i dont think we are all the same species,

basicly i will sum it up for a quick debate,


i think hobbits, golliaths, neanderthal, and other species of homanids still exist today,

and our DNA and genetic makeup are mixed up now, explaining radical hieght size weight and build/appearence difference throughout our species, (humans)

i think there are still giants, hobbits, and genetic morons who still walk among us,


look at all the other species of a LOCAL range, get 1000 white european males from england in a line, and compare them, DRASTIC DIFFERENCES,


now get 1000 cats of the same breed (like we did with the human 1000), and compare 1000 male grey persian cats, ALL THE SAME,


again get 1000 african males in a line DRASTIC DIFFERENCE, (some tribes are naturally tall further proving they could be genetic giants/golliaths, and some are all very very small furthe rproving they could be a hobbit tribe geneticaly)


now compare them to 1000 male african buffalo in a line, ALL THE SAME





i will post further evidence as i please.


peace,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I always thought of Tolkein's races as personifications of human types - some people are Orc-like, others are like Elves.

Notice how the Orcs in the LOTR films tend to speak with lower class British accents, while the Elves speak in posh tones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can we move this thread to pseudoscience please. The word 'hobbit' is mentioned.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe that would be a reference to dwarfism. As for species, the general consensus is that if a mating between two different animals can produce a viable living organism with reproductive capabilities of it's own it is the same species. Going by that definition, any range of cats can be used, just as any range of humans can be used. Just because a person comes from one place, doesn't mean they have the same breeding as a person from the same place. This isn't necessarily true for a breed of cats (hence the overwhelming similarities). But even within breeds of cats, there can be tall cats, short cats, cats that shed more than others. However, the theory you proposed would posit that two species mated, this cannot be true by the definition of species (which I personally work from, your case may be different). Otherwise, the mating would have had to take place before the divergence of a species. Which would mean that it still diverges to solely homo sapiens.

 

A hobbit is a reference to dwarfism? Read LOTR: a dwarf is not the same as a hobbit.

 

EmptyForceOfChi,

This is a joke right?

Yes, it is possible to make viable offspring from two close species, but if you know anything about neanderthals, they are VERY different from humans. Since all 'races' can reproduce with no problem, we are all members of the same species.

It's hard to refute this when you botch the definition of 'species'.

 

The term ‘hobbits’ has been commonly applied to the recent discovery of Homo floresiensis, the skeletal remains of a new short hominid species^* discovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia.


^*The new species designation is still being debated.<P>

 

This thread is exactly why its so important to emphasize improved science educations in today's schools. People grow up to hold all sorts of ignorant beliefs about the world that are otherwise just a bunch of fantasy. Hobbits and Goliaths, indeed! The term "hobbit" as applied to H. florensis is *not* exactly what Empty obviously had in mind.

I'm with Spurious... move it to the Pseudoscience subforum. I'm sure after it gets there, someone will bring up the "nephilim" from the bible.

 

My god skin-walker. I wish I could type that well.

 

I will point out that EmptyForceOfChi's idea isn't that far off of some hypotheses on human evolution of the past. However, these ideas are mostly out of favor these days. The hypothesis that modern humans evolved in southern Africa and spread form there is definitely the foremost currently.

The idea that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred is still around, though personally I feel the latest evidence points against it.

 

You probably give him too much credit here.

 

Surely, the cat vs human example isn't very good. Perhaps the traits you are talking about are differences between various "breeds" of human, and as you chose a specific breed of cat, rather than looking at 1000 random cats, as you did with the humans, there are going to be differences. If you took those 1000 random cats I'm sure you would find the same range of drastic differences.

 

Wow, to my dismay it appears I did!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's a part of me that just doesn't want to accept that people can actually mistake fantasy literary characters for reality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<P>

 

I agree with Poincare, by revisiting past hypotheses we can better understand the current ones. Perhaps even reveal something new. I would not be too hasty in assigning the word "pseudoscience" to such discussions. Even if it was not what EmptyChi had intended, it is still possible to create a viable scientific discussion from this thread. Does anyone what evidence there is for single origin? We could go over a few examples that helped scientists reach this conclusion. It would better prepare us for furture discussions (which will undoubtedly occur as topics are recycled like mad).

 

Yes the above is a joke

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html

copied from above link
"Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says , Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News

March 6, 2002
A new piece of evidence—one sure to prove controversial—has been flung into the human origins debate.

A study published March 7 in Nature presents genetic evidence that humans left Africa in at least three waves of migration. It suggests that modern humans (Homo sapiens) interbred with archaic humans (Homo erectus and Neandertals) who had migrated earlier from Africa, rather than displacing them.

In the human origins debate, which has been highly charged for at least 15 years, there is a consensus among scientists that Homo erectus, the precursor to modern humans, originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia beginning around 1.7 million years ago.

Beyond that, opinions diverge.

