I don't know. I' ll reserve opinion unti all the evidence is in--however--given what we do know so far?
Skull analysis? Questionable.
Wrist bone? Seems to suggest a different species-but without more information as to the nature of malnutrition on the development of said bones once again unsure.
One of the problems that I am seeing with this line of arguement is the reasoning behind the malnutrition and "cretinism." Yes island populations do seem to have greater instances of dwarfism--restricted food intake --promotes selction for smaller size--but even given that is it enough to create a vaiblwe population of dwarf sapiens? Given the ability of sapiens specifically to maximize food development or alternately to bloody move--why would we see this kind of selection? Smaller I buy. Dumber and feebler I don't.
Now I can accept perhaps a founder effect introducing and reinforcing an genetically recessive trait to the fore---but I just don't see a population of said microcephalics happening without more evidence as to how.
Even if it is sapiens--it still tells a very interstign story in terms of evolution.
I think Prof Oxnard (on the left) might be somewhat biased regarding the Hobbit theory.
LOL!
Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process imbedded in the human spirit--Abbie Hoffman.
Knupfer, I would argue that asserting the same thing over and over again while not providing the slightest shred of evidence is a surefire way to make yourself stupider. What say you?