Interesting study...........it points to the fact there are many mysteries concerning life on this planet...it is rather suprising that the scientists were allowed to pursue such studies as it infers that all that might appear human is not human. http://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-confirm-mystery-hobbits-were-not-human/ If one considers this reconstructed image of what a hobbit looked like and compare it with some modern day images of Africans one could easily start a very controversial discussion regarding what is human and or what is a member of a sub-species of humanity. However...all this is way too controversial for me to get invoved in. I will leave that to others. http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/equality-mans-most-dangerous-myth/ Image of a modern day Sub-Saharan: Image of a hobbit................
I believe in freedom of speech and am not particular regarding where it leads or what it leads to...if one is interested in pursuing the truth you will follow many winding trails that perhaps might lead to a better understanding of life and it's mysteries aka 'there is more in heaven and on earth horatio than dreamt of in your philosophy'. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/07/pre-adamite-populations-rjs/
I see no controversy at all. For some time now it has been known this species once existed, but is now extinct. It was assumed it was a sub species of human but now they think differently. This is what science does. They are simply learning more about it.
There is always a controversy when someone says or implies anything that might suggest Africans are a sub-species of the human race. This story also demonstrates that scientists may pursue the possibility that a race of people may not be human ....based on certain investigative criteria...but the fact is if the same criteria that were used in investigting the hobbits were used to analyze Sub-Saharans...a similiar finding could be found....which is totally politically incorrect aka taboo in todays society.
Devotees of political correctness in the world of academia have long struggled to prevent genetic research as they fear the findings...so your objection is no suprise. It is similar to the role the Catholic Church played back in the middle ages...constantly opposing science and persecuting those who despite the power of the Catholic Church continued their studies. Yet the science of genetics continues to advance despite all those who attempt to hinder and or stop it. Scientists confirm: Mystery ‘hobbits’ were not human. After tenuous studies, researchers have come closer to solve the mystery surrounding the so-called Flores man, which they believe is not human after all. According to a new analysis of the bone fragments from the skull of the Homo floresiensis and respective layers, researchers have excluded them from any linkage with our species, Homo sapiens, which results in a completely new and unknown species on Earth. The species known as Homo floresiensis, aka Hobbit, is an ancient ‘human’ species with less than one meter in height whose remains were found on the Indonesian Island Flores in 2003, and around which scientists from different countries proposed several theories linking them with the Homo erectus and Homo Sapiens from Asia, has given a completely different turn in recent investigations as scientists are about to exclude them from any linkage with our species. Scientists suggest that the diminutive humans, which died out over 15,000 years ago were a completely separate species. The anthropological debate surrounding the discovery of Homo floresiensis and their origin has just got a lot more fiery. Among scientists, a fierce discussion is being led whether or not ‘hobbits’ are an unknown branch of early humans or specimens of modern man deformed by an unknown disease. Two potential theories have been debated by scientists. One is that the so-called Flores man is an actual descendant from the Homo Erectus and eventually became smaller over hundreds of generation, pointing towards insular dwarfing. An adult Homo floresiensis, aka Hobbit stood one meter in height while weighing around 25 kilograms. Interestingly, researchers point that Flores Island was also home to a miniature race of now extinct elephant-like creature called Stegodon. However, the opposing group of scientists suggests that ‘Hobbits’ were, in fact, a modern human species whose tiny size and miniature brain were caused by a genetic disease. One of the suspected causes was dwarf cretinism which could have been caused by a lack of iodine. Scientists however also suspect on microcephaly. Revision of some internal features of Liang Bua 1 on cranial thickness, internal structure Photo: Antoine Balzeau-CNRS/MNHN However, a new approach proposed by French researchers, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, re-examined the layers of the ‘hobbit’ skull using high-tech tools. French researchers looked at the remains of Liang Bua 1, whose