More 'Hobbits' found

[Loudmouth]

No human beings should be considered to belong to a distinct race or 'species' other than the human race.

I agree. However, each societal group has a preferred monicker. I think it is only considerate to call a social group by the name they prefer. If you want to be called African-American I am more than happy to use that name. If you want to be called Shoshone or Nez Pierce I am OK with that too. If we found a population of H. floresiensis and they have a developed language then we should use that name.

 

[john crawford]

just don't reply to the racism derailment. please.

Theorizing that any Indonesian people were a different and separate human species than we are is a distinctly neo-Darwinist form of scientific racism though.

 

[john crawford]

good thing they found 10 then before doing so concretely.

Observing 10 human skeletons is no basis for calling them anything other than human skeletons. Only neo-Darwinist race theorists need to reduce human fossils to different 'species' in order to prove Charles Darwin's original racial theories about the "Origin of Species."

 

[john crawford]

I agree. However, each societal group has a preferred monicker. I think it is only considerate to call a social group by the name they prefer. If you want to be called African-American I am more than happy to use that name. If you want to be called Shoshone or Nez Pierce I am OK with that too. If we found a population of H. floresiensis and they have a developed language then we should use that name.

Since most Indonesians don't consider or name themselves to be anything other than human beings of various tribal origins and ancestries, there is no need for neo-Darwinists to label any Indonesian human fossils as anything other than Indonesian human fossils except for their scientific compulsion to associate by 'natural selection' all primitive people with the common ancestors of African monkeys and apes.

Neo-Darwinists should stop calling human beings and their fossilized ancestors derogatory names like Homo this and Homo that or else more Christians and Muslims will start calling neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution scientific propagandists of racial theories about human origins.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neo-Darwinists should stop calling human beings and their fossilized ancestors derogatory names like Homo this and Homo that or else more Christians and Muslims will start calling neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution scientific propagandists of racial theories about human origins.

Oh please. Early metazoan worms found in the Cambrian are also our ancestors. Are we supposed to call them humans as well.

 

[BananaSlug]

Since most Indonesians don't consider or name themselves to be anything other than human beings of various tribal origins and ancestries, there is no need for neo-Darwinists to label any Indonesian human fossils as anything other than Indonesian human fossils except for their scientific compulsion to associate by 'natural selection' all primitive people with the common ancestors of African monkeys and apes.

Neo-Darwinists should stop calling human beings and their fossilized ancestors derogatory names like Homo this and Homo that or else more Christians and Muslims will start calling neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution scientific propagandists of racial theories about human origins.

Why must you be so racist and refer to them as "Indonesians"? Can't you just call them humans? Don't you believe that God created humans above the so called "animals?" This sounds like racism (speciesism?) to me. There is nothing racist about having different species of humans. If this were the case, then all wolves, coyotes, and jackals should be considered the same species. Calling them different species would be racist because we all know that coyotes and wolves are exactly the same even though their skeletons may be slightly different.

 

[john crawford]

Oh please. Early metazoan worms found in the Cambrian are also our ancestors.

That's only according to neo-Darwinst race theories which also teach that early African people originated from the ancestors of monkeys and apes. Are you saying that some of those ancestral monkeys and apes had worms?

 

[dad]

Oh please. Early metazoan worms found in the Cambrian are also our ancestors. Are we supposed to call them humans as well.

Please! Speak for yourself on the relatives to worms business.

[added by edit] ... Any bible savvy folks out there could correct me here, if it was not possible , but, heres my thoughts on the little guys so far.
I think maybe God cursed Cain, and possibly the "mark" of Cain was that he was a shrimp after that, easily recognized by men, therefore in danger, cause he killed someone, ond some folks were darned mad. God had to issue a special warning to folks, to keep them from hunting down, and killing this little stinker. If this idea is right, he is a part (I hate to admit) of our race. Being in the pre flood time, this hyper evolution would have been a piece of cake, as well. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[john crawford]

Why must you be so racist and refer to them as "Indonesians"?

