PDA

View Full Version : Real Hobbits


Boba Rhett
10-28-2004, 11:03 PM
In an astonishing discovery that could rewrite the history of human evolution, scientists said they have found the skeleton of a new human species, a dwarf, marooned for eons in a tropical Lost World while modern man rapidly colonized the rest of the planet.

The finding on a remote Indonesian island has stunned anthropologists like no other in recent memory. It is a fundamentally new creature that bears more of a resemblance to fictional, barefooted hobbits than modern humans.

Yet biologically speaking, it may have been closely related to us and perhaps even shared its caves with our ancestors.

The three-foot-tall adult female skeleton found in a cave is believed to be 18,000 years old. It smashes the long-cherished scientific belief our species, Homo sapiens, systematically crowded out other upright-walking human cousins beginning 160,000 years ago and we've had Earth to ourselves for tens of thousands of years.

Instead, it suggests recent evolution was more complex than previously thought.

And it demonstrates Africa, the acknowledged cradle of humanity, does not hold all the answers to persistent questions of how - and where - we came to be.

"This finding really does rewrite our knowledge of human evolution," said Chris Stringer, who directs human origins studies at the Natural History Museum in London.

"And to have them present less than 20,000 years ago is frankly astonishing."

Scientists called the dwarf skeleton "the most extreme" figure to be included in the extended human family. Certainly, she is the shortest.

[...]

Scientists have named the extinct species Homo floresiensis, or Flores Man, and details appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years, meaning they lived until the threshold of recorded human history and perhaps crossed paths with the ancestors of today's islanders.

Flores Man was hardly formidable. His grapefruit-sized brain was two-thirds smaller than ours and closer to the brains of today's chimpanzees and transitional prehuman species in Africa that vanished two million years ago.

Yet Flores Man made stone tools, lit fires and organized group hunts for meat. Bones of fish, birds and rodents found near the skeleton were charred, suggesting they were cooked.

All this suggests Flores Man lived communally and communicated effectively, perhaps even verbally.

[...]

Older stone tools and other artifacts previously found on the island suggest Flores Man is part of a substantial archaic human lineage.

"So the 18,000-year-old skeleton cannot be some kind of 'freak' that we just happened to stumble across," said one of the discoverers, radiocarbon dating expert Richard Roberts of the University of Wollongong in Australia.

But the environment in which Flores Man lived was indeed peculiar, and scientists said it probably contributed to the specimen's unusually small dimensions.

Millenia ago, Flores was a kind of a looking-glass world, a real-life Middle-Earth inhabited by a menagerie of fantastic creatures like giant tortoises, elephants as small as ponies and rats as big as hunting dogs.

It even had a dragon, although they were giant lizards like today's carnivorous Komodo dragons, rather than the treasure-hoarding Smaug described by novelist J.R.R. Tolkien in his Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Artifacts suggest a big-boned human cousin, Homo erectus, migrated from Java to Flores and other islands, perhaps by bamboo raft, nearly one million years ago.

Researchers suspect Flores Man probably is an H. erectus descendant that was squeezed by the pressures of natural selection.

Nature is full of mammals - deer, squirrels and pigs, for example - living in marginal, isolated environments that gradually dwarf when food isn't plentiful and predators aren't threatening.

This is the first time the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia. Just how this primitive, remnant species managed to hang on is uncertain. Inbreeding certainly would've been a danger. Geologic evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption sealed its fate some 12,000 years ago, along with other unusual island species like the dwarf elephant species, stegodon.

[...]

Even more speculative is whether Flores Man met with modern humans and what might've happened.

Folklore experts have reported persistent legends of little people living on Flores and nearby islands. Islanders called the creature Ebu Gogo and say it was about three feet tall.


Clicky fr more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3948165.stm)


o_o;



All I have to say about this is..... I WANT ONE.

Oh and.... BRING ON THE ELVES! :naughty:

Elf booty got soul.

DarthBuzzard
10-28-2004, 11:20 PM
That is incredible. Rewrites the whole bloody evoloution theory...

Also, my friends jokingly call me a hobbit due to sideburns (they reach down past my temples to jaws) and a general resemblance to them in height, weight, and weird feet. Now I can tell them, 'there are real hobbits! In your face!'