cranium is the best preserved among nine specimens. “So far, we have been basing our conclusions on images where you don’t really see very much,” said lead author Antoine Balzeau, a scientist at France’s Natural History Museum. Further analysis has led researchers to obtain high-resolution images recently generated in Japan, in order to compute maps of bone thickness variation. “There is a lot of information contained in bone layers of the skull,” Balzeau told AFP. The results, he said, were unambiguous: “There were no characteristics of our species”—that is, Homo sapiens. Researchers also pointed out that their study has led them to the conclusion that there was no evidence corresponding to major genetic diseases other researchers had previously pointed out. As things stand now, the mystery surrounding the ‘Hobbits’ remains partially solved. Even though scientists could not completely exclude that the ‘hobbit’ was, in fact, a smaller version of Homo Erectus, they cannot say with complete certainty that H. floresiensis was not a species on its own right. “For the moment, we can’t say one way or the other,” Balzeau said. Source and Reference: hominides.com http://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-confirm-mystery-hobbits-were-not-human/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/blacks-arent-human/
Are Homo erectus "human"? For a guy whose been around for so long, I find it hard to believe they were not human. Yes They Are. And probably the "archaic genome" spotted here and there like Tibetans and Denisovans. Yes they are, human! Moi r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
The premise that the "Hobbit" is not human is not surprising, since the only "human" existing today is the one known as "Homo Sapien Sapien." That means Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus, all the Australopithecines, and all other paleo-versions of us are not officially "human." But as ancestral precedents, they are important to us and to our being, and should be recognized and accepted as such. Personally, I'm happy to see that the tree of life existing in the times of these competing ancestors was so full of variety.
That is a silly comment. There is nothing surprising about scientists doing science. The hobbits were discovered a little over a decade ago. I'm pretty sure we discovered Africans sooner than that and have had plenty of time to study them. But if I were you, I would spend every day looking for that big announcement that Africans aren't human. Let us know right away. BTW, most everyone except Africans are part Neanderthal. The difference between Europeans and Africans could be that Europeans intermixed with a subspecies of humans.
"Hobbit is not human" Of course it's not. Just like Bulldog is not a wolf. There are numerous canine species just like there was numerous hominid species. Homosapiens(human) is the only hominid species to survive. Others couldn't couldn't compete with us and slowly bece extinct as we spread across the world
hehheh You have(probably without intent)said something exceedingly controversial. Anyhow...........how would you define what is 'human' or what are the criteria to be classifed as human. And.............more to the point would you classify Sub-Saharans as human or just partially human?
You seem a 'tad' naive..........as in you appear un-aware of how the academic devotees of poitical science have hindered genetic science and research.................http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/19/science-and-racism-book/ We have had plenty of time to study Africans for sure and what is more we understood more about them a few decades ago than we do today...political correctness has implemented a sort of regression of the facts....what todays students have been brainwashed with by the liberal academia is that all folks are equal....and not the sort of equality spoken of in the Declaration of Independence....but in a quite literal sense....this is what is and has been for some time now pounded into their heads. One reason for all the social chaos we have today....following the logic of the equalism philosophy....since we are all equal then why do we not all live in that mansion on the hill...of course...it is because of white racism. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120628#f4 Let us look a bit deeper into PC............' PSYCHODYNAMICS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 'The term "Political Correctness" made its way into public consciousness through an article by Richard Bernstein in the New York Times (1991). It referred to a strain of post-Marxist leftist thought in which the struggle between economic classes had been replaced, as a primary ontological framework, with a more differentiated set of oppositions based on such differences as gender, race, and sexual orientation. Thus, as Bernstein put it: Central to pc-ness, which has its roots in 1960's radicalism, is the view that Western society has for centuries been dominated by what is often called 'the white male power structure' or 'Patriarchal hegemony.' A related belief is that everybody but white heterosexual males has suffered some form of repression and been denied a cultural voice ... (Section 4:1) But, to many of those concerned with this phenomenon, the disturbing thing about political correctness ("PC") has not been the content of its ideology, but the principle of argumentation that it has employed: … more than an earnest expression of belief, "politically correct" has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia. (4:4) In response to these charges, those who felt themselves criticized for PC have responded in a number of ways. Often they have both denied that any coercion to be PC existed and accused the critics of the same thought crimes the accusation of which was said to constitute PC in the first place (Fried, 1991). Generally the response has been to attack the motives of PC's critics. For instance, those critics have been accused of being agents of right-wing think tanks (e.g. Wiener, 1992), or otherwise right-wingers who had nobody to direct their venom against now that the cold war has ended (see, for example, Gitlin, 1992, although his own perspective is much broader, nuanced and in no way an example of PC itself.) These arguments have no apparent application me. I have never received any money from a right-wing think tank and my objection to PC long antedates the end of the cold war. Actually, my first experience with it was in 1971. But it may be useful, by way of introducing PC, to report on my first experience with it during the relatively recent past. This was in 1987, after I had returned from a sabbatical where I had been working on a book on narcissistic process in organizations. The campus minister was interested in my work and asked me to make a presentation at an institute that he was starting. The presentation, which ultimately grew into Chapter seven of my book Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay (1990), required a presentation of Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex. As I was going through this part of the argument, a woman in the audience, who happened to be the chair of the psychology department at the time, had what can only be called a fit. Without addressing herself to anything I was saying in particular, and without any apparent attempt to control her rage, she said that Freud was a sexist and a misogynist, and went on to condemn the entire psychoanalytic enterprise, which she said was "shot through" with sexism and racism. As she talked, it became clear to me that she had little idea of what she was talking about. She said, for example, that the Oedipus complex did not apply to women, which was why Freud invented the idea of the Electra complex. She was evidently unaware of the fact that it was Jung, not Freud, who used the term "Electra complex." Despite this woman's evident lack of grounding in what she was talking about, her voice seemed to express a feeling of absolute authority. I recall that at the time this struck me as very peculiar. But what struck me as even more peculiar was that as she engaged in this frenzied performance, the other members of the audience were not looking at her as if she were acting strangely, but were looking at me as if I had done something contemptible and despicable. I remember thinking at the time that what was going on in that room was not the way things ought to be done in the university. I cannot say that I felt wounded by this interaction. I was more bemused than anything else. But I did have the feeling that if events like this were becoming characteristic of the university, this indicated that there was something terribly wrong in an institution that was very important to me, and I felt a degree of outrage over that. I also felt that I should make such processes into a focus of investigation. The results of this investigation are what I present in this paper. In a previous paper (Schwartz, 1993), I described a number of instances of PC and attempted to explain them within a theoretical framework. The present paper represents a more sophisticated development of that framework. My argument will be that the processes involved in PC represent a regressive shift in organizational functioning from what I will call the "biparental" model, which involves both maternal and paternal elements, to a primitive maternal model from which paternal elements have been purged. I will begin by elaborating the psychological basis on which this analysis will rest.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/
If they can breed then by definition they are the same species. Dogs and wolves can breed. Technically dogs like Chihuahuas and Mastiffs are different species because all in all it is mechanically impossible for them to breed. And the product of a successful mating would likely not survive. But they can still produce offspring in a test tube. So they are still considered the same species.
