Also approves.

He's fairly tasty himself.

"Is that a Hobbit?"
"No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a Hobbit."

I'd like to point out something here that I see in fark science headlines. "First it was x then it was y now it is z" Mostly used as a criticism towards science or at least a mild snark. It is really the whole aim of science to be falsifiable (open to change) and not rigid and inflexible. The whole "science wrong again" is really the whole point of science.

Tharagleb: "Is that a Hobbit?"
"No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a Hobbit."

Between xkcd and Futurama, I don't think news can happen in the Geek tab without it having some reference point.

/Personal theory.

peart2112: I'd like to point out something here that I see in fark science headlines. "First it was x then it was y now it is z" Mostly used as a criticism towards science or at least a mild snark. It is really the whole aim of science to be falsifiable (open to change) and not rigid and inflexible. The whole "science wrong again" is really the whole point of science.

peart2112: I'd like to point out something here that I see in fark science headlines. "First it was x then it was y now it is z" Mostly used as a criticism towards science or at least a mild snark. It is really the whole aim of science to be falsifiable (open to change) and not rigid and inflexible. The whole "science wrong again" is really the whole point of science.

Wait just one minute here. Do you mean to tell me that people submit links to fark with snarky headlines? That almost makes it sound as if farkers have a tendency to mock things in a sarcastic and immature manner. I am shocked that you would suggest such a thing.

Boil 'em, says I!

Hobbit? that's a goblin.

Spit 'em and roast 'em says I!

I was going to point out that, last I checked, hobbits were in more peril of getting et by trolls than goblins, but I see bugmn00 and 006andahalf have covered that angle for me, so carry on.

Helen_Arigby: I was going to point out that, last I checked, hobbits were in more peril of getting et by trolls than goblins, but I see bugmn00 and 006andahalf have covered that angle for me, so carry on.

Yea that was all I really came in here for also...

/Smaug seemed to prefer ponies

Ni!: He's fairly tasty himself.

Oh god. Not David Bowie in stretch pants. I saw Labyrinth on a big screen a few months ago. Scarred for life.

Lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast in 3, 2...

Either way - they can be boiled, mashed, or stuck in a stew

/Knows the improper context
//Marginally related

ToddMU03: Ni!: He's fairly tasty himself.

Oh god. Not David Bowie in stretch pants. I saw Labyrinth on a big screen a few months ago. Scarred for life.

Scarred nothing. That movie and those pants kick-started my puberty.

Whatever they are, they're Homo.

peart2112: I'd like to point out something here that I see in fark science headlines. "First it was x then it was y now it is z" Mostly used as a criticism towards science or at least a mild snark. It is really the whole aim of science to be falsifiable (open to change) and not rigid and inflexible. The whole "science wrong again" is really the whole point of science.

You have not been in many Fark "science" threads?
Rigid inflexibility by screaming retards on both sides is the norm.

Actually, doesn't that sound a lot like real science? (i.e. a lot of politics)

bugmn99: Boil 'em, says I!

006andahalf: Spit 'em and roast 'em says I!

Each to his own boys, I likes mine RAAAAAAW.

OnmyojiOmn: Lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast in 3, 2...

Nope, not for WOTC, they're Halflings there. More likely from the Tolkien Estate.

I still do not like the science behind this. This will take another 5-10 years to shake out. My money's on this not being a separate species, but I am not a Paleontologist.

yes, but ... did they have large, hairy feet, and did they know about second breakfast? brunch? elevensies?

Didn't NOVA just say that they were Homo Erectus?

Ni!: He's fairly tasty himself.

As are you. Reow!

Seriously, that first pic.... i'd've walked into oncoming traffic to say hi to you.

legion_of_doo: peart2112: I'd like to point out something here that I see in fark science headlines. "First it was x then it was y now it is z" Mostly used as a criticism towards science or at least a mild snark. It is really the whole aim of science to be falsifiable (open to change) and not rigid and inflexible. The whole "science wrong again" is really the whole point of science.

You have not been in many Fark "science" threads?
Rigid inflexibility by screaming retards on both sides is the norm.

Actually, doesn't that sound a lot like real science? (i.e. a lot of politics)

Nope. Just here to help educate and entertain. But it seems like I'm mostly entertaining....

I'm just going to leave this here. (new window)

FTFA: Researchers William Jungers, Ph.D., and Karen Baab, Ph.D. studied the skeletal remains of a female (LB1), nicknamed "Little Lady of Flores" or "Flo"

Each to his own.
I likes mine raw

/troll, not a goblin

Ika7734: OnmyojiOmn: Lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast in 3, 2...

Nope, not for WOTC, they're Halflings there. More likely from the Tolkien Estate.

Right, that's what I meant. I got my asshats mixed up.

Odd Bird: Each to his own.
I likes mine raw

/troll, not a goblin

To each their own,
I like mine deep fried, reheated in a microwaved and covered in cheese

/American, not a troll or goblin

meadcd: yes, but ... did they have large, hairy feet, and did they know about second breakfast? brunch? elevensies?

Actually.. yes

Help! Help! There's a Peck pointing an acorn at me!

PC LOAD LETTER: I still do not like the science behind this. This will take another 5-10 years to shake out. My money's on this not being a separate species, but I am not a Paleontologist.

What part of the science don't you like? I haven't seen or read anything that falls outside the realm of normal paleoanthropological research. Thus far the people arguing the disease angle haven't made a very convincing case and have regularly been hammered in publications and conference papers.

