New findings about the Hobbit

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.

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.

So how did these guys survive the Toba catastrophe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_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.

midwifetoad said: So how did these guys survive the Toba catastrophe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Nope. We both see the bible as true but he is suggesting a reading can allow some insects etc need not of been on the Ark.

Robert Byers said: 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.

Back to sciences and Flores:

Check out the recent review paper by Leslie Aiello published in Early View of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology: "Five Years of Homo floresiensis". Excellent bibliography and concludes -- independently, based on the available evidence -- that the various pathology arguments all fail, and "the evidence supports the hypothesis that Homo floresiensis is a late-surviving species of early Homo with its closest morphological affinities to early African pre-erectus/ergaster hominins."

Also have a look at this week's Nature paper by Brumm et al. on 1+ Myr old stone tools from the Soa Basin of Flores. Hominins have been on that island for a looonnng time!

Mr. Byers, Sir.

You submit that animals do not have pain during childbirth? What would you say to a hyena birthing event? I won't go in to detail as it is pretty intense, so please look it up and then get back to me.

p.s. I don't mean watching LION KING for the answer.

Robert Byers said: "The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not."

The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not.

The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not.

b allen said: p.s. I don’t mean watching LION KING for the answer.

The Earth's geological record suggests that some evolutionary events were coincident with substantial changes in African and Eurasian climate, raising the possibility that critical junctures in human evolution and behavioral development may have been affected by the environmental characteristics of the areas where hominins evolved. Understanding Climate's Change on Human Evolution explores the opportunities of using scientific research to improve our understanding of how climate may have helped shape our species.

P.S. I'm not affiliated with the Academy and haven't read it yet. Just thought I'd post the link.

Many of the reasons were unconfirmed conspiracies: phallic symbols in the animations, allegations of Timon and Pumba being gay, etc…

...allegations of Timon and Pumba being gay, etc...

— misha

What's wrong with characters sometimes being happy, anyway?

(Or am I missing a point? :) )

Henry J said: What's wrong with characters sometimes being happy, anyway? (Or am I missing a point? :) )

raven said: Any farmer is busy during the birth season. Even with help, it is not unheard of for horses, cows, or sheep to die during or after childbirth.

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

Robert Byers said: 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.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I cringe at the possibility of helping byers, but could ssome of this be a result of breeding for other things? Do the wild ancestral populationss of these animal have the same problems?

Dale Husband said:

Robert Byers said: 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.

Yet another set of bogus nonsense. Why don't you try to prove anything you say, instead of just saying, "The Bible tells me so"?

I cringe at the possibility of helping byers, but could ssome of this be a result of breeding for other things?

no.

Do the wild ancestral populationss of these animal have the same problems?

yes.

The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not.

No; according to Byer's: god handn't invented pain yet......or maybe animals suffer don't have any feelings; so how can they suffer?...have you asked your talking snake lately?

mario said: No; according to Byer's: god handn't invented pain yet......or maybe animals don't have any feelings; so how can they suffer?...have you asked your talking snake lately?

What is really interesting about all this is that some sort of scientific consensus may be emerging about the hobbit. Too optimistic?

I can't help wondering whether the doubters have yet been heard from, or if not, why not. Where are Thorne, Henneberg et al who asserted that the hobbit was merely a microcephalic human?

The other point is the good news that excavation will resume; did we ever have an explanation as to why the Indonesian government stopped it in the first place?

You get the most exciting discovery about hominid evolution in years, and you close it down!

The reason the government - more the provincial one than the central one in Djakarta, I believe - closed the site is almost certainly the same one that applies when any approval, licence or co-operation is requested of any set of officials in Indonesia. A proper gratitude has to be expressed to the relevant officers, this gratuity consisting of whatever the traffic will bear.

Delays in this process are explained by the necessity for the officers concerned to ascertain exactly how much this is.

@Misha- Good points, but the reason fundies hate magic is not because children might believe it's real (and an alternative religion or such), but because they themselves do believe it's real, and it comes from SATAN. Checka the Jack Chick webpage of horrors (and crudely drawn jewish caricatures) for the haps.

On topic, I think this is very cool. Especially when Toba is factored in (something I had not thought of previously) because that makes their late survival all the more impressive. (Then again, they were outlived by orangutans...)
I saw a TV special a year back that was very convincing about the microcephalic pygmy angle, which was a bummer because the separate species angle is a lot more fun. Well good times are back baby! I love hominid diversity!
-

zackoz said: What is really interesting about all this is that some sort of scientific consensus may be emerging about the hobbit. Too optimistic? I can't help wondering whether the doubters have yet been heard from, or if not, why not. Where are Thorne, Henneberg et al who asserted that the hobbit was merely a microcephalic human? The other point is the good news that excavation will resume; did we ever have an explanation as to why the Indonesian government stopped it in the first place? You get the most exciting discovery about hominid evolution in years, and you close it down!

raven said: Yet again another of the near infinite points on which both Byers and the bible are completely wrong.

Robert Byers said: 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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

"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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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? ;)

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.

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.

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.