Human skeletons found in Flores dated back 18,000 years!

by badboy 16 Replies latest social current

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    This is a species with closer kinship with H. erectus than sapiens. Pygmies are a dimunitive population of H. sapiens. H. floresiensis, by the way, were considerably smaller than modern pygmies.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien


    i think that zoogeographically, it makes sense that they are a descendant of h.erectus. but this month in the journal Nature, the paleoanthropologists involved in the discovery went on the record saying that morphologically they resemble A.afarensis more than they do h.erectus, which i found most interesting considering that there is no real evidence that australopithecine ever left africa (that i am aware of). here is the source from nature:

    For example, the humerofemoral index of 85.4 is outside the range of variation for H. sapiens, but is the same as AL 288-1 A. afarensis, and midway between the indices for apes and humans. The more complete left ilium [pelvic bone] also indicates that the pelvis is flared antero-laterally, consistent with an australopithecine-shaped thoracic region. Body proportions of LB1 are the same as AL 288-1 A. afarensis, but differ from all other hominins for which they are reliable data, including H. erectus (Morwood et al. 2005:1016).

    TS

  • badboy
    badboy

    SOME ARE NOW SAYING THAT IT IS A CASE OF MICROPHALY(SP)

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    Microcephaly/microencephaly (both spellings are valid) is the condition of having a small skull and underdeveloped brain.
    This argument was used by some with Homo Floresiensis, the implication being that the skeleton is not an adult, but a small child with microencephaly which therefore looks roughly proportional to an adult. With a good enough skeleton, microencephaly can be discounted, because it can be determined that the skeleton is of an adult.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Easy, they were 1.5 meter Anti-Nephilim.

  • SirNose586
    SirNose586
    They will say something like "Scientists don't consider what a global flood does to radiometric dating!"

    It's pathetic how the WTS will criticize carbon dating when it doesn't serve their purpose (eg, the dating of bones > 6000 years old) but will support carbon dating when it interests them (eg, Shroud of Turin being only 1000 years old).

    Yeah, really! Funny how they criticize people for picking and choosing elements different religions for personal belief, but they do the same thing with science. They do the same thing with the age of the planet. "Oh no, there's no way it could only be 6000 years old, it must be billions of years old." Don't want to be lumped in with the Young Earthers, do we? (It's not like it could really damage the respect intelligent people have for your organization). What's even funnier is, your hardcore dub probably can't explain how carbon-14 dating works anyhow.

  • badboy
    badboy

    I understand the the Indonesian government has given permission for more digs at the same site.

    WATCH THIS SPACE!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit