 Hey, looks like we found some 4th world dwarves! |
  |
 Oct 27 2004, 05:45 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67  |
|
 |
 
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:26 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Avatar of Mediocrity Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 725 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS) Member No.: 277 |
...and the scientists actually described them as "hobbit-sized individuals."
Woo for public acceptance of fantasy! |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:38 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 392 Joined: 18-October 04 From: Tujunga, CA Member No.: 6,768 |
Woot
This is cool. :) Thanks for the report. Please let me know when they find a dragon body. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:48 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Jesus Freak Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,141 Joined: 23-April 04 From: Anaheim, CA Member No.: 6,274 |
They already have. We call them Dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:53 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 22-October 04 Member No.: 6,782 |
Did anyone else notice:
Mini-human find Michelle Pountney 28oct04 Isn't today the 27th? |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:53 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Jesus Freak Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,141 Joined: 23-April 04 From: Anaheim, CA Member No.: 6,274 |
Not in Austrailia.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:54 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,756 Joined: 11-December 02 From: France Member No.: 3,723 |
Did you also notice the site url ends with .au for Australia ? They're already on 28 october.
EDIT: gasp, too slow... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:55 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Not in my neck of the woods. Time of posting: 4:50 AM October 28th :D
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:55 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
Nasty Hobbitses.
JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:55 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
12,000 years? That's approximately 1000-ish years before the beginning of the Fourth age. Either those aren't dwarves, or the paleontologists still haven't got their timing right.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:56 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Jesus Freak Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,141 Joined: 23-April 04 From: Anaheim, CA Member No.: 6,274 |
I'd go with the second option there. Carbon dating is bunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 06:57 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 22-June 02 From: Parts Without Member No.: 2,897 |
"Stunned Australian scientists found the skeleton of a fully grown female, which has led to the classification of a new species of ancient human. The presence of a fossilized beard strongly suggests that that the specimen is a 'dwarf' and not a 'hobbit.'"
Well, made that last bit up, but anyhow. Vive la difference == hooray for sexual dimorphism. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 10:59 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
It said hairless. Must be some kind of gnome. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2004, 11:32 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 3-December 03 From: Boston, Mass Member No.: 5,874 |
My Pigmey brothers will rise up and SMITE YOU ALL!!! They sound like they could be closely related to pigmey's. Probably just a evolutionary nitch or something. Sounds like they made good Komono-dragon food. Maybe they are hobbits after all?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 05:13 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
The Wandering One Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 121 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Camp Hill, PA, USA Member No.: 135 |
*Start Scientific Rant*
While the amount of material I've read on this find is small, I'm willing to bet thats its nothing more than a population of Homo erectus which has undergone some rather serious evolutionary pressures due to living on an island, which generally makes any species inhabiting said island considerably smaller over time. This means we don't need to rewrite the evolutionary history of humans. *End Scientific Rant* Now, if I can work this in somehow into my campaign.......... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 08:50 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
thank you nomad for pointing out the current largest hole in the contemporary use of the scientific method. If some evidence appears that may invalidate a currently accepted theory and design, create excuse as to why it does not so that nobody has to write up new theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 11:42 AM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
This is certainly a contemporary "problem." In fact it's an application of Occam's Razor, which is hardly a new idea. In fact in most cases, particularly in evolutionary biology, we kinda the opposite problem: every upstart scientist and researcher, trying to get their name on a new principle or process, tries to "debunk" perfectly valid claims in order to be sensationalistic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2004, 01:09 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
True, but I have always been impressed with the use of the name Razor by Occam to describe his technique, as razors should e handled with care. Remember people the discovery of the new Dwarves does not invalidate evolutionary theory, but does invalidate our CURRENT UNDERSTANDING of history. Now if we test the situation and formulate hypotheses and test them we should learn what these things mean... if we just try to explain them away we will learn nothing... which is true science?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 02:56 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
if you could do simple calculus...you would know it is not. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2004, 03:01 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
I'll believe this find when I see some artifacts. It's not all that strange considering what we already know of island evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 03:43 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
There's been many instances of Carbon Dating Errors, I think that's what he's getting at. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 28 2004, 04:48 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
The Wandering One Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 121 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Camp Hill, PA, USA Member No.: 135 |
Ok, maybe scietific (lets be honest, in my field, its rarely scientific) is not the best term to use, but I'd like to point out a few things in my defense first.
1. I have a masters degree in anthropology. While my empahsis is in archaeology, I am rather conversent in physical anthro (under which this find falls) so I do have some degree of knowledge of this issue. 2. THERE IS NO UNIFIED THEORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION. There are, in fact, three major theories. All of the people quoted in the articles which I read subscribe to one theory which states that modern humans developed simultaneously in various parts of the world. I happen to favor a different one. The problem which arises is that the general public does not understand this sort of turf fighting which goes on in the academic community. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 05:38 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Then Nomad I would like to be excluded from the set General Public{}
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 05:56 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
carbon dating works just fine, up to about 50k years. the problems start when people try to use it for objects older than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2004, 06:13 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
It fails quite often even then (I remember reading about how a leaf someone plucked from their tree registered as being a few thousand years old). It's only real use is for getting a sorta-kinda guestimate as to what might likely be the object's age. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 10:59 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.