New findings about the Hobbit

| 90 Comments

Since the “Hobbit” fossil LB1 was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004, debate has raged as to whether it is a new species of hominid (Homo floresiensis), or a pathological modern human specimen. And, if it is a new species, where it should fit in the human family tree - a near-human relative, a dwarf Homo erectus, or something else?

The November issue of the Journal of Human Evolution was devoted to Homo floresiensis, with a number of papers on various aspects of its anatomy and environment.

Argue et al. have performed the first cladistic study of LB1. Cladistics uses comparisons of characteristics of specimens to try and determine their evolutionary relationships. Their results showed that LB1 most likely split from the rest of the genus Homo either after H. rudolfensis but before H. habilis, or after H. habilis. It therefore apparently evolved from an early Homo species, sometime between about 1.5 and 1.9 million years ago. They also tested whether LB1 could have shared a unique common ancestor with either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens, but both of these hypotheses were strongly rejected. Their full conclusion was:

Argue et al. 2009 Wrote:

Based on rigorous cladistic analyses, we propose that H. floresiensis evolved in the Late Pliocene or Early Pleistocene. The first of our two equally parsimonious trees suggests that H. floresiensis branched after H. rudolfensis (represented by KNM-ER 1470) but prior to the divergence of H. habilis (represented by KNM-ER 1813 and OH 24). Alternatively, our results are equally supportive of H. floresiensis branching after the emergence of H. habilis. Our results sustain H. floresiensis as a new species (Brown et al., 2004; Morwood et al., 2005) and favor the hypothesis that H. floresiensis descended from an early species of Homo (Falk et al., 2005; Argue et al., 2006; Larson et al., 2007; Tocheri et al., 2007). We find no evidence of close phylogenetic relations to H. sapiens, and reject the idea that the Liang Bua remains represent a pathological modern human. Importantly, we also are unable to link H. floresiensis phylogenetically to H. erectus, rejecting the hypothesis that the small enigmatic bones resulted from insular dwarfing of H. erectus. It is surely time we accepted the reality of H. floresiensis as a species and seek answers to the questions that this species poses, not least of which is: who were its ancestors?”

Other papers reach similar conclusions:

From the abstract of the Jungers et al. paper “Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis”:

Jungers et al. 2009 Wrote:

The lower limb skeleton exhibits a uniquely mosaic pattern, with many primitive-like morphologies; we have been unable to find this combination of ancient and derived (more human-like) features in either healthy or pathological modern humans, regardless of body size.

From the abstract of the Larson et al. paper “Descriptions of the upper limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis”:

Larson et al. 2009 Wrote:

The upper limb presents a unique mosaic of derived (human-like) and primitive morphologies, the combination of which is never found in either healthy or pathological modern humans.

Another recent paper about the hobbit by Jungers and Baab appeared in the statistical journal Significance, and did a number of statistical comparisons of LB1.

A multivariate analysis shows LB1’s brain shape has no resemblance to the shape of modern human microcephalics; it is most similar in shape to fossil skulls of early Homo, especially to the Dmanisi skull D2700. The lower jaw has no chin but is instead strengthened by internal bone, similar to australopithecines, and the anatomy of some of the teeth are “strikingly primitive”.

The overall body proportions of the hobbit were quite different to that of any populations of modern human pygmies. The weight of the hobbit falls into the lower range of pygmies, but the hobbit’s height is well below that of modern pygmies, so the hobbit “was far stockier than any modern human”.

Arm and leg lengths are unlike those of modern humans. The humerus (arm bone) falls into the lower range for modern humans (just), but the leg bones are much shorter than any modern humans. The ratio of the arm and leg bones was also unlike that of any modern humans, but did resemble that of another famous fossil:

Jungers and Baab 2009 Wrote:

This extremely high ratio (around 87%) is never found in modern humans; this index is closely matched, however, in the partial skeleton of “Lucy”, a famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis from Ethiopia dated to more than 3 million years ago!

To drive home the message, look at the scatter plots comparing LB1 to human pygmy populations:

Jungers_Hobbit.png

It’s worth mentioning that these conclusions are not based solely on the LB1 fossil. A second lower jaw very similar to the first one has been found, upper limb bones have been found from six different individuals, and lower limb bones have been found from up to nine individuals. If LB1 was pathological (a very big if), it seems her whole population was similarly afflicted.