Indonesia is the name of their country, so by natural birth, they proudly call themselves Indonesians, while neo-Darwinists seem to prefer calling their human ancestors by different names which only serve to degrade Indonesians into several different 'species' of Indonesians which neo-Darwinists then further racially proclaim were direct descendents of African ape and monkey ancestors.

There is nothing racist about having different species of humans.

Of course there is, since the human race can't be divided up into different and separate 'species' by scientists any more than neo-Darwinists can divide the human race into different and separate races. Any attempt by neo-Darwinist theorists to arbitrarily label and classify humans in the fossil record as different and separate races or 'species,' amounts to nothing less than an scientific form of ancestral racism.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

[QUOTE=john crawford]That's only according to neo-Darwinst race theories which also teach that early African people originated from the ancestors of monkeys and apes. [/QUOTE]

Not just African people, everyone.

 

[john crawford]

[QUOTE=john crawford]That's only according to neo-Darwinst race theories which also teach that early African people originated from the ancestors of monkeys and apes.

Not just African people, everyone.

No, the African Eve Model implies that Eastern, Western and Middle Eastern people throughout Eurasia are only related by descent to mythical African Eve because of Darwin's original thesis that the original African people shared common ancestry with mythical ancestors of African monkeys and apes. Neo-Darwinist race theorists use African people to get the ball of human evolution rolling in the first place.

No human evolution in Africa = no human evolution, period. That's why neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are always inescapably racist.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

No, the (1) African Eve Model implies that Eastern, Western and Middle Eastern people throughout Eurasia are only related by descent to (2) mythical African Eve (3) because of Darwin's original thesis that the original African people shared common ancestry with mythical ancestors of African monkeys and apes. Neo-Darwinist race theorists use (4) African people to get the ball of human evolution rolling in the first place.

No human evolution in Africa = no human evolution, period. That's why neo-Darwinist theories of (5) human evolution in and out of Africa are always inescapably racist.

(1) When virtually anyone in the science world talks of human origins it is never called the African Eve Model. That term is just a catchy coined phrase which doesn’t have much scientific basis. The correct model you’ll want to form an argument around will be the “out of Africa” model.
Where does the African eve model come from? It has its origins in the idea only a mother’s mitochondria is passed on from generation to generation. Too bad that doesn’t hold up.
Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26;93(24):13859-63.
(2) There are two things that are wrong with this statement. One being, mythical is a bad word to choose in this scenario. Hypothesized or theorized? If you want to be taken seriously and not immediately discounted the correct terminology should be used. And two, saying there was an “Eve” implies just one individual. With evolution, one individual is never the case; instead, we (humans) arose from one population of humans.
(3) Actually the why scientists back “out of Africa” is not because of things like “Darwin said so” its because of studies based on haplotype maps done if various popluations. Ken Kidd at Yale does a lot of work in that area.
(4) You wrong about this too. They don’t use African people to get evolution rolling, they use a population of humans who originated in Africa for their theories.
(5) I know you have a long thread of the subject so could you send me a link explaining this. It makes no sense.

My only other comments would be, there are obvious holes in your knowledge as just in this post I’ve had to correct you multiple times. Any retractions on your statements?

 

[john crawford]

(1) When virtually anyone in the science world talks of human origins it is never called the African Eve Model. That term is just a catchy coined phrase which doesn’t have much scientific basis. The correct model you’ll want to form an argument around will be the “out of Africa” model.
Where does the African eve model come from? It has its origins in the idea only a mother’s mitochondria is passed on from generation to generation. Too bad that doesn’t hold up.
Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26;93(24):13859-63.
(2) There are two things that are wrong with this statement. One being, mythical is a bad word to choose in this scenario. Hypothesized or theorized? If you want to be taken seriously and not immediately discounted the correct terminology should be used. And two, saying there was an “Eve” implies just one individual. With evolution, one individual is never the case; instead, we (humans) arose from one population of humans.
(3) Actually the why scientists back “out of Africa” is not because of things like “Darwin said so” its because of studies based on haplotype maps done if various popluations. Ken Kidd at Yale does a lot of work in that area.
(4) You wrong about this too. They don’t use African people to get evolution rolling, they use a population of humans who originated in Africa for their theories.
(5) I know you have a long thread of the subject so could you send me a link explaining this. It makes no sense.

