No you haven't. You have pasted research that speaks to "hobbits" being queried as being either Homo floresiensis or as Homo sapiens (who were encepahalic in the example you pasted).
In both cases they are classified as homonini and in both cases they are in the genus Homo (which makes them Human, either modern humans or a separate human species).
How many times do you have to be told that Homonini is the FAMILY tribe ABOVE the genus HOMO. Homonini INCLUDES chimps and bonobos and the HOMO line starts with the HOMO genus. CHIMPS HAVE NOT BEEN PUT IN THE HOMO LINE...YET.... This is BIO101 stuff. Will you all please look up a biology book and differentiate between hominin
i and homonin
a? It doesn't even have to be new to reflect this very basic information.
Again for the 6th time...Wiki...Hominini currently comprises the extant species human (the only living member of the genus Homo), bonobo (genus Pan), and chimpanzee (genus Pan); their ancestors; and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.[1][3]
　
'Hobbit' Was an Iodine-Deficient Human, Not Another Species, New Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2010) — A new paper is set to re-ignite debate over the origins of so-called
Homo floresiensis -- the 'hobbit' that some scientists have claimed as a new species of human
Their work confirms the close grouping of
H. floresiensis with the hypothyroid cretins, and the clear separation from both modern humans and from chimpanzees. This leads them to conclude that the Liang Bua remains were indeed most likely cretins from a population of unaffected
H. sapiens. They have, further, provided a series of predictions for the further testing of the cretin hypothesis.
"This is consistent with recent hypothyroid endemic cretinism throughout Indonesia, including the nearby island of Bali," Professor Oxnard said.
'Hobbit' Skull Study Finds Hobbit Is Not Human
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — In a an analysis of the size, shape and asymmetry of the cranium of Homo floresiensis, Karen Baab, Ph.D., a researcher in the Department of Anatomical Scienes at Stony Brook University, and colleagues conclude that the fossil, found in Indonesia in 2003 and known as the “Hobbit,” is not human.
Dr. Baab recognizes that the controversy as to the evolutionary origins of Homo floresiensis will continue, perhaps without an answer. However, all the evidence that she and colleagues illustrate in their article “Size, shape, and asymmetry in fossil hominins: The status of the LB1cranium based on 3D morphometric analyses,” suggest that Homo floresiensis was most likely the diminutive descendant of a species of archaic Homo.
News from The Scientist 2005
Discovery team members have retreated from their original suggestion that the Hobbits are dwarfed descendants of H. erectus. The latest paper emphasizes the bones' resemblance to Australopithecus, the pre-human hominids who lived in Africa from 1-4 million years ago. For instance, Brown noted that the bones' skeletal proportions, brain size, body size, and some other anatomical features match those seen in Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy". "Not similar, but the same," he said.
Hawks agreed that comparison to Australopithecus is not unreasonable. "But if they're Australopithecus, why are they on this island when we've never, ever found any other Australopithecines anywhere else outside of Africa?" he asked. "Not only do we have to get them into Southeast Asia, which would be surprising, but we have to get them on a boat across this water passage.
News in Science
Inside the brain of the hobbit
The researchers first thought the hobbit had dwarfed from
H. erectus, which first reached the Indonesian island of Flores about 800,000 years ago, and then became isolated there.
"Now there is another interpretation because some of the traits are so primitive, more primitive than you find in [Homo] erectus," says Morwood.
The researchers now think the hobbit may have come from a small bodied, small brained hominid that pre-dated both it and
H. erectus. And that the hobbit branched off the human evolutionary tree earlier from that ancestor than
H. erectus.
One possibility is that the hobbit is descended from another forerunner of modern humans
H. habilis, which emerged two million years ago.
_____________________________________________________________
So here just looking at these articles one can see that one article suggests florensiensis is descendant from Homo sapiens another suggests they are descendant from archaic Homo another suggests they are Australopithicus.. The point being that deciding if a fossil is a chimp or belongs in the human line at all, does not appear to be as clear cut as one would expect. As a result I have concluded that scientists can make what they wish of fossils. These so called Homo mid species could just as likely be variations of chimp and other non human primates, Researchers have no idea what ancestral chimps or any other primitive non human primate looked like, nor how the environment/adaptation, let alone genetic drift, has impacted on their morphology. Smooth transitions just did not happen, hence staged evolution.
After looking to Wiki “Gene”, I am even less convinced by these percentage similarities the researchers speak to as I do not think they have any clue what genes to count nor how to count similarity. Hence a chimp currently is anywhere from 95-99% similar to humans, depending on whose work you wish to quote.
Researchers can and will report the data in such a way that backs their current claim to fame.