In short, the idea that the hobbit is a pathological modern human looks more and more improbable. The differences between the hobbit and modern humans just keep coming, and no conceivable pathology could cause a population to have so many differences which, just coincidentally, happen to closely resemble those of primitive Homo nearly two million years ago.

90 Comments

I find this just so astonishing. Wow is all I can come up with, sorry.

But is this evidence that Middle Earth once existed?

No, Middle Earth was in New Zealand.

ppb said:

No, Middle Earth was in New Zealand.

So you’re saying that the Silmarillion shouldn’t be used in biology classes?

I never liked the microcephalic mutant theory at all. It depended on too many coincidences among other problems.

1. Fossil hominids are rare. Hobbits are rare. Microcephalics are rare. Multiply all those probabilities and it didn’t seem too likely.

2. Microcephalics are retarded. It isn’t impossible for them to survive in the stone age but it seemed unlikely. They couldn’t do it without a lot of help from the other group members.

With bits and pieces from 12 individuals, it now seems to have been ruled out.

It would be nice to get some DNA to sequence. DNA has been recovered from older Homo fossils. From what I’ve read, they have tried and couldn’t find any left.

John Hawks notes today that excavations at Liang Bua will be resumed. I don’t know how long they’ve been suspended, but that’s good news.

Last month I heard American Museum of Natural History paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall fielding a question from the audience on this after giving a talk on Darwin and human evolution. He thought it was highly improbable that Homo floresiensis anything but a separate hominid species, casting strong doubt on the microcephalic mutant hypothesis.

I am especially intrigued with the potential paleobiogeographical implications of these latest papers. For decades, it was assumed that hominids didn’t leave Africa until the advent of Homo erectus. Now we have to push hominid migrations back much further in time, perhaps as far back as the late Pliocene, approximately two million years ago, if not earlier.

RBH said:

John Hawks notes today that excavations at Liang Bua will be resumed. I don’t know how long they’ve been suspended, but that’s good news.

The site has been shut down by the government since 2005. The remains that were found, were found in 2003. I was hoping they would be opened again.

They were talking about opening up the sites in 2007, and I don’t think that happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/[…]/6294101.stm

I find this set of fossils more interesting than the ones found in Africa. Probably because they seem so out of place.

So how did these guys survive the Toba catastrophe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_c[…]rophe_theory

Anyone have a graphic (or text equivalent) of the two cladograms which the study finds equally supported?

This is not surprising. I suspect that our last common ancestor is Homo habilis. About 2 million years ago, Homo habilis left Africa and speciated into Homo georgicus. About a million years ago, Homo georgicus gave rise to Homo erectus (not to be confused with Homo ergaster of Africa). Homo georgicus is the probable ancestor of Homo floresiensis. This is mine hypothesis for the raise of Homo floresiensis:

Over a million years ago, a flood washed a pregnant female Homo georgicus from Asian side of the Wallace-Line on a natural raft of vegetation. She washed up on Flores. She birth a son. They got busy. This female would be the ancestor of all members of Homo floresiensis.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if she would have washed up on Australia; ¿Would Australia have Homo australicus? ¿What if Homo georgicus or Homo erectus would have made it to the Americas, would he have Homo americus today? This is fun speculation, but we can never know.

One could assume that Homo floresiensis survived elsewhere in Indonesia, since sea levels may have been substantial lower due to continental glaciation predominantly in North America and Eurasia, but also elsewhere around the globe. As for Homo sapiens, there isn’t yet clear cut evidence linking the Toba eruption to an apparent bottleneck incident that may have reduced Homo sapiens drastically downward to no more than 1,000 breeding pairs:

midwifetoad said:

So how did these guys survive the Toba catastrophe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_c[…]rophe_theory

If an isolated group of Homo floresiensis were discovered living in some remote corner of Indonesia today, would it be ethical to capture some and place them in a zoo? Would they be entitled to the rights we generally reserve for humans or would they be considered animals similar to the existing non-human primates like the great apes?

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be treated any better then Chimps by humans if we found a living colony. I doubt they’d be smart or human looking enough to allow people to fully empathise with them.

David, There is more and more of a push to give no human primates a set of rights recognised by the UN much like the human rights.

