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."

10 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Also at SciAm by anocelot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Also available at Scientific American for your reading pleasure...

    Scientific American

    (I didn't have to subscribe, YMMV.)

    --
    This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
  2. Re:I'm sure... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:I'm sure... by Monf · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:Missing link? by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

    One dead body does not a new species make.

    if it shows sufficient differences from other species, it certainly does.

  5. Re:archeology is... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative
    Nonsense. The brain leaves imprints in the skull which, if we're lucky enough to see a fossilized skull, we can see the imprint, and using the wonders of comparative anatomy, make some very educated guesses at the internal structure of the brain in question.

    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.
  6. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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.
  7. Good summary articles by Zimmer and others by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
    Carl Zimmer, an excellent science writer, summarizes these latest developments with good background information on his blog. As he writes, H.f. could have been:
    1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
    2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
    3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
    4. 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?

  8. Re:Bad Name by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Informative
    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. It's just another name to call the world, not the particular name of Tolkien's imaginary world. He actually conceived of his stories as taking place the real world, but in an imaginary time.

    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.
  9. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l is your friend.

    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.
  10. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative
    Did you notice that the same article points out how humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps?

    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

    "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life... (1) replication, (2) heritability (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

    Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes...

    [Falsifiability of this theory] Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nuclei