My only other comments would be, there are obvious holes in your knowledge as just in this post I’ve had to correct you multiple times. Any retractions on your statements?

I'm writing from a Lubenowist perspective so any corrections on your part or retractions on mine may only be conditioned upon an updated and revised edition of his scholarly 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

Of course, if you care to discuss or refute anything in Lubenow's 2004 edition, I shall be happy to accomodate you on a page by page basis.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm writing from a Lubenowist perspective so any corrections on your part or retractions on mine may only be conditioned upon an updated and revised edition of his scholarly 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

Of course, if you care to discuss or refute anything in Lubenow's 2004 edition, I shall be happy to accomodate you on a page by page basis.

Discuss the issues John, don't hide behind Lubenow.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

I'm writing from a Lubenowist perspective so any corrections on your part or retractions on mine may only be conditioned upon an updated and revised edition of his scholarly 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

Of course, if you care to discuss or refute anything in Lubenow's 2004 edition, I shall be happy to accomodate you on a page by page basis.

I'm writing from a Lubenowist perspective so any corrections on your part or retractions on mine may only be conditioned upon an updated and revised edition of his scholarly 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

Of course, if you care to discuss or refute anything in Lubenow's 2004 edition, I shall be happy to accomodate you on a page by page basis.

Wait, wait, wait. This is hilarious. Lubenow has no Ph.D. in anthropology (or even in the biological sciences for that matter), no published peer-reviewed journal articles dealing with the issue at hand. If he's so correct in this, why didn't he ever submit his work to the scientific journals (where REAL science is done after all)? He must be afraid of honest criticism, that's why you publish to those who already agree with you, it's called preaching to the choir.

You keep on jumping on your chior’s bandwagon and ignoring real science. If you do anyone here can see that your opinion is worth nothing.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

That's only according to neo-Darwinst race theories which also teach that early African people originated from the ancestors of monkeys and apes.

Yes, it does teach that. The problem you have with your argument in every time that you present it is that the decendants are all people, not just African peoples. It would be racist to say that Africans were a degenerate half-breed race inferior to other men (as you seem to be saying that people are saying about the 'Hobbits'), but it would not be racist to say that they, along with everyone else, stems from the same bloodline. By your definitions, I could just as easily say that the tale of Adam and Eve is equally racist in nature.

However, I believe we have spent enough time on this, as you have presented this argument before, and I for one will not contribute to the derailing of yet another thread. With the war going on, it's lucky we even have enough threads to go around, let alone with this wasting of a perfectly good thread.

***

Back to the discussion at hand. Now, I say that there are several ways we can approach this species. It is entirely possible that they are all long extinct, and we may have to cope with that. However, if we are lucky enough, we will have a variety of options to explore.

I, for one, hope to save all of our bretheren so that they do not die out. However, when I say save, I mean collect - like when you collect stamps, or coins.

 

[_Paladin_]

I see that their cranial capacity is in range of actually being human. While they very well maybe a different species, what particular about them makes them not just midgets with no chin?

 

[LogicChristian]

I see that their cranial capacity is in range of actually being human. While they very well maybe a different species, what particular about them makes them not just midgets with no chin?

No it's not, the cranial capacity is about 380 cc, our cranial capacity is 1350+ cc.

 

[_Paladin_]

I could have sworn I read a different number. Sorry I will look it up.

 

[_Paladin_]

Ah you are right. Good call. Its about 900 in exteremely low cases.