I think there would be a large out cry from all the right people if you tried to put them in a zoo or really even tried to remove them from their environment.

I would hope that was the case at least.

Homo either after H. habilis but before H. rudolfensis, or after H. rudolfensis.

but from the abstract:

H. floresiensis branched after H. rudolfensis (represented by KNM-ER 1470) but prior to the divergence of H. habilis (represented by KNM-ER 1813 and OH 24). Alternatively, our results are equally supportive of H. floresiensis branching after the emergence of H. habilis

am i just confused, or did you invert rudolfensis and habilis?

ppb, are you saying New Zealand doesn’t exist?

And David, that’s an excellent question. I’m not going to venture an answer, but it’s an excellent question.

No, Middle Earth was is in New Zealand.

fixed.

yes, we still have hobbits and the occasional elf, even.

come down and see for yourself.

;)

As to reopening the site, the question would be one for the local authorities, essentially, since government in Indonesia essentially operates on a concessionaire basis, it being understood that they’ve paid to be where they are, and are entitled to their perquisites. And for the local authorities, as with all government entities in Indonesia, the essential question is, “What is this worth to you?”

Ichthyic said:

am i just confused, or did you invert rudolfensis and habilis?

Oops, yes, corrected.

jswise: No, I am only saying we have no proof of NZ’s existence. Hobbits in Indonesia don’t cut it.

Not without second breakfast first, anyway.

On the Toba eruption, tell me if I’m wrong about this (not being an expert), but I gather that the initial direction of the gigantic plume of ash etc from Toba went north-westwards towards India, ie away from any hobbit populations in (what is now) eastern Indonesia.

So the hobbit groups would have had similar chances of survival to any other hominids out of the path of the initial blast.

The following “nuclear winter”, with the sun blocked out and other nasty effects, would have been pretty horrible and hard to live through, though.

With an eruption of the magnitude of Toba (~2800 km3), I would think that the effects would have been global no matter what the initial direction of wind.

zackoz said:

On the Toba eruption, tell me if I’m wrong about this (not being an expert), but I gather that the initial direction of the gigantic plume of ash etc from Toba went north-westwards towards India, ie away from any hobbit populations in (what is now) eastern Indonesia.

So the hobbit groups would have had similar chances of survival to any other hominids out of the path of the initial blast.

The following “nuclear winter”, with the sun blocked out and other nasty effects, would have been pretty horrible and hard to live through, though.

zackoz said:

… the hobbit groups would have had similar chances of survival to any other hominids out of the path of the initial blast.

The following “nuclear winter”, with the sun blocked out and other nasty effects, would have been pretty horrible and hard to live through, though.

True. But the hominids with the greatest chance of survival in a global winter would have been those nearest the equator, and Flores lies at about 8 degrees 30’ south latitude.

YEC to the rescue. In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.

Robert Byers, does your technique for telling humans and apes apart work for telling lions and cats apart?

Byers I usually don’t respond to your innanity, but any farmer who has ever had to deliver a breech calf would think your notion of no other animals suffering during labor more than a bit daft.

YEC to the rescue. In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.

Byers, if I could make you go to a library, I would.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Sylvilagus said:

Wild chimpanzees, even with Bonobo midwifery, experience several times the pain of human females. This is anecdotally supported by captive chimpanzees trained in sign language, though some debate continues as to the exact translation of their remarks made during birth.

And one shouldn’t forget that most famous fossil of a Bonobo female with a young male with its head stuck in the pelvis of the female.

It was first thought to be a female killed by a speeding young male colliding with the rear of the female, but it turned out to be a death cause by a breech birth.

This is anecdotally supported by captive chimpanzees trained in sign language, though some debate continues as to the exact translation of their remarks made during birth.

The most common chimpanzee sign language birth comments according to The Nonhuman Journal of Obstetrics are:

“Intelligent Design, my ass.” and

“You’re having the next kid” (directed at the father chimpanzee).

If my memory is correct, the April issue of the International Journal of Painological Studies is the sole issue of this journal every year, and the publication date seems to be April 1st (I know this because I heard that the Klingon Language Institute, which is based in Colorado, is a subscriber.).

John Kwok said:

If my memory is correct, the April issue of the International Journal of Painological Studies is the sole issue of this journal every year, and the publication date seems to be April 1st (I know this because I heard that the Klingon Language Institute, which is based in Colorado, is a subscriber.).

