More Evidence For Hobbit Sized Species

GogglesPisano writes "CNN.com reports that scientists digging in a remote Indonesian cave have uncovered a jaw bone that they say adds more evidence that a tiny prehistoric Hobbit-like species once existed." From the article: "The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia."

Or it could be a dwarf

[RailGunner]

From TFA: A vocal scientific minority insists the Hobbit specimens do not represent a new species at all. They believe the specimens are nothing more than the bones of modern humans that suffered from microencephaly, a broadly defined genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.

And, at least two groups of opponents have submitted their own studies to other leading scientific journals refuting the Flores work.

"This paper doesn't clinch it. I feel strongly that people are glossing over the problems with this interpretation," said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and provost of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.

Re:Ever think....

[jbrader]

It's easy to tell from dentition and the state of the bone as well as other things the general age of an animal or person from a jaw bone.

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[RailGunner]

So, what do these naysayers think would constitute speciation?

How about the inability to sexually reproduce with the original species? A human with microencephaly can still sexually reproduce with another human that does not have this disorder.

However, to call it a new species seems extremely short sighted.

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[the phantom]

Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.

Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.

I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.

* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative

Re:The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!?

[Buran]

That's because the scientists did, too.

Re:Ever think....

[ray-auch]

The point of this article is that latest finds are bones of other individuals with similar characteristics.

So it isn't "a person", it is maybe several people _all_ suffering from microencephaly, all died / buried in the same place, without any normal homo sapiens remains.

Could be a primitive society with a history of the disease and a special burial place exclusively for those afflicted - but we're having to stretch the theory rather a lot to explain this...

Re:What about modern "Small Folk"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could show that there was something wrong with the environment. Something that caused genetic mutations to happen so that this disorder is more prevailant than in other parts of the world.

Re:Two Reasons:

[the phantom]

You cannot prove either of those statements, hence there is some debate in the scientific community. While you may very possibly be correct, you can't know. Don't state as proven fact things that are far more nebulous.

1) They may be Homo sapiens though they certainly seem more similar to Homo erectus. Thus, while they may be a different species from Homo sapiens, their status with regards to other members of the Homo line is uncertain at best.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I would tend to agree with you -- the number of specimen makes it seem unlikely that they are statistical outliers. However, this alone does not make them a seperate species from anything we already know. Perhaps there is some shared genetic trait in the population, like the pygmies of African and Asia. It is possible to have a population that tends to be shorter, yet is not a seperate species from the "parent" population.

Again, it is possible that they are a completely different species from anything that has been seen before. The small cranial capacity, the small stature, and the weird mix of primative and evolved traits would argue in that direction. On the other hand, they could be a seperate population that is not truely genetically distinct; a group of statistical outliers (unlikely, but possible); or another Piltdown Man.

Re:How do they know how old it is? Carbon dating?

[moz25]

Here are some interesting links that tell more about how carbon dating works. The link you posted is just creationist talk and not even the best of its kind. You need to know more about the intrinsics of the method before you can judge the scientific merit.

science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm [howstuffworks.com]

230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html [gsu.edu]

www.c14dating.com/int.html [c14dating.com]

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[blamanj]

Yes. The skeptics are publishing, too. More here [bbc.co.uk].

Damn, dirty, tiny...

[mtec]

apes!

I wonder...

[foreverdisillusioned]

Could there be any possibility of finding any preserved DNA after 12,000 years (not very long, geologically speaking)? I wish this had happened in a colder climate, where there was some possibility of preservation by ice. I think it would be a singularly awesome occurance, perhaps a turning point for modern society, if a scientist took a cell from an extinct but SENTIENT primate species and cloned it, either with a gorilla or human mother.

Call me cruel or evil if you must, but if I was a scientist presented with that opportunity, I would do it in a heartbeat. The moral, religious, and political rammifications would be tremendous... another creature besides ourselves capable of lucid communication, capable of abstract thought and rational logic. Likely less intelligent (on average) than Homo Sapiens and possibly possessing other differing desires and abilities, but unquestionably emotional and intelligent. How the hell would mainstream Christianity react? I would think that "mainstream" would have to be redefined, as many people would cling to old notions of humanity being special, unