New Species!?

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
Ancient 'hobbit' humans new species after all: study

Diminutive humans whose remains were found on the remote Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 truly are a new species, and not pygmies whose brains had shrivelled with disease, researchers reported Wednesday.

Anthropologists have argued, sometimes bitterly, since the discovery of Homo floresiensis -- dubbed "the hobbit" due to its size -- as to the identity and origins of these distant cave-dwelling cousins.

Measuring about a metre (three feet) and weighing in at 30 kilos (65 pounds), the tiny, tool-making hunters may have roamed the island for which they were named as recently as 8,000 years ago. The fossils are about 18,000 years old.

Many scientists have said H. floresiensis were prehistoric humans descended from homo erectus, stunted by natural selection over millennia through a process called insular dwarfing.

Others countered that even this evolutionary shrinking, well known in island-bound animals, could not account for the hobbit's chimp-sized grey matter of barely more than 400 cubic centimetres, a third the size of a modern human brain.

And how could such a being have been smart enough to craft its own stone tools?

The only plausible explanation, they insisted, was that the handful of specimens found suffered from a genetic disorder resulting in an abnormally small skull or -- a more recent finding -- that they suffered from "dwarf cretinism" caused by deficient thyroids.

Two new studies in the British journal Nature go a long way toward settling this debate, even as they raise new quandaries that are sure to stoke further controversy.

A team led by William Jungers of the Stony Brook University in New York tackled the problem from the other end by analysing the hobbit's foot.

In some ways it is very human. The big toe is aligned with the others and the joints make it possible to extend the toes as the body's full weight falls on the foot, attributes not found in great apes.

But, in other respects, it is startlingly primitive: far longer than its modern human equivalent, and equipped with a very small big toe, long, curved lateral toes, and a weight-bearing structure closer to a chimpanzee's.

Recent archeological evidence from Kenya shows that the modern foot evolved more than 1.5 million years ago, most likely in Homo erectus.

So unless the Flores hobbits became more primitive over time -- a more-than-unlikely scenario -- they must have branched off the human line at an even earlier date.

For Jungers and colleagues, this suggests "that the ancestor of H. floresiensis was not Homo erectus but instead some other, more primitive, hominin whose dispersal into southeast Asia is still undocumented," the researchers conclude.

Companion studies, published online in the Journal of Human Evolution, bolster this theory by looking at other parts of the anatomy, and conjecture that these more ancient forebear may be the still poorly understood Homo habilis.

Either way, their status as a separate species would be confirmed.

Even this compelling new evidence, however, does not explain the hobbit's inordinately small brain.

That's where hippos come into the picture.

Eleanor Weston and Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum in London compared fossils of several species of ancient hippos found on the island of Madagascar with the mainland ancestors from which they had evolved.

They were surprised to find that insular dwarfing -- driven by the need to adapt to an island environment -- shank their brains far more than had previously been thought possible.

"Whatever the explanation for the tiny brain of H. floresiensis relative to its body size, our evidence suggests that insular dwarfing could have played a role in its evolution," they conclude.

While the new studies answer some questions, they also raise new ones sure to spark fresh debate, notes Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman in a comment, also published in Nature.

Only more fossil evidence will tell us whether the hobbits of Flores evolved from Homo erectus, whose traces have been found throughout Eurasia, or from an even more ancient lineage whose footsteps have not yet been traced outside Africa, he said.

In either case, however, it now seems unlikely that they were cretins, in any sense of the word.
 
The American Public Broadcasting Service's NOVA series recently broadcast a segment on Homo floresiensis:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/about.html


Original PBS Broadcast Date: November 11, 2008

"An ancient legend on the Indonesian island of Flores tells of an elflike creature similar to the fictional hobbit of novels and film. But a controversial 2003 archeological find not only suggests that there could be some truth behind the legend but promises to rewrite a key chapter in the human evolutionary story. This program investigates the discovery, analysis, and startling implications of the hobbit of Flores.

Known for its strange fauna, Flores may now have offered the world the strangest yet. The hobbit was an adult female no larger than a three-year-old child, with a skull less than one-third the size of a modern human's. The discovery created a media sensation. But only now, five years later, are researchers beginning to make sense of this archeological oddity, dubbed Homo floresiensis. Definitive proof of its place in the human lineage awaits future finds, especially DNA evidence, but the implications of the work so far are intriguing and quite possibly revolutionary.

Dated at 18,000 years old, the hobbit's skull was found deep in the sediment of a cave as big as a concert hall. In earlier deposits stretching back as far as 95,000 years ago, the researchers later found bones from a number of other hobbits, as well as stone tools, charcoal, and the butchered remains of pygmy elephants, implying that these tiny cave dwellers had hunted and used fire. (The co-leader of the discovery team, Mike Morwood, answers viewer questions on this website.)

Many experts believe such sophisticated behavior is hard to reconcile with the size of the hobbit's brain, which is smaller than a chimpanzee's. Even more astonishing, the hobbit's anatomy resembles that of some of our earliest extinct ancestors in Africa three million or more years ago, yet it lived relatively recently and may even have survived into historical times. (For more on our evolutionary tree, see Who's Who in Human Evolution.)

But is the hobbit an anomaly, a modern human whose small stature and unusual features are the result of disease? Or could its size result from the "island effect" that often causes large creatures to evolve to be small and vice versa—witness Flores's extinct pygmy elephant and still surviving giant lizard, the Komodo dragon? (Go to Gigantism and Dwarfism on Islands for more on this complex phenomenon.)

Or is the hobbit the sole testament to a previously unrecognized branch of the human family tree? If so, how did it end up in Indonesia with virtually no evidence of comparable early hominids anywhere between there and Africa, the root of the family tree?

This program follows each of the lines of inquiry down some fascinating paths: At the Mallinckrodt Institute in St. Louis, paleoanthropologist Dean Falk produces a cast of the hobbit's brain with the help of a CAT scan, and then compares it to casts of pathologically diseased brains. (Make the comparison yourself in Compare the Brains.) Falk argues strongly that the hobbit skull represents a healthy, and so far unique, specimen of ancient humanity.

At the Smithsonian Institution, anthropologist Matt Tocheri finds a resemblance between the distinctive wrist bones of the hobbit and African apes. Even more surprisingly, anthropologist Bill Jungers of the State University of New York at Stony Brook discovers he can fit together bones from the hobbit with those of the most celebrated fossil in the human family tree, "Lucy," who lived three million years ago in Africa.

In the nation of Georgia, archeologist David Lordkipanidze shows NOVA a skull of a recently excavated early human that has been dated to 1.7 million years ago. Could it belong to the same unsuspected and elusive branch of our family tree, halfway between early African hominids and the hobbit?

Each of these interpretations has specialists who read the evidence differently. But the plot is definitely thickening in the saga of Homo floresiensis."
 
One in the eye for the Creationists, I think.

Not really. Theism vs. atheism in debate is a complete wash. Evidence cannot and never will overrule philosophy. That's what makes Dawkins such a juvenile asshat. He simply doesn't get that standing on a stump and yelling doesn't convince anyone but the already converted.

Anyone with the slightest bit of theological sophistication must simply admit that though the detectible evidence for Creationism is non-existent, the concept of God must be that of an intelligence so vast that His purpose is inscrutable and the guiding hand undetectable. There is nothing in evolution that is contrary to Belief.

Who are we to tell God how to run His universe?
 
Not really. Theism vs. atheism in debate is a complete wash. Evidence cannot and never will overrule philosophy. That's what makes Dawkins such a juvenile asshat. He simply doesn't get that standing on a stump and yelling doesn't convince anyone but the already converted.

Anyone with the slightest bit of theological sophistication must simply admit that though the detectible evidence for Creationism is non-existent, the concept of God must be that of an intelligence so vast that His purpose is inscrutable and the guiding hand undetectable. There is nothing in evolution that is contrary to Belief.

Who are we to tell God how to run His universe?

Who indeed?
But I can accept that the Almighty started the whole thing in the beginning.
Works for me.
 
There is nothing in evolution that is contrary to Belief.
Sorry. No. Creationism is not evolution. Evolution says "here is what we know about how life began and developed...and what we know is that you can get complicated things, like an eye, from millions of years of natural selection."

Creationism says, "You can't get an eye from natural selection, an otherworldly intelligence had to create it." Now you can believe that, but the question with creationism isn't about believing that. It's about TEACHING IT instead of (or in an argument against) teaching that the eye developed over millions of years and thanks to natural selection--and no one is going to teach anyone that there was or was not an intelligence behind it because evolution is science and science doesn't teach faith, only facts.

That is the issue. And yes, this is one in the face of Creationists, especially those who argue that Noah's Ark really did exist and all species of life on earth came from the animals aboard it. There ARE those creationists around. There are very few creationists around who toss out the bible and go with evolution, and all the scientific fact supporting it, with the single caveat that the hand of god got that ball rolling.