Define 'breed' and 'species' to avoid coinfusion. Never mind...let me save you some time: 'Breed'----- noun a stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection. synonyms: variety, stock, strain; More 'Species'---- BIOLOGY a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens. synonyms: type, kind, sort; More and one that is more important to this discussion.....'sub-species'................... subspeciesnoun particular type within a species, the members of which are different in some clear ways from those of other types of the species
Can a Bulldog and a wolf create a fertile offspring. Dog/coyote hybrids are happening in the wild making a coyote similar wild critter less prone to avoid people. Coyote & Dog are one species along with the wolf too. Population / Variety vs Species distinction. What is termed "species" along the people line is little more than Phrenology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology Witness the Dmanisi (cave) Georgia (old USSR Georgia) skulls. http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html These skulls entombed at the same time were so different that had they been found at different locations would have no doubt been assigned different species. If I remember correctly adult brain volume varied by half the total brain volume of a modern person among the skulls found. Dmanisi results are so inconvenient to this and that species sorts. Eh. If A and B can interbred and produce a fertile offspring, they are the same species and differences are merely population differences. Not species differences. If A is a horse and B is a donkey, they produce an infertile mule. A & B are not the same species. A Neanderthal and a Sapien can produce a fertile offspring, they are the same species. The correct nomenclature should be, Homo sapien neanderthal and Homo sapien sapien. Same species. Different populations. Moi 2.8% Neanderthal per 23AndMe r > g Same species? Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
It is part of the historical record that Stalin attempted to create a super warrior by mating apes with humans....his experiment failed. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors/ But of course we know much more about genetics now and in our laboratories we are capable of doing things that would be considered quite immoral today. But who knows what sort of research is being done of a frankenstenian nature in closed societys such as China, N. Korea etc. Humanzee At several times and in several places (most notably Soviet Russia), scientists have attempted to crossbreed humans with nonhuman apes, mostly chimpanzees but also orangutans and possibly other species. All attempts have failed. Many attempts have involved human semen and female nonhuman apes. It is unclear whether any attempts have used nonhuman semen and female human research subjects. This would be highly unethical, but it may have taken place nonetheless. Theoretically, it seems like chimpanzees and humans have a high chance of successfully crossbreeding. The different numbers of chromosomes do not prevent successful crossbreeding, as can be seen in many other species pairs that do crossbreed with ease. Furthermore, the level of genetic difference between humans and chimps is much smaller than the level of genetic difference between certain pairs of species that have successfully crossbred. However, the experimental evidence shows that it doesn't work. This is probably because of differences in proteins that are especially important for fertilization, such as sperm surface proteins. In short, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is small. But the difference is in such a place (e.g. sperm proteins) that it inhibits fertilization. A small amount of genetic engineering could probably produce a human-chimp hybrid. Using modern fertility and cloning techniques, we could probably combine human and chimp DNA and then grow an embryo into an adult humanzee. I saw a headline just the other day about research now being done to link computers with the human brain and the speculation is that it will be done....so it seems very predictable that life forms as we know them and have known them are going to be radically altered. The question of morality remains....will mad scientists win out...or will the forces of morality have any influence on these developments in genetics, the field of artifical intelligence and combining hitherto seperate life forms?
Do you have any reference for your above assertion? (Bold font) Of course genetic engineer can insert this or that genome into the mix, but the discussion is about species. The American Buffalo / Bison and a Cow are the same species. They can produce a fertile offspring known as Beefalo. Lord knows I dislike the Science faithful. Moi BSc Biological Sciences, Magna Cum Laude, University of California - Irvine. M.D. University of California Medical Center, San Francisco r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
