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 ...
One fossil makes a species? Could it be a dwarf? Certainly they wold have considered this.
>>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.
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!”
;’)
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:
>>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.
Thx.
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”?
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.