To say otherwise is to muddy the waters further and give credence to people who have a museum with images of children playing with dinosaurs--and argue that this is fact! Belief in god is immaterial. Belief in science IS material. And creationism doesn't give a shit about science. That is and has always been the issue.
 
Sorry. No. Creationism is not evolution. Evolution says "here is what we know about how life began and developed...and what we know is that you can get complicated things, like an eye, from millions of years of natural selection."

Creationism says, "You can't get an eye from natural selection, an otherworldly intelligence had to create it." Now you can believe that, but the question with creationism isn't about believing that. It's about TEACHING IT instead of (or in an argument against) teaching that the eye developed over millions of years and thanks to natural selection--and no one is going to teach anyone that there was or was not an intelligence behind it because evolution is science and science doesn't teach faith, only facts.

That is the issue. And yes, this is one in the face of Creationists, especially those who argue that Noah's Ark really did exist and all species of life on earth came from the animals aboard it. There ARE those creationists around. There are very few creationists around who toss out the bible and go with evolution, and all the scientific fact supporting it, with the single caveat that the hand of god got that ball rolling.

To say otherwise is to muddy the waters further and give credence to people who have a museum with images of children playing with dinosaurs--and argue that this is fact! Belief in god is immaterial. Belief in science IS material. And creationism doesn't give a shit about science. That is and has always been the issue.

I will accept the statement that the loudest types of Creationism are just bone ignorant, both scientifically and theologically. However, I'm putting forth a lower-case 'c' creationism in its place that admits that the mind of God is unknowable and isn't trying to claim that they can tell what He thinks. Doing so, BTW, is one of the major definitions of blasphemy.
 
VM: "There is nothing in evolution that is contrary to Belief."

3113: "Sorry. No. Creationism is not evolution."

What's the "sorry, no" about? Belief (in God) and creationism aren't synonyms.
 
Creationism says, "You can't get an eye from natural selection, an otherworldly intelligence had to create it." Now you can believe that, but the question with creationism isn't about believing that. It's about TEACHING IT instead of (or in an argument against) teaching that the eye developed over millions of years and thanks to natural selection--and no one is going to teach anyone that there was or was not an intelligence behind it because evolution is science and science doesn't teach faith, only facts.

A. mexicanus is famous for its blind cave form, which is known by such names as blind cave tetra, blind tetra, and blind cavefish. Some thirty distinct populations of Mexican tetras live in deep caves and have lost the power of sight and even their eyes. These fish can still, however, find their way around by means of their lateral lines, which are highly sensitive to fluctuating water pressure.

The eyed and eyeless forms of A. mexicanus, being members of the same species, are closely related and can interbreed.

You may not GET an eye from natural selection, but you can LOSE an eye due to natural selection.
 
VM: "There is nothing in evolution that is contrary to Belief."

3113: "Sorry. No. Creationism is not evolution."
The "sorry no" is in regards to the implication that Creationism is belief in evolution but also the belief in god behind evolution--which seemed to be what VM's entire post was saying. I decided not to waste space and quote the entire thing, only to get to the nut of it--which was that Creationism is not, nor has it ever been about arguing that god is behind evolution. It's about arguing that evolution is wrong in it's assumption that things can come about with out an intelligence. Maybe there was an intelligence, but evolution says there doesn't have to be--and that is the issue with creationists.

Making the issue about "belief" in god, arguing that evolutionists are all anti-god and innocent creationists are just trying to hold a belief in god as well as evolution--is flat out wrong, and why I said that "creationism is not evolution."
 
I will accept the statement that the loudest types of Creationism are just bone ignorant, both scientifically and theologically. However, I'm putting forth a lower-case 'c' creationism in its place that admits that the mind of God is unknowable and isn't trying to claim that they can tell what He thinks. Doing so, BTW, is one of the major definitions of blasphemy.
You might find it easier, less confusing, and less troublesome when it comes to future discussion on science to create your own term for an evolutionist who believes in god. If you use "creationism" to express that then readers are instantly going to assume that you're referring to THIS. Because THAT is what creationism--no matter the size of that first letter--is defined as by everyone else.
 
Reading through this thread I feel the need to state that: Creationism (Religion) is not Science...they are exclusive, not really to be mixed.....Mix at your own risk....sanity and credibility at risk......embrace one and piss on the other.....they don't mix....nor do they play well together....Science has more evidence on it's side.....I like Science....I practice religion....
 
