About That Flores 'hobbit'...

[Bonehead74]

http://news.psu.edu/story/322149/2014/08/04/research/flores-bones-show-features-down-syndrome-not-new-hobbit-human

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/31/1407382111.abstract

[norseman]

They have been beating that drum for a while.

[Rockape]

That's interesting, First I've heard of it. Thanks for the link.

[Guest DWA]

GREAT NEWS.

 

OK, you know.

 

But if true (IF true), it certainly highlights that scientists are equally capable as garbagemen, schoolteachers, dockworkers, policemen, etc., i.e., the rest of us, at walling themselves off from what evidence is telling them so they can hear what they want it to tell them.

[Cotter]

Very cool.  Thanks for the links.

I'll point out it only 'suggests' things, doesn't prove a lick.

[Guest]

As I recall, H. floresiensis has floppy feet distinctly different from that of H. sapiens.  I didn't see that feature addressed in the abstract.

[norseman]

From day one there has been a lot of push back on this species.

The deformed human hypothesis isn't new.

I think this species has turned human evolution on its head and understandable some scientists are not happy.

I still find native stories of the Ebu Gogo or wild man inspiring, and don't seem to line up with the deformed human hypothesis. It makes you wonder what else is waiting under ground.

[BobZenor]

It isn't just the floppy feat.  It is a primitive bone in the wrist that suggests a hominid more primitive than erectus.  There are double roots which also a primitive feature on one of their teeth.  It was molar or premolar if my memory is correct.  The size of the brain is way too small for erectus but the shape is similar to erectus.  The jaw is very small but the teeth are extremely large, for a modern human, but fit nicely in the small jaw.  It is sort of odd that the deformity has nicely fitting oversized teeth.  There is probably a lot more that doesn't come to mind.  It is interesting to suggest that flat feet is a condition common to down's syndrome but they are also significantly oversized.

 

The find threatened the fossil collection of the leading Indonesian paleoanthropologist or he was jealous so after he damaged the fossils by casting them without permission after he confiscated them he came up with all sorts of theories like how they were locals because some of the locals were small...blah blah blah.  The stories of the ebu gogo also add credibility.  It is funny how the existence of a different hominid even thousands of years ago is apparently hard to believe for some "scientists".  That is what it sounds like the way they describe modern humans being more likely.  It makes me wonder what planet they they think they come from.  It must drive scientists like Mike Morwood nuts when things like that make the press.  He has discounted them so many times.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Wiki mentions the existence of the wrist bones being different from modern humans and more indicative of an earlier species, as the poster above me mentioned. The hardest part of getting to the bottom of the question seems to be the fact that two different scientists can analyze the same piece and come up with completely different findings. So are there differences aside from those mentioned in the article, or are the scientists who noted other differences, such as the wrist bones, incorrect?

 

The way I see it if there are characteristics of the bones that are inconsistent with a known disorder or disease that has been offered as an explanation for these strange remains, then using that disorder or disease as an explanation in this instance would be incorrect. It was also noted that the stone tools found in the same location dated from roughly 13-40 thousand years ago. I suppose that may not have much bearing though.

 

Off topic but does anyone know how to identify tektites? I found out I live in a strewnfield from an impact 34 mya, and I am not sure about the specimens I've found. Message me if you can help ID please. My pics haven't turned out to well though so I need to try some different types of lighting or something.

[Guest]

It isn't just the floppy feat.  It is a primitive bone in the wrist that suggests a hominid more primitive than erectus.  There are double roots which also a primitive feature on one of their teeth.  It was molar or premolar if my memory is correct.  The size of the brain is way too small for erectus but the shape is similar to erectus.  The jaw is very small but the teeth are extremely large, for a modern human, but fit nicely in the small jaw.  It is sort of odd that the deformity has nicely fitting oversized teeth.  There is probably a lot more that doesn't come to mind.  It is interesting to suggest that flat feet is a condition common to down's syndrome but they are also significantly oversized.

 

The find threatened the fossil collection of the leading Indonesian paleoanthropologist or he was jealous so after he damaged the fossils by casting them without permission after he confiscated them he came up with all sorts of theories like how they were locals because some of the locals were small...blah blah blah.  The stories of the ebu gogo also add credibility.  It is funny how the existence of a different hominid even thousands of years ago is apparently hard to believe for some "scientists".  That is what it sounds like the way they describe modern humans being more likely.  It makes me wonder what planet they they think they come from.  It must drive scientists like Mike Morwood nuts when things like that make the press.  He has discounted them so many times.

It isn't that scientists are hemmed in by their own pet theories but more that they do not want to jump to exciting conclusions with out sufficient evidence. Ebu gogo is not compelling evidence. The first I heard of Homo floresiensis I thought of the orang pendak. Nor was I the only one I'm sure, but that does not amount to evidence of Homo floresiensis being a new species of human. Personally, I think it is a new species (well old extinct species) but I can not say for certain that is true. What I see in the skull seems very erectus or habiline to me but dwarfish skulls do not always reflect the main form of a species. Down syndrome doesn't either. I am open to the idea of down syndrome individuals in previous Homo populations. It makes sense, but we have not seen other skulls from this population yet to be sure.

