Nonsense

File: pepe large.png (861KB, 5000x4863px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 5000x4863px

>https://answersingenesis.org

File: 1455225713465.jpg (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

>>1525234
nice straw man there OP

File: 1470604398812.jpg (62KB, 600x663px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x663px

>answersingenesis

Nonsense indeed

>>1525234
To play Devil's advocate, I hear Homo naledi has slightly more "robust" features than H. floresiensis, which generally indicates that it is more primitive and apelike than modern humans, while even non-creationists have proposed pathological explanations for H. floresiensis as a relatively modern human with developmental disorders. So it's not quite as absurd as it sounds.

File: 20160809_021540.jpg (296KB, 676x564px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 676x564px

>>1526132
I admit it seems well-founded...until you realise that the features seen in Flo are inconsistent with Down syndrom or microcephaly.
http://www.evoanth.net/?s=Hobbit

Also, the disorder doesn't explain this. The foot morphology in Flo (center) seems to share more similarities with Naledi (right) than S. Sapiens (left).

>>1526145
Sure, I think all the pathological explanations have been rejected by now. I was only saying that it's an understandable mistake that many non-creationist scientists have made and defended for years.
Or rather, I'm more baffled by the fact that real scientists and doctors affirmed this could be a diseased modern human in spite of all the obvious problems with that explanation, than by creationists being biased morons as usual.

>>1526158
Probably just bad communication. From qhat I can gather, the scientists in question "abused" the peer-review system to get their papers published.