Actually, it’s been around for as long as there have been creationists. I didn’t mention the exact date, because I thought everyone would already be familiar with it.

There you evolutionists go again. Animals do not have much or any PAIN giving birth. Woman do. In fact to explain this they invoke that walking upright was a origin for the unique pain of woman. Then they add about the head and shoulders of human infants. In fact apes do not have pain kile humans. I was introduced to this by a national geographic issue actually. If these are the reasons for human birthpains then how possibly could apes have like pain? Special cases of problems with animals is not a accurate sample. Watch any nature show where creatures drop their young and one will note little irritation. Its possible domestic creatures have more problems because of artificial selection to grow them unnaturally big. Even still farmers never had that much too do.

Anyways the reason for the pain is in the physical body of the woman. So by looking at a skeleton one should be able too tell, I think, if childbirth was a great pain event or not a big deal. Hyaneas? All the creatures and this is the only one? A special case and probably a second birth is of no consequence. Anyways you guys are very wrong here and not understanding principals of your human evolution. bY the way the writers would expect their readers to understand there is a great difference because they were so close to nature. In fact a critic would explain away the birthpain story as a needed explanation for the difference people noted.

Two falsehoods, Byers, and you’re meeting yourself coming back. Female mammals, generally, have easy parturition, but it’s neither painless nor foolproof. Childbirth in humans has to cope with two further difficulties that don’t apply to other mammals - bipedalism and large-headed infants. Both make childbirth more difficult and painful - and dangerous.

There are a number of partial solutions found by evolution. Lower birthrates, for one, which allows greater parental care. Humans are born totally helpless, with bones not fully calcified, their skulls unfused, their brains not yet fully functional. (This enforces parental care.) Human society is founded on sexual pair-bonding, thus providing two carers for infants. And humans are relatively long-lived, providing a generational resource to the same end - grandparents.

But the difficulty, pain, and danger of human childbirth is explained by evolution - the fact that our bipedalism and large skull capacity are relatively recent developments, occuring since our divergence from the ancestral line which leads also to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee and bonobo. The solutions to our problems are a mixture of anatomical compromises and social rejigging that shouts “workaround”. Or “kludge”, if you like. It isn’t an intelligent design. It works, sort of, and that’s enough.

Oddly enough, Genesis has an explanation, which is more than ID does. Painful childbirth (and having to work for a living) are the curses of God.

Well, maybe they are. There’s a metaphorical truth in it. To get brains that can work out systemic ethics - the knowledge of good and evil -, and to get hands that can use tools, the price was difficult, painful childbirth. But if God exacted that price, He did it through the process of evolution, not because he got pissed off one fine day in Eden. Pace those who discount Him altogether, but for my money, I’d say that if He’s there at all, He doesn’t do things off the cuff like that.

Robert Byers said:

There you evolutionists go again. Animals do not have much or any PAIN giving birth. Woman do. In fact to explain this they invoke that walking upright was a origin for the unique pain of woman. Then they add about the head and shoulders of human infants. In fact apes do not have pain kile humans. I was introduced to this by a national geographic issue actually. If these are the reasons for human birthpains then how possibly could apes have like pain? Special cases of problems with animals is not a accurate sample. Watch any nature show where creatures drop their young and one will note little irritation. Its possible domestic creatures have more problems because of artificial selection to grow them unnaturally big. Even still farmers never had that much too do.

Anyways the reason for the pain is in the physical body of the woman. So by looking at a skeleton one should be able too tell, I think, if childbirth was a great pain event or not a big deal. Hyaneas? All the creatures and this is the only one? A special case and probably a second birth is of no consequence. Anyways you guys are very wrong here and not understanding principals of your human evolution. bY the way the writers would expect their readers to understand there is a great difference because they were so close to nature. In fact a critic would explain away the birthpain story as a needed explanation for the difference people noted.

What about my arguments, Robert? And the inverted recto-cranial insertion position?

Dave Luckett said:

But the difficulty, pain, and danger of human childbirth is explained by evolution - the fact that our bipedalism and large skull capacity are relatively recent developments, occuring since our divergence from the ancestral line which leads also to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee and bonobo. The solutions to our problems are a mixture of anatomical compromises and social rejigging that shouts “workaround”. Or “kludge”, if you like. It isn’t an intelligent design. It works, sort of, and that’s enough.