:D - cool find

Sabretooth
10-29-2004, 12:05 AM
OK, wait. I honestly don't believe this is real. I had a hunch when reading, but the descriptions of the animals and the constant references to Middle-Earth...

Just, I fail to believe if this is true. I mean, they've found only ONE skele! There are short-heighted guys in our world, so it must have been in theirs!

Nope, ain't fooling me!

El Sitherino
10-29-2004, 01:00 AM
I think after all the scientific studies they put the bones through, I think they're sure it's not your average midget. :dozey:
I coulda sworn I heard about something like this about 2 years ago.... <_<
or maybe I'm psychic :eek:

anyway, saw this study a few days ago, and someone posted it in the senate too :o

Sabretooth
10-29-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I think after all the scientific studies they put the bones through, I think they're sure it's not your average midget. :dozey:

Alright, good.

Now think:
A few scientist guys find a complete skeleton of a seemingly hobbit-like human.
Fact.
These scientists think they uncovered something big, only to realise that it is a normal, midget who is apparently not buried yesterday in your backyard.
Next? They decide to tell a big-time hoax that they uncovered a "hobbit" skeleton and refer their studies to Middle-Earth and cook up a tangy, exotic, yet curious story. The world is shaken and the scientists laugh their ass off.
What tells them that there were others who were of her height? Nothing. They have one midget skeleton and "stuff" that tells them what it was in their world, like the Mirror of Galadriel.

It is totally a hoax, either created by scientists or people pretending to be scientists.

Even if it is real, it wouldn't be a big deal, since you get all sorts of weird species of Human beings. Check Ripley's and be amazed.

IG-64
10-29-2004, 02:01 AM
How do they know it wasnt just some pigmy person? >.>

Shok_Tinoktin
10-29-2004, 02:06 AM
My guess would be not enough genetic similarity with a human.

mima kake
10-29-2004, 02:26 AM
yeah I saw it at the news broadcast yesterday.
Pretty amazing stuff huh.
History keeps on changing.
Verry intresting.

JediJohn
10-29-2004, 03:27 AM
interesting but i'm inclined to agree with sabre: it's a hoax

Crazy_dog no.3
10-29-2004, 06:09 AM
I saw this on the news not long ago. Interesting stuff.

Vagabond
10-29-2004, 06:14 AM
Actually, several skeletons were found. Also, these are not midgets because the skulls are only capable of holding a brain the size of a grapefruit. As you no doubt know, midgets have heads with the same brain capacity as normal humans. The interesting thing about the find is that these small-brained humans were apparently capable of creating and using tools, due to the finding of such at the dig site.

The theory that I've heard explained on NPR, is that often, mammals, when in an environment of scarce food, will often evolve into a miniaturized state. Which makes sense given that those that can survive on less food will be more likely to procreate, thereby passing on their genes. A smaller animal will reuqire less food to sustain itself than a large animal.

Anyway, I find the whole thing very fascinating.

toms
10-29-2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by jedijohn
interesting but i'm inclined to agree with sabre: it's a hoax

its been on nearly every news channel, and in every paper... and i think scientists have been studying it for months... so i think it is pretty unlikely it is a hoax...

in theory, if you believe in evolution, then this makes sense... there would have to have been several different species of human that evolved (like any other creature) and then the most efficient one survived and the others died out...

I reckon it shows that tolkien's creation theory is a good as any... :D :p

kipperthefrog
10-29-2004, 09:10 AM
I agree with Vagabond!

if there are SEVERAL skeletons found, and the fact that they have smaller brain capacity,, yet they were STILL able to make tools, I say its NOT a hoax!

Can you BELEIVE there are STILL people out there who DON"T want to except the Evolution theory!!! It's proof all around us!

El Sitherino
10-29-2004, 11:19 AM
It's because people refuse to educate themselves on it. The theory itself is subjected to it's own rules. Everything evolves. That's why it will only ever stay a theory.

Neverhoodian
10-29-2004, 12:41 PM
The story was broadcast on National Public Radio's All Things Considered yesterday and on Talk of the Nation: Science Friday today.

Call me crazy, but I don't think NPR would spend so much time on the subject if it was a hoax. :rolleyes:

TiE23
10-29-2004, 02:00 PM
I heard the skeleton was made from many skeletons.

TiE

Redwing
10-29-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Vagabond
The theory that I've heard explained on NPR, is that often, mammals, when in an environment of scarce food, will often evolve into a miniaturized state. Which makes sense given that those that can survive on less food will be more likely to procreate, thereby passing on their genes. A smaller animal will reuqire less food to sustain itself than a large animal.

Anyway, I find the whole thing very fascinating.


I've known about this since forever, and it's hardly theory. Whenever you get tiny, isolated landmasses for enough span of time, this is what you get. It happens. Why not to human as well? :)

Sabretooth
10-29-2004, 11:48 PM
If Vagabond is right, damn i'm rong.

StormHammer
10-30-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Vagabond The theory that I've heard explained on NPR, is that often, mammals, when in an environment of scarce food, will often evolve into a miniaturized state. Which makes sense given that those that can survive on less food will be more likely to procreate, thereby passing on their genes. A smaller animal will reuqire less food to sustain itself than a large animal.

Anyway, I find the whole thing very fascinating.

I ditto that. It also serves to highlight that many myths and legends have some basis in fact.

It also begs the question - if we decimate the world's resources and basically turn it into vast tracts of desert, will we all eventually shrink to a couple of feet in height - or even return to being the rodent-like mammals from which we originally (according to theory) evolved?

Is evolution, in fact, simply the capacity for any animal to adapt to change - and could we eventually lose our capacity for 'intelligence' as we revert to lower forms of life that might be more successful in a hostile environment?

LightNinja
10-30-2004, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Sabretooth
OK, wait. I honestly don't believe this is real. I had a hunch when reading, but the descriptions of the animals and the constant references to Middle-Earth..
The bones exists, havent you seen them on TV or newspapers? Also the freakys of LOTR have started saying that they are hobbits but they'd be like a monkey

SeleneRayne
10-30-2004, 02:42 PM
Ha, ha hobbits.

LukeKatarn
10-30-2004, 02:55 PM
I think it might be true, but not related to a human. I honestley DON'T belive in evolution. Maybe that's because I'm religous though...

Druid Bremen
10-30-2004, 08:00 PM
Indeed, it must have been a branch-off of the apes we evolved from. Small brains - big minds..

ET Warrior
10-30-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
I think it might be true, but not related to a human. .

So the fact that it walked upright, was similar in the build of humans, built tools and fire, and probably even cooked it's food (the last three being things that ONLY humans do currently) doesn't imply a relation to humans?

Agen
10-30-2004, 08:38 PM
Hasn't it been proven many times that brain size doesn't nake that much difference to intelligence?

El Sitherino
10-30-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Agen_Terminator
Hasn't it been proven many times that brain size doesn't nake that much difference to intelligence? yes, a canine with a brain 1/3 our size can have the same IQ as our smartest person. But the ability to achieve the knowledge to contain is more common among great apes. And humans are mostly too arogant to admit we could be intellectually inferior to other animals. Just because we can't understand animals doesn't mean we're smarter than them, and doesn't mean they don't have their own forms of language. Hell even humans have different languages, and we hardly have a "basic" language. Does that make english speakers more advanced than german speakers? or mandarin speakers more advanced than english speakers? no, it's just how we were raised and the cultural surroundings.
There are lots of studies that have concluded dogs speak a very primitive style language distinctive on tones. Many tones human ears are incapable of hearing.

ET Warrior
10-30-2004, 09:00 PM
Actually larger brains are fairly connected with increased intelligence, not necessarily the size of mass, but the total surface area of the brain.

Since our brain is all wavey like and folded and mushy it has a lot of surface area, which in turn leads to a lot more processing power.

El Sitherino
10-30-2004, 09:40 PM
That's only been linked to attainability of storable knowledge, an animal with a brain much smaller could technically hold the same amount of information as a human or animal with a larger brain. But they as you said in your processor statement wouldn't exactly be able to process the information faster, or display this information as quickly as a larger brained creature, but based upon scale and grooves in the brain itself, the animal could hold just as much, if not more information than a human.

Sabretooth
10-30-2004, 11:26 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say that this dude is gonna change teh history of man or anything. He might be just a species of humans adapted to his land. Just like the many species of humans we have today. Africans and Equatorians have adapted to the excess heat.
Northeners and Southeners have adapted to cold.
Easterners have (adapted?) with their stretched eyes. You can't say that they're shacking the foundations of evoultions. The Hobbit is merely a species adapted to his land. Why haven't then, "hobbits" been found in other areas than that island?

