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.

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.

"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.