And that is a concept that totally escapes Byers’ “reasoning” abilities - that some evolutionary mechanisms work, sort of, but sort of is good enough.

“Woman do.”

Me am Byers! Me am not read posts which refute my assertions with eyewitness accounts, common knowledge, and footnotes to scientific papers! Who experience more pain than animal giving birth?

Woman do!

Dave Luckett said:

Two falsehoods, Byers, and you’re meeting yourself coming back. Female mammals, generally, have easy parturition, but it’s neither painless nor foolproof. Childbirth in humans has to cope with two further difficulties that don’t apply to other mammals - bipedalism and large-headed infants. Both make childbirth more difficult and painful - and dangerous.

There are a number of partial solutions found by evolution. Lower birthrates, for one, which allows greater parental care. Humans are born totally helpless, with bones not fully calcified, their skulls unfused, their brains not yet fully functional. (This enforces parental care.) Human society is founded on sexual pair-bonding, thus providing two carers for infants. And humans are relatively long-lived, providing a generational resource to the same end - grandparents.

But the difficulty, pain, and danger of human childbirth is explained by evolution - the fact that our bipedalism and large skull capacity are relatively recent developments, occuring since our divergence from the ancestral line which leads also to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee and bonobo. The solutions to our problems are a mixture of anatomical compromises and social rejigging that shouts “workaround”. Or “kludge”, if you like. It isn’t an intelligent design. It works, sort of, and that’s enough.

Oddly enough, Genesis has an explanation, which is more than ID does. Painful childbirth (and having to work for a living) are the curses of God.

Well, maybe they are. There’s a metaphorical truth in it. To get brains that can work out systemic ethics - the knowledge of good and evil -, and to get hands that can use tools, the price was difficult, painful childbirth. But if God exacted that price, He did it through the process of evolution, not because he got pissed off one fine day in Eden. Pace those who discount Him altogether, but for my money, I’d say that if He’s there at all, He doesn’t do things off the cuff like that.

Thank you. your right. Woman have great pain in birthing while creatures do not. your fellow evolutionists here, from their farm experiences, thought there was no difference. People are often surprised. In fact its evolution grasping for answers as to this uniqueness. Walking upright and head size are excuses. People never walked like apes and there was no skeleton change. Woman have this pain because of Eve’s sin. Anyway it still comes back that, I understand, this can be observed in the skeleton and so whether a being is a human or a ape can be determined simply. It at least should be noted by researchers unless they are ignorant of this unique condition of our women.

Humans are apes, Byers, and there is a demonstrated, continuous pathway between our ancestors and ourselves that doesn’t have a big red dividing line anywhere on it, apes one side, humans the other. Your invincible, malicious ignorance, your foolish denialism and the inviolable bone fortress that is your skull doesn’t change that fact.

Dave Luckett said:

…and the inviolable bone fortress that is your skull …

Oh, Dave, that’s just the steel reinforced concrete block he got his head stuck in as a child.

Hey Byers,

Let’s see if you’ll answer this one. Exactly where among the ancient (for you, only about 6K yrs.) continuum of “apes” and “humans” do YOU draw the line? You can easily find a listing of pre-human or proto-human species on Wikipedia.

Which ones were human and which not? Cro magnon? Neandertalensis? Heidelbergensis? Australopithecus afarensis?

Please explain your reasoning for determining which are “ape” and which “human.” YOUR REASONING, not stuff copied from AIG or the like. Surely with the Bible as your guide you can tell a Man with a soul from a beast.

There are quite a lot of ichthyosaur fossils showing death during childbirth; they were viviparous.

On BBC Two recently, they had a week’s worth of shows called “Lambing live”. Most educational. Some of those sheep were visibly in pain.

Stephen Wells said:

There are quite a lot of ichthyosaur fossils showing death during childbirth; they were viviparous.

On BBC Two recently, they had a week’s worth of shows called “Lambing live”. Most educational. Some of those sheep were visibly in pain.

The defining point is that most would not be in much pain. Also domesication may be a factor fpr the few. Yet it seems your trying to deny the ‘science” of why only our women have great pain or any during birthing. The bible says they do and there is a studied reason of how the pain comes about and how it does not with apes or elephants. i think the evolution posters here jearned something from me.

