Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:02:12 -0500
As an example of the self-correcting nature of scientific discovery, the discovery of the "hobbits" on Flores turned out to be not such a historic find after all. Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" after all.
It reminds me of the whole hullabaloo over Nebraska Man and Piltdown man. The popular press jump on a discovery as a significant finding that shakes the foundation of what we thought to be the lineage of our ancestors, and then when real scientists are given the chance to finally test the data, we discover that, while fascinating, the bones reveal little new after all. And they don't shake our foundations as much as we thought they would.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1855406,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=18
Btw - when will the editorial staff and National Geographic learn to run things by peer review before putting their stories out?
--
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.
Thomas Paine
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: Robin Levett
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: John Latter
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: John Latter
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: B Richardson
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: AC
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: J. J. Lodder
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- Prev by Date: Re: Relationship between politics and science
- Next by Date: Re: Relationship between politics and science 2
- Previous by thread: The biggest non sequitur in history
- Next by thread: Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
