Slashdot Mirror
Hobbit Is A New Species
Migraineman writes "Over the last year or so, archaeologists in Indonesia unearthed skulls and bones from eight proto-humanoids. Critics have claimed the meter-tall specimens were either pygmies or "aberrant individuals with a pathological condition" like microcephaly. A recent article in Science[subscription] rebuffs the critics, and claims that the specimens are actually a new species - Homo floresiensis. There's a summary article over at Nature."
Scientific American
(I didn't have to subscribe, YMMV.)
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
Nope. This is a new development on an older story (specifically, the story you read in the paper a few months ago).
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Actually, what was announced yesterday (by members of some team) was the results of a computer reconstruction of the brain, which analyzed impressions left on the inside of the skull by the pulsating brain- indicating a more powerful brain (for the size) than previously thought possible. (From today's LA Times: Data Bolster Claim of a 'Hobbit' Human Species
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Just about any fossil is a transitional or "hybrid", part way in form between ancestors and descendants. Actually take a look at them sometime.
Creationism predicts that you'll find elephants with the heads of eagles, or some such, and those sort of fossils naturally don't get found. But that's just wacky creationists and their creative misunderstanding for you.
No, actually, you wouldn't think that. I'm not going to explain why; instead, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". It's a very good, readable laymen's explanation of the workings of evolution, and it debunks a lot of silly creationist myths.
they dig up these bones and have an idea what they once looked like based on skelital remains, but any more than that is pure speculation and theory...
No. Bones tell you a lot. You can see things such as internal bone structure and points of tendon attachments which tells you about musculature. Many bones reveal a lot of detail about the flesh that was around them. The skull shows detail of the brain organisation within it, and this is particularly relevant to this new species. Looking back over hominid fossils, it is possible to follow brain evolution.
One dead body does not a new species make.
if it shows sufficient differences from other species, it certainly does.
In the case of Flores Man, these remains weren't even fossilized yet, but the principle is the same.
It truly amazes me how people will pontificate so grandly on a subject which they so obviously hold so little understanding in. They really do not understand the methodologies and techniques that scientists employ.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Origin of Species" is also a good book to read and probably available online for free.
It is available online and free here.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
- A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
- An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
- Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
- Something completely different.
Carl concludes that these new results make 3 or 4 most likely, explaining why "explanations 3 and 4 seem to come out strongest at the moment. Either one would mean that the Hobbit represents an amazing experiment in hominid brain evolution. They suggest that some human-like features emerged in hominids that were separated from us by two or maybe three million years of evolution. Yet their brains were mosaics, sharing features with us and with other hominids, and also had features of their own. These strange brains, Dr. Morwood argues, allowed Hobbits to do things some pretty elaborate things, such as butcher dwarf elephants or make fires. It would be wonderful to know how these strange brains were wired together, but we have to be content with their shadows. But even shadows can sometimes reveal a lot."For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.
And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.
And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?
Not just interbreed, but with fertile progeny. Donkey's and horses aren't the same species afterall. And considering the scientists beleive they are an offshoot of homo erectus, it's pretty unlikely that they are compatable enough.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
According to Tolkien, Minas Tirith was about at the latitude of Venice, and the Shire does correspond more or less to England. Don't trust the movies; they compressed the geography tremendously. (You'd never guess from the climactic scene that Barad-dur was supposed to be over 100 miles from the gates of Mordor now, would you?)
And the brethren went away edified.
While you might not wish to believe it, the fossil record supports that speciation occurs. The evidence for this goes back before Darwin, even, when archeologists were unable to explain findings in the fossil record that contradicted with the theory of Special Creation.
Actually, we expect there to be many different organisms at any given time. Perhaps you have heard of the concept, as it's an important one in biology: it's called Natural Selection.It would take some time to explain how this works properly, as short blurbs do little other than to perpetuate the massive confusion over this topic. As a result, I will let it drop.
You also may want to look into the major evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have you read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ? When you do, you'll see that evolution predicts the opposite of what you claim-- fossils that match no known species would be a point against evolution. Humans that shared no DNA with bananas, or more DNA with bananas than bats would be a killer hit against evolution. (Note that creationists sometimes say that particular genes are identical (or closer) in two very different species than in seemingly closer species. All of these claims have ended up being false.)
Humans have one less gene than chimps, but human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point. And it isn't just the working genes- we share nearly all of our broken genes. Example from the FAQ:
"Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) Confirmation: Recently, the L-gulano--lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs. It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning... We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes).
"There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes, the RT6 protein gene, the galactosyl transferase gene, and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL). [refs deleted]"
Evolution predicts a fundamental unity of life, that
Whoops, you're right. I did in fact mean Daniel. That'll teach me to post without looking it up first.
I didn't mean to insult ancient Hebrews, but rather to point out that such inaccuracies indicate that - if nothing else - the religious texts were written by men. Even if you beleive they were religiously inspired, there are inaccuracies present which demand that you not interpret those texts literally.
"Stumble before you crawl"
No. Middle-earth is just a translation of the old Northern Eurpoean name for the part of the world inhabited by men as opposed to the gods, giants or other fantastic creatures: Midgard.
... gigantas" and wyrmas.
From OE middengeard. It's filled with all kinds of creatures, the untydras of "eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas
An evilbrood of giants (ala Grendel), elves, monsters/evil spirits, other giants and dragons...for people who picked a more useful minor in college. I don't know what's sadder, posting Old English to slashdot or knowing what line of Beowulf to reference.
Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records
The theory of punctated equilibria was invented by paleontologists. The "short periods of fast evolution" they refer to often span hundreds of thousands of years. This is "short" when you're a paleontologist, but is perfectly compatible with "smooth" neo-Darwinian evolution by genetic mutations and recombination - it's just occuring faster due to new environmental / ecological conditions. By the way, the guys behind this theory (essentially Nils Eldredge and the late S. J. Gould) never missed an opportunity to stress that they were bona fide Darwinists.
What causes periods of fast evolution ? Of course you can invoke asteroids or volcanoes, but it turns out that evolution itself is naturally unstable. Because most species depend on other species in some way, when a species evolves a new adaptive feature, this has consequences for all other species that depend on this one, possibly leading to a cascade of evolutionary changes in those species.
Per Bak and his colleagues came up with an insanely simple model of co-evolution between many species: organise a set of variables along a circle. Initialise them with random values. At any time step, change the lowest value to another, random value (evolution of a species) and do the same with its two neighbours (consequences over "dependent" species). Rinse, repeat.
This model happens to exhibit punctuated equilibria and avalanches of evolutionary adaptations, with a neat power-law distribution in the size of these avalanches (the number of species that are affected by evolutionary change in one species).
This also offers an explanation for mass extinctions. Sure, asteroids or volcanoes can trigger the process, but the most likely culprit overall is simply the instability of ecosystems.
Thomas-