I don't know, but for some reason, I just don't accept this short dude.

El Sitherino
10-30-2004, 11:44 PM
that's your problem then, but I think after all the analysis they've done I'm sure they've genuinely concluded it's not just your average human with dwarfism.

LightNinja
10-31-2004, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
I think it might be true, but not related to a human. I honestley DON'T belive in evolution. Maybe that's because I'm religous though...

Yes you are right, humans and all the species just *FLOP!*, or not, Noe made a big ship..it must be that!!

Originally posted by Sabretooth
Just like the many species of humans we have today. Africans and Equatorians have adapted to the excess heat.
Northeners and Southeners have adapted to cold.
Easterners have (adapted?) with their stretched eyes.

lol...those are the same specie, they can have fertile offspring. Just talk to an antropologist.

And just say that the little man has nothing to do with the actual human, he is like a neardental, another human specie which just got extinct, they might have a bit of intelligence but thats all.

Sam Fisher
10-31-2004, 11:33 AM
Alright! Little people for real :p

kipperthefrog
10-31-2004, 12:04 PM
"An elefant never forgets"!

They are easy to train in circuses! Could that have to do with their BRAIN size?

Redwing
10-31-2004, 12:06 PM
Adaptation. It's a perfectly feasible idea to think that these are just another race of human. Smaller brain size doesn't mean they were stupid, they have much less of a body for the brain to control. If you're religious (like me) there's no reason to think they didn't come from Adam and Eve.

Sabertooth: 'Easterners' don't have stretched eyes, they simply have a different skin structure around the eye. ;)

Also, this phenomenon has been seen in nature many times before, as I said; the whole point of it, is that it happens in isolation. Big things get small. So you won't be finding this species just everywhere. (Maybe on some neighboring islands.)

LightNinja: Note that Neanderthals more than likely were able to produce fertile offspring with humans, according to current (last I checked) theory.

LightNinja
10-31-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
LightNinja: Note that Neanderthals more than likely were able to produce fertile offspring with humans, according to current (last I checked) theory.
didnt know that

LukeKatarn
10-31-2004, 05:03 PM
So the fact that it walked upright, was similar in the build of humans, built tools and fire, and probably even cooked it's food (the last three being things that ONLY humans do currently) doesn't imply a relation to humans?
Even if they can make tools and stuff does not mean they are human. You can't think of humans as the only smart beings. Other things probabley could walk up right. And wanyway, they can be realated to humans just not evolution. There is no way we could evolve from apes. God created humans and animals, not just animals and animals that turn into humans.

El Sitherino
10-31-2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
There is no way we could evolve from apes. where there's a will, there's a way. ;) and sure there is. :)

kipperthefrog
11-01-2004, 03:47 AM
I think THIS explains evolution to any one who don't quite understand it's posibility!

How Stuff Works: Evolution (http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm)

LukeKatarn
11-01-2004, 05:22 AM
I understand it, just don't belive in it. Again, god create humans, not JUST animals.

kipperthefrog
11-01-2004, 05:46 AM
who's to say who's right and wrong?

How would you explain dinosuars and the transitional Ape-Human skulls they found?

How would you explain the "survival of the fittest" behavior in both humans and animals?

don't get me wrong, but I just wonder where YOU think those things came from...

ET Warrior
11-01-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
And wanyway, they can be realated to humans just not evolution.

How exactly would we be related to another species if not through evolution? How is it that evolution is so impossible?

I know a lot of religious people who believe in evolution. It's a matter of them not taking the bible literally, and realizing that if there IS a divine Creator then he could have developed humans any way that he wanted. And if he wanted to do it through evolution then that would be his perogative.

toms
11-02-2004, 05:11 AM
on a mildy related note, yesterday scientists made a big leap in their ideas of how the eye developed. I didn't completely follow the science, but they seem to have discovered photo-reactive cells in the brain of a worm that bear major resemblances to the cones and things in the back of the eyes of more complex organisms.

One of the arguements against evolution that has often been used is the whole "intelligent design" movement who claim evolution couldn't lead to highly complex items like eyes. This seems to be a first (very early) step towards working out how eyes did infact develop.

Seems like this has been a good week as far as improving our knowledge of how evolution works, but there is still a long way to go...

LukeKatarn
11-02-2004, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
who's to say who's right and wrong?

How would you explain dinosuars and the transitional Ape-Human skulls they found?

How would you explain the "survival of the fittest" behavior in both humans and animals?

don't get me wrong, but I just wonder where YOU think those things came from... GOD! Apes and humans might both be inteligent, but there is no way they evolved from eachother. Teh ywouild be BREAKING THEIR BACKS doing it! A monkey who's back is curved, can not just make it stright. And what the HECK? What skills do we share? Not many. And well, survival of the fittest is just the way god made things. And in the bible, ((I belive it is in there)) it talks about Adam and Eve. THEY WERE THE FIRST HUMANS! God might have made dinosours first to test the earth, then he created humans and animals. And don't get me wrong, humans are mammels which ARE animals, but we are still not related to monkies.

ET Warrior
11-02-2004, 05:33 AM
If God is perfect and omniscient, then he wouldn't have needed to "test" the earth. Having to test it would imply that he had made a mistake in it's creation, which a perfect being would not do.


And I think you're misunderstanding evolution. The monkeys didn't just one day decide "hey, we're gonna be humans." Genetic mutations that proved beneficial eventually led to the creation of new species. (well, in a nutshell that's how it works)

LukeKatarn
11-02-2004, 05:39 AM
I know, but it's pretty much impossible to just eventualy turn into a hairy dude with skin when you are a hairy thing that poops alot.:D

toms
11-02-2004, 06:33 AM
and yet humans who came from adam and eve have managed to change to different heights, different body types, differnent skin colours? How come humans can develop black skin because it works better in strong sun (adaption to environment) and yet evolution (adaption to the environment) is impossible?

Ever hear of oliver?
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/ollie1.jpg

He is an ape who walked upright. Mutation? Probably. But that is how evolution works...

LukeKatarn
11-02-2004, 06:35 AM
He is still to hairy to be a human. And I'll tell you about how black skin came about... IT's quite an evil tale... One of the sons of Adam and Eve, his name was Cain, KILLED HIS BROTHER! God was angrey, and cursed Cain. I belive the "Mark of Cain" is black skin.

Neverhoodian
11-02-2004, 08:23 AM
Hmmmm, somehow I suspect that this thread has deviated into a "Creation vs. Evolution" thread. I suppose I'll put my two cents in.

As some of you may know, I'm a Christian, but I don't really have a problem with the evolution theory. After all, the Bible isn't a science book; it was never meant to be. Therefore, I don't take everything the Bible says about the creation of the world literally. If God made the world through evolution, it doesn't diminish Him in any way in my eyes. I can easily picture a God who gradually changes plants and animals throughout time to match changes in their surroundings in order that they continue to be fruitful and multiply.

You also have to keep in mind that the Bible had to be written so that it was understood by all. The average person knew next to nothing about science in those days. If the Bible talked about "millions of years" and "The Big Bang" in creation, it would have seriously hampered people's abilities to comprehend what happened. It had to be written in a way that they could at least get a vague idea of how God made the universe.

To tell you the truth, I don't really mind how God made the world; I'm just glad He did. ;)

El Sitherino
11-02-2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
He is still to hairy to be a human. you've obviously never seen my neighbor XD

Shok_Tinoktin
11-02-2004, 01:03 PM
My only problem with evolution is that I do not see how a speciation could occur. In order for something to be of a different species, it has to be unable to produce fertile offspring with a member of a different species (although I'm not sure how species are defined for asexual species). So, in order for a new species to survive past the second generation, there would have to be two identical mutations (and they have to be mutations that result in a new species), at the same time, in the same location, and have to mate together. Of course, this would require inbreeding to continue the species, and would result in a dangerously low amount of biodiversity, and a species that is easily threatened with extinction. So for the species to really last, there would have to be even more identical mutations in the same area and time. This just seems too improbable to me. That being said, I am not a Christian, and I dont believe creationism is the way God works. So for now, I assume that there is something else we have not though about it, and keep an open mind.

