Re: [asa] More on Hobbit fossil

I am sure hardly any have sufficient understanding of this to make a wise
comment on it. I leave it to the experts on the subject and prefer not to
pontificate on it.

We do best to remain in our own spheres of competence and look to others for
help when we need it

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] More on Hobbit fossil

> What are the odds that the only skull found would be from an individual
> who suffered from microcephaly? How often does it occur in nature?
> Aren't the bones from "eight other individuals" small too? What explains
> that? Where's Glenn now that we need him?
>
>> 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.
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
> 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 17:47:48 2006