Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Hope To Settle "Hobbit" Debate
Several readers wrote in with news of the debate around the identity of an ancient woman whose diminutive skeleton was found on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004. Fox News reports that Australian scientists have discovered a subterranean chamber that may contain DNA proof that will settle the question of whether "the Hobbit," as the specimen is called, actually is a representative of a new branch of the human family, or not. The find's discoverers named the putative new race Homo floresiensis. Others in the anthropological field question this identification, arguing that the meter-tall Hobbit was a modern human who had something wrong with her. In a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, with one of the original discovery team as co-author, researchers say they have compared the Hobbit's skull to those of modern humans with various ailments such as microcephaly, and that the Hobbit is different.
Another one of Tolkien's races has been discovered: Trolls, it seems, are native to the slashdot community.
Others in the anthropological field question this identification, arguing that the meter-tall Hobbit was a modern human who had something wrong with her.
Maybe she just hobbitually ate a poor diet.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Paul Verhoeven
Kevin Smith
George Lucas
Allan Parker
Steven Spielberg
Ridley Scott
Beorn(who?)
or CowboyNeal?
What?
Tell that to string physicists.
Y'know, instead of snarking you might actually considering reading the articles, including the paper detailing the "hobbits". There are some very, very good reasons to think that this is a new form of human. For one, there are multiple specimens - not just one. For another, as detailed in the summary, the structures don't mimic other forms of dwarfism in modern humans. Island dwarfism has been observed in many different species - there really isn't any reason to think humans should be exempt from this.
Most notably, a few of those arguing against it have tended to do so for religious, and not scientific reasons, which is always a huge warning sign that their opinions should be treated with caution.
Skepticism is a good trait to have - but when you are irrationally skeptical to the available evidence, to the point of closemindedness than you are no better than somebody who is overly gullible.
For a relatively balanced opinion on the debate surrounding LB1, you could go to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis). Perhaps after reading that, you could reserve the snark and unwarranted insult of the investigating scientists, and actually learn a little about how science is conducted.
Either way, I don't think we've heard the Ent of this discussion.