/Also, the people working on this problem are paleoanthropologists.

AaronSynn: Help! Help! There's a Peck pointing an acorn at me!

Don't call me a peck!

Fano: bugmn99: Boil 'em, says I!

006andahalf: Spit 'em and roast 'em says I!

Each to his own boys, I likes mine RAAAAAAW.

DAWN TAKE YOU ALL, AND BE STONE TO YOU!!

Brown Jenkems: PC LOAD LETTER: I still do not like the science behind this. This will take another 5-10 years to shake out. My money's on this not being a separate species, but I am not a Paleontologist.

What part of the science don't you like? I haven't seen or read anything that falls outside the realm of normal paleoanthropological research. Thus far the people arguing the disease angle haven't made a very convincing case and have regularly been hammered in publications and conference papers.

/Also, the people working on this problem are paleoanthropologists.

There is no compelling case for a new species vs. some pathology or pygmy race. The small brain size is a big problem in the evolutionary scheme of things. That is the biggest problem. The waving the "new species" flag way before anyone had a chance to examine. Now that there are counter proposals in place. There are various threads of evidence that can be explained by various pathologies or other non-species arguments. All of these are as controversial as the original "it's a new species" announcement. And I mean controversial amongst Paleontologists, not the creationist fake "controversy" angle. This is a real one. This IS unsettled science.

PC LOAD LETTER: Brown Jenkems: PC LOAD LETTER: I still do not like the science behind this. This will take another 5-10 years to shake out. My money's on this not being a separate species, but I am not a Paleontologist.

What part of the science don't you like? I haven't seen or read anything that falls outside the realm of normal paleoanthropological research. Thus far the people arguing the disease angle haven't made a very convincing case and have regularly been hammered in publications and conference papers.

/Also, the people working on this problem are paleoanthropologists.

There is no compelling case for a new species vs. some pathology or pygmy race. The small brain size is a big problem in the evolutionary scheme of things. That is the biggest problem. The waving the "new species" flag way before anyone had a chance to examine. Now that there are counter proposals in place. There are various threads of evidence that can be explained by various pathologies or other non-species arguments. All of these are as controversial as the original "it's a new species" announcement. And I mean controversial amongst Paleontologists, not the creationist fake "controversy" angle. This is a real one. This IS unsettled science.

I was initially reluctant about the new species claim, though I've become more convinced. The pathology arguments have fallen flat thus far. I haven't seen one that holds much promise for explaining what we're seeing morphologically.

Brain size is certainly an issue to be resolved, though the issue could be with our models of brain evolution and not the data. That's something that has to be considered before tossing out H. floresiensis as a real species. It may be the case that we've lacked access to a sufficient amount of variability to adequate model and interpret paleo brain change.

Of course it's unsettled science. Analyses are still ongoing, though what I've seen thus far supports the new species claim. There are numerous unsettled issues in human evolution and with many aspects of the fossil record. A big issue continues to be how well can we differentiate closely related, coeval species morphologically (e.g., H. habilis and H. rudolfensis). Another ongoing problem in paleoanth is small sample sizes, so any claim of a new species is always going to be hotly contested. The comments about leg morphology in the linked article are interesting, but I'll wait until I actually read the new paper to give it too much weight.

Even if H. floresiensis is a dwarfed, it's not immediately clear that dwarfing couldn't be involved in the process of speciation. Furthermore, I don't think it's too surprising to expect multiple species even given the late date. There are multiple species on the landscape for most of the hominin prehistory. A single species is the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, this will be resolved eventually. For the time being, I'm still in the new species camp.

Brown Jenkems: For the time being, I'm still in the new species camp.

Fair enough. I am secretly rooting for it.

That's just marketing spin because they know no one wants to eat diseased meat.

Brown Jenkems: "What part of the science don't you like? I haven't seen or read anything that falls outside the realm of normal paleoanthropological research. Thus far the people arguing the disease angle haven't made a very convincing case and have regularly been hammered in publications and conference papers."

Additionally, it was my understanding that they had since found several other skeletons with the same proportions. That was the announcement that they ended the documentary about it with, anyway.

The real important question here is: Can we clone it and then mate with it?

hobbits love PO-TA-TOES!

ToddMU03

Oh god. Not David Bowie in stretch pants. I saw Labyrinth on a big screen a few months ago. Scarred for life.

HA. I saw it when it first came out. Try seeing those things swinging at your face when you're farking 7 years old.

PC LOAD LETTER: I still do not like the science behind this. This will take another 5-10 years to shake out. My money's on this not being a separate species, but I am not a Paleontologist.

The thought that it was simply homo erectus suffering from a disorder was kinda shot to hell when they found other adult skeletons of similar sizes. I don't think the disease line has been taken seriously for a good two years or so now, if not longer.

About 25-30 years ago I heard a story from someone I knew. Seems someone he knew was pretty tight with some 'elders' around Ayers Rock. He was told a story of 'a short race of white people' that predated the aboriginal immigration to Australia.

Given they only found bones recently (2003) it lend a bit of truth to that story now.

I can't imagine I'm the only person who's ever heard this story, so I wonder why it seems like such a discovery - or why the computer imagine shows a dark skinned face.

I do remember the elders kept this pretty hush hush as it seems they wiped them out shortly after they got to Australia - kind of hurts their 'original ownership' of the land cause I suppose.