Page 3 of 3

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:54 pm
by Cognito
Cogs: Just how, within the confines of Darwinian evolution and island dwarfism, did the Hobbit wind up with foot morphology similar to that of A. afarensis?

RS: ... we (you) should be extremely wary of attributing properties to a species' variant on the basis of less than 10% of 2 individuals' skeletal remains.
Alright, RS. Explain how any H. erectus possessing a fairly modern human anatomy from the neck down could develop the following type of archaic foot as a result of island dwarfism? Retrograde genes?

Image

Please read the article here before responding.

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:38 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Cognito wrote:
Cogs: Just how, within the confines of Darwinian evolution and island dwarfism, did the Hobbit wind up with foot morphology similar to that of A. afarensis?

RS: ... we (you) should be extremely wary of attributing properties to a species' variant on the basis of less than 10% of 2 individuals' skeletal remains.
Alright, RS. Explain how any H. erectus possessing a fairly modern human anatomy from the neck down could develop the following type of archaic foot as a result of island dwarfism? Retrograde genes?

Image

Please read the article here before responding.
Simple evolution. The Hobbit climbed trees! Probably to eat and avoid being eaten. And consequently the Hobbit's anatomy adapted to the circumstances. Just like some HS (?) on Indian and Pacific Ocean islands today, who have visibly more "ape-like" feet – long and wide, with a 'gripping' large toe – than we in the west do. Because they climb (palm) trees every day, every week, their whole lives long. As did all their ancestors. For millennia.

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:23 am
by Digit
Which requires the assumption that HE didn't climb trees and that the Hobbits did.

Roy.