Belief in God is not incompatible with scientific fact. It's unfortunate for religious folk that the people shouting the loudest are generally the worst informed.

Science often comes into conflict with biblical literalism. There are two very different thoughts on the word of the bible. The first is it is literally the perfect word of god. If it says the earth is 6000 years old, it is. If it says everyone but Noah and his family were killed in a flood, it's the absolute, literal truth (it always confused me why so much stress was put on Adam as our common ancestor, but not so much Noah. But I digress). This group is the "science hostile" group, and generally the group called "Creationists".

The second interpretation of the bible is the more moderate "The Bible is divinely inspired, but written by the hands of men. Men are flawed creatures, capable of both sin and unintended mistakes." This helps explain apparent biblical inconsistencies. Generally, this group is more open to science. Anything we learn merely gives us a better understanding of God's methods. If there is evolution, it's because God wanted there to be evolution. If there was a big bang, it's because god wanted there to be a big bang. Anything written in the bible that conflicts with modern scientific knowledge can be chalked up to failures of the human hand that wrote the bible, or the future generations who mixed around some of the wording and chose books to go in or not. This group still believes God created everything, but could arguably be called "evolutionists".
 
Poof goes Genesis. And the flood, and with the poofing of the flood goes the sinfulness of the world that brought the deluge down. Poof!

Religion will always come into conflict with science, just as long as it tries to explain the "what" and "how" of the universe. Where religion could be beneficial to human society, is if it explored the "why--" with an emphasis on explore.
 
Poof goes Genesis. And the flood, and with the poofing of the flood goes the sinfulness of the world that brought the deluge down. Poof!

Religion will always come into conflict with science, just as long as it tries to explain the "what" and "how" of the universe. Where religion could be beneficial to human society, is if it explored the "why--" with an emphasis on explore.

To an educated believer, the 'what' and 'how' are written as metaphors. The difference between the Big Bang and the opening lines to Genesis is but the difference between poetry and mathematics. The 'why' is what we grapple with and have for millennia, getting different answers each generation.
 
Poof goes Genesis. And the flood, and with the poofing of the flood goes the sinfulness of the world that brought the deluge down. Poof!

Religion will always come into conflict with science, just as long as it tries to explain the "what" and "how" of the universe. Where religion could be beneficial to human society, is if it explored the "why--" with an emphasis on explore.

Unfortunately, the exploration of the 'why' comes into direct conflict with such things as the Tree of Knowledge and the apple that Eve ate.
 
They didn't find any rings with those hobbits, did they? ;)
 
It has long been acknowledged that there were two varieties of humans, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man. Now, it appears that there were three varieties of humans. Two of them are now extinct. If you need stronger evidence of evolution, please tell me what you feel you need.

Natural selection made at least three attempts to find out what the optimum configuration was for a human. The decision sems to be that Homo Sapiens was the best.
 
shameless plug

:eek: Shameless plug for my story Saved from Extinction about a girl who finds out she's not human and actually part of a captive breeding program for a species called the homo linderi. It was entered in the Earth Day contest and did really well. Hope you enjoy it! :D
 
As far as I know though, these guys were specific and on one island. Island sizes of things vary a lot and often. Huge rats, tiny elephants, tiny humans, ginormous sloths. On that island they hunted itsy bitsy elephants.

Not widespread. Not a link to anything but a historically closed loop.
 
As far as I know though, these guys were specific and on one island. Island sizes of things vary a lot and often. Huge rats, tiny elephants, tiny humans, ginormous sloths. On that island they hunted itsy bitsy elephants.

Not widespread. Not a link to anything but a historically closed loop.

The 'elephants' were actually dwarf stegodons. The stegodons were apparently good swimmers and could reach the islands off the South Asian coast. There were stegodons on several islands. However, as far as is known, Homo floresiensis has been found only on the island of Flores.
 
The 'elephants' were actually dwarf stegodons. The stegodons were apparently good swimmers and could reach the islands off the South Asian coast. There were stegodons on several islands. However, as far as is known, Homo floresiensis has been found only on the island of Flores.

Yup. Pretty cool any way you cut it.
 
Natural selection made at least three attempts to find out what the optimum configuration was for a human. The decision sems to be that Homo Sapiens was the best.
. . . so far! According to the DNA analysts, human evolution is increasing in speed and has been since the development of agriculture. What we are is not what we were nor will be.
 
Back
Top