Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows Mystery 'Hobbits' Not Humans Like Us (phys.org)
According to a study published on Monday, diminutive humans that died out on an Indonesian island some 15,000 years ago were not homo sapiens, but rather a different species. The Homo floresiensis, known as "hobbits" since they looked like small humans, were found to be a distinct species based on the layers in the specimens' skulls. This discovery could be the end of one of the most heated arguments in anthropology.
I read it as 'emacs vs. vim' kind of an argument.
The argument has been a bit more heated than that. For many decades humans, unlike all other known species, were thought to have an evolutionary tree without any branches. Over the last couple of decades it turns out that:
1) The human evolutionary tree had many, many, many branches.
2) Dwarfism in humans existed, i.e. the hobbits.
3) Archaic forms of humans existed until fairly recently, again the hobbits.
4) It turns out you can recover large amounts of DNA from ridiculously old samples and discover extinct species of humans without ever touching a shovel and scraping at dirt with a bricklayer's trowel.
5) Some of the diverse branches of the human evolutionary tree merged again when modern humans mated with archaic forms of human. Well know examples of this are Neanderthals, Denisovans plus at least a couple of other archaic species unknown from anything except DNA. Upwards of 20% of the DNA of the Neanderthal for example still exist in our genome.
6) There are a lot of surprises still left to discover, like Albert Perry's Y-chromasome which pre-dates the oldest know modern human fossil by 140000 years.
I really love it when things like this happen. Scientific communities tend to settle into a routine. They are like a bunch of people in a conference room who have dominant theories to explain much of the way things work and most of the work that still need doing is to extend and improve these theories and the oddballs with weird theories have been pushed into a corner and are being ignored. Then, just as people were settling into a routine under the fatherly guidance of the big names in the field, somebody opens the door and brings in a discovery like this or Svante Pääbo's discovery of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern humans (Ian Tattersall has been eating crow on that score ever since) or my other recent favourite contribution to the human origins debate which is Eske Willerslev 's discovery of people that were genetically closely related to modern Europeans but who lived in Siberia. It turns out that these people contributed significantly to the groups that settled the Americas, meaning that Native Americans and Europeans are actually very closely connected by genetic bonds that stretch back way, way, way, way before Columbus (as in 24000 years ago)... so here we once again have the revenge of the scientific oddballs.
The bones and artifacts were turned over to the Indonesian government shortly after they were discovered by some Aussie scientists, since then getting a look at them has been extraordinarily difficult, even for the people who dug them up. Lack of access to the fossils is the reason we have been hearing arguments rather than test results. Perhaps the academic who was jealously guarding the bones has retired?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Species are generally considered to be separate if they can't breed to create FERTILE offspring. Lots of closely-related species can breed, but the offspring are usually sterile.
There is so much wrong with this list of 'facts'. Way too many generalizations and half-truths.
One example, you do not "recover large amounts of DNA from ridiculously old samples" and "discover extinct species of humans without ever touching a shovel".
Having worked in a world-class ancient human DNA lab at a major university, I encourage readers to be skeptical of such statements. There is a lot of hard work both in the lab and in the field associated with these findings. Simplifying the process is an insult to the researchers that spend years on-site digging and lab workers who struggle to obtain intact genomes.
If you want a clear view of current research, you need to take the time to read actual research papers and give particular attention to the section called 'Methods'.
Also, being condescending to scientists and current research does not make you look more intelligent or 'right'. Scientific communities do not settle into routines. It is a constant discussion, as science should be. 'Opening doors' to new thought is what keeps it exciting.