New Human species discovered!!

[Magnus]

Hobbits are real!

SHE stands a metre tall, has a brain the size of a chimpanzee and her knuckles reach down to her knees - meet homo floresiensis, pin-up girl of the scientific world.

Homo floresiensis
Just one of the family ... homo floresiensis.
The newly discovered species of human, dubbed "the Hobbit", is being hailed as the most significant scientific find of the past century and was unearthed by NSW archaeologists.

Named after the Indonesian island of Flores where she was found, the female is thought to have been 30 years old when she died of natural causes.

Scientists have pieced together an image - with the male of the species pictured right - of a hairless, dark-skinned dwarf with a comparatively small head, countersunk eyes, flat nose, big teeth and mouth jutting forward with virtually no chin.

But what has scientists at the University of New England, Armidale, so excited is that the species lived as recently as 13,000 years ago - long after homo sapiens began walking the planet.

"It's a totally different human species which lived side-by-side with us for 40,000 years at least," Associate Professor Mike Morwood, an archeologist on the dig, said.

"It means two different types of human existed at the same time. To say we're excited's an understatement.

"Never in our wildest dreams did we think we'd find such a complete specimen. We were expecting tests to show the date of the bones to be around 100,000 years old.

"When it came back at 18,000, we thought it was a mistake. But it's right."

Further excavations in the Liang Bua cave site in July and August have unearthed remains 13,000 years "young".

Associate Professor Peter Brown, also of UNE, added: "Finding a spaceship would have been less of a surprise. This sort of species was supposed to have been extinct for a long time.

"Then we find a brand new species on Flores - yesterday, in archaeological terms.

"We don't know how they got there because Flores is very isolated. We discovered stone tools and evidence of rock formations, suggesting the species used fire.

"Although the brain size tells us they weren't as bright as us, it's clear information was processed in the same way."

The team believes homo floresiensis was wiped out by a volcanic eruption about 12,000 years ago.

"If it hadn't been for that eruption, this species would still be on the planet today," the University of Wollongong's Professor Bert Roberts said.

The team told Nature magazine Flores until recently was "a kind of Lost World".

Source

[Dr. Bombay]

You know what it's all leading up to right? Humans are aliens brought to earth by egyptian aliens.

::Nodnod::

[bemanisuperstar]

They say it's fact I say it's bull.

There's NO evidence of Evolution at all cept in the feeble minds of Low IQ Scientists.

[Dr. Bombay]

Though that may be true, Creationalism is retarded.

Thus, aliens is the only logical equation.

[1337haxxor]

Originally Posted by bemanisuperstar

They say it's fact I say it's bull.

There's NO evidence of Evolution at all cept in the feeble minds of Low IQ Scientists.

are you christian or just stupid?

i take it you don't belive in carbon dating, or in carbon at all?

i take it you belive in IQ tests though, which have been proven to have a North American Christian bias.

and no i don't hate christianty, "its not the band i hate, it's their fans"

[bemanisuperstar]

I'm just going to ignore the uneducated post above me.

Originally Posted by Reality

Evolution is on of the more flawed theories to human life to ever be drilled as a fact. I can see the same skull structures they preach to be a ancient man, in every other African-American in my town. (That's not a racial comment ether) And it's only by chance I reckon these ancient skulls are found IN Africa as it is.

for once we agree on something even Darwin himself denouced Evolution on his death bed.

There is even evidence that Noah's Flood is an actual historical event and if you doubt me Look it up yourself.

[1337haxxor]

Originally Posted by bemanisuperstar

I'm just going to ignore the uneducated post above me.



for once we agree on something even Darwin himself denouced Evolution on his death bed.

There is even evidence that Noah's Flood is an actual historical event and if you doubt me Look it up yourself.

yeah, noahs flood, its in almost every single cultures folk lore. i do retract my comment, it was rash of me but i meant every word of it. how ever your not getting that un educated one free. fanboy. review my Free Trade essay if you think i'm so uneducated.

[Drunken Savior]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bombay

You know what it's all leading up to right? Humans are aliens brought to earth by egyptian aliens.

::Nodnod::

You know too much....BANNED!!!!

[Reality]

Evolution is on of the more flawed theories to human life to ever be drilled as a fact. I can see the same skull structures they preach to be a ancient man, in every other African-American in my town. (That's not a racial comment ether) And it's only by chance I reckon these ancient skulls are found IN Africa as it is.

[IoriYagami n8]

Originally Posted by Reality

Evolution is on of the more flawed theories to human life to ever be drilled as a fact. I can see the same skull structures they preach to be a ancient man, in every other African-American in my town. (That's not a racial comment ether) And it's only by chance I reckon these ancient skulls are found IN Africa as it is.

Evolutionary Theory has never been drilled in as fact. Natural Selection has and is. There is a distinct difference between the two. It's actually rather funny to see tags of the Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish considering the fact that Darwin's theories are solid, established, and proven. People have simply blended the two together since Evolutionary Theory is a step up on Natural Selection as far as time frames go. Natural Selection can be monitored, documented, and so forth. It does not make the claim that adaptation to ones enviroment jumps species, which is probably the biggest difference between the two. In other words, Natural Selection states that a bird could change dramatically over time, but in the end, it is still a bird, simply a different type of bird. Evolutionary Theory takes that concept and applies it to a longer time frame and speculates that a bird, given enough time (millions of years) could eventually become something that isn't what we view as a bird.

