10/28   I don't know jack about anthropology, but isn't it a bit of a stretch
        to start believing in hobbits because of *one* skeleton?
        \_ Reread any of the articles.  It wasn't "one skeleton"
        \_ If you mean hobbits a la LOTR, of course it is.  If you mean the
           existence of three-foot-tall hominids, the sheer number of
           skeletons found is enough to be fairly convincing.
           \_ I mean the latter.  I was just looking at the Nature paper, and
              only saw reference to one or two skeletons.  Are there more
              reported elsewhere?
              \_ you don't have to worry; that was 20,000 years ago, and
                 since the earth is only 6,000 years old, clearly they were
                 planted by the Devil to tempt us into disbelief.  -tom
                 \_ Jeez.  I'm not worried, I'm just curious.  Some friends
                    and I were looking at the article in Nature, and it
                    sounded pretty nutty.
                 \_ Silly tom, it's doesn't say anywhere that one of the
                    animal species God created couldn't be hominid.
                    \_ This sounds like something the Devil would write.
           \_ One thing I didn't get was whether they could just be some monkey
              or ape form. There were homo erectus on the same island. From the
              one article I read I didn't see any proof that these creatures
              could even talk, or that the tools couldn't have been from the
              homo erectus (erecti?) there. Basically there didn't seem to be
              enough justification to call them "men".