Real Live Hobbits!

[PatrickHenry]

Well, they're dead now but they used to be alive...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp...=20041027LON805

scientists suspect the new species became extinct after a massive volcanic eruption on the island about 12,000 years ago. Brown and his colleagues have found the remains of seven other dwarf individuals at the same site since the first find. "The other individuals all show similar characteristics, and over a time range that now extends from as long ago as 95,000 years to as recently as 13,000 years ago -- a population of hobbits that seemed to disappear at about the same time as the pygmy elephants that they hunted," said Bert Roberts, one of the authors of the Nature study.

I hope they didn't have to contend with evil wizards...

[rcne]

This is a great link, the common line the anthropologist wish to define has once again blurred.

An isolated gene pool of people developing modern tool making and hunting. They will need to rethink their justification on straight line evolution.

[Nono]

What is "straight line evolution"? The African Eve thing?

[rcne]

Thats one, also the modern cro-magmun suddenly appearing and replacing Neanderthal and not absorbing Neanderthals is another

They (scientist) right now are betting on microdrial DNA ( very small sample- your EVE) as the line of modern human.

They've also found a hybrid Neanderthal - traits of modern and Neanderthal but at present it doesn't fit the accepted version.

Thats why I always enjoy the scramble when the scientist have to rethink and adjust their view.

This new isolated gene pool developed modern techniques. These techniques are one of the limiting factors against including Neanderthals in the 'man' line.

But now that exclusionary fact no longer seems valid now does it.

[Suburbanite]

I don't know about all that.

[Nono]

Well, what choice do the poor buggers have? They know that the answer is locked up in the earth and in caves and what-not, most of which we'll certainly never stumble across. So they have to concoct an explanation that fits the meagre evidence at hand.

And every time another far-fetched puzzle-piece is handed to them, they have to back-peddle like crazy.

Ah well, it keeps them off the streets.

[gallo]

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is a great link,...[/b]

There are better links. Nature for example. That page has a link to a news story at nature.com.

You might also want to check out National Geographic and New Scientist.

Although the the CNN article isn't too bad for a news story. I notice that they point out that this hominin was probably a descendent of Homo erectus and not in the lineage of modern mankind.

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...the common line the anthropologist wish to define has once again blurred.[/b]

Not sure what common line you are talking about. I've never heard of it. I suspect you are confused by the evolutionary concept of common descent. No one claims that all hominins are in a common line. If fact, quite the contrary is the case. The claim is that there were many organisms that are not in our lineage, some of them living at the same time. We have known about the Neandertals for some time, and it now seems that there was another related line survived until relatively recently.

To claim that this somehow blurs some sort of "common line" that "anthropologists" are trying to establish is nonsense.

Originally posted by rcne An isolated gene pool of people developing modern tool making and hunting. They will need to rethink their justification on straight line evolution.

Who is it that you think tries to justify "straight line evolution?" Certainly not evolutionary biologists nor paleontologists not paleoanthropologists. As I mentioned, the evidence shows that hominid evolution was quite bushy. Moreover, these organisms didn't develop "modern tool making and hunting." I guess you weren't aware that the probable ancestor of H. floresiensis was H. erectus made tools and hunted. Not sure what you mean by modern tools since stone choppers and knives aren't usually referred to as "modern."

Originally posted by rcne Thats one, also the modern cro-magmun suddenly appearing and replacing Neanderthal and not absorbing Neanderthals is another

That should be Cro-Magnon. And the appearance wasn't all that sudden. Some very old examples of Cro-Magnon have been discovered in the Levant, where it appears they lived along side of Neandertals for a long time. The migration into Europe came later.

Originally posted by rcne They (scientist) right now are betting on microdrial DNA ( very small sample- your EVE) as the line of modern human.

It's anybody's guess what that is supposed to mean. I think maybe that it demonstates a complete misunderstanding of what mtDNA is and how it is used.

Originally posted by rcne They've also found a hybrid Neanderthal - traits of modern and Neanderthal but at present it doesn't fit the accepted version.

Nonsense. You seem to be only half informed on the topic. How does it not fit the "present accepted version?" The present theory is based on the extraction of DNA (mtDNA in fact) from three very widely separated, both in time and geography, Neandertal fossils. When compared to each other, they are obviously of the same species. But they are different from modern humans. There has always been speculation as to whether H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis interbred. It seems logical that it would have happened somewhere at some time - but none of the mtDNA seems to have been passed along. The child found in Spain seems to have been a hybrid.

Originally posted by rcne Thats why I always enjoy the scramble when the scientist have to rethink and adjust their view.

