norseman Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) They got DNA from the Denisovian finger bone, I wonder why the hobbit bones are being difficult? And why they targeted a tooth vs a leg bone? Edited August 12, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 DNA testing has thus far failed so that's not much help. Its a very good example of just how bitter and vindictive the field of human origins is...very little of the noble altruistic scientists on show. Just more of the usual self promotion and righteous indignation. Any folks think all it will take is a sasquatch body? That's only when the catfight commences! The DNA would throw water on it pretty quick I think. The fight would move on though, because the human origins fight is inherently within this field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 They got DNA from the Denisovian finger bone, I wonder why the hobbit bones are being difficult? And why they targeted a tooth vs a leg bone? Teeth generally retain their DNA better. not sure why. Teeth last longer than bones do and presumably, the DNA lasts longer for whatever reason the teeth last so long. Tropical DNA breaks down faster due to the heat as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 My understanding is many of the hobbit bones were poorly preserved in the wet, tropical conditions. Neanderthal and Denisovan bones from which DNA was extracted were found in temperate climes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Wet humid climates are blamed for a lot of stuff, e.g., the paucity of gorilla and chimp ancestor remains. So not the biggest surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Wet humid climates are blamed for a lot of stuff, e.g., the paucity of gorilla and chimp ancestor remains. So not the biggest surprise. Rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I've been told evergreen forests with their acidic soils don't fossilize well either. Regardless, we do have bones from the hobbit that were preserved. Just curious why DNA extraction hasn't been attempted there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 The bones were found in a couple of caves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) The specimens were discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 by a joint Australian-Indonesian team of archaeologists looking for evidence of the original human migration of Homo sapiens from Asia to Australia. They were not expecting to find a new species, and were surprised at the recovery of a nearly complete skeleton of a hominin they dubbed LB1 because it was unearthed inside the Liang Bua Cave. Subsequent excavations recovered seven additional skeletons, dating from 38,000 to 13,000 years ago. An arm bone provisionally assigned to H. floresiensis is about 74,000 years old. The specimens are not fossilized and have been described as having "the consistency of wet blotting paper"; once exposed, the bones had to be left to dry before they could be dug up. - Wikipedia Edited August 14, 2014 by Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 ^Interesting. Multiple (seven) skeletons? Were they all downsy? If so, I find that odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Dumb question. What if the characteristics we commonly associate with Downs Syndrome are actually characteristics that were common in one branch of our ancestral tree? Today, some people consider the outward appearance of the syndrome to be "primitive" in aspect. Is this based on the one-time existence of a species with such an aspect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Not that I'm aware of JDL. Australopithecus species were not Down's syndrome like at all. Homo habilis and erectus also do not look like this. There is also the matter of the length of the thigh bone in this specimen. Down's syndrome affects many other parts of the body than just the head. From what I've read they've only found the one skull. This makes a statement about the population overall premature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 And Down's syndrome is the result of a chromosomal 'abnormality' and is very rare in the population at large. People with Down's rarely share the full lifespan or good health enjoyed by the majority of us but, thankfully for us, they appear to have an overload of humanity, love and joy. I don't see that there is any link between this syndrome and our early ancestors. Not that we have anything near enough physical evidence of those ancestors to make such detailed analyses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 But no evidence that the chromosomal "abnormality" was not a chromosomal normality in an unsuccessful species. Has the rate of Down's shown any increase or decrease over the centuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 This site might help a bit: http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/component/content/article/35-general/162-6-can-men-a-women-with-downs-syndrome-get-married-and-have-children.html I suspect that on an island a population with a high frequency of Down's syndrome could arise. I think it would be unlikely that the whole population could thrive if everyone had the condition however. I do not know what would happen if an individual was conceived with a homozygous version of Down's. Probably miscarriage. Women with Down's tend to miscarry more often. That would make it difficult to produce a population where everyone had Down's. Like the manx cats on the Isle of Mann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts