i dont think we are all the same species,

A human controlled, two legged robotic battle machine in Starcraft.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theoryofrelativity,

Yes, I stated that it is possible to make offspring from two close species....

And there is a theory that the 'Hobbits' may have just been diseased humans. They're not officially a species quite yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Disease which is met in all speciments and goes on for thousands of years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4339740.stm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any human can mate with another human of the opposite sex and produce a child that is fertile. Hence we are all the same species. Not to mention DNA and suchlike.

 

Only one complete specimen was found at Flores. And, as I remember the article in nature, there were two adults. The tools found in the cave were consistent with that of full-sized hominids.

Microcephaly remains the most likely cause. It may even be that the cave was a place of banishment for individuals afflicted with the disease. Or perhaps their unique physiology created a superstitious response either favorable or negative toward the victims of the disease.

There's simply no evidence that this is a separate species and ample evidence that they are human. The alternative hypothesis that these are a separate line of humans that developed unique characteristics isn't ruled out, however. It just isn't applied by anthropologists without evidence.

 

The reason there are different ethnical backgrounds and why people grow to different sizes is a mixture of the Ancestry of DNA for the individual and "conditions". Conditions covers where the person lives, what the person eats,and how they go about their lives.

There might be small mutational/evolutionary changes every so often, however this is understandible and really ties in with how many iterations of parents in the ancestral tree have occured.

A testable method is to take certain types of arachnids, insects and rodents that have mutated to a new species. They do so because their gestation period is small, which means tens of thousand branches in their genetic makeup can occur within centuries.

It can be suggest that the world as a melting pot will have people partner up with different numbers of ancestoral pairings, which in turn causes changes in their offspring. I suppose you could ask "What is the next evolution of man?".

 

Coining the term 'hobbit' has just been a media tactic. They don't even have large feet . They are just small. If they had read LOTR they should have called them dwarfs. Hobits are characterized by their large feet.


irresponsible scientists.

Now every dork thinks hobbits existed.

 

Cat breeds are inbred lines. They are supposed to look alike. And actually they are not.

Take a 1000 chimps. All radical different. Researchers in the field have no trouble recognizing individuals. Try 1000 orcas. Researchers take pictures of their dorsal fin and back and can recognize each individual by it.

I think you are confused because you think that what you see is the same as what a specimen of another species can see, feel, hear etc. Two cats look alike to you. Do they have trouble distinguishing between each other and a 1000 other cats? No. They can already recognize a specific cat by smelling its pee. We are not cats. Do not compare our senses to cats. Cats are not humans. We have different faces because we are social and a visual species. With increased social constructions it became more important to be individual and easily recognized.

 

The same thing can be applied between different people too,
to Europeans most Africans and Japanese look the same and I'm sure that it's the other way around too.

 

http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co....-joins-in-astounding-discovery-name_page.html


did you not see the show on discovery channel about hobbits goliaths and other species and the recent findings?


peace.

 

I don't have a tv.

And they should drop the term hobbit. A hobbit is a small fictional character with large feet.

 

I just did a quick Wikipedia on Species and it seems like there's no actual consensus on the meaning of the word, also, the people on National Geographic do use the term 'different species of humans', when talking about the finds in Indonesia and giants etc, so stop being so hard on Empty. It's easy enough to replace the words Goliath with Giant and Hobbit with midget and to begin the debate from there.

 

No, that’s not true. The most that can be said is that the scientific community is equally divided on whether it represents a new species. My understanding is that it would be more accurate to say that the majority opinion is in favor of a new species.

For instance, there is this paper from Science:

The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis
Falk et al.
Science 8 April 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5719, pp. 242 – 245