Comments on: Hobbit: Definitely New Species

By: bridezilla

bridezilla — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:29:58 +0000

ukulelemike, anthropologists definitely take normal human variation into account when identifying new species, although within Homo sapiens there isn’t really that much variation, even between diverse ethnic groups.

I’m sure with the global scrutiny involved in the Flores find they have taken account of unnatural variation as well, especially since they have been compared to microcephalic humans.

You seem to be using this as a case against the theory of evolution, but I don’t think that’s even relevant to this being a separate species.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:26:04 +0000

PeterOToole:

That’s a mighty interesting “sighting” you’ve reported there. Keep us informed, will you? Even if it turns out to be something “normal,” it’s still a good mystery to ponder. I love these “what could it be”-type of happenings. I love thinking about them.
So thanks again for the report, PeterOToole.

I get you, Loren. I read the article a tad quickly. I reread it and I see what you mean.

By: jayman

jayman — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:31:01 +0000

This is encouraging news. The notion that the “Hobbits” were “deformed” or “pathological” modern humans always seemed preposterous to me. The contoversy was exactly the same when the first extinct hominid, the Neanderthal, was discovered in the 1800s. “Pathology” was also invoked to force-fit them into the human line.

By: PeterOtoole

PeterOtoole — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:10:13 +0000

What a coincidence, this talk of elves. I know this is sort of off the topic, yet not, but:

A few hours ago while on a sunset walk I saw something a little unusual. A short figure, maybe 4 to 5 feet tall, about 100 yards away. It was in the middle of a prairie and booking it straight towards a shelter-belt of trees at a fast walk, as if it (he or she) had seen me and was retreating, or just retreating in general. I stood there watching and it suddenly emerged from the other side of the shelter belt (I was standing at a difficult to explain angle) and continued its fast little walk into the next set of trees that runs along a large river. I couldn’t discern much about its figure but the short height and a slight girth.

What was a thick little kid or tall midget doing out there? It made no sense. As I got to the place I had first seen it, I was even more confused. There was a wide open trail through the shelter belt only 30 yards away. This clearing went all the way to the river side through both sets of trees, to a trail that runs right alongside the river.

Why had this figure decided to charge through both thickets instead of taking the open trail? I guess it was taking the most direct path in the direction it wanted to go instead of the easiest. How inhuman.

I followed the walking trail along the riverside for a ways, but it was clear this thing just kept right on going and was long gone. I’m going back tomorrow morning to look for tracks.

By: bccryptid

bccryptid — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:21:33 +0000

They will never accept it as a new species. It all but proves the legends of elves and gnomes were based on real encounters. I look forward to when further elven fossils are found in N. America and other continents.

By: ukulelemike

ukulelemike — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:38:35 +0000

This is how the evolutionary ideal has blinded scientists to really be able to make an unbiased investigation of something.
They assume, (wrongly) that because of differences in the cranium size and asymetry, that this cannot possibly be human, but must be an ancient ancestor. yet they are thus assuming that all human skulls are the same, whereas history and medical science prove that dietary sufficiencies and deficiencies can cause huge changes in the structure and development of the skeletal system of humans and animals. Hence the weird deformities found often in third-world countries, due to poor nutrition, and a much stronger skeletal system in those who are of proper nutrition, especially the primarily carnivourous tribes, like the traditional Eskimos and Masai, who eat no vegetation at all, yet are incredibly healthy with good, broad facial structure, even to the point of having proper room for their wisdom teeth.
There is no base to judge from, yet this must be supposed to make such claims.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:36:05 +0000

Very interesting, Loren. Thanks for the update.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:35:37 +0000

No, it is not merely “another type of monkey.”

Tales of so-called “elves” and little people may be based on the reality of the concurrent lifestyles of humans and Homo floresiensis.

I already wrote what I thought, of course, in the last third of this posting.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:27:23 +0000

Glad to hear of this exciting confirmation.

Hopefully the media will spend at least some cursory time on it. Doubt it, though. Everybody is “riding high” on “Change.”

Personally I agree it is not human. An “Elf,” maybe?

Also, I wonder what Fox News specifically will make of this. If they cover it at all. We all know what that “estimable” network makes of anything Cryptozoological or that goes against the “consensus” view.

Anyway, at least this will add to our understanding of our past.

What do YOU think this is, Loren?

By: HOOSIERHUNTER

HOOSIERHUNTER — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:50:22 +0000

So, rather than a new type of man the Hobbit could also be just another type of monkey. At least that’s what I got out of the article. The more research that is done the more the mainstream thoeries seem uncertain.