Wiki mentions the existence of the wrist bones being different from modern humans and more indicative of an earlier species, as the poster above me mentioned. The hardest part of getting to the bottom of the question seems to be the fact that two different scientists can analyze the same piece and come up with completely different findings. So are there differences aside from those mentioned in the article, or are the scientists who noted other differences, such as the wrist bones, incorrect?

 

The way I see it if there are characteristics of the bones that are inconsistent with a known disorder or disease that has been offered as an explanation for these strange remains, then using that disorder or disease as an explanation in this instance would be incorrect. It was also noted that the stone tools found in the same location dated from roughly 13-40 thousand years ago. I suppose that may not have much bearing though.

 

Off topic but does anyone know how to identify tektites? I found out I live in a strewnfield from an impact 34 mya, and I am not sure about the specimens I've found. Message me if you can help ID please. My pics haven't turned out to well though so I need to try some different types of lighting or something.

I have seen some photos of the fossils but none of the tools associated with the fossils. I'm not sure why but I seem to have a hard time finding them. Tools found in the same vicinity and time frame as the fossils does not actually mean the fossilized individuals made the tools. The tools may have been made by more modern humans. I have been wondering at the potential intelligence of Homo floresiensis for a while now. Still more to learn here.

[gigantor]

Then again, it is Penn State... the home of child molesters and climate alarmists.

 

yes I did, I said it!

Edited August 7, 2014 by gigantor

[Guest]

^^^naughty!!

[BobZenor]

I should have said it was compelling evidence to me because I know the stories.  Ebu Gogo and orang pendek have a lot of interesting similarities besides just size like both of them supposedly living in caves on volcanoes.  I don't find either to especially hard to believe existing on this planet.  I still don't know what planet many scientists think they live on where another hominid couldn't exist even thousands of years ago.  

 

I don't see the world world defined by the current understanding as in I am not at all surprised that another hominid might have lived on that island thousands of years ago or even today.  That is only to be expected by simple common sense.  Many seem to think that ancient hominids actually went extinct when the last fossil was found or that their range was defined by the fossil record. I never understood that mindset though it is what the vast majority of people in the field seem to think.  Most of them are constrained by many such biases and want to believe they actually understand human evolution so can't be surprised. They want to be considered experts so they act like they know everything.  It isn't about a common sense evaluation as much as it about protecting what they think they knew that made them experts.  That is human nature.  As I said I haven't read enough of it to totally discount it but I was irritated by statement that a down's syndrome was the less strained explanation.  It made me lose interest in their opinion to be honest because it sounds like the same irritating "We would have known it" condescending attitude but that is my bias.  I don't like arguments from incredulity or ignorance as if another hominid is somehow surprising to them.  I can only conclude they think they would have known it so find it incredible.  They likely also want attention so are attacking a famous fossil.  That is science but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the likely motivations and shouldn't be extra skeptical of them especially when they come off sounding pompous in my still not completely informed opinion on the matter.  

 

Mike Morwood went way out of his way finding evidence to make floresiensis as close to human as possible because he didn't want them be categorized as Australopithecus because he felt that would make it much less valuable like it did to some of the robust australopithene fossils.   That may explain why he assumed tool use which I don't think is valid.  He stated some pretty lame reason like no art in the caves so there must not have been modern humans there at the time.  He did state in his book why he was pushing the "Homo" classification so I don't hold it against him.  He seemed exceptionally intelligent to me and honest.   

[Guest]

The reason Down's syndrome is considered "less strained" is because we know about it already. If it fits it fits. A newly described species is not the simplest explanation. A new species would be an unknown and makes a weak explanation relative to the strength of a known quantity. This does not mean that the Hobbits aren't real. The hobbit is short even for someone with Down's syndrome. The simplest explanation is usually the best to choose in science. If evidence comes along that contradicts the simple explanation then the explanation becomes more complicated to fit the evidence. Standard procedure.

 

I don't think anyone has gone out of their way to make floresiensis a member of Homo. I think the skull looks borderline between Homo and Australopithecus but a Down's syndrome individual may well have a similar condition and hence be representative of a larger community that is not as small and has a larger head than this individual has. I can see that. I can see someone trying to rule out all of the possibilities.

[Cotter]

How common was down's syndrome 15,000 years ago?  (How can anyone even know that?)

 

How old did folks usually live that had down's syndrome 15,000 years ago?  (How can anyone even know that?)

 

During the mass homo extinctions occurring due to resource competition between differing hominid lines, what chance did a down's syndrome person have of surviving?  (again...how can anyone...nevermind)

 

I find it interesting that during a time of day to day survival that the family structure would be strong enough to support someone with downs.

 

Aren't we supposed to believe that something as simple as a broken arm or jaw would lead to the demise of a person back then, yet someone with down's could survive for many years?
 

Thoughts?