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."
Frodo died???
Could this be the infamous missing link?
Homo Florescent lights?
I wonder if they found anything buried in its pocketses.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
the island of flores saw the amazing uptick in tourism that new zealand experienced after the lord of the rings movie trilogy, and so that island's tourism proponents decided that they could get in on the tolkien tourism bandwagon too
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I for one welcome our new Hobbit-humaniod overl... Oh nevermind.
Scientific American
(I didn't have to subscribe, YMMV.)
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
Scientific name: Bilbous Bagginsis
Common name: Tricksy Hobbitses
I truly believe these little people are the early prototype of ancient time traveling alien/human hybrid race. These people are the result of an extra-terrestial alien race mating with primates. The aliens have left but they will be back to check on our progress.
Living examples of this species were discovered in 1970 in New Guinea and named the Tropi. There was a whole court case about it, whether the Tropi were human or not.
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.
The whole idea of a missing link is a sham. It's a straw man put up by creationists. Because of the way evolution works you won't ever find a completely smooth transition from one form to another, you observe a puntuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
Of course!
But what, then, happened to all the elves?
And, I might add, so much for all that "Undying Lands" talk.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
Just think... once, in a strange land millions of years ago, beings much like us looked up and dreamed that someday, somehow, they would reach the treetops.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
And they laughed at me for saying that Middle Earth didn't exist.... soon any day now they will find Orc fossils and roaving bands of Uruk-hai will crush the bones of obese Americans...
Dammit get those pills and that straight jacket away from me!!!
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
But what, then, happened to all the elves?
Continental drift. The undying lands ended up at the north pole.
Because nobody notices scientific discoveries when the topic isn't hot.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
The One Ring was destroyed in Mount Doom, leaving the door open for a new cycle of books with a new ring forged in Mount Half-Life.
TFA didn't have it, but there's an artist's rendering of this species here (from http://www.mi.uib.no/~respl/tolkien/mapdocs/index2 .html)
Just to add, theres a further article on the same site.
:)
here
Both of these are full articles with no crap about buy it now.
liqbase
Everyone knows Valinor was in New Zealand. Maybe when Mt Doom blew up, it spewed Smeagol's remains to Indonesia, and that's what thay found...
for those interested there's also an article about homo florensis at Bits of News
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
Thank you for actually referencing primary sources, and not some university or coporate PR generated press release!
I wish i had mod points right now.
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.
it makes you look like unscientific amateurs.
Yes, scientists are far too serious to give something such a frivolous name.
After all, scientists are never wrong about this sort of thing..
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
they discovered what happened to the Oompa Loompas after Willy Wonka was done with them and Charlie took over the Chocolate Factory. Apparently Charlie tried to hide the bodies, but they were eventually found.
Charley Bucket was quoted as saying "I got tired of hearing the same songs sung day after day, so I got rid of them." Apparently Charley was still taking advice from his Grampa Joe who is known as a very shady character.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Homo? That explains Merry and Pippen. Wait...nothing could possibly explain Merry and Pippen.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
- 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 synthetic theory of evolution (neodarwinism), the key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations of animals (there are very different problems with the plants).
:).
Interbreeding isn't an issue: just think about dogs and wolves. Their offspring is still fertile. But in nature, wolves and dogs have sex not very often
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.
An imaginitive anthropologist would have named them Homo suzensis or Homo pedevillosi or something like that. Or possibly Homo tolkieni. But no, we get floresiensis which makes them sound like they had sound tooth enamel or something.
And the brethren went away edified.
Either this is an inadequate definition, or biologists really aren't all that interested in rigor. By this definition we ought to consider Canis chihuahuaensis and Canis lupocanishibernensis different species, but both Mexican Shorthairs and Irish Wolfhounds are Canis domestica even though they obviously can't interbreed on their own. (And why would anyone want to help the process along?)
And the brethren went away edified.
There are English units of measurements named "Jack" (3/4 pint) and "Jill" (1/4 pint). In computing, half a byte is a nibble. (A really bad pun.) Physics has "sausage instabilities". I won't comment on the fact that Americium is highly unstable. Maths has the "Butterfly Effect" and irrational numbers.
Science is cluttered with anthromorphic personifications, plays on words, jokes, puns, brain-twisters and conundrums. It's interesting that the brightest of the bright are notorious for skipping class and having fun, and that those who listen to deadly-dull teachers loath and detest science. Personally, I think that it shows there's a serious flaw in the system.