Your example is flawed as well, traits can develop from ancient man to what we are today. Over time, certain parts begin to adapt to our world (which is changed by how we live, which is also changed in turn by how much we know about the world). Evolutionary Theory is pretty well established in factual evidence up until the point where it proclaims that a fish could evolve to live on land, that said land fish thing could in turn evolve into something else, such as a lizard, bird, whatever. It's a reasonable theory mind you, one that would be the next step from natural selection. The problem is that it takes so much time. The human race may not even be around long enough to find out.

There are flaws with either arguement, neither side can be proven. However, I will say that Evolutionary Theory has some basis of scientific and factual support behind it, or else it wouldn't even be a theory. That doesn't make it true, but that also means that it isn't so easily dismissed. As far as being proven is concerned, I'm willing to say that Evolutionary Theory has the upper hand on Creationism.

[bemanisuperstar]

Originally Posted by IoriYagami n8

Evolutionary Theory has never been drilled in as fact. Natural Selection has and is. There is a distinct difference between the two. It's actually rather funny to see tags of the Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish considering the fact that Darwin's theories are solid, established, and proven. People have simply blended the two together since Evolutionary Theory is a step up on Natural Selection as far as time frames go. Natural Selection can be monitored, documented, and so forth. It does not make the claim that adaptation to ones enviroment jumps species, which is probably the biggest difference between the two. In other words, Natural Selection states that a bird could change dramatically over time, but in the end, it is still a bird, simply a different type of bird. Evolutionary Theory takes that concept and applies it to a longer time frame and speculates that a bird, given enough time (millions of years) could eventually become something that isn't what we view as a bird.

Your example is flawed as well, traits can develop from ancient man to what we are today. Over time, certain parts begin to adapt to our world (which is changed by how we live, which is also changed in turn by how much we know about the world). Evolutionary Theory is pretty well established in factual evidence up until the point where it proclaims that a fish could evolve to live on land, that said land fish thing could in turn evolve into something else, such as a lizard, bird, whatever. It's a reasonable theory mind you, one that would be the next step from natural selection. The problem is that it takes so much time. The human race may not even be around long enough to find out.

There are flaws with either arguement, neither side can be proven. However, I will say that Evolutionary Theory has some basis of scientific and factual support behind it, or else it wouldn't even be a theory. That doesn't make it true, but that also means that it isn't so easily dismissed. As far as being proven is concerned, I'm willing to say that Evolutionary Theory has the upper hand on Creationism.

While it is true that cirtian Species do adapt and change by varying Conditions they do not split off to ever become an entirely new one and there's not evidence of that actually happening.

Has anybody seen an ape become man?
or a Lizard become a Bird?

And What about the fact that scientists have found it impossible to clone a human?

I remember reading some where that some cloneing researchers found struction in Human Cells that made it impossible to replicate them them. As if Humans are Copy Protected. I want to say that was in Time but I'm nto sure.

[gearhound]

there is no doubt that creatures have evolved over time, but that certainly does not deny god's existance by any means whatsoever.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm

[Reality]

Originally Posted by IoriYagami n8

Evolutionary Theory has never been drilled in as fact. Natural Selection has and is. There is a distinct difference between the two. It's actually rather funny to see tags of the Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish considering the fact that Darwin's theories are solid, established, and proven. People have simply blended the two together since Evolutionary Theory is a step up on Natural Selection as far as time frames go. Natural Selection can be monitored, documented, and so forth. It does not make the claim that adaptation to ones enviroment jumps species, which is probably the biggest difference between the two. In other words, Natural Selection states that a bird could change dramatically over time, but in the end, it is still a bird, simply a different type of bird. Evolutionary Theory takes that concept and applies it to a longer time frame and speculates that a bird, given enough time (millions of years) could eventually become something that isn't what we view as a bird.

Your example is flawed as well, traits can develop from ancient man to what we are today. Over time, certain parts begin to adapt to our world (which is changed by how we live, which is also changed in turn by how much we know about the world). Evolutionary Theory is pretty well established in factual evidence up until the point where it proclaims that a fish could evolve to live on land, that said land fish thing could in turn evolve into something else, such as a lizard, bird, whatever. It's a reasonable theory mind you, one that would be the next step from natural selection. The problem is that it takes so much time. The human race may not even be around long enough to find out.

There are flaws with either arguement, neither side can be proven. However, I will say that Evolutionary Theory has some basis of scientific and factual support behind it, or else it wouldn't even be a theory. That doesn't make it true, but that also means that it isn't so easily dismissed. As far as being proven is concerned, I'm willing to say that Evolutionary Theory has the upper hand on Creationism.

Hmm, yeah your right. Nothing to really argue about here. I do think animals and people adapt everyday. Which will lead us to look differently in time. But for the most part, when this stuff is tough in schools you never told it's a theory or anything. I know I wasn't. You just told this is what happened and that's it. Then we move on to next weeks lesson. But anyway, for my opinion. I don't 100% into it. Much like how in Evolution one single fish that crawled onto land starts all spices or how wales came from cows. Or Kangaroos came from Australian field mice. Ect ect ect.