[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'>I did see what I assume is the original article. It was more descriptive. I will read the others also.[/b]

Actually, I suspect that you didn't see the "original" article unless you have a subscription to Nature. What you saw are news reports. The "original" articles are:

Brown P., et al. Nature, 431. 1055 - 1061 (2004).

Morwood M. J., et al. Nature, 431. 1087 - 1091(2004).

I don't have a subscription to Nature but at least I read the available information on the Nature web site and others before I read the news reports.

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'>Yes they did find a hybrid,...[/b]

No. They conclude from certain anatomical features that the child may have been a hybrid. Isn't it funny that you are willing to place so much credence in such things as the shape of an infant's head, indications of a possible incipient brow ridge, the shape of the rib cage, and the attachment of the femur at the hip and the relative length of the limbs from a single sample?

Originally posted by rcne ...so far I've not heard of a mtDNA sample from the hybrid.

You mean presumed hybrid based on quite uncertain anatomical observations that all fall within normal range for modern humans.

Originally posted by rcne And yes the present theory is based on mtDNA,...

What theory are you talking about? Please cite the scientific literature where this theory was stated. I know of several theories "based" on mtDNA and I'm not sure what you mean by "present theory." One new theory involves the migration of genes from the mitochondria to the nucleus of eukaryotes. There is another theory that states that mitochondria are matrilineal (there is enough evidence that this is not always the case to cause considerable error bars in calculations) and therefore useful as genetic clocks.

And, of course, present theory isn't based on mtDNA. The hypothesis was that if Neandertals and modern humans interbred, then the mtDNA of humans would reflect that fact. It doesn't. The conclusion is that interbreeding between H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis was not common. Let me state it as the scientists involved would have stated it. From the mtDNA analysis there is no evidence that H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis interbred. Quite a different matter from what you claim is the basis of theory.

Originally posted by rcne I also read that article and you may want to check the actual sample size that they base their 'presently' accepted theory on three samples? I think the sample has the relevance of a poll - a sample but not a large enough sample, I think, to justify the present theory.

Then you clearly don't understand. The sample size on the human side was huge. Let me explain again what was found. The three samples of mtDNA were extracted from specimens that were widely separated in time and geography. They were similar enough to judge that they were derived from a single female ancestor. The differences were well inside the range of what was expected given the time differences. Human mtDNA was so different that it was concluded that there was no evidence of interbreeding.

Originally posted by rcne If other evidence is found, then I may adjust mine, until then I remain sceptically. (even though its not mainstream, I've heard there are others that also question basing accepted theory on this).

I have no idea of what that paragraph means. It seems that you are willing to accept claims based on a single specimen based on variable anatomical measurements, none of which are outside the range of humans. And yet you dismiss a sample size of 3, even though these samples were compared to the huge sample of human mtDNA sequences.

Originally posted by rcne Present theory discarded the concept of a hybrid, but it was 'adjusted' to fit.

Nonsense. Present theory does no such thing. Present theory actually wonders why we don't see Neandertal ancestry in humans. Given the male human penchant for intercourse with even sheep, how did there fail to be hybrids? Well maybe there were some. Maybe one was found. But mtDNA isn't passed from the father - only from the mother.

Originally posted by rcne It may also soon be adjusted on the ability of speech. Science does change, so what is accepted today may be changed upon the next discovery.

Of course. Should we decide how it should be now and forevermore? Let's see. The earth is the center of the universe - lets burn anyone who disagrees. New evidence should be supressed because learning by questioning isn't allowed. Once we decide what is "TROOTH", then we must stick with it. Science must support dogma!

Originally posted by rcne This site may be just such a discovery. Already some of the present concepts may be brought into question.

My bet is that you can't list the concepts brought into question.

Originally posted by rcne The 'modern techniques' and 'concept of man' were directly from the article itself - their words not mine. I do find it coincidental that that isolated group evolved the same techniques as previously only attributed to modern Cro-Magnon (can you believe my spell checker didn't have this)

Yes. I can believe that your spell checker didn't have Cro-Magnon as an entry. What I can't believe is that you would presume to discuss the topic when you didn't even know how to spell it. So I guess "modern techniques" mean primative stone tools similar to those of H. erectus. On what do you base your claim that these tools were attributed only to "modern" Cro-Magnon?

Originally posted by rcne I know Neanderthal used tools, and a belief in the afterlife etc,etc - but one of the differences stated has always been - they weren't modern tools - thats the link I was making to the little people..

Right. They weren't modern tools! They didn't have power drills, table saws, and the like. Perhaps if you cited some scientific literature that defines the difference between "modern" and not "modern." I understand that Neandertal sites are recognized because of the differences from human sites in the tools found. So what? The question isn't whether the newly discovered fossils are related to Neandertals. They were most probably descended from H. erectus, who also used tools. Please cite the literature that indicates that the "hobbit" tools are remarkably different from those of H. erectus.

Originally posted by rcne Not just modern man made and used modern tools., now it appears the these little guys did too.

And still you haven't told us what you mean by "modern tools." Drill press? Table saw?

Originally posted by rcne So we now have three lines of homids occupying the same time period. Two of them using the same techniques, and two of them possibly interbreeding, yet only cro magnon mtDNA survives?

What does this have to do with the question of the discovery in Indonesia?

Originally posted by rcne I personally support Neanderthals in the human lineage. Every time I see a pronounced brow ridge i think Neanderthal lineage.

So you have a sloped forhead, an occipital bun, are short and squat, but remarkably strong, and you communicate in grunts?

Originally posted by rcne I'm glad you did the research to present your points, but I'll hold to my statements. I, like science will adjust as new sites are analyzed.

Actually, I didn't do any research. I read news reports and listened to opinions from colleagues. Sadly, you don't seem to know what scientific research is. Sadly, you think that science makes adjustments to popular reporting on the internet.
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne@
I guess its the definition of what makes man - man. The 'common line' is the items or traits used to say this is man keeps being adjusted. First it was tools, then language, then a belief in the afterlife.[/quote]
That's silly. To believe that "common line" is meaningful is silly. I presume that what you are trying to oppose is the common ancestry of life. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do so without straw men?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne
Its getting late, I have work tomorrow will add more later, after I read those other articles, and review present Neanderthal data.[/quote]
Golly. My heart just palpitates in anticipation! But what does Neandertal data have to do with the question? Wouldn't it be better if you could stay on topic? I only responded to your misunderstanding of Neandertal information because you brought it up. You never did explain why it is relevant.