More bones of hobbit-sized humans discovered

Reuters ^ | October 11, 2005 | By Patricia Reaney

[martin_fierro]

They're still here (and they look faaaaabulous)!

[raccoonradio]

speaking of dwarfs...when is a 40 inch tall man a giant? When he stands next to a 32 inch tall man. Actors Mikey Post and Verne (I Shall Call Him) "Mini Me" Troyer.

[PatrickHenry]

If I had deleted "hobbit-sized" from the headline would this have been placed in the News forum?

I donno, but in "Chat" we're unlikely to get to 100 posts.

[Alkhin]

Thanks Pippin, I love it!

*waves to all the other HHdwellers*

[MeanWestTexan]

Dwarves have adult-human-sized heads (disproportionate to the bodies).

[MeanWestTexan]

Perhaps they were merely raped by a leprechaun.

[Airborne1986]

Robert Reich

[BenLurkin]

[PatrickHenry]

raped by a leprechaun

Such things have been known to happen.

[VadeRetro]

Funny, I've been assured that the Floriensis find was one of those premature announcements based on scientists assuming things from shapes of bones and "it turned out" to be just a microcephalic. So now we have at least three of them. They were ALL microcephalics. Odd.

[nmh]

And how do you explain this away?

"But critics suggested the small hominid was not a new species and was more likely a pygmy human or a creature that suffered from a form of microcephaly, a condition that causes an unusually small brain."

I know you'll have some kind of a explanation ... I can see you're an "expert".

LOL!

[MeanWestTexan]

Wow, you are hateful and assuming a lot that is incorrect.

You said the find might be of a "dwarf." I stated that it was impossible for it to have been a dwarf, because it would have a normal-sized head. (A normal head is the opposite of "microcephaly," BTW.)

I neither endorsed, nor critizied, the article, merely noted your error, and owe you no explanation about anything.

So "LOL" all you want.

Or, be a real man and apologize for making an ass out of yourself.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Want to see my little friend?"

[Dimensio]

An apology from a known liar like nmh? He's much more likely to deny having made the comment that you discredited in the first place.

[nmh]

"Wow, you are hateful and assuming a lot that is incorrect."

Maybe DU is the forum for you!
I only questioned what you stated and "Wow" did you get your undies in knots!

"You said the find might be of a "dwarf." I stated that it was impossible for it to have been a dwarf, because it would have a normal-sized head. (A normal head is the opposite of "microcephaly," BTW.) "

Or a midget?

"I neither endorsed, nor critizied, the article, merely noted your error, and owe you no explanation about anything."

So why did you give one? Next time, don't bother till you have your emotions under control.

"So "LOL" all you want."

I continue to find you "LOL"!

"Or, be a real man and apologize for making an ass out of yourself."

Perhaps you ought to be the first to do that since I have nothing to "apologize" for. You have plenty.
BTW, spell checker is a good tool to use.

[MeanWestTexan]

You are correct. He's an idiot and a liar.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Of they could have been dwarfs ir if you wish midgets."(post 2)

"BTW, spell checker is a good tool to use."


Spell checker isn't YOUR friend it seems, either.

[PatrickHenry]

Gentlemen, let's not get carried away. I recommend that you consider the message of my tagline. It's the distillation of six years' experience on this website.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

BTW, why didn't you feel it necessary to post the NEXT sentence in the article:

"'The finds further demonstrate ...(it) is not just an aberrant or pathological individual but is representative of a long-term population,' Morwood and his team said in a report in the science journal Nature."

Or:

"He (Lieberman) added that if the remains were from a population of short microcephalic humans they would have had to survive a long time or been susceptible to a high frequency of dwarfism.

"Such possibilities strain credulity," Lieberman added. "

[shuckmaster]

I've read that breeders of dogs and other animals know that you can selectively reduce an animals size but, their brains don't reduce proportionally. That's why it's very unlikely that the hobbits are dwarf branch off humans. They're probably a branch off the much older Erectus. If so, the dates would indicate they outlived Neanderthal by at least 10,000 years.