Henneberg’s credibility is compromised by his being accused of the same dishonesty he accused others of. Pot, kettle, black.

What you are saying is true if one looks at it from a literal, absolutist way—but you will admit these allegations do color over whatever credibility the man may have. For better or worse. He himself admitted it is “ironic” that this is happenning to him. And given the vehemence of his attacks against Brown and the others and Brown’s counterclaim that Henneberg was the real attention-seeker in all of this brouhaha one cannot help but take the leap and see this little fiasco with $400,000 as indicative of a larger pattern with the man’s intergrity.

In many large corporations, there is a mind-set that if one cannot handle their business at home or in their personal life, how can they handle the accounts of customers? Or even customers themselves?

If I’m a respected geneticist with grants and tenures who is discovered to be “friendly” with Eugenics supporters and even to have attended their meetings—even though my work has really nothing to do with eugenics—won’t that at least “rub off” on me in some way? Won’t my bosses at least “investigate” me? Won’t my “credibility” and “reputation” and even professional standing be in question? (or jeopardy)???

Most of Wagner’s music has nothing to do with his real-life Anti-Semitism, Ultra-Nationalism, Wife-Stealing, possible child molestation, and generally reprehensible behavior towards most of the human race. And I admit I like his music and listen to it occassionally. Yet even I admit my feelings for the man cannot help but be colored over by his personal acts. Genius, yes. Supreme Artist, yes. Still, not a guy you’d want anywhere near you. The dirt will never completely go away, like it or not. For better or worse. See what I mean? So Ipso hoc,
post propter hoc all you want to, Sschaper, but in an “ideal” world, your assertion would have meaning. In the real world, it does not. Once again, for better or worse. “Sometimes you are judged by the company you keep.” Unfortunately.

What I mean is that a 6’6″ person of Anglo-Saxon background will have the same relative proportions between, say, their femur and the length of their spine, as will a 5’5″ person of Asian background, or even a 4’4″ person who is a pygmy.

H. floresienses has a significantly different proportion in this measurement.

In many respecs H. floresienses has anatomical features which match “Lucy”, from Africa. But in other respects it has anatomical features matching Homo erectus.

Prior to the discovery of H. floresienses there would have been a number of viewpoints on the relationships between Lucy, H. erectus and H. sapiens (modern humankind). With the discovery of H. floresiensis all these relationships are under review.

Apart from the anatomical comparisons, the dates of the fossils need also be taken into account when considering all these relationships. All I understand is that floresiensis has basically thrown a spanner into the works – so any wonder that all manner of professionals in the field might find it difficult to accept.

Further, material found in association with H. floresienses indicates they were very intelligent, especially considering their tiny brain size. Prior to their discovery, many wouldn’t have believed that a creature with the brain capacity of H. floresienses could have had sophisticated language, fashioned tools and co-operatively hunted large prey; yet the species exhibits all these characteristics.

This was particularly interesting to me and when I asked Mike what’s going on, he gave an answer which I didn’t find surprising. H. floresiensis basically makes us re-think the relationship between intelligence and brain capacity. He pointed out that certain parts of the brain were even far more highly developed than in modern humankind. Others have noted that pound for pound, H. floresiensis was the most intelligent species of human to have ever existed.

I hope this helps clarify that H. floresiensis is indeed a unique species – and one that opens up a whole lot more new questions than perhaps it answers.

Chris.

The interview was followed by a 1 hour lecture during which he further addressed many of the criticisms levelled at the prospect of H. floresienses being a new species. There was certainly no doubt left in my mind that his team’s results are genuine and as described. No small number of attendees also remarked publicly to Mike that they felt the same.

The presentation itself was excellent, as were the numerous slides, photos, illustrations, diagrams and explanations and I certainly recommend going along to hear Mike speak if the opportunity presents itself.