Comments on: The Discovery of the Hobbit Arrives in Australia

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:04:29 +0000

Here’s a link to a recent article at archaeology.org detailing arguments against the “hobbit” as a distinct species.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:26:08 +0000

Absolutely. That’s why I like science and teach it, have spent most of my life learning about it. It is the whole thing that fascinates me about it, the reason I ever became interested in it. This kind of opening of the way life works, of asking these questions and opening new theories compels me like nothing else does. I did not say that these questions that come up are a bad thing! Far from it. If every new mystery that we found was cut and dried, with simple answers, it would not hold the same appeal for me. If that were the case, I would not be on this site pretty much every day. I know this is the nature of the beast, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:16:50 +0000

mystery_man

Good science always produces more questions than answers, that is the nature of the beast so to speak. It simply leads to more learning and a better understanding of the whole question. No questions no learning. Thats why we communicate on this site to ask those all important questions and seek answers. When the truth is found, I have no doubt Cryptomundo is where it will be announced first. At least that’s where I will be looking.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:46:10 +0000

The story of Homo floresiensis is really interesting in that it is a good example of how even something with hard physical evidence can produce wildly varying theories and opinions. I wonder if this same sort of thing will happen when, say, a Bigfoot skull is found? Is it going to raise more questions than it answers? I can imagine there are going to be conflicting theories and ideas. It is interesting to speculate about. I hope that the question can be answered once and for all what excactly Homo floresiensis is. Fascinating stuff and it looks like a compelling book.

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:12:26 +0000

Some argue that floresiensis doesn’t warrant separate classification (because they are simply diminutive humans) whilst others disagree.

The link between “little people” stories and floresiensis has been talked about a number of times here on Cryptomundo also. A quick search should net you some interesting commentary!

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:12:59 +0000

One of the controversies over the Florensis skull is the cranial capacity for its size. Small brained for its height. This has been one reason that two camps have developed. One claims it is a new species of early human, while another claims it is an example of a modern type human with a genetic condition. Another controversy is based around the stone tools found. With such a small brain, says the camp that claims it to be a diseased person, they couldn’t have developed such fine tools. The other group is basically saying that there may well be more to intelligence than just brain size, so it could still be an offshoot long ago.

By: joppa

joppa — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:43:24 +0000

Cool. Can’t wait to read. The book on the Peking Man was a great story.