But that's how science works. New data causes refinement of the theory. It happened to physics with Einstein and then Bohr. SN 1987 A caused a whole rethinking of the process of supernovas. And all of that scrambling has only served to make the theories of science more secure and clear.

Originally posted by rcne This new isolated gene pool developed modern techniques.

Where did you get that? In you society it is considered modern to make tools by chipping flakes of of rocks?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne@
These techniques are one of the limiting factors against including Neanderthals in the 'man' line.[/quote]
So you think that Neandertals didn't use tools? Did it occur to you to learn what you were talking about before speaking?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne
But now that exclusionary fact no longer seems valid now does it.[/quote]
How confused you seem. You have just asserted that finding a hominid in Indonesia that used stone tools now justifies including Neandertals in human lineage.

[rcne]

I did see what I assume is the original article. It was more descriptive. I will read the others also.

Yes they did find a hybrid, so far I've not heard of a mtDNA sample from the hybrid. And yes the present theory is based on mtDNA, I also read that article and you may want to check the actual sample size that they base their 'presently' accepted theory on three samples? I think the sample has the relevance of a poll - a sample but not a large enough sample, I think, to justify the present theory.

If other evidence is found, then I may adjust mine, until then I remain sceptically. (even though its not mainstream, I've heard there are others that also question basing accepted theory on this).

Present theory discarded the concept of a hybrid, but it was 'adjusted' to fit. It may also soon be adjusted on the ability of speech. Science does change, so what is accepted today may be changed upon the next discovery.

This site may be just such a discovery. Already some of the present concepts may be brought into question.

The 'modern techniques' and 'concept of man' were directly from the article itself - their words not mine. I do find it coincidental that that isolated group evolved the same techniques as previously only attributed to modern Cro-Magnon (can you believe my spell checker didn't have this)

I know Neanderthal used tools, and a belief in the afterlife etc,etc - but one of the differences stated has always been - they weren't modern tools - thats the link I was making to the little people..

Not just modern man made and used modern tools., now it appears the these little guys did too.

So we now have three lines of homids occupying the same time period. Two of them using the same techniques, and two of them possibly interbreeding, yet only cro magnon mtDNA survives?

I personally support Neanderthals in the human lineage. Every time I see a pronounced brow ridge i think Neanderthal lineage.

I'm glad you did the research to present your points, but I'll hold to my statements. I, like science will adjust as new sites are analyzed.

I guess its the definition of what makes man - man. The 'common line' is the items or traits used to say this is man keeps being adjusted. First it was tools, then language, then a belief in the afterlife.

Its getting late, I have work tomorrow will add more later, after I read those other articles, and review present Neanderthal data.

[gallo]

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I did see what I assume is the original article. It was more descriptive. I will read the others also.[/b]

Actually, I suspect that you didn't see the "original" article unless you have a subscription to Nature. What you saw are news reports. The "original" articles are:

Brown P., et al. Nature, 431. 1055 - 1061 (2004).

Morwood M. J., et al. Nature, 431. 1087 - 1091(2004).

I don't have a subscription to Nature but at least I read the available information on the Nature web site and others before I read the news reports.

Originally posted by rcne+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rcne)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes they did find a hybrid,...[/b]

No. They conclude from certain anatomical features that the child may have been a hybrid. Isn't it funny that you are willing to place so much credence in such things as the shape of an infant's head, indications of a possible incipient brow ridge, the shape of the rib cage, and the attachment of the femur at the hip and the relative length of the limbs from a single sample?

Originally posted by rcne ...so far I've not heard of a mtDNA sample from the hybrid.

You mean presumed hybrid based on quite uncertain anatomical observations that all fall within normal range for modern humans.

Originally posted by rcne And yes the present theory is based on mtDNA,...

What theory are you talking about? Please cite the scientific literature where this theory was stated. I know of several theories "based" on mtDNA and I'm not sure what you mean by "present theory." One new theory involves the migration of genes from the mitochondria to the nucleus of eukaryotes. There is another theory that states that mitochondria are matrilineal (there is enough evidence that this is not always the case to cause considerable error bars in calculations) and therefore useful as genetic clocks.

And, of course, present theory isn't based on mtDNA. The hypothesis was that if Neandertals and modern humans interbred, then the mtDNA of humans would reflect that fact. It doesn't. The conclusion is that interbreeding between H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis was not common. Let me state it as the scientists involved would have stated it. From the mtDNA analysis there is no evidence that H. sapiens and H. neanterthalis interbred. Quite a different matter from what you claim is the basis of theory.

Originally posted by rcne I also read that article and you may want to check the actual sample size that they base their 'presently' accepted theory on three samples? I think the sample has the relevance of a poll - a sample but not a large enough sample, I think, to justify the present theory.

Then you clearly don't understand. The sample size on the human side was huge. Let me explain again what was found. The three samples of mtDNA were extracted from specimens that were widely separated in time and geography. They were similar enough to judge that they were derived from a single female ancestor. The differences were well inside the range of what was expected given the time differences. Human mtDNA was so different that it was concluded that there was no evidence of interbreeding.

Originally posted by rcne If other evidence is found, then I may adjust mine, until then I remain sceptically. (even though its not mainstream, I've heard there are others that also question basing accepted theory on this).

I have no idea of what that paragraph means. It seems that you are willing to accept claims based on a single specimen based on variable anatomical measurements, none of which are outside the range of humans. And yet you dismiss a sample size of 3, even though these samples were compared to the huge sample of human mtDNA sequences.

Originally posted by rcne Present theory discarded the concept of a hybrid, but it was 'adjusted' to fit.

Nonsense. Present theory does no such thing. Present theory actually wonders why we don't see Neandertal ancestry in humans. Given the male human penchant for intercourse with even sheep, how did there fail to be hybrids? Well maybe there were some. Maybe one was found. But mtDNA isn't passed from the father - only from the mother.

Originally posted by rcne It may also soon be adjusted on the ability of speech. Science does change, so what is accepted today may be changed upon the next discovery.

Of course. Should we decide how it should be now and forevermore? Let's see. The earth is the center of the universe - lets burn anyone who disagrees. New evidence should be supressed because learning by questioning isn't allowed. Once we decide what is "TROOTH", then we must stick with it. Science must support dogma!

Originally posted by rcne This site may be just such a discovery. Already some of the present concepts may be brought into question.

My bet is that you can't list the concepts brought into question.

Originally posted by rcne The 'modern techniques' and 'concept of man' were directly from the article itself - their words not mine. I do find it coincidental that that isolated group evolved the same techniques as previously only attributed to modern Cro-Magnon (can you believe my spell checker didn't have this)

Yes. I can believe that your spell checker didn't have Cro-Magnon as an entry. What I can't believe is that you would presume to discuss the topic when you didn't even know how to spell it. So I guess "modern techniques" mean primative stone tools similar to those of H. erectus. On what do you base your claim that these tools were attributed only to "modern" Cro-Magnon?

Originally posted by rcne I know Neanderthal used tools, and a belief in the afterlife etc,etc - but one of the differences stated has always been - they weren't modern tools - thats the link I was making to the little people..

Right. They weren't modern tools! They didn't have power drills, table saws, and the like. Perhaps if you cited some scientific literature that defines the difference between "modern" and not "modern." I understand that Neandertal sites are recognized because of the differences from human sites in the tools found. So what? The question isn't whether the newly discovered fossils are related to Neandertals. They were most probably descended from H. erectus, who also used tools. Please cite the literature that indicates that the "hobbit" tools are remarkably different from those of H. erectus.

Originally posted by rcne Not just modern man made and used modern tools., now it appears the these little guys did too.

And still you haven't told us what you mean by "modern tools." Drill press? Table saw?

Originally posted by rcne So we now have three lines of homids occupying the same time period. Two of them using the same techniques, and two of them possibly interbreeding, yet only cro magnon mtDNA survives?

What does this have to do with the question of the discovery in Indonesia?

Originally posted by rcne I personally support Neanderthals in the human lineage. Every time I see a pronounced brow ridge i think Neanderthal lineage.

So you have a sloped forhead, an occipital bun, are short and squat, but remarkably strong, and you communicate in grunts?

Originally posted by rcne I'm glad you did the research to present your points, but I'll hold to my statements. I, like science will adjust as new sites are analyzed.

Actually, I didn't do any research. I read news reports and listened to opinions from colleagues. Sadly, you don't seem to know what scientific research is. Sadly, you think that science makes adjustments to popular reporting on the internet.
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne@
I guess its the definition of what makes man - man. The 'common line' is the items or traits used to say this is man keeps being adjusted. First it was tools, then language, then a belief in the afterlife.[/quote]
That's silly. To believe that "common line" is meaningful is silly. I presume that what you are trying to oppose is the common ancestry of life. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do so without straw men?
<!--QuoteBegin-rcne
Its getting late, I have work tomorrow will add more later, after I read those other articles, and review present Neanderthal data.[/quote]
Golly. My heart just palpitates in anticipation! But what does Neandertal data have to do with the question? Wouldn't it be better if you could stay on topic? I only responded to your misunderstanding of Neandertal information because you brought it up. You never did explain why it is relevant.

[rcne]

Both of these quotes are from Nature.com and since you provided the links, I assume you have a different view.

As far as we know, Homo sapiens is the only species of human that yet lives on the planet. It is very easy to take this solitary estate (and our consequent separateness from the rest of the animal world) for granted, so much has it become ingrained in our philosophy, ethics and religion, even our science. Until very recently, evolutionary thought was couched in terms of a linear, progressive trajectory rising from lower life forms and culminating in man. I have argued elsewhere that this view is not, regrettably, as extinct as it should be6. In palaeoanthropology, this idea is seen in the view that only one species of hominid has existed at any one time, each one succeeding the next in a scheme of orderly replacement. This idea began to crumble in the 1970s7, since when discoveries of ancient relatives of humans have revealed a marked diversity of form. Human evolution is like a bush, not a ladder8. But these discoveries concerned the more remote reaches of human ancestry. Despite the fact that some of our relatives, such as Neanderthal man and Homo erectus, are thought to have become extinct in relatively recent times9, our complacency that this view holds for recent history has not been shaken. Until now. If it turns out that the diversity of human beings was always high, remained high until very recently and might not be entirely extinguished, we are entitled to question the security of some of our deepest beliefs. Will the real image of God please stand up? second article: My own feeling is that future archaeological discoveries in Southeast Asia will show that human dispersal and cultural change were much more complex than previously believed, and that Asia may have played a much more prominent role in these issues than adherents of the simplistic 'Out of Africa' explanation for everything would have us believe. Does this change your own feelings about the uniqueness and modernity of Homo sapiens? PB: Yes and no. Although it was a member of our genus, H. floresiensis is unlikely to have contributed to the gene pool of H. sapiens. So for me, its importance is not in the evolutionary story of modern humans, but in how the broad group from which modern humans evolved may have adapted and evolved to different ecosystems. Prior to this finding it would not have been thought that a hominin with the brain size, and possibly limited cognitive ability, of H. floresiensis could make the type of tools associated with the skeleton, or even get to Flores at all. I suppose that this is what challenges existing notions of what it is to be human the most.

I do use the internet quite often to read items of interest - don't you. My anthropology books are somewhat dated so...the net is the most readily available source of current material.

Originally posted by gallo Golly. My heart just palpitates in anticipation!

Don't give yourself a heart attack, its not worth it.

[Nono]

Seems that when species evolve into smaller versions of themselves they are obeying something called the "island rule", reflecting adaptation to limited resources.

In a (presumably) unrelated story, America's National Center for Health Statistics has reported that the average American adult is one inch taller than 40 years ago but 25 pounds heavier. The average male went from 5'8" and 166.3 pounds to 5'9.5" and 191 pounds and the average female from 5'3" and 140.2 pounds to 5'4" and 164.3 pounds.

Now them ain't no hobbits!

[rcne]

As far as dragging those poor old Neanderthals into the picture - I only applied the linkage of technological tool making as being an exclusionary item between modern and Neanderthals.

In a nutshell, the technological differences between Neanderthal middle Palaeolithic technology and the Modern upper Palaeolithic technology can be narrowed down to flake and blade technologies

But since I did - here is a view from the other camp.

Implications of Neanderthal-Homo Sapiens Hybrid by Abrigo do Lagar Velho. Firstly, it is useful to have an overview of the different theories of human evolution, or I should say the two most widely accepted views as accepted by palaeo-anthropologists in the field. For some years now it has been the contention that the origins of modern humans stem from either a continuous evolution from archaic to modern humans in local regions from an earlier dispersal of Homo erectus, or conversely from modern humans evolved in Africa only which then dispersed to replace those hominids in said regions. These two theories are known as the Continuity or Regional model and the Replacement or Out of Africa model respectively. The fossil (skeletal) and cultural (technological) evidence thus far has pointed to convincing arguments on both sides, which proponents are quick to defend. … There are some flaws with the mtDNA studies though and further research is needed. Other lines of genetic research include R.M. Harding's studies which look at variation in the betaglobin gene Harding found that one major betaglobin gene lineage, thought to have arisen more than 200,000 years ago, is widely distributed in Asia but rare in Africa, suggesting that archaic populations in Asia contributed to the modern gene pool. Studies of the Y-chromosome by M.F. Hammer, indicate migrations back and forth into Africa. (Harris and Hey 1999:84) In a nutshell, the technological differences between Neanderthal middle Palaeolithic technology and the Modern upper Palaeolithic technology can be narrowed down to flake and blade technologies. The transition between the two can be viewed again as either gradual or sudden. Some middle Palaeolithic tools in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, regardless of the hominids associated with them can show a variety of technologies. Certainly, at about 30 000 years ago, there was a shift in technologies to include art and personal adornment along with the finer micro-blade technologies. However, it is debatable as to whether these features were practiced by preceding Neanderthals or whether these innovations were brought into Europe by Moderns who would replace them. (Thorne and Wolpoff:1992) The question of the transition from the middle to upper Palaeolithic surrounds whether or not the transition was gradual or sudden. Evidence of burials within Neanderthal populations indicates that such cultural indicators were derived from those populations by other successive modern populations. The remains discovered by Duarte et al at Abrigo do Lagar Velho in Portugal "present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neanderthal features" according to Erik Trinkaus (1999). It is this blending of features that implies interbreeding between the two. It could be that the replacement model is somewhat supported in that it was the hybrid which gradually replaced pure Neanderthals, or that the regional model is somewhat supported in that the Neanderthals, or rather their descendants, indeed became fully modern. The translation of this evidence depends on who is looking at it, and what view they support in the first place. This brings up the issue of bias in the field and indicates that the study by its nature cannot be exact and is certainly open to interpretation. It is apparent that there can be no consensus as yet to the fate of the Neanderthals. Arguments on both sides can be quite compelling, but perhaps the most compelling is that of the third hypothesis, the middle ground, being that there needs to be further investigation into the possibility of hybridization between Neanderthal and Modern populations. Erik Trinkaus, staking his reputation on the claim, has lent his support to this hypothesis: "If you have two populations of hunter-gatherers that are totally different species, that are doing things in very different ways, have different capabilities--they're not going to blend together," Trinkaus says. "They're going to remain separate. So the implication from Portugal is that when these people met, they viewed each other as people. One group may have looked a little funny to the other one--but beyond that they saw each other as human beings. And treated each other as such." (Kunzig 1999) Evidence which could be used to corroborate such a theory include further DNA research, including both mitochondrial and nuclear extractions if possible. Obviously one sample from a single specimen is not enough to base a clear argument on. Perhaps with more research, the archaeological record will be corroborated by the biological record, and show that indeed the transition from mid to upper Palaeolithic was gradual and due to the interbreeding of two types of humans, which replaced the local population from which much of the technology was derived. Further excavations which produce similar remains as that of Abrigo do Lagar Velho may also show increasing evidence of hybridization. Only by seeking to expand the fossil record, and exacting reliable dates will we be able to tell the whole story of human evolution, for which the Neanderthal question is but a small part. By answering this question though, we can piece together the real story of our origins and begin to understand the whole picture of hominid evolution.

It is obvious that you are in one camp and I am in the other.

And with that - back to the Hobbits.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Nono, the average American adult is one inch taller than 40 years ago but 25 pounds heavier. ... Now them ain't no hobbits!

More like big lardos. Why is America so fat?

My son, who lives in Oakland CA, recently went to a Formula 1 race in Indianapolis. There was a mix of Americans and Europeans there. I guess F1 is big enoug for Euros to visit Indy. He said that he could easily distinguish the Euros from the LARDASS Americans. Then he noted that Americans on the East and West coasts are more normarally sized than those from the "Heartland."

I note that GW Bush's power base is in that region, too. And that the coasts are mostly Dems.

And I wondered: Are Republicans congenitally tubby?

[Nono]

Originally posted by PH Are Republicans congenitally tubby?

To whom would a geneticist apply for a grant to study that one? :confused:

Republicans may buy more heavily (pardon the expression) into the Great North American Ideal of calorie consumption in inverse proportion to physical activity.

Ever read Bill Bryson on this topic? As funny as it is insightful.

[m5lange1]

REAL LIVE HOBBITS?

Real?????? They appear to be..

Hobbits ??????? Could be....

Live????? Nope they are all definately dead.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, I admitted they're dead now in my topic starter. I hadda put a little thrill in the title, ya know, m5. To get you folks to take a look...

Could they have been as smart as us? I wonder how large their brains were...

[Nono]

Have only today read Jay Ingram's column on this (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...acodalogin=yes). It took a while to work its way up through the pile.


Does anyone know how to dress up (camouflage) URLs with this-here new-fangled system?

[Nono]

Ingram once again on Flores Man

[PatrickHenry]

Basically, the article seems to suggest that brain size need not be the determining factor for intelligence. That is, that a smaller-brained creature could be as smart as a modern human or nearly so...

[rcne]

Actually I have read an article that studied the brain cast and found areas of the hobbit brain was more advanced than Homo Erectus.

They may be a separate branch. One thing that seems certain is that these hobbits were not dwarf Homo Erectus wit(h) a brain disease.