There are two main points in contention. The first is whether modern humans evolved solely in Africa and then spread outward, or evolved concurrently in several places around the world.

The second area of controversy is whether modern humans completely replaced archaic forms of humans, or whether the process was one of assimilation, with interbreeding between the two groups.

"There are regions of the world, like the Middle East and Portugal, where some fossils look as if they could have been some kind of mix between archaic and modern people," said Rebecca Cann, a geneticist at the University of Hawaii.

"The question is," she said, "if there was mixing, did some archaic genetic lineages enter the modern human gene pool? If there was mixing and yet we have no evidence of those genes—as is indicated from the mitochondrial DNA and y chromosome data—why not?"

Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University in St. Louis who headed the study reported in Nature, has concluded that yes, there was interbreeding between the different groups. "We are all genetically intertwined into a single long-term evolutionary lineage," he said.

To reach his conclusion, Templeton performed a statistical analysis of 11 different haplotype trees. A haplotype is a block of DNA containing gene variations that researchers believe are passed as a unit to successive generations. By comparing genetic differences in haplotypes of populations, researchers hope to track human evolution.

Templeton also concluded that modern humans left Africa in several waves—the first about 1.7 million years ago, another between 800,000 and 400,000 years ago, and a third between 150,000 and 80,000 years ago.

Alison S. Brooks, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University, is more cautious about Templeton's conclusions. "Archaeological evidence supports multiple dispersals out of Africa," she said. "The question has always been whether these waves are dead ends. Did all of these people die? Templeton says not really, that every wave bred at least a little bit with those in Eurasia. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_3960000/newsid_3960800/3960879.stm


From above link

"Real-life 'Hobbit' skeleton found


Scientists in Indonesia think they've found the remains of a new type of ancient mini-human that could have been a bit like a Hobbit.
She lived 18,000 years ago, was just three-feet-tall, and some experts are calling the new species "the Hobbit".

It's believed that the mini-humans lived on Flores Island in Indonesia until at least 12,000 years ago.

Scientists say the discovery is one of the most important in the study of how humans evolved for decades.


Click here to chat about this
Australian archaeologists found the bones while digging in a cave on Flores.

The researchers have since found remains belonging to six other individuals from the same species.

Because the remains are relatively recent and not fossilised, scientists are even hopeful they might produce DNA.

If they do produce DNA it could provide a completely new view on the evolution of humans.

Legends on the island have included tales of little people for years and some people think some of the 'Hobbits' could still be alive in places where no-one has been.

 

http://www.giantbradley.co.uk/giantbradley/giant2.asp

real life giants

from above link:

" Britains current tallest living person is Chris Greener at a height of 7'6.25". American born Robert Wadlow is currently the worlds tallest ever recored person measuring a huge 8'11.1" (Guiness Book of Records). Wadlow weighed 490 pounds and wore a size 37 shoe."

 

Finally

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul99/930937131.Ev.r.html

From above link

As a biological anthropologist my speciality is human biological variation
and human biological evolution. I can tell you that the vast majority of
present day biologists, especially biological anthropologists, do not
believe that 'race' is a useful concept when applied to humans. Rather,
the concept of 'cline' has been the cornerstone in the explanation of
modern human variation. A cline can be understood as the gradual change in the form or frequency of a trait over space. For example, a greater degree of melanization of the skin occurs in equatorial regions and as we look farther north or south there is less melanization of the skin. Simply
put, this gradation has to do with the environmental risk/benefit of
ultraviolet radiation vs. intake of vitamin D. There is some controversy
over the length of time associated with the biological variation we see
between modern humans. While some would argue for 200,000 years others see this variation as very possibly occurring within the last 10,000 to 30,000
years. Modern humans are very close genetically and in fact there are
greater genetic differences within geographical human groups than between
them.

Dr. Smerken

 

yes actualy it was exactly that,

after doing alot of reaserch on other homanid species like hobbits and goliaths, i came to this theory, (not conclusion, "theory")

they were a whole tribe on an indonisian island, they found a whole entire settlement of tiny people, no male exceeded the height of about 3-4 feet tall, they also hunted and fought with pigmy elephants, wich were still quite large to them, but small compared to us, and a huge type of komodo dragon hunted these hobbits, (yes i call them hobbits to shorten it, it is still correct terminology, just like you shorten our species and call them human, wich is still acceptable aswell as homo sapien etc, the komodo dragonbs must have been like real dragons to them as they were huge komodo's not regular ones liek we have today,

there is a theory stating that humans actualy killed off the hobits and ate them,




and as for you insulting me for putting forward a theory like this about my intelligence level, well thats your opinion stick to it if it is what you want to choose i dont mind,




peace.

 

What's a goliath then?

 

A theory is comprised of tested hypotheses. What hypotheses have been tested with your "theory?"

Or is it just a fantastical speculation, fit for the fictions of Tolkien or Lovecraft?