Rapid evolution 'Island Rule' explains Giants and Hobbits

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
661
Reactions
2,190
Well, that solves that then, it was right in front of experts all along... the 'Island Rule'

Fast evolution explains the tiny stature of extinct 'Hobbit' from Flores Island
20191009_203226.jpg

love these artist impressions....


'Shockingly, researchers believed it had survived until the end of the last Ice Age, some 18,000 years ago. That was much later than Neanderthals lived, later than any human species other than our own.

Almost immediately, interpretations of this Hobbit skeleton met with fierce criticism from both anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. The poor Hobbit was accused of being an example not of a small new human species, but an abnormal Homo sapiens, bearing any of a variety of growth and hormonal conditions. The Hobbit, many scientists decided, had no place among the giants of the human evolutionary record'

Yet she – yes, the Hobbit was later found to be a female – had her revenge. This tiny, small-brained creature stood just a bit more than three feet tall and had a brain as big as a chimp. But her place in the human ancestral line was cemented when researchers uncovered another tiny individual in Flores. This second, much older discovery debunked the idea that the Hobbit was a unique, abnormal Homo sapiens.

After 15 years of intense research, anthropologists now confidently date the Liang Bua individual to have lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago. Her much older cousins in Flores lived 700,000 years ago. This long reign testifies to the success of this tiny human species, no matter how small-statured and small-brained they were.

And this year anthropologists found a new dwarfed human species, christened Homo luzonensis, in the Philippines.

So why did tiny humans wind up living on these islands? For us biogeographers and evolutionary biologists, the answer was right in front of us: the island rule'

To cut it short basically, small people arrive on an island & within 4000 years evolve in to giants. Giants arrive on an island and within 4000 years devolve into hobbits...

This article is awash with scientific proofs like:

Possibly, could be, maybe, we thought, perhaps, you know, irrefutable evidence.

Source.

Does this explain all? Or is it more utter b******s

Cheers
 

SuperTrouper

Well-known member
Messages
216
Reactions
590
I actually reckon that it makes sense. My view of evolution is that it happens much faster than the official narrative would have us believe. Our design is rather intelligent and possibilities endless.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
5,065
Reactions
21,005
Hypothetically anything and everything is possible. We do not see any evolution induced alteration to humans during our life time. The rest does not appear to be verifiable.
 

maxresde

Well-known member
Messages
75
Reactions
277
Just saw this as a suggested thread from another thread. It reminded me of something I was thinking about posting.

There is a guy Jack Kruse I have mentioned on some other thread here. He is a surgeon and he has gotten into kind of cutting edge medicine I guess you would say. He talks a lot about mitochondria and epigenetics and quantum biology.

Anyway, he says that we human beings undergo adaptation to our environment first by epigentic means before an adaptation is kind of codified in the nuclear genetic material. This guy Doug Wallace says the same thing.

So this line just caught my eye- 'We do not see any evolution induced alteration to humans during our lifetime'.

This guy Jack Kruse explicitly says that we are seeing that, but just not recognizing it. The other guy Doug Wallace I think would broadly agree with that if you pressed him, but I have not heard him say it explicitly.

Dr Kruse says that the increase in obesity is an epigenetic evolutionary adaptation to changes in our environment in recent years, mainly from artificial lighting and from increased exposure to artificial radiation from wifi and things like that. Other epigenetic adaptations we see, according to him, are autism, diabetes, a whole laundry list of diseases. He attributes the suicide epidemic to the same causes, and also cancer.

You can imagine that people who are particularly susceptible to these changes in the environment are going to die from cancer, suicide, etc and the remaining population will be more adapted to the changed environment. Ultimately, we may not find that the adaptations have been desirable, but I think it is fair to say that they are actually occuring.
 
Top