Just Bob said:

Hey Byers,

Let’s see if you’ll answer this one. Exactly where among the ancient (for you, only about 6K yrs.) continuum of “apes” and “humans” do YOU draw the line? You can easily find a listing of pre-human or proto-human species on Wikipedia.

Which ones were human and which not? Cro magnon? Neandertalensis? Heidelbergensis? Australopithecus afarensis?

Please explain your reasoning for determining which are “ape” and which “human.” YOUR REASONING, not stuff copied from AIG or the like. Surely with the Bible as your guide you can tell a Man with a soul from a beast.

The birthing thin is a great line for where skeletons are vague. Neanders are just people. The others are just wishful thinking by evolution folks.

Neanderthal DNA has been extracted and sequenced. It showed that H neanderthalis was a different species to modern H. sapiens. “Just people” is a description that satisfies Byers, because Byers has no clue, never having bothered his head for a moment about DNA or, for that matter, a definition of “human”. It doesn’t satisfy scientists, who do.

While you’re demonstrating your ignorance, Byers, let’s have your take on H. erectus as well. That’ll be good for a laugh.

Yes, Byers, we have learned something from you. It is that you are delusional, incapable of learning, and equally incapable of logical or even coherent thought or expression.

Byers, I’ll just point out that the question specifically asked you to explain the reasons for your categorizing. Not simply what you say goes where.

Those of us observing this can’t help but notice how you ignored that, simply giving your pronouncements without any sort of explanation of what reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Because you have none.

Kind of like how your response to the issue of animals and pain in childbirth is just to keep saying they don’t have it. You have no source of evidence other than the bible, which as we’ve covered also says that rabbits chew cud. And don’t even get me started on how you can influence the coloration of an animal’s offspring by putting it near similarly colored surfaces.

Your bible is demonstrably wrong, and you have nothing else to cite so you keep making unsupported assertions instead.

Nomad said:

Byers, I’ll just point out that the question specifically asked you to explain the reasons for your categorizing. Not simply what you say goes where.

Those of us observing this can’t help but notice how you ignored that, simply giving your pronouncements without any sort of explanation of what reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Because you have none.

Kind of like how your response to the issue of animals and pain in childbirth is just to keep saying they don’t have it. You have no source of evidence other than the bible, which as we’ve covered also says that rabbits chew cud. And don’t even get me started on how you can influence the coloration of an animal’s offspring by putting it near similarly colored surfaces.

Your bible is demonstrably wrong, and you have nothing else to cite so you keep making unsupported assertions instead.

Cud? Rabbits chew shit! Literally. I don’t know how many people I’ve told that stopping their pet bunnies from eating those little pellets is a bad thing. So, Robert, if God is such a good engineer, how come rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, then eat it again to get proper nutrition? I mean, I know they’re not really that smart and the breed, well, like rabbits…wait, they breed a lot so they’re successful despite their flaws. That sounds familiar. Never mind that they eat their own shit. Literally. Ouch, Robert.

Jesse said:

Nomad said:

Byers, I’ll just point out that the question specifically asked you to explain the reasons for your categorizing. Not simply what you say goes where.

Those of us observing this can’t help but notice how you ignored that, simply giving your pronouncements without any sort of explanation of what reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Because you have none.

Kind of like how your response to the issue of animals and pain in childbirth is just to keep saying they don’t have it. You have no source of evidence other than the bible, which as we’ve covered also says that rabbits chew cud. And don’t even get me started on how you can influence the coloration of an animal’s offspring by putting it near similarly colored surfaces.

Your bible is demonstrably wrong, and you have nothing else to cite so you keep making unsupported assertions instead.

Cud? Rabbits chew shit! Literally. I don’t know how many people I’ve told that stopping their pet bunnies from eating those little pellets is a bad thing. So, Robert, if God is such a good engineer, how come rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, then eat it again to get proper nutrition? I mean, I know they’re not really that smart and the breed, well, like rabbits…wait, they breed a lot so they’re successful despite their flaws. That sounds familiar. Never mind that they eat their own shit. Literally. Ouch, Robert.

In the original Hebrew, it was hyraxes, and not rabbits, that were said to chew cud. Of course, a necropsy of a hyrax, or close observation shows that a hyrax is not anatomically equipped to chew cud.

Either way, anyone who thinks that the Bible is some sort of scientific authority is a useless idiot. Such as Robert Byers for example.

Stanton said:

In the original Hebrew, it was hyraxes, and not rabbits, that were said to chew cud. Of course, a necropsy of a hyrax, or close observation shows that a hyrax is not anatomically equipped to chew cud.

Either way, anyone who thinks that the Bible is some sort of scientific authority is a useless idiot. Such as Robert Byers for example.

Yeah yeah yeah, but what does that have to do with the KJV?

Robert Byers said:

The birthing thin (thing?) is a great line for where skeletons are vague. Neander(tal)s are just people. The others are just wishful thinking by evolution folks.

Does that first sentence mean that you (or nobody?) can tell how much birth pain is suffered by examining skeletons? Hey YOU were the one who claimed we could easily tell human from ape by evaluating birth pain from skeletons!

I THINK (can’t be sure with you, Byers) that in the next sentence you’re claiming that all the species besides neandertals NEVER EXISTED! That’s what “The others are just wishful thinking by evolution folks” means. But we know how much trouble you have expressing yourself in simple English. So who knows what you meant?

And you ran from this in another thread: Should heliocentrism NOT be taught because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis by many of your “brothers in Christ”?

Byers, do YOU think the sun circles the Earth, like the Bible says?

Should heliocentrism NOT be taught because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis by many of your “brothers in Christ”?

How about because the sun orbits the galaxy? ;)

Henry J said:

Should heliocentrism NOT be taught because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis by many of your “brothers in Christ”?

How about because the sun orbits the galaxy? ;)

Still a heliocentric SOLAR SYSTEM, more or less. But lacking any reply from RB, I’m betting he’s a geocentrist!

No real answers to my other questions, either. I think he’s scared to think about things he doesn’t think about.

Nomad said:

Byers, I’ll just point out that the question specifically asked you to explain the reasons for your categorizing. Not simply what you say goes where.

Those of us observing this can’t help but notice how you ignored that, simply giving your pronouncements without any sort of explanation of what reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Because you have none.

Kind of like how your response to the issue of animals and pain in childbirth is just to keep saying they don’t have it. You have no source of evidence other than the bible, which as we’ve covered also says that rabbits chew cud. And don’t even get me started on how you can influence the coloration of an animal’s offspring by putting it near similarly colored surfaces.

Your bible is demonstrably wrong, and you have nothing else to cite so you keep making unsupported assertions instead.

This was a good thread for the evolution fans to learn something they didn’t know. only women have pain, real pain/duration/everytime . Animals do not. there are real reasons in the anatomy for this and its not a mystery. I always presume educated people , like those here, would do any homework on such a common subject. Not make cite wiki. Just wiki. In fact as evolutionists you should anticapted that walking upright, they say not me, change the womans skeleton.

Anyways my point was that in any discussion of skeletons on proposed human ancestors should include such a pregnant point about birthing anatomy to help define these fossils.

Many animals avoid that problem. Some don’t. Case closed.

You’d think, after so many people have told Robert Byers that he was certifiably insane, that he’d start to wonder if maybe it was true.

So, according to Robert, the fact that women evolved from walking on all four limbs to walking upright accounts for the fact that they have pain at childbirth. This in turn can be used to tell the difference between humans and animals. This means that there is only one species of humans and everything else is an animal. Therefore, there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Therefore humans did not evolve! Do I have that about right Robert?

Man, real scientist should of anticapted its such a stunning just wiki argument. Anyways my point was that there are now medications that can help with problems like yourses. The real reasons for this is not a mystery. They cannot be teaching you englishes but they can help with the voices.

fnxtr said:

You’d think, after so many people have told Robert Byers that he was certifiably insane, that he’d start to wonder if maybe it was true.

That’s not likely to happen when you’ve fused your arrogance with your idiocy to form invincible stupidity like Robert Byers has.

DS said:

So, according to Robert, the fact that women evolved from walking on all four limbs to walking upright accounts for the fact that they have pain at childbirth.

Apparently, kangaroos, lemurs, ostriches, wallabies, penguins, roadrunners and gibbons were all very, very, naughty at some point in the recent past.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jim Foley published on March 18, 2010 8:02 AM.

How to make a snake was the previous entry in this blog.

Creationism in Connecticut is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter