Convoluted human evolution: Hobbits & humans (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, April 24, 2017, 00:32 (211 days ago) @ David Turell

"'We looked at whether Homo floresiensis could be descended from Homo erectus," she said.

"'We found that if you try and link them on the family tree, you get a very unsupported result. All the tests say it doesn't fit—it's just not a viable theory."

"Dr Argue said this was supported by the fact that in many features, such as the structure of the jaw, Homo floresiensis was more primitive than Homo erectus.

"'Logically, it would be hard to understand how you could have that regression—why would the jaw of Homo erectus evolve back to the primitive condition we see in Homo floresiensis?"

"Dr Argue said the analyses could also support the theory that Homo floresiensis could have branched off earlier in the timeline, more than 1.75 million years ago.

"'If this was the case Homo floresiensis would have evolved before the earliest Homo habilis, which would make it very archaic indeed," she said.

"Professor Mike Lee of Flinders University and the South Australian Museum, used statistical modeling to analyse the data.

"'When we did the analysis there was really clear support for the relationship with Homo habilis. Homo floresiensis occupied a very primitive position on the human evolutionary tree," Professor Lee said.

"'We can be 99 per cent sure it's not related to Homo erectus and nearly 100 per cent chance it isn't a malformed Homo sapiens," Professor Lee said."

Comment: The background of this strange group looks to lead back to Africa, where the early human species developed.

I have serious reservations about this whole thing, not the least of which is sample size. As sample sizes go, this is ridiculously small. You can not take 1 skeleton, an incomplete skeleton at that, a few teeth and random bones from as few as 12 other possible analogues and infer details about an entire species! Worse, your article here has them diverging 1.75 million years ago, the bones are estimated at 80k years old, and their tools are estimated at somewhere between 150k-50k years ago. When you use a time frame of anywhere between 1.75myo-50Kyo you can make just about any 'just so' story fit.

--
Without darkness there can be no light, no truth without lies.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum