Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: "Ken Shaw" <kshaw1967@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Aug 2006 07:12:32 -0700
John Wilkins wrote:
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
It's still an open question. The evidence is indirect, and I've heard
Colin Groves say that there are skeletal novelties in the hobbit not
found in H.s.
Has the nutjob who stole the bones returned them or made them freely
available for study yet? If he is still restricting access to only
those who agree with him then this "study" is meaningless.
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- References:
- Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: Pithecanthropus Erectus
- Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- From: John Wilkins
- Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- Prev by Date: Re: Debunking Physics
- Next by Date: Iredell finds Pagano Posts to be Gateway, Pagano Utterly Vacuous as Usual
- Previous by thread: Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- Next by thread: Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|