Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all


John Wilkins wrote:
Ken Shaw <kshaw1967@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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&fe
ed=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.

Said nutjob is one of the authors of this paper, I think. Groves is one
of the authors of the dissenting paper.


So how exactly did this paper get through peer review? The data
presented cannot be independently verified. This isn't science this is
some guy with an axe to grind.

He very well might be right but until he ceases holding these very
important fossils hostage he is wrong and should be ignored. Nothing he
writes should be published anywhere and no papers should reference his
earlier works. That sort of thing should get this egomaniac to return
the fossils.

Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
    ... Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" ... The popular press jump on a discovery as a significant finding ... of the authors of the dissenting paper. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
    ... Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" ... The popular press jump on a discovery as a significant finding ... things by peer review before putting their stories out? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
    ... Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" ... The popular press jump on a discovery as a significant finding ... Evolution Research Blog: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
    ... Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" ... The popular press jump on a discovery as a significant finding ... establishes universal and eternal truths. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hobbits not a separate speciies after all
    ... Upon further review, the hobbits are "us" ... 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 ...
    (talk.origins)