Discussion:
Origins of Indonesian hobbits finally revealed
(too old to reply)
Horace LaBadie
2017-04-21 19:34:41 UTC
Permalink
<https://phys.org/news/2017-04-indonesian-hobbits-revealed.html>

Origins of Indonesian hobbits finally revealed

"The most comprehensive study on the bones of Homo floresiensis, a
species of tiny human discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in
2003, has found that they most likely evolved from an ancestor in Africa
and not from Homo erectus as has been widely believed.

The study by The Australian National University (ANU) found Homo
floresiensis, dubbed "the hobbits" due to their small stature, were most
likely a sister species of Homo habilis‹one of the earliest known
species of human found in Africa 1.75 million years ago.

Data from the study concluded there was no evidence for the popular
theory that Homo floresiensis evolved from the much larger Homo erectus,
the only other early hominid known to have lived in the region with
fossils discovered on the Indonesian mainland of Java.

Study leader Dr Debbie Argue of the ANU School of Archaeology &
Anthropology, said the results should help put to rest a debate that has
been hotly contested ever since Homo floresiensis was discovered.
"The analyses show that on the family tree, Homo floresiensis was likely
a sister species of Homo habilis. It means these two shared a common
ancestor," Dr Argue said."
The Newest Other Guy
2017-04-21 22:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
<https://phys.org/news/2017-04-indonesian-hobbits-revealed.html>
Origins of Indonesian hobbits finally revealed
"The most comprehensive study on the bones of Homo floresiensis, a
species of tiny human discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in
2003, has found that they most likely evolved from an ancestor in Africa
and not from Homo erectus as has been widely believed.
Makes a lot more sense that way.
Eric Stevens
2017-04-21 22:35:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:34:41 -0400, Horace LaBadie
Post by Horace LaBadie
<https://phys.org/news/2017-04-indonesian-hobbits-revealed.html>
Origins of Indonesian hobbits finally revealed
"The most comprehensive study on the bones of Homo floresiensis, a
species of tiny human discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in
2003, has found that they most likely evolved from an ancestor in Africa
and not from Homo erectus as has been widely believed.
The study by The Australian National University (ANU) found Homo
floresiensis, dubbed "the hobbits" due to their small stature, were most
likely a sister species of Homo habilis‹one of the earliest known
species of human found in Africa 1.75 million years ago.
Data from the study concluded there was no evidence for the popular
theory that Homo floresiensis evolved from the much larger Homo erectus,
the only other early hominid known to have lived in the region with
fossils discovered on the Indonesian mainland of Java.
Study leader Dr Debbie Argue of the ANU School of Archaeology &
Anthropology, said the results should help put to rest a debate that has
been hotly contested ever since Homo floresiensis was discovered.
"The analyses show that on the family tree, Homo floresiensis was likely
a sister species of Homo habilis. It means these two shared a common
ancestor," Dr Argue said."
Which raises the question of how they got to Flores from Africa
without leaving evidence along the way.
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
b***@centurytel.net
2017-04-24 03:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Which raises the question of how they got to Flores from Africa
without leaving evidence along the way.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
"Absence of evidence is... "

(the remainder of the solution is left to the student.) ;-)
Eric Stevens
2017-04-24 04:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@centurytel.net
Post by Eric Stevens
Which raises the question of how they got to Flores from Africa
without leaving evidence along the way.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
"Absence of evidence is... "
(the remainder of the solution is left to the student.) ;-)
I'm not making an argument from the apparent absence of evidence for
the 'hobbits' having traveled from Africa to Flores. I'm merely
wondering how they made the journey without leaving any evidence along
the way.
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
J.LyonLayden
2017-10-26 16:28:23 UTC
Permalink
How did they get to Flores from Africa without leaving any trace?

There's no reason why they should.
Meganthropus is a basal erectus, and some say just an advanced austro, and it got to SE Asia without leaving a trace too.

Or did it?

The entire coast between Africa and SE Asia has been submerged multiple times since 3 million years ago.

For some reason, even though scientists know hominids spread along the coast, the don't bother looking underwater where the coasts used to be.

Furthermore, there are Madrasian tools of Mode I that predate all other early tools out of Africa by a million years. they are all over southern India. There are no fossils to go along with them, so we don't know if they were made by hobbits or meganthropus or something else.

Recently, wikipedia changed Madrasian to comply with Oldawna and Acheulian and fit their bioased model of evolution, and erased the references that gave Madrasian a 2.5 millio0n year date for its initial Out Of Africa.

The reason they changed it is because Europeans have a superiority complex. They think nothing of discrediting Indian scholars without even going to the sites and verifying data for themselves.

But when you learn that the mystery hominid split off 3 million years ago and introgressed into HSS 40k ago and now only survives in the Pacific and in the same place in India where Madrasian tools survived into the Holocene, you realize those western scientists are way off course.
J.LyonLayden
2017-10-26 17:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Mainstreamers constantly quote Madrasian being 1.5 million years old nowadays. The truth is that the thermo dates yield an AVERAGE of 1.53 million and many sites have not been thermo dated.
those have yielded dates of 2.5 million and the majority of these tools lie in strata with a date of 1.5 to 2 million years old.

Using an absolute date that is 300 thousand years younger than the actual AVERAGE shows the obvious bias of western scientists.
J.LyonLayden
2017-10-26 17:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Mainstreamers constantly quote Madrasian being 1.5 million years old nowadays. The truth is that the thermo dates yield an AVERAGE of 1.53 million and many sites have not been thermo dated.
those have yielded dates of 2.5 million by other methods and the majority of these tools lie in strata with a date of 1.5 to 2.5 million years old.

Using an absolute date that is 300 thousand years younger than the actual AVERAGE shows the obvious bias of western scientists.
Loading...