LukeKatarn
11-02-2004, 01:07 PM
Lol. NOONE can be as hairy as an ape. A problem with monkies evolveing to humans


1) THE BACK BONE! They slouch down, then one day they find out their child or they are graduely changeing and their back bone is up right? I don't think so.
2) Hairy...ness? To much hair. The ysuddenly find out thay all their hair is beginning to just fall off and never grow back? uhhhhhhhhh NO!
3) the tail. The monkies with tails, do their tails just eventualy fall off? I MEAN COME ON! Did we just evolve from apes or what?

El Sitherino
11-02-2004, 01:25 PM
Yes, we evolved from apes, and we technically are a species of great ape. I suggest all of you actually do research on evolution, buy a book and read. Actually do active research, study thoroughly on it. THEN you can come and talk about why you don't believe it.

El Sitherino
11-02-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by LukeKatarn
Lol. NOONE can be as hairy as an ape. not really, you should see my neighbor. Hair everywhere, and yes, I mean everywhere.

kipperthefrog
11-02-2004, 07:43 PM
originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin

My only problem with evolution is that I do not see how a speciation could occur. In order for something to be of a different species, it has to be unable to produce fertile offspring with a member of a different species (although I'm not sure how species are defined for asexual species). So, in order for a new species to survive past the second generation, there would have to be two identical mutations (and they have to be mutations that result in a new species), at the same time, in the same location, and have to mate together. Of course, this would require inbreeding to continue the species, and would result in a dangerously low amount of biodiversity, and a species that is easily threatened with extinction. So for the species to really last, there would have to be even more identical mutations in the same area and time. This just seems too improbable to me. That being said, I am not a Christian, and I dont believe creationism is the way God works. So for now, I assume that there is something else we have not though about it, and keep an open mind.

Here is how it works!

when a mutation comes in, there doesn't HAVE to be TWO identical mutations at the same pace at the same time! just ONE will do!

the mutant, is STILL simular enough to breed with a "normal" version of the species and there will be a good chance the mutation will pass on!

A girl can still have her father's eyes even when her mother didnt HAVE a nose like that!

Shok_Tinoktin
11-02-2004, 07:48 PM
Yes that works for adaptation, and physical change. I am perfectly willing to accept that. What I was referring to was speciation. By definition, a new species could not produce fertile offspring unless it was with another member of the same species. So one member of a new species would not be enough.

toms
11-03-2004, 05:15 AM
I seem to gather that your entirely unbiased homeschooling hasn't really explained evolution to you. Its kind of odd that you don't realise that all the smartest men in on the planet have been researching this subject for decades, and they pretty much all think evolution is true.... you wouldn think they would have considered your point b now... ;-)

Originally posted by LukeKatarn
1) THE BACK BONE! They slouch down, then one day they find out their child or they are graduely changeing and their back bone is up right? I don't think so.

Er... I just showed you a picture of an ape that can stand upright, so that blows your theory out of the water...
You do realise that these changes took place very slowly over 4million years? That is 80,000 generations, with a little version upgrade each time. We are MS Ape v80000.2 (beta) ;-)
Over the past 200 years we have grown (on average) by several inches (due to changes in environment and diet), so is it so amazing that over 20,000 times that time we developed more than that?

They found skeletons of apes that walked upright:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/factfiles/australopithecus_afarensis.html
here is a flash game explainiing WHY apes began to walk upright:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/challenge/test_game1.html

Originally posted by LukeKatarn
2) Hairy...ness? To much hair. The ysuddenly find out thay all their hair is beginning to just fall off and never grow back? uhhhhhhhhh NO!

Erm, humans that live in cold climates ethnically have more hair than those that live in warm climates. Monkeys and apes (and other creatures like foxes) that live in cold climates have more hair than those that live in warm climates... how did that happen? Why would it not happen just as much to our decendents as to all the other animals?

Originally posted by LukeKatarn
3) the tail. The monkies with tails, do their tails just eventualy fall off? I MEAN COME ON! Did we just evolve from apes or what?
Hmm... in a few decades we bred animals (dogs, etc..) without tails just by cross breeding. That is just an artificially spread up form of evolution. After all, once we stopped hanging around upside down in trees we really didn't need tails anymore did we?

More info on evolution, as you obviously haven't really been taught about it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/

PS/ Black people have "the mark of cain"????? are you kidding???