Don't worry, you are far from the only person who doesn't understand him/her/it. We have multiple bones and artifacts and foot prints that suggest these were tiny people--we only have one full skull.
So pygmies are not human then? Little people are not human either? There was an interesting
story about them and how they decided as a people to stop breeding because they where too inbred and had to many birth defects.
Would skeletons of such small people with say unusual features get classed as not human? Also isn't there some suggestions of pygmies on the island that the bones where found?
Fossils are pretty rare...bodies degrade...presumably only a very tiny fraction of all the large life forms that ever existed are even available for humans to come across. I can't imagine a microcephalic individual surviving to adulthood in a primitive human species--however, even if some did--I think it's much more likely that any preserved fossils we happen to dig up would be far more likely to come from a representative of the adult population and not the single extremely rare and unlikely exception.
We are not talking about a primitive human species though we are talking about effectively modern humans, as that is the kind of tools that where found in proximity to the bones.
So you would class the Egyptian mummies as being a representative sample of the population? What about the bog bodies found in Europe, a number have direct evidence of murder, so as a representative sample of deaths, look at how common human sacrifice was.
Finding a fossil in the first place is like winning the lottery--finding the single microcephalic skull in the populations that inhabited the Island would be like winning the lottery twice.
Yep and one in a million odds happen 7 times a day in NYC 20 if you count its suburbs.
Where is your proof that with humans the process is random, it is not even random for animals as the variety of environment that the animal prefers will effect things. Look at the tar pits, it is not a representative sample of animal bones there, predators are massively over represented because of the mechanism of the tar pits.
If we dug up a random grave in a random graveyard, we'd still be really unlikely to find the non-representative individual. But now that we can go into the cave again, we should find more clues and maybe even more skulls and, and best of all, DNA. That skull showed many intermediary traits between human pygmies and our apelike ancestors. It did not show traits common to microcephalics.
You are still arguing that it is an entirely random occurrence to find an individuals skeleton. Wow think of how many times we could have won the lottery with all the mummies found who we can say we know about this individual from history books. That is like winning the lottery a million times.
You should note that I am not actualy argueing a pro microcephalic arguement, I am just pointing out repeated failures I am seeing in those attacking it.