PSYCHODYNAMICS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS The term "Political Correctness" made its way into public consciousness through an article by Richard Bernstein in the New York Times (1991). It referred to a strain of post-Marxist leftist thought in which the struggle between economic classes had been replaced, as a primary ontological framework, with a more differentiated set of oppositions based on such differences as gender, race, and sexual orientation. Thus, as Bernstein put it: Central to pc-ness, which has its roots in 1960's radicalism, is the view that Western society has for centuries been dominated by what is often called 'the white male power structure' or 'Patriarchal hegemony.' A related belief is that everybody but white heterosexual males has suffered some form of repression and been denied a cultural voice ... (Section 4:1) But, to many of those concerned with this phenomenon, the disturbing thing about political correctness ("PC") has not been the content of its ideology, but the principle of argumentation that it has employed: … more than an earnest expression of belief, "politically correct" has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia. (4:4) In response to these charges, those who felt themselves criticized for PC have responded in a number of ways. Often they have both denied that any coercion to be PC existed and accused the critics of the same thought crimes the accusation of which was said to constitute PC in the first place (Fried, 1991). Generally the response has been to attack the motives of PC's critics. For instance, those critics have been accused of being agents of right-wing think tanks (e.g. Wiener, 1992), or otherwise right-wingers who had nobody to direct their venom against now that the cold war has ended (see, for example, Gitlin, 1992, although his own perspective is much broader, nuanced and in no way an example of PC itself.) These arguments have no apparent application me. I have never received any money from a right-wing think tank and my objection to PC long antedates the end of the cold war. Actually, my first experience with it was in 1971. But it may be useful, by way of introducing PC, to report on my first experience with it during the relatively recent past. This was in 1987, after I had returned from a sabbatical where I had been working on a book on narcissistic process in organizations. The campus minister was interested in my work and asked me to make a presentation at an institute that he was starting. The presentation, which ultimately grew into Chapter seven of my book Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay (1990), required a presentation of Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex. As I was going through this part of the argument, a woman in the audience, who happened to be the chair of the psychology department at the time, had what can only be called a fit. Without addressing herself to anything I was saying in particular, and without any apparent attempt to control her rage, she said that Freud was a sexist and a misogynist, and went on to condemn the entire psychoanalytic enterprise, which she said was "shot through" with sexism and racism. As she talked, it became clear to me that she had little idea of what she was talking about. She said, for example, that the Oedipus complex did not apply to women, which was why Freud invented the idea of the Electra complex. She was evidently unaware of the fact that it was Jung, not Freud, who used the term "Electra complex." Despite this woman's evident lack of grounding in what she was talking about, her voice seemed to express a feeling of absolute authority. I recall that at the time this struck me as very peculiar. But what struck me as even more peculiar was that as she engaged in this frenzied performance, the other members of the audience were not looking at her as if she were acting strangely, but were looking at me as if I had done something contemptible and despicable. I remember thinking at the time that what was going on in that room was not the way things ought to be done in the university. I cannot say that I felt wounded by this interaction. I was more bemused than anything else. But I did have the feeling that if events like this were becoming characteristic of the university, this indicated that there was something terribly wrong in an institution that was very important to me, and I felt a degree of outrage over that. I also felt that I should make such processes into a focus of investigation. The results of this investigation are what I present in this paper. In a previous paper (Schwartz, 1993), I described a number of instances of PC and attempted to explain them within a theoretical framework. The present paper represents a more sophisticated development of that framework. My argument will be that the processes involved in PC represent a regressive shift in organizational functioning from what I will call the "biparental" model, which involves both maternal and paternal elements, to a primitive maternal model from which paternal elements have been purged. I will begin by elaborating the psychological basis on which this analysis will rest. First of all....consider this>>>>>>>http://www.livescience.com/783-human-chimp-ancestors-interbred.html
Ancestors. But, about a million years of population separation results in the inability to interbreed. Different species. For a good time, check out male, Y chromosome, haplogroup A00. It is apparently "prehuman". Point: Homo erectus, neanderthal, sapian are all one species capable of interbreeding in their day. We species them on no more evidence than bumps on their skulls and at most they represent different populations, not species. End Point. Moi r > g
Human is a species of hominid known as homosapien. Any other hominid subspecies like neanderthals are not human. Even though they share many of the same traits. As far as sub saharan comment. It's ridiculous. Irregardless of skin color all humans are genetically the same species. Like how a white or black labrador is still a labrador.
Wrong. Diffrent species can interbreed as long as they are close enough genetically. Like being in the same genus. We know that diffrent hominid species interbred
'In an ideal situation all of life could be neatly organised into discrete groups, completely isolated and distinct from one another. But the world is not ideal and nature is a lot messier than that. The boundaries that determine where one species ends and another begins are often blurred and overlapping'. https://ecologicablog.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/what-is-a-species-anyway/
