Not A Hobbit After All?

[HMS_Beagle]

soooo you believe in hobbits. Okaaay.

Actually I'm one of the few from my generation who never read Bored, er, Lord of The Rings. Proud of it too.

[seer]

Ok, so you really are that stupid.

Roy

Really? So they have more than one complete skull • Edited by a Moderator •?

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Please do not use this term. Vulgar terms for body parts are not allowed

***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]

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.

No HMS, Eckhardt responds to the objections of Colin Groves in the link. One thing is perfectly clear - the claim of a "new species" is way to premature.

[HMS_Beagle]

No HMS, Eckhardt responds to the objections of Colin Groves in the link. One thing is perfectly clear - the claim of a "new species" is way to premature.

As with all scientific inferences the designation of Homo floresiensis as a new species is tentative and subject to change pending the introduction of further evidence. Eckhardt's latest attempt to prop up his claims have been deemed less than impressive by his fellow scientists, particularly those who have worked directly with the specimens. The new species designation looks like it will stay the scientific consensus, at least for now.

[klaus54]

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.

Apparently you're incapable of understanding dictionary definitions as well. This is in addition to inability to read and process logical scientific analysis.

"Science is done by fallible men" -- so you're not a YEC, eh?

Just a reminder -- if you are capable of understanding it -- the Bible is interpreted by "fallible men" as well. Don't be a hypocrite. And the VAST body of scientific and most the theories to explain such are MUCH MORE SOLID than the wild variations in Biblical interpretation.

Nice try with the YEC jargon though...

Scientific hypotheses are not dogma. Email the PSU dude and tell him that. Then you'll both learn something.

K54

[klaus54]

Actually I'm one of the few from my generation who never read Bored, er, Lord of The Rings. Proud of it too.

So you've never had the pleasure of textual acquaintance with Dildo and Legolamb?



K54

[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."

Really? So they have more than one complete skull prick?

Why do anti-evolution idiots not only think that no-one can remember what they posted less than an hour ago, but also not realise that their misrepresentations and evasions are transparently obvious because the previous posts will still be on the screen of anyone reading the thread?

Only a complete moron would think no-one would notice what seer has tried to do here.

Roy

[seer]

Why do anti-evolution idiots not only think that no-one can remember what they posted less than an hour ago, but also not realise that their misrepresentations and evasions are transparently obvious because the previous posts will still be on the screen of anyone reading the thread?

Only a complete moron would think no-one would notice what seer has tried to do here.

Roy

Nonsense Roy, there is still only one skull and that is the very thing that has caused the most controversy. LB1 is the only one with a full skull and thigh bones, and that is what this is all based on - one individual. And you think that is enough evidence to invent a new species?

And:

A previously unpublished measurement of LB1's occipital-frontal circumference -- the circumference of the skull taken roughly above the tops of the ears -- allowed the researchers to compare LB1 to clinical data routinely collected on patients with developmental disorders. Here too, the brain size they estimate is within the range expected for an Australomelanesian human with Down syndrome.

LB1's short thighbones not only match the height reduction seen in Down syndrome, Eckhardt said, but when corrected statistically for normal growth, they would yield a stature of about 1.26 meters, or just over four feet, a figure matched by some humans now living on Flores and in surrounding regions.

These and other Down-like characteristics, the researchers state, are present only in LB1, and not in the other Liang Bua skeletal remains, further evidence of LB1's abnormality.

So the other fragments do not match or confirm LB1's differences.

[HMS_Beagle]

Nonsense Roy, there is still only one skull and that is the very thing that has caused the most controversy. LB1 is the only one with a full skull and thigh bones, and that is what this is all based on - one individual. And you think that is enough evidence to invent a new species?

That is false. Only Eckhardt is basing his claims on the skull and femurs of LB1 while ignoring all the other evidence. There were pieces of six individuals found that all showed primitive traits not associated with modern humans. For example, the wrist of LB1 was much closer to earlier hominid specimens.

The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin Evolution
Tochen et al
Science 21 September 2007:
Vol. 317 no. 5845 pp. 1743-1745

Abstract: Whether the Late Pleistocene hominin fossils from Flores, Indonesia, represent a new species, Homo floresiensis, or pathological modern humans has been debated. Analysis of three wrist bones from the holotype specimen (LB1) shows that it retains wrist morphology that is primitive for the African ape-human clade. In contrast, Neandertals and modern humans share derived wrist morphology that forms during embryogenesis, which diminishes the probability that pathology could result in the normal primitive state. This evidence indicates that LB1 is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect; rather, it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.

That all six individuals showed similar primitive morphologies is a strong indication LB1 wasn't an outlier diseased modern human but that all six were part of the same population. Eckhardt conveniently ignored all that evidence.

[seer]

That is false. Only Eckhardt is basing his claims on the skull and femurs of LB1 while ignoring all the other evidence. There were pieces of six individuals found that all showed primitive traits not associated with modern humans. For example, the wrist of LB1 was much closer to earlier hominid specimens.

That all six individuals showed similar primitive morphologies is a strong indication LB1 wasn't an outlier diseased modern human but that all six were part of the same population. Eckhardt conveniently ignored all that evidence.

Oh please you link a work from 2007 where I can not even get to the main paper. Here is one from 2013 where you can read the whole text:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

And not just Eckhardt is involved

Robert B. Eckhardt
a,1
, Maciej Henneberg
b
, Alex S. Weller
a,2
, and Kenneth J. Hsü
c,1
a
Laboratory for the Study of Morphology, Mechanics
and Molecules, Department of Kinesiology, Pe
nnsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802;
b
School of Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; and
c
Kenneth J. Hsü Center for Integrated
Hydrological Circuits Development, National In
stitutes of Earth Sciences, Beijing 100871, China

And:

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/...is-is-lb1.html

The new contention that LB6 wrist bones support LB1 being non-pathological embodies the covert assumption that all skeletal elements of a developmentally anomalous individual must be abnormal, which is counter-factual to the orthopedic literature and our developmental genetic research.

[klaus54]

Oh please you link a work from 2007 where I can not even get to the main paper. Here is one from 2013 where you can read the whole text:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

And not just Eckhardt is involved



And:

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/...is-is-lb1.html

Do you deny that there were parts of six individuals found?

k54

[rogue06]

Do you deny that there were parts of six individuals found?

k54

Nine.

[klaus54]

Nine.

Nein oder Ja?

Oh, I gottcha --- Neun.

K54

[seer]

Do you deny that there were parts of six individuals found?

k54

Right, with the normal dwarfing that is common to the area.

[rogue06]

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?

There is other indications that I don't know if this paper addressed such as an analysis of the wrists which show that they are considerably more primitive than what is seen in modern humans. Other examinations of the rest of the arm and shoulder support this conclusion. And LB1 is represented by a nearly complete skull and a good deal of the postcranial skeleton. There are also remains from eight other individuals that have been recovered but nowhere as near complete as LB1