Re: [asa] More on Hobbit fossil

Anyone want to guess how soon this appears on AIG as
another "example" of scientists, deluded by naturalism,
getting it wrong?

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:32:57 -0400
  Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net> wrote:
> Some food for thought.
> Jack Haas
>
> Compelling evidence demonstrates that 'Hobbit' fossil
>does not represent a new species of hominid
><http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/fm-ced100206.php>
> What may be the definitive most interdisciplinary work
>in a debate that has been raging in palaeoanthropology
>for two years will be published in Anatomical Record. The
>new research comprehensively and convincingly makes the
>case that the skull discovered in Flores, Indonesia, in
>2003 does not represent a new species of hominid, as was
>claimed in a 2004 Nature study. The skull is most likely
>that of a small-bodied modern human who suffered from
>microcephaly.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 9 10:55:45 2006