"Evidence of Hobbits found:" Topic

well v close:

link

So the Shire is in Indonesia. Now I am really confused. that Middle Earth map is wrong!

All I get is...

The page cannot be found

Blocked by a spiteful Sauron?

Wow! Think what those squirrel armies could do to them.

stml p'haps?

I don't get it. They found the skeleton of a short adult, so that makes it a new species? I had heard of there being very large ape fossils, possibly accounting for Bigfoot and the yeti. Are there any Bigfoot minis out there? Seems like something Marc Copplestone may have done.

What's the title of the article? I get an error message trying to find it.

Neotacha:

'Hobbit' joins human family tree

on BBC website

try
bbc.co.uk and then click on the science/nature link on page left.

You can also try this:
link
from Drudge

Rather poetic justice having the "Hobbits" wiped out by volcanic eruption .

Also, Yahoo news' full coverage:
link

I guess Sauron got those annoying little bugs in the end, even if he did get kicked out of middle earth.

Or maybe it was Mother Nature all pissed off for Sam and Frodo messing up her volcano....

I actually did try the BBC site on my own -- what I had where the article is now posted was something about the Cassini probe. Go figure.

Thanks, John and ndb9999.

Ah, you're just pulling my Legolas... ;-)

Where did you Boromir that joke from ?

Actually, go to the source - National Geographic
link

Wyatt

velbor - how can anyone be sauron g ?

To be fair the first publishers are:
nature.com

We just managed 10 posts all because of a temperamental link - with this one its 11.

Death to all Hobbittesss! (I wanted an even number of posts)

John Coviello

Owner/Public Relations Manager

Little Shop of Magic

That's what I Like: little people hitting each other!

-N Bonaparte

This thread is getting too precioussss for wordsessss

what is this? Does everyone forget the fraud that was "Java Man"?

Guy finds a jawbone on the beach, a year later finds some other bones, puts them together and claims the "Missing Link" is found, nevermind that the bones were of two seperate species and found a year apart from one another. Oh, yea, and National Geographic "verified" that claim as well! such pap.

"what is this? Does everyone forget the fraud that was "Java Man"?"

And don't forget Paluxy River.

I'd like to see where this goes. Interesting stuff.

Mardaddy

---what is this? Does everyone forget the fraud that was "Java Man"?---

Alan Saunders

---And don't forget Paluxy River.---

I agree with both of you, and I love the quotes these 'scientists' use. Seem very positive, don't they?

"...and might even suggest..."

"...probably evolved from another species..."

"...may have arrived on Flores..."

"...must have made it to Flores by boat..."

"...I suppose there's some feeling..."

"...He speculates that species like..."

"...might have evolved its small size..."

"...may shed light on this question..."

"...evolving its tiny physique in the isolation provided by the island."

Even though they later say, "Homo floresiensis might have evolved its small size in response to the scarcity of resources on the island." I wonder if in fact there were bigger people trying to create a race of Bonsai people, using a process similar to the ancient art of kitten bonsai shown at: bonsaikitten.com

I suspect another hoax.

Glynn

"what is this? Does everyone forget the fraud that was "Java Man"?

...such pap."

It's much harder to fool the scientific community now than it was in 1934.

"And don't forget Paluxy River."

What exactly is it should we remember about Paluxy River? Some people claimed to have found the footprints of dinosaurs and humans together. The reputable scientific community was sceptical from the start and the 'human' footprints were quickly shown to be non-human.

No more than a footnote (pardon the pun) in the study of human evolution.

This is nothing lke Java man, not even close. The skeleton (not even a fossil mind you), was mostly complete, and there were bones belonging to several other individuals present. Contemporary archeologist are held to a higher standard and it's unlikely we'll ever see a blunder on the scale of Java man.

