An article published in the Post on March 8 by Michael Casey mentioned that the finding of Hobbit challenges the theory of evolution.
The article is in fact a sort of gathered reports from different anthropologists in the US.
He made different interpretation, but I don’t think that hobbit finding challenges the theory of evolution.
Instead it offers some different interpretations on the course of human evolution.
Some of the characters shown by hobbit show really primitive characters, but if we look at the teeth shape and size, they look just as modern as present day human teeth.
The interpretation of hobbit as a member or even as a different species member of present day human being does not challenge the theory of evolution. It gives a better idea on the ramification and possible course of human evolution.
I consider that controversies on taxonomic place of hobbit or other fossil finding is quite common in the field of Palaeo-anthropology.
Fragments or hard parts of human remains can not interbreed, it renders difficult for palaeo-anthropologists to determine as to whether a fossil remain belong to a species or otherwise.
It should be noted that a member of different species cannot interbreed .
That’s why we need other hominid fossil evidence, if possible, or we
need to find a living hobbit to arrive at a solid conclusion.
Boedhihartono
Depok, University of Indonesia
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|