[gallo]

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is a great link,...[/b]

There are better links. Nature for example. That page has a link to a news story at nature.com.

You might also want to check out National Geographic and New Scientist.

Although the the CNN article isn't too bad for a news story. I notice that they point out that this hominin was probably a descendent of Homo erectus and not in the lineage of modern mankind.

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...the common line the anthropologist wish to define has once again blurred.[/b]

Not sure what common line you are talking about. I've never heard of it. I suspect you are confused by the evolutionary concept of common descent. No one claims that all hominins are in a common line. If fact, quite the contrary is the case. The claim is that there were many organisms that are not in our lineage, some of them living at the same time. We have known about the Neandertals for some time, and it now seems that there was another related line survived until relatively recently.

To claim that this somehow blurs some sort of "common line" that "anthropologists" are trying to establish is nonsense.

Originally posted by rcne An isolated gene pool of people developing modern tool making and hunting. They will need to rethink their justification on straight line evolution.

Who is it that you think tries to justify "straight line evolution?" Certainly not evolutionary biologists nor paleontologists not paleoanthropologists. As I mentioned, the evidence shows that hominid evolution was quite bushy. Moreover, these organisms didn't develop "modern tool making and hunting." I guess you weren't aware that the probable ancestor of H. floresiensis was H. erectus made tools and hunted. Not sure what you mean by modern tools since stone choppers and knives aren't usually referred to as "modern."

Originally posted by rcne Thats one, also the modern cro-magmun suddenly appearing and replacing Neanderthal and not absorbing Neanderthals is another

That should be Cro-Magnon. And the appearance wasn't all that sudden. Some very old examples of Cro-Magnon have been discovered in the Levant, where it appears they lived along side of Neandertals for a long time. The migration into Europe came later.

Originally posted by rcne They (scientist) right now are betting on microdrial DNA ( very small sample- your EVE) as the line of modern human.

It's anybody's guess what that is supposed to mean. I think maybe that it demonstates a complete misunderstanding of what mtDNA is and how it is used.

Originally posted by rcne They've also found a hybrid Neanderthal - traits of modern and Neanderthal but at present it doesn't fit the accepted version.

Nonsense. You seem to be only half informed on the topic. How does it not fit the "present accepted version?" The present theory is based on the extraction of DNA (mtDNA in fact) from three very widely separated, both in time and geography, Neandertal fossils. When compared to each other, they are obviously of the same species. But they are different from modern humans. There has always been speculation as to whether H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis interbred. It seems logical that it would have happened somewhere at some time - but none of the mtDNA seems to have been passed along. The child found in Spain seems to have been a hybrid.

Originally posted by rcne Thats why I always enjoy the scramble when the scientist have to rethink and adjust their view.

But that's how science works. New data causes refinement of the theory. It happened to physics with Einstein and then Bohr. SN 1987 A caused a whole rethinking of the process of supernovas. And all of that scrambling has only served to make the theories of science more secure and clear.

Originally posted by rcne This new isolated gene pool developed modern techniques.

Where did you get that? In you society it is considered modern to make tools by chipping flakes of of rocks?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne@
These techniques are one of the limiting factors against including Neanderthals in the 'man' line.[/quote]
So you think that Neandertals didn't use tools? Did it occur to you to learn what you were talking about before speaking?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne
But now that exclusionary fact no longer seems valid now does it.[/quote]
How confused you seem. You have just asserted that finding a hominid in Indonesia that used stone tools now justifies including Neandertals in human lineage.