARE our distant relatives. Your post supports the facts of these findings — the interpretations are still being formed, obviously.

Either you understand TToE or you don’t. I can’t tell which.


28 posted on 06/09/2016 8:37:24 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't mistake my silence for ignorance, my calmness for acceptance, or my kindness for weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blam

Thx.


29 posted on 06/09/2016 9:41:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Freedumb2003: “Huh?
That makes no sense and your post is also jumbled.
By definition “our cousins” ARE our distant relatives.”

Of course, it makes perfect sense, unless you try to read something into it which just isn’t there.
And I can’t tell from your words what that might be.

I am simply agreeing that the article’s analysis is “Darwinian” (whatever exactly that might mean), while denying anyone is “blowing smoke,” ahem, anywhere.

How can that possibly be hard to “get”?


30 posted on 06/09/2016 12:25:59 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson