About That Flores 'hobbit'...

[Rockape]

Weren't there like 9 different skeletal remains discovered? So there was a whole tribe of people with downs syndrome?

[indiefoot]

^^^^^ Or do they all travel to the same place to die?

[Guest DWA]

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. 

Really, it's not whether it's known that determines whether it fits.  Whether it fits determines whether it fits.

 

For The Critter We Are Talking About On BFF, the simplest explanation is the animal that scientists have shown the evidence points to.  It is voluminous, and technically very consistent.  It fits.  The objections have not shown substance.  The skeptics have not "explained" it by simply saying People Fake Stuff and Hallucinate.  For their explanation to be "simple," and yet compelling (iow, truly meeting the requirements of Occam's razor), they must show how it is happening.  It is extremely unlikely, from what most of us accept about the world, that a significant share of the evidence, much less all of it, could be produced that way, unless the people doing it are extremely talented lying faking and hallucinating scientists.  The chances of that...are...

 

It's like saying "giants crying causes rain."  Simple. Huh.  Can you PROVE that?

Edited August 7, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

But it has been demonstrated numerous times that alleged bigfoot evidence can, and has been, faked. Yet there still remains zero alleged bigfoot evidence that has stood up to proper scientific inquiry. None of the evidence offered so far has been proven to come from a bigfoot. The evidence leads to fabrication or mistakes every time it has been tested. And if the evidence is not testable by the scientific method, then it cannot be used to prove anything. 

[WSA]

Like so many things, it is an open question if this is truly a type-specimen, or not. Another one will need to be found and examined, looks like.  It informs us  a little bit as to how the scientific establishment woud reeact to a single, partial BF skeleton though, don't you think? Not so neat and tidy as one might predict, hmmmm?

[Guest DWA]

Like so many things, it is an open question if this is truly a type-specimen, or not. Another one will need to be found and examined, looks like.  It informs us  a little bit as to how the scientific establishment woud reeact to a single, partial BF skeleton though, don't you think? Not so neat and tidy as one might predict, hmmmm?

 

 

Right.  There are way too many assumptions about how this will play out.

 

Step 1:  we have an incontrovertible type specimen, should it pass the chain of custody.

 

Step 2:  the chain of custody begins.

 

Step 3:  your guess, as good as mine.

Edited August 7, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

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?

Unknown. that's all. We know that Down's syndrome is common in all parts of the modern world and there is no reason to suppose people were not born with Down's syndrome at roughly the same rate as today. How many survived? Unknown but some populations of humans are known to have taken care of weaker members. The fact that human fossils display fractures and breaks that would have required care from others indicates that at least some of these people may have survived to adulthood. On Flores, there wasn't as wide a diversity in predators. I believe komodo dragons were the biggest predator on Flores at the time. Dwarf elephants were the other big threat. Does anyone know of any other dangerous species on Flores? A person with Down's syndrome might not have been especially vulnerable there.

Right.  There are way too many assumptions about how this will play out.

 

Step 1:  we have an incontrovertible type specimen, should it pass the chain of custody.

 

Step 2:  the chain of custody begins.

 

Step 3:  your guess, as good as mine.

Incontrovertible? the bones are fragmentary. That is not incontrovertible. This is hardly a controversy however. Most scientists seem to be taking a wait and see approach while some see a new species and others see a common variation on the human form. No controversy. 

Weren't there like 9 different skeletal remains discovered? So there was a whole tribe of people with downs syndrome?

Only one skull however was found. Not sure about the thigh bone. There might have been more but they may have been damaged and so were not utilized in the study? Perhaps? Nothing can be said about the rest of the skeletons and the people they represent.

[Guest DWA]

antfoot:  I was talking about how much more squirrely than everyone thinks this will be after someone bags the specimen, not about the situation as it stands now.

Edited August 8, 2014 by DWA

[norseman]

In this instance I don't see how this species correlates with Sasquatch. Other than giving us some hope in the fact that the bipedal tree is bushier than we previously thought.

This seems to be a miniature offshoot of Homo Erectus living in Micronesia. Unless the OP hypothesis plays out as correct, then it's just us.

Much more of a possible tie with orang pendak than anything. From a crypto viewpoint of course.

[Rockape]

Only one skull however was found. Not sure about the thigh bone. There might have been more but they may have been damaged and so were not utilized in the study? Perhaps? Nothing can be said about the rest of the skeletons and the people they represent.

 

Yes, but there were enough remains to establish there was a community and that the others in that community were the same size. That would have to mean if one's skull/skeleton showed evidence that their size was due to Down's Syndrome, we could deduce that it would mean they all suffered from the same affliction. That doesn't seem likely to me.

[Guest]

We know that Down's syndrome is common in all parts of the modern world and there is no reason to suppose people were not born with Down's syndrome at roughly the same rate as today.

 

Poor assumption.  The risk of a Downs Syndrome birth increases dramatically after the mother reaches a certain age:

 

.

 

Today it is not uncommon for a woman to give birth at a risky age, but in paleolithic times it was rare for any hominin to live to such an age.

[Guest]

antfoot:  I was talking about how much more squirrely than everyone thinks this will be after someone bags the specimen, not about the situation as it stands now.

I am talking about the situation as it stands now. good to clear that up.

 

After a specimen is bagged I will be waiting on tenterhooks waiting to know more. no change on my behavior or ideology in bigfootology.

N

 

Yes, but there were enough remains to establish there was a community and that the others in that community were the same size. That would have to mean if one's skull/skeleton showed evidence that their size was due to Down's Syndrome, we could deduce that it would mean they all suffered from the same affliction. That doesn't seem likely to me.

No not really. All it shows is that the population was roughly the same size. Downs syndrome individuals are usually shorter than average but not always. As far as I know the average height for this population is still not known or postulated. Personally, I'm not sold on the Down's syndrome explanation yet. I need a little more data I think, but the idea is not unpalatable to me.

Poor assumption.  The risk of a Downs Syndrome birth increases dramatically after the mother reaches a certain age:

 

.

 

Today it is not uncommon for a woman to give birth at a risky age, but in paleolithic times it was rare for any hominin to live to such an age.

Most women had little choice about birth in those days. But Down's syndrome can occur in children of mothers of all ages as your graph does show. I see no contradiction to what I said. Older women may have been more rare (and probably really were) but younger women still had children afflicted with Down's syndrome. I hate to call it an affliction. Some of the best people I ever knew had Downs syndrome.

[Guest]

Most women had little choice about birth in those days.

 

Irrelevant.

 

But Down's syndrome can occur in children of mothers of all ages as your graph does show.

 

True, but irrelevant.  You said:  "We know that Down's syndrome is common in all parts of the modern world and there is no reason to suppose people were not born with Down's syndrome at roughly the same rate as today."  No one is doubting that Downs Syndrome occurred tens of thousands of years ago, but with the proportion of older women bearing children today, it's virtually certain that Downs was not as common then as it is now.  The question of whether Downs children would have been allowed to survive has been raised, and I believe it is unlikely that a person who could not pull his or her weight would have been tolerated.  It is one thing to care for a productive member of society while he or she is recovering, it's another altogether different to care for someone who will be a liability his or her entire life.

 

I see no contradiction to what I said. Older women may have been more rare (and probably really were) but younger women still had children afflicted with Down's syndrome. I hate to call it an affliction.

 

I do -- you have moved your goal posts from 'Downs occurred at the same frequency as it does today' to 'Downs occursnow and it occurred then.'

 

Some of the best people I ever knew had Downs syndrome.

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

[Guest]

 

Most women had little choice about birth in those days.

 

Irrelevant.

 

But Down's syndrome can occur in children of mothers of all ages as your graph does show.

 

True, but irrelevant.  You said:  "We know that Down's syndrome is common in all parts of the modern world and there is no reason to suppose people were not born with Down's syndrome at roughly the same rate as today."  No one is doubting that Downs Syndrome occurred tens of thousands of years ago, but with the proportion of older women bearing children today, it's virtually certain that Downs was not as common then as it is now.  The question of whether Downs children would have been allowed to survive has been raised, and I believe it is unlikely that a person who could not pull his or her weight would have been tolerated.  It is one thing to care for a productive member of society while he or she is recovering, it's another altogether different to care for someone who will be a liability his or her entire life.

 

I see no contradiction to what I said. Older women may have been more rare (and probably really were) but younger women still had children afflicted with Down's syndrome. I hate to call it an affliction.

 

I do -- you have moved your goal posts from 'Downs occurred at the same frequency as it does today' to 'Downs occursnow and it occurred then.'

 

Some of the best people I ever knew had Downs syndrome.

 

Irrelevant

Alright poor assumption but I still fail to see why anyone would be surprised at or doubtful of Down's syndrome people even adults in the fossil record. Even a .00001 percent of births is going to produce an individual with Down's Syndrome every 100,000 births. If there were a million people over the entirety of human habitation on Flores that would be 10 individuals born with Down's syndrome on Flores. Very likely, there were many more people on Flores over the entirety of human habitation there.

 

While the comment is irrelevant to the argument, I do sometimes make little side notes in my comments.

[Guest]

But it has been demonstrated numerous times that alleged bigfoot evidence can, and has been, faked.

=/= all evidence has been faked. You know this. If you wish to assert ALL BF evidence has been faked you must prove for each and every piece of evidence individually that your claim is true.

I won't be holding my breath, esp given Bill Munn's excellent work proving in peer reviewed papers the validity of the PGF.

 

 

Yet there still remains zero alleged bigfoot evidence that has stood up to proper scientific inquiry.

PGF. Also Faherbach's track trait distribution curve.

 

None of the evidence offered so far has been proven to come from a bigfoot.

Some of it has not been DISproven either.

 

The evidence leads to fabrication or mistakes every time it has been tested.

Again wrong. PGF. Track trait distribution. et al.

 

And if the evidence is not testable by the scientific method, then it cannot be used to prove anything.

Wrong. It means Science won't accept it. Too bad for science it dosn't get to speak reality via it's proclamations. Empirically, Science has been proven WRONG too many times for any thinking person to give it inherent credibility.

Poor assumption.  The risk of a Downs Syndrome birth increases dramatically after the mother reaches a certain age:

 

*chart omitted for space*

 

Today it is not uncommon for a woman to give birth at a risky age, but in paleolithic times it was rare for any hominin to live to such an age.

This.

On the OP: the "simplest" explanation (as at least one other poster has noted) for a combination of Downs Features and the other factors (wrists, etc) showing a novel species is a member of said novel species with Downs.

I find it suspicious that no further remains have been found. Given the politics in play (see the PBS documentary for details) I smell a rat.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Mulder