'Hobbit' human 'is a new species'

[Paul Crowl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311619.stm

Report of paper in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences.

Dean Falk, of Florida State University, and her colleagues
say the remains are those of a completely separate human
species: Homo floresiensis.

But why do people say stupid things like: ". . . became small
in stature to cope with the limited supply of food on the
island. . . . "

Have they never heard of Malthus? Food is ALWAYS in short
supply EVERYWHERE.

It's a basic law of nature.

[John Roth]

On Jan 30, 4:08 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311619.stm
>
> Report of paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences.
>
> Dean Falk, of Florida State University, and her colleagues
> say the remains are those of a completely separate human
> species: Homo floresiensis.
>
> But why do people say stupid things like: ". . . became
> small in stature to cope with the limited supply of food on
> the island. . . . "
>
> Have they never heard of Malthus? Food is ALWAYS in short
> supply EVERYWHERE.
>
> It's a basic law of nature.

"Island Dwarfism" as well as the converse is a standard topic
of evolutionary development. Look it up. It's been part of the
Flores debate since the beginning.

John Roth

[Paul Crowl]

"John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:1170168287.394252.86660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311619.stm

>> But why do people say stupid things like: ". . . became
>> small in stature to cope with the limited supply of food on
>> the island. . . . "
>>
>> Have they never heard of Malthus? Food is ALWAYS in short
>> supply EVERYWHERE.
>>
>> It's a basic law of nature.
>
> "Island Dwarfism" as well as the converse is a standard
> topic of evolutionary development. Look it up. It's been
> part of the Flores debate since the beginning.

So some animals got smaller "to cope with the limited
supply of food on the island. . . . ", and some got bigger
. . . . "to cope with the limited supply of food on the
island. . . . " ??

How come we never see the latter statement in papers of
this sort?

Paul.

[Deowll]

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:5qNvh.17746$j7.344403@news.indigo.ie...
> "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message news:-
> 1170168287.394252.86660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311619.stm
>
>
>>> But why do people say stupid things like: ". . . became
>>> small in stature to cope with the limited supply of food
>>> on the island. . . . "
>>>
>>> Have they never heard of Malthus? Food is ALWAYS in short
>>> supply EVERYWHERE.
>>>
>>> It's a basic law of nature.
>>
>> "Island Dwarfism" as well as the converse is a standard
>> topic of evolutionary development. Look it up. It's been
>> part of the Flores debate since the beginning.
>
> So some animals got smaller "to cope with the limited
> supply of food on the island. . . . ", and some got bigger
> . . . . "to cope with the limited supply of food on the
> island. . . . " ??
>

More like there was a niche open for something larger so one
of the local species got larger.

> How come we never see the latter statement in papers of
> this sort?
>
>
> Paul.
>