Well, since the first fragments of the “Hobbit” were found in 2001 AD this is not exactly new news. Yet, I sometimes find that I have to hearken back to dated issues in order to butters a point I am making in a different post. Such was the case in this case and so here are two examples of science news reporting.
A March 30, 2016 AD article ‘Hobbit’ found in Indonesia may have gone extinct earlier than thought is by Michael Casey and contains the typical weasel words of which all science reporting as well as peer-reviewed science journal articles are made such as “may have…believed to have been…possibility…most likely…believed to have…raised the prospect that…remains an open and intriguing question…the potential amount of time…must have…But even if…could also have…would have been…inferred…may reinforce…fascinating possibility…would seem to…”
An earlier article is ““Hobbit” Skeleton Challenges Evolution,” CBS News AP, March 6, 2010 AD the weasel words of which are, “may once have…possibly…apparently…It would mean…possibility…could be…it is believed that…suggests…may have occurred…it may turn out that…may have…could have…it would upend the belief that…may have…would be…indicates…suggested…They believe…”
Now, of course to refer to this as a “hominin” (Homo floresiensis) and especially “Hobbit” is meant to make it sound intriguing as reporting on yet another dead monkey is not a sexy. Another typical sci report/paper tactic is that just when they tell us, yet again, that they know about human evolution from an un-evidenced, unproven, unobserved, cryptozoological, mythological, chimera we are also constantly told that, by golly, shows that H. floresiensis disappeared from Flores “much earlier than scientists originally thought” and “Almost overnight, the find threatened to change our understanding of human evolution.”
Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow at the University of Wollongong, Richard Roberts, affirmed that “whether ‘hobbits’ encountered modern humans or other groups of humans—such as the ‘Denisovans’…remains an open and intriguing question.” But Canada research chair in human origins at Lakehead University, Matthew Tocheri, decided to close and answer the question by referring to the fossil as our “tiny ancestor.” The skeleton is also referred to as “a dwarf cavewoman,” “a band of distant relatives,” “a separate and primitive species,” Mike Morwood calls it “A New Human,”
So, yes, no, maybe so—who cares: I LOVE “SCIENCE”!!!
In fact, “the hunt is on to prove that she and the dozen other hobbits since discovered are not a quirk of nature but members of a distinct hominid species” and I love how science apparently is “to prove” preconceived notions. Also, “no one who supports the new-species theory suggests the hobbit is a direct ancestor of modern humans” but a new alleged branch can simply be invented and said to somehow be part of humanity’s family tree.
Hobbit dig coordinator, Mike Morwood, “indicates how little we know about hominid evolution” and Natural History Museum in London, Chris Stringer notes, that it denotes, “a complete missing chapter of the story of human evolution.”
Note that such skeletons are displayed as laying out on a 2-D
surface, such as a table, which makes it appear as if they stood upright.
Note that Roberts refers to the Denisovans as does the research leader in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, Chris Stringer who also refers to “other forms of humans.” Well, I previously wrote on this non-issue so the interested reader can consult: Evolution news – meet the Denisovans, the new Nebraska Man.
Now, H. floresiensis date range is “range from 190,000 to 50,000 years ago” ’cause, you know who’s counting and what does 140,000 year matter when, after all as they are “using the most up-to-date scientific methods available.” Yet, oopsy, as is very common when you are trying to force feed a dead animal into your theory there was a “dating mix up” and so “the researchers were adamant that the new dates did little to change their belief – and that of most scientists” because, you know, why should scientists change their “belief” based on evidence?!?! Their belief “that H. floresiensis was still a distant relative.” This is also literally regardless of Roberts’ “open and intriguing question.”
Rokus Due Awe stated “They butchered the animals here” based on a “toothpick-sized rat bones left over from hobbit meals” or rather which is wildly guessed to have been a hobbit meals. It may have been but the point is that they found a bone and told a story about that it was a meal. Moreover, “charred and chipped remains of Komodo dragons and pygmy elephants, proving the hobbits cooked over fires” which actually only proves that someone cooked over fires but does not prove that the hobbits did so—in fact, for all we know humans were cooking Komodo dragons, pygmy elephants and also eating up hobbit/monkeys.
There are also schools of (interpretive) thoughts such as that this was just “deformed modern human as critics have long contended. Those critics argue that…it suffered from a genetic disorder” and this “feud has played out in top scientific journals.” But Tocheri gets all emotive and employs scare tactics—since this is, like, science and stuff—in stating, “‘For the few stragglers that are still hanging onto (to the idea) that this is a pathological modern human, it certainly weakens their argument yet again,’ Tocheri said, comparing those minority voices who believe it’s a modern human to scientists who ‘say that human-mediated climate change isn’t happening right now’ or ‘that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.’”
Puslitbang Arkenas (National Archaeological Research and
Development of Indonesian Cultural and Tourism Department) photo
showing a researcher holds a skull of a Homo floresiensis in Indonesia.
That smoking causes cancer is science but looking at a dead animal, playing games with dates and interpreting what it was, how it looked, to whom it is related, etc., is worldview philosophizing.
Note that the skeleton “appeared to be a child” but it was later “determined it was an adult based on its worn molars” which, by the way, can get worn down in an untimely manner depending on the diet. We are also told of its “potbelly appearance” well, what’a’ya know: bellies fossilize, can’t wait until someone finds some petrified bacon—hope fully it will have some soft tissue within it.
Also, “One theory is that the hobbit actually evolved from the much taller and big-brained Homo erectus” so, apparently, evolution makes things bitter, smarter and stronger unless it makes them smaller, dumber and weaker. This is said to be the result of that which is known as “island rule” even though this “evolutionary process” of devolution actually “has never been documented in a human population.”
Lastly, Tocheri asked, “What is its exact relationship to us?” which gives away his presupposition. As per above, some claim that whether it even ever “encountered modern humans…remains an open and intriguing question” while others claim to know that it is our “tiny ancestor” so that it is “a distant relative” and yet, its exact relationship to us may not be an genetic relationship at all but merely an intellectual one: its exact relationship to us is likely that we found a dead monkey and a bunch of scientists sought to buttress their careers with it, sought grant money, have more published papers to their name, were interviewed, sold books, etc., etc., etc. In fact, it is said that it “closely resembled…Lucy” which means that it is a monkey.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
Continue reading →