Centurio andy- The skeleton is a new species because it's obviously not of a modern human, the brain case is too small, the arms too long, etc. The Nature article has more detail

link

This is interesting, and a very exciting find, and I can't wait for all of the ignorant fundamentalists to chime in on this one, and start squawking about the earth being 6,000 years old, evolution being a lie, yadda yadda...

And technically speaking, Jave man was not a fraud. Just bad science, corrected later.

Science, unlike religion, has the ability to recognise and correct its mistakes.

"and I can't wait for all of the ignorant fundamentalists to chime in on this one,..."

I think they have already started.

Whattisitgoodfor

---It's much harder to fool the scientific community now than it was in 1934.---

Truly?

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Yes, it's truly harder to fool modern science. Like Whattisitgoodfor stated, "Science, unlike religion, has the ability to recognise and correct its mistakes."

One of the basic principles of science is that we test theories, examine new evidence, and evaluate and revise theories accordingly. There are far more people involved in research now than there were in 1937; we have more scientific journals, and far more testing and scrutiny applied to new discoveries, and old ones alike.

One bad discovery, or mistake does not invalidate the whole of scientific progress, on the contrary, it hardens the resolve of scientists to discover the facts, and advance theory.

Glynn, you should also be proud that part of the team involved in the discovery were from Oz. Score one for Australian Universities

Actually, I think they're Human-Grey hybrids. :-]

Are those really anti-evolutionist posting above?! Cool!

Just recently a new species of ape (gorilla/Chimp like) was found in Africa, and a year or so ago a massive colony of Urang Utans was discovered. All on places where Man has not been before.

That's still possible on our little planet.

Existence of big 'yeti'-like apes is still possible though they might be extinct.

Yeti/Bigfoot mini's:

Copplestone

Pulp Figures

Hobby Products (Dark Eye)

WestWind

KenzerCo°

RalPartha

Reaper

Crocodile Games (upcoming Wendigo's)

Black-Tree (Dr. Who)

The thing thst got me was the dog sized rats now I've seen some big rats but those babies, forget hunting the dwarf Elephants I would be hunting down the rats! (my own pet fear)

The existance of Yetis, bigfoots ( bigfeet ? )etc is impossible to disprove. Its far harder to "prove" a negative that a positive, but its nice to think that they could still be out there. Havnt seen any Leprechauns lately, they have probably escaped on dwarf elephants. Is there any "little people" legends out there that are not from isolated islands, Ireland, australia, indonesia etc ?

Pandinus

---Glynn, you should also be proud that part of the team involved in the discovery were from Oz. Score one for Australian Universities---

Why would I be proud of that? We have our drongoes here too. You say that scientists 'test' theories, etc. What they really do is make up stories, the same thing your mob says about fundamentalists. What did they find? Bones. Have they 'proved' that they are human? Monkeys have bones too. I'll wait a while before I make up my mind on this lot. See how may legs this story has.

---Yes, it's truly harder to fool modern science. Like Whattisitgoodfor stated, "Science, unlike religion, has the ability to recognise and correct its mistakes."---

As one of our cash-for-comments radio personalities here says, "When you're on a good thing, stick to it". Scientists make mistakes, the Bible - never. Mind you humans trying to follow the Bible quite often do. Also, remember that hoaxes fool people all the time, scientist or not. There is an excellent book called The Evolution Cruncher available from Harvestime Books at P.O. Box 300, Altamont TN 37301 or:

link

You want to be honest and test evolution, get the book, though somehow I doubt you will.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Would giant mice be afraid of dwarf elephants?

And could dwarf elephant tusks could be used to make baby grand pianos?

"Scientists make mistakes, the Bible - never."

Speaks for itself really. (Hope you don't get a sore arm while stoning witches.)

And you're right I won't be reading 'The Evolution Cruncher' any more than I will be reading David Irving's Haulocaust denial books (though I did read 'Icons of Evolution' for laughs once).

"As one of our cash-for-comments radio personalities here says, "When you're on a good thing, stick to it". "

In the scientific world, nothing makes your name better than disproving an accepted paradym. There is a saying "No one ever got famous by proving his Professors right."

There would be huge kudos, cash and Nobel prizes all round for anyone who could disprove Darwin or come up with a better theory.

No one has. The desperate attempts of Creationists and the Intelligent design crowd (creationism disgusing itself as science) to fit data around their pre-arrived-at conclusions have no standing in science for exactly the same reason David Irving has no standing among historians.

They are lies.

Darwin was a thug! %-[

:-D

:-D

AArgh move this post to C.A.! Quick!
Woohahahaha.

Is a scale creep evolution?
Or is it the hand of the Sculptor?

Are there apocryph scriptures on this?

Whattisitgoodfor

---(Hope you don't get a sore arm while stoning witches.)---

Never stoned one myself. Typical argument brought up by anti-Chritian types. Old hat really.

---And you're right I won't be reading 'The Evolution Cruncher' any more than I will be reading David Irving's Haulocaust denial books (though I did read 'Icons of Evolution' for laughs once).---

So therefore you only research one side of the debate. Where is the 'test' there? Where is the checking all sides of the debate? Even such a celebrated evolutionist as Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." They can't stand the thought of a Divine Creator and believe fables that try unsuccessfully to disprove His existence, and then go to all lengths to argue their case (---pre-arrived-at conclusions---).

---There would be huge kudos, cash and Nobel prizes all round for anyone who could disprove Darwin or come up with a better theory.---

Darwin himself repudiated his own earlier theories on his deathbed. Maybe he was just a little bit awed by his soon-coming meeting with his Creator. Maybe it was just two-bob each way, eh? Darwin is not a very good argument for survival-of-the-fittest either, or maybe he is. How many of his children by his wife, a cousin, died of, or had congenital birth defects? Some scientist! I didn't realise that England had its own hill-billys until I read that.

This is one debate that will never end until until the Second Coming, and then we'll all know the truth.

Glynn- Nimrod (F)SS

Maybe a decision was made to "size up" humans from 20mm to 28mm, and those bones are the discarded armatures?

"Even such a celebrated evolutionist as Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." "

Errm, it would appear that he didn't. He certainly didn't *say* it, but is *alleged* to have written it in an introduction to 'The Origin of Species'. However outside of creationist websites and 'quote mine' books it appears to have no basis in fact.

Before posting quotes of this nature you might want to chack this page and make sure that you are not perpetuating errors or (in may cases) outright falsehoods:

link

(The link is about halfway through the document, but includes the quote that you used.)

"Darwin himself repudiated his own earlier theories on his deathbed."

Why should this be relevant? After all, a theory stands on its evidence, not on the say-so of a single person. Saying that, though, this appears to be yet another piece of misinformation. Here/s what 'Answers in Genesis' have to say on the matter:

link

It's also one of the first points covered on this page (also from 'Answers in Genesis'):

link

The 'Darwin Recanted' hoax does crop up from time to time, so it might be worth bookmarking that page for when you come across it in use by other people.

In one part of the article they mention that they may be able to get DNA from the bones of the hobbit. Now it could be interesting if they could get DNA from the other creatures from the island.

I have visions of Jurassic Park 4, with Sam Neill being chased though a jungle by a marauding herd of pygmy elephants...... only to to escape and be treed by some giant rats.

but seriously, if they only could clone the pyhmy elephants, I'm sure they'd do a roaring business in the pet trade.

The issue of "Nature" with the article is supposed to be out today.

Lest we start worshipping with scientists as our new priests, I have one comment: "The purpose of Science is to prove your grant proposal." Secondarily, it is to use up last year's grant before the end of the calendar year, lest you have the size of your grant reduced.

A scientist is no more infallible than a priest, nor is he to be honored any more. I have seen scientists hold on to a disproven hypothesis with every bit as much fervor as if it were a tenet of faith of a fundamentalist religion.