• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homo Floresiensis and Non-Linear Evolution

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
I watched NOVA last night on PBS and the show (Alien on Earth) was about a potentially new Human species. It was fascinating and worth a watch.

"Do the remains of a tiny hobbit-like creature found on the island of Flores belong to a new human species?"

The interesting part is that the skeletons seem to be related Australopithecus (such as "Lucy") which were around 3.2 million years ago, but dating puts Homo Floresiensis at only 18,000 years which would rewrite what is known about human evolutuion. Many theories have been put forth such as Microcephaly or possibly insular dwarfism due to the island habitat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
 
I would say that the conclusions of any sort that they are a separte species of homo are rather rash, conclusions either way are going to be hard to reach. Most likely they are a sample bias in a population.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
The interesting part is that the skeletons seem to be related Australopithecus (such as "Lucy") which were around 3.2 million years ago, but dating puts Homo Floresiensis at only 18,000 years which would rewrite what is known about human evolutuion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rewrite what is known," but if you think the idea that evolution can be non-linear is in any way controversial, you're wrong.
 
drkitten said:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rewrite what is known," but if you think the idea that evolution can be non-linear is in any way controversial, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I am quoting the show there and scientists presented therein. They were shocked to think that a species of human could have survived on this island with a much smaller brain capacity. They were also shocked that many stone tools were found that showed a high sophistication. Watch the show, it was interesting.
 
The question to ask is, how many skeletons did they find, and what sort of sample is it?

Achaeologists like most scientists have to fluff up the material to make it more interesting.
 
Dancing David said:
The question to ask is, how many skeletons did they find, and what sort of sample is it?

Achaeologists like most scientists have to fluff up the material to make it more interesting.
Click to expand...

"One largely complete subfossil skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a second individual (LB2),[3] dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave on Flores in 2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 – LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been recovered as well as similarly small stone tools from horizons ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] "


"The discoverers, anthropologists Peter Brown, Michael Morwood and their colleagues have argued that a variety of features, both primitive and derived, identified the skeleton of LB1 as that of a new species of hominin, H. floresiensis.[1][2] They argued that it was contemporaneous with modern humans (Homo sapiens) on Flores."
 
They are pretty sure these are a separate species... I think they used wrist studies and molds from inside the brain... It would be cool if we could get some mtDNA. This was hotly contested with some people feeling that it was deformed ancestors of pygmies and such... but now it's pretty accepted that they were, indeed, a separate species like Neanderthals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...f-Indonesia-were-different-human-species.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

But we've understood for some time that the hominid family tree is many branched and not linear... Lucy was a hominid, in fact... and she is over 3 million years old. Florensis likely shares a much more recent ancestor with us.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
"One largely complete subfossil skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a second individual (LB2),[3] dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave on Flores in 2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 – LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been recovered as well as similarly small stone tools from horizons ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] "


"The discoverers, anthropologists Peter Brown, Michael Morwood and their colleagues have argued that a variety of features, both primitive and derived, identified the skeleton of LB1 as that of a new species of hominin, H. floresiensis.[1][2] They argued that it was contemporaneous with modern humans (Homo sapiens) on Flores."
Click to expand...


Believe it or not I already looked at that! One complete skeleton, which is pretty cool. Much more than we have for some samples.

the issue will be argued for decades at least. Just like the splitters and lumpers arguments between Leaky and Johannsen, I have not sudied all the paper, so as i said, it is inconclusive at this time.

We know that they are unpright apes.
 
I'm a huge paleoanthropology nut and was considering starting an H. Floresiensis thread so I'm happy to find one here. I'm considering if another thread is appropriate as I think the non-linearity of human ancestry is well established and would like to focus on the species and its implications. I also watched the Nova Alien on Earth episode which I found just excellent.

Here's a link to a 5 part youtube of the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ujHK3IQbco

And here is a 7 part youtube of a presentation by Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the ANU Canberra which was organized by Canberra Skeptics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n284HcsrQ

I find so many things fascinating about the Hobbits and for myself I'm satisfied that the current information indicates a separate human species as is the case with Neanderthals. What I find particularly of interest is the hypothesis of the Hobbits being an island dwarfed H. erectus coming into question and the anatomical matches found between them and the Australopithecines. I think it's intriguing to imagine that species such as Australopithecines escaped Africa between 2 and 3 million and over time moved across the vast plains from Africa to Asia referred to as Savannahstan, coming to be the creature we call the Hobbits.

Also of great interest is the 5 skulls from small bodied, small brained hominins found in Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature editor Henry Gee I think is quite right when he opens speculation on what the discoveries may indicate in terms of what we are yet to find. He once remarked that the Hobbits find indicated that creatures like Yeti and Bigfoot could come in from the cold. I don't think I would agree with him to that extent but I certainly agree when he says he would be excited but not surprised were living Hobbits to be found. It does open speculation to what may have been wandering about Asia that we are yet to find.
 
Island isolation. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.
 
Island isolation may indeed explain dwarfism and WHY they survived but the NOT the physiology. It's way beyond that.
This is one story yet to unfold - I think we've seen just the preamble.

This guy will not go public lightly with that strong a statement

Hobbit' Fossils Represent A New Species, Concludes Anthropologist

ScienceDaily (Dec. 19, 2008) —

University of Minnesota anthropology professor Kieran McNulty (along with colleague Karen Baab of Stony Brook University in New York) has made an important contribution toward solving one of the greatest paleoanthropological mysteries in recent history -- that fossilized skeletons resembling a mythical "hobbit" creature represent an entirely new species in humanity's evolutionary chain.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124418.htm
 
macdoc said:
Island isolation may indeed explain dwarfism and WHY they survived but the NOT the physiology. It's way beyond that.
This is one story yet to unfold - I think we've seen just the preamble.

This guy will not go public lightly with that strong a statement


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124418.htm
Click to expand...

Excellent link, macdoc. Thank you. I think the morphology is just simply to inconsistent to casually dismiss H. floresiensis as an island dwarfed H. erectus. The skulls and anatomy just don't match up. Being satisfied with that explanation just because we know H. erectus was on Sumatra is just a huge disservice to the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
Island isolation. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.
Click to expand...

Typical of a Bigfoot enthusiast not to really look at the evidence. Isn't that what you guys are always accusing the scientific establishment of?

BTW, log, the invitation I made in the GS&P was to people who want to expand this discussion, not discourage it. Remember when you recently said the JREF exists to destroy those who go against the grain? And do you remember my response about the JREF offering far more things than opportunities to argue with someone? This is one of those times.

I know your bitter but try not to make it obvious.
 
Well, let's just grow one in a lab and see what they're like, and if we can mate with them.
 
Beerina said:
Well, let's just grow one in a lab and see what they're like, and if we can mate with them.
Click to expand...

We could pay Verne Troyer (Mini Me) to do it. He's into kinky stuff.

Somehow I highly doubt the Hobbits and people could produce viable offspring. This is slightly OT but in LOTR you see humans an elves producing viable offspring but never humans and hobbits or humans and dwarves. Or even hobbits and dwarves. Tolkien say that hobbits were a kind of man and not dwarves or elves but....

And now I'm mixed up.
 
kitakaze said:
Somehow I highly doubt the Hobbits and people could produce viable offspring. This is slightly OT but in LOTR you see humans an elves producing viable offspring but never humans and hobbits or humans and dwarves. Or even hobbits and dwarves. Tolkien say that hobbits were a kind of man and not dwarves or elves but....
Click to expand...

On the other hand, Rankin and Bass explicitly said that hobbits and humans could interbreed and raised the question of how much of their audience were of hobbit descent.
 
drkitten said:
On the other hand, Rankin and Bass explicitly said that hobbits and humans could interbreed and raised the question of how much of their audience were of hobbit descent.
Click to expand...

I have to give the nod to Rankin and Bass on this one. ;)
 
In the link to the talk given by Professor of Biological Anthropology Dr. Colin Groves and organized by Canberra Skeptics he presents the case that H. floresiensis is a decendant of a late Australopithecine or H. habilis population that spread out of Africa before ancestors of H. erectus. I am far more inclined to agree with that position than an island dwarved H. erectus. It seems the small-bodied, small-brained skulls and other remains found in Georgia since 2000, which is not subject to island dwarfing, would support the idea.
 
Last edited:
It's not an either or - it could be both island dwarfism - which may have been a strong survival advantage if they were co-existent with other primates - they would be occupying somewhat different niches.

Maybe why they survived so long - I'm intrigued by the local legends that they may have survived much further than the cave findings indicate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom