Not A Hobbit After All?

[klaus54]

The word dogma is the least of his points - the fact that some scientists hold on to theories in spite of facts.

Onto what "theory" are "the" scientists holding here? There has been uncertainty about Flores Man since he was discovered over a decade ago. I put theory in quotes, since what we have here is an "hypothesis".

And, yes, being some kind of anti-evolutionist wannabe apologist, it's obvious you DID latch onto the term "dogma". The current working hypothesis about Flores Man does NOT fit the definition of "dogma" -- nor does ANYTHING in science properly understood.

...a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Why don't YOU email the Penn State dude and ask to apologize for confusing you.

Also, Roy's analysis is compelling -- regardless of his degree and whether you understand it.

K54

[Roy]

I doubt it, do you have a PHD in this field?

Which field? Paleontology? Population dynamics? Evolutionary biology? Arithmetic?

And what difference would it make? Do you think that in a disagreement the person with a PhD is correct?

Well Roy, you can reach Dr. Eckhardt here: [email protected] I'm sure he would like to see how neatly you destroyed one of his main points. Let us all know what he says.

If you're that sure, then e-mail him yourself.

In the meantime, you might try answering my last question. Or, failing that, try to show some indication that you are sufficiently competent to comprehend my argument well enough to evaluate it and compare it to Bob Eckhardt's claim. Because so far you've shown no sign of understanding any of it, choosing instead to duck behind fallacious appeals to authority.

Roy

P.S. On second thoughts, don't bother e-mailing Bob Eckhardt. Based on your behaviour to date, you'd fail to grasp it's contents, and simply declare him victorious because he has letters after his name.

[seer]

And, yes, being some kind of anti-evolutionist wannabe apologist, it's obvious you DID latch onto the term "dogma". The current working hypothesis about Flores Man does NOT fit the definition of "dogma" -- nor does ANYTHING in science properly understood.

Hey Homer, I did not bring in the term dogma that was Dr. Eckhardt, if you take exception I already linked his e-mail, take it up with him. I doubt any of you will. But his over all point was valid - men, even scientists in this case, believe what they want to believe, in spite of the facts. And don't tell me about "science properly understood" all science is done by fallible and bias men, not other kind of man exists.

[seer]

Considering that opinion piece was written in 2007 and virtually everything Eckhardt claimed back then about Homo floresiensis has turned out to be wrong I wouldn't be honking his horn too loudly.

BTW HMS, you can find his update version from this year (do a search), and he has not turned to be wrong. Show us where. And there are other more recent studies that point to a pathological cause which is referenced in the link:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...small-91387735

[tabibito]

I'm shire they'll figure it out eventually.

They already did: News from less than a day ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...y-reveals.html

[tabibito]

Since you didn't reply the first time, I'll ask again:

What "dogma" do you think he is referring to?

Roy

In an apparent reaction to the Jacob group's PNAS paper, "the proponents of Homo floresiensis have now switched to arguing that the small humans must have originated elsewhere," Eckhardt says. "It seems that whenever we test one hypothesis and disprove it, they reinterpret the hypothesis into a less readily testable form."

Seemingly, the scientific world has its own Foudroyants.

[rogue06]

They already did: News from less than a day ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...y-reveals.html

Here is the abstract for the new paper: Rare events in earth history include the LB1 human skeleton from Flores, Indonesia, as a developmental singularity, not a unique taxon and and article in ScienceDaily: Flores bones show features of Down syndrome, not a new 'Hobbit' human and an article that debates aspects of the new paper: Did the 'Hobbit' have Down syndrome? (see the portion after the "Ignored Evidence" header)

[seer]

Here is the abstract for the new paper: Rare events in earth history include the LB1 human skeleton from Flores, Indonesia, as a developmental singularity, not a unique taxon and and article in ScienceDaily: Flores bones show features of Down syndrome, not a new 'Hobbit' human and an article that debates aspects of the new paper: Did the 'Hobbit' have Down syndrome? (see the portion after the "Ignored Evidence" header)

So it is not a new species Rogue? But I have to ask, from what I read all they had was one full skull and one thigh bone (LB1) - how can you assume a whole new species from so little evidence?

[Roy]

So it is not a new species Rogue? But I have to ask, from what I read all they had was one full skull and one thigh bone (LB1) - how can you assume a whole new species from so little evidence?

Are you really that stupid? Or do you merely have the memory of a goldenrod?

Your own reference cited in post #1 includes this:

The nearly complete skeleton (the arms were missing, but they turned up in a later dig) was categorized as LB1

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

So it is not a new species Rogue? But I have to ask, from what I read all they had was one full skull and one thigh bone (LB1) - how can you assume a whole new species from so little evidence?

I wouldn't be so quick on the trigger. Seems like the only person pushing this "Homo floresiensis is a human with Down's syndrome" is your buddy Eckhardt and a few of his pals. He hasn't convinced very many if any other paleontologists.

There's nothing wrong with an open science controversy, it's a good way to thoroughly parse all the data. But right now Eckhardt is still very much in the minority with his opinions.

[seer]

Are you really that stupid? Or do you merely have the memory of a goldenrod?

Are you really this much of a • Edited by a Moderator •?

Your own reference cited in post #1 includes this:

Roy

This is what I was refering to:

The skeletal sample from Liang Bua cave contains fragmentary remains of several individuals," Eckhardt said. "LB1 has the only skull and thighbones in the entire sample."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804151510.htm

Most of the controversy seems to revolve around this single skull. In either case claiming a new species look premature at best, wishful thinking at worse.

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Vulgar terms for body parts are not allowed. Please refrain from using this term in the future

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[seer]

I wouldn't be so quick on the trigger. Seems like the only person pushing this "Homo floresiensis is a human with Down's syndrome" is your buddy Eckhardt and a few of his pals. He hasn't convinced very many if any other paleontologists.

There's nothing wrong with an open science controversy, it's a good way to thoroughly parse all the data. But right now Eckhardt is still very much in the minority with his opinions.

So it is not just Eckhardt, and why do you say the others are his pals? But does any of this warrant the claim of a new species? It doesn't look like it.

[HMS_Beagle]

So it is not just Eckhardt, and why do you say the others are his pals? But does any of this warrant the claim of a new species? It doesn't look like it.

They're the co-authors on his paper. Looking at the overview rogue06 provided it seems Eckhardt ignored a good deal of the evidence that contradicts his claims. That's one reason why his ideas are pretty widely rejected by the scientific community.

[Sparko]

They're the co-authors on his paper. Looking at the overview rogue06 provided it seems Eckhardt ignored a good deal of the evidence that contradicts his claims. That's one reason why his ideas are pretty widely rejected by the scientific community.

soooo you believe in hobbits. Okaaay.

[Roy]

So it is not a new species Rogue? But I have to ask, from what I read all they had was one full skull and one thigh bone (LB1)...

This is what I was refering to:

The skeletal sample from Liang Bua cave contains fragmentary remains of several individuals," Eckhardt said. "LB1 has the only skull and thighbones in the entire sample."

Ok, so you really are that stupid.

Roy