UM-Bot Posted October 2, 2006 #1 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Researchers from the Australian National University (ANU) are backing claims that the discovery of the so-called hobbit in Indonesia does represent a new species of human.In 2003, Australian scientists unearthed the remains of a hobbit-like species, with adults about the height of a three-year-old child, in a cave on a remote island in Indonesia. In a new paper, ANU researchers reject claims that the skeleton of a hobbit-like species was simply a very short human with a rare brain disease. View: Full Article | Source: ABC.net.au Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 2, 2006 #2 Share Posted October 2, 2006 This is one of the most fascinating back and forths I have read in the academic worl in a long time. It is amazing just how much evidence there is supporting the "tiny human" theory, all of it supported, yet at the same time so much evidence supporting the "seperate species" theory, again, equally supported. I am truly unable to pick a side in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted October 2, 2006 #3 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Are the pygmies in africa much different than the so-called hobbits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 2, 2006 #4 Share Posted October 2, 2006 African pygmies are about a foot taller, but the main difference in in the cranium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGER Posted October 2, 2006 #5 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Still the Discovery channel covered this just recently , with very strong evidence of the hobbit being the sick human. The differences in the skull are consistent with the disease and the differences between humans in small social environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR: Posted October 2, 2006 #6 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) I wouldn't see why it would be so farfetched for a species of smaller humans to have lived in the past. It only supports another well accepted theory that creatures evolve according to their environment. Prehistoric Indonesia may have been an area and climate ideal for smaller creatures to dwell. Other animals such as canines, have many variety, shapes, and sizes. Edited October 2, 2006 by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 2, 2006 #7 Share Posted October 2, 2006 That's why this is so fascinating to me! There are two competing theories, both of them equally valid and equally well-supported. Perhaps one is wrong. Perhaps both are. Perhaps both are right. This is an excellent example of science at work, right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora7321 Posted October 2, 2006 #8 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The more I read and hear things about this little person, the more questions I have. From what I've read and seen on television, they found tiny little tools also. If this were one person with a rare brain disease, would that not imply that he was an accepted and completely capable member of the "clan" and was able to contribute? Or, maybe at his burial the tiny tools and implements were made for him so he would be prepared for the afterlife? OR, he did not have a rare brain disease and the tools prove that he is a different species and lived and hunted and used tools just like any other person, only in smaller size. I'm so back and forth. I actually hope it's a new species.....how fascinating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGER Posted October 2, 2006 #9 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I am not arguing, but the use of tools in other finds has a logical progression from inferior to better made. So smaller tools would not mean a whole culture, but special tools made for the individual. Like tools for the Handicapped. Or so I would think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jones12 Posted October 2, 2006 #10 Share Posted October 2, 2006 seems as though this debate could go either way, while there is evidence of it being a modern human with a disorder, they also found a second jawbone...and it is highly unlikely that 2 or more modern humans with this disorder would happen to live together...im interested in what else they find Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indeed Posted October 3, 2006 #11 Share Posted October 3, 2006 ^^ Last count they believe to have bones from 9 individuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingThunder06 Posted October 3, 2006 #12 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Will be difficult to conclude anything with one skeleton. Would be great if they found more around the same area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shikon1 Posted October 3, 2006 #13 Share Posted October 3, 2006 seems as though this debate could go either way, while there is evidence of it being a modern human with a disorder, they also found a second jawbone...and it is highly unlikely that 2 or more modern humans with this disorder would happen to live together...im interested in what else they find Didn't both jaws have a double root or something similar, I can't remeber what they said on the show, in one of their front teeth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jones12 Posted October 4, 2006 #14 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Didn't both jaws have a double root or something similar, I can't remeber what they said on the show, in one of their front teeth? yes, while im not positive on the details, i believe both jaws had a double root and were almost identical in size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora7321 Posted October 4, 2006 #15 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I am not arguing, but the use of tools in other finds has a logical progression from inferior to better made. So smaller tools would not mean a whole culture, but special tools made for the individual. Like tools for the Handicapped. Or so I would think! Right. What I meant by saying if he was the only one like that in his "clan" was, then maybe the small tools implied he was capable and able to contribute, just smaller. Makes me think of the Earth's Children Series by Jean Auel. Instead of being cast out or killed for being odd or different, he was accepted. Which would imply they had the ability for compassion. However, I wouldn't think that smaller would necessarily mean inferior. Just smaller relative to the size of the people. So to me the whole small tools issue doesn't prove either point. Just makes it that much more intriguing. From the other comments I just had the chance to read, I'm now seeing that they found 9 skeletons so far that are the same? Is that fact or someone just posting what they've heard. I've got to do some searches on this...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqgumby Posted January 17, 2007 #16 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Is the condition in question genetic? I wonder if it was a "clan" or small related family that all had the same genetic condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now