Anyways, to get back on topic, if someone wants to call these people after a fictional species (which is descriptive but rather useless), how is that any different from the old biological technique of looking at a plant or animal and calling it the latin name of the first thing they see?
Sure, "yellow spots" tells you something. It tells you that you can't use that name to distinguish it from any other object in existance with yellow spots.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I've been wondering how plant and animal breeding is not an example of macro-evolution.
t m Heike Crab which evolved a human face.
Wild strawberries are primarily for birds to eat and generally have a stronger and bitter taste compared to domesticated strawberries, their size is smaller concentrating the seeds on a smaller surface area. Only in the past 500 years or so have strawberries been domesticated to the way we now buy them in stores. Is this not an example of evolution? The plant has (been) adapted to prosper under different conditions.
I think in the strawberries case most of the intermediate plants were not kept, maybe records of them have been. But, if people don't keep their in-betweens why would nature? And I doubt that if you did search for in-betweens in this case it would be very easy to find them. Just like it being difficult to find fossils of plants and animals from even further back in time.
An interesting page that I read in the past which shows another and better written example is Carl Sagans' http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sctien/samurai_crabs.h
Maths has the "Butterfly Effect" and irrational numbers.
<mathematical_pedantry>
A rational number is a *ratio* of two integers. An irrational number isn't.
</mathematical_pedantry>
Rational and Irrational are not some play on words of "ratio", they are literally how the ancient Greek mathematicians saw such numbers, with respect to their mathematical religion. (The Cult of Pythagoras actually had the square root of two banned, because it was provably not a ratio.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"The notion of a hybrid species is nonsensical. Individuals are hybrids, not entire species. Individuals descend directly from individuals, and are thus always hybrids of those individuals, at least in sexual reproduction. Species don't descend from sexual pairing of other species. Species are merely groups of individuals that are similar enough to successfully breed."
Close but no cigar.
First off the notion of what a species is, that I have read here, is not quite right. It's not as simple as "things that will interbreed".
There are species whose populations (races, klines, what have you) will not interbreed and there are different species that will interbreed.
See _Rivulins of the Old World_, Col JJ Scheel, 1968, TFH press 1968 for all sorts of neat examples of these.
"But wait!" I hear you say, "if they interbreed then they're the same species". Well, no, that's not what a species is.
The concept of species is an artificial one invented by man to make some sense of flora and fauna. He wants to pidgeon-hole them, classify them in a taxonomy (not an ontology!) so they make sense to him. But it's pretty arbitrary.
What a species is, is what the guy who knows most about them say they are. Whacked, I know, but that's the way it works.
We look for all sort of things, merisitcs, phylogony, geography, karyotype differences, DNA analysis so on and so forth, then we make an judgement call about where one species ends and where another begins. And, keep in mind, this changes over time. Animals and plants change, sometimes in as little as 5 years (Romand, Raymond, pers. commms, viz Roloffia geryi).
Plus opinions vary. Some are "spltters" who will divide populations of a currently accepted "species" into a bunch of new species and "lumpers" will do the opposite. Some poor critters vascillate back and forth decade after decade based on who published last. The ICZN acts as the scorekeeper for animals (plants have an equivalent). They make sure the rules get followed but other than that don't referee as to what's what.
Now why is there so much difference of opinion on the way these taxa are viewed? Becuase there's no right answer of course. It's all how we look at things and how we choose to classify them and in the end consensus wins and inevitably there are those who disagree. And probably always will be.
As for species that are hybrid species I can't think of an animal off the top of my head but I can offer up Cryptocoryne x willisii as an example of a hybrid "species" (there are others). It's a cross of two known plants and we're reluctant to give it species status because it's so obvioulsy a hybrid - but it's common as dirt, grows like made and one way of looking at it is that it is a species. If I write it up as such... then it is! But we're content to view it as the way we do.
Don't get me started on sub-species, that's even more messed up as the delineation between "populations" and "subspecies" is that well agreed on by scientists. I like Bill Eschemeyers example: Atlantic and Pacific salmon are subspcies of the same fish - there's a natural geographic break. If they they were separated by only a few miles or tens of miles then they're populations, not subspecies.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Ahhh, but you ignore the fact that Christianity is exactly the same.
No, Christianity is not the same, in fact it's the opposite. The Christian Bible teaches love, tolerance, acceptance ("turn the other cheek", "Love your neighbor", etc..) but Christians, over the centurys have twisted their faith to do bad things. Men can do evil things, and sometimes misguidedly blame Christianity, but the true faith is one of love, peace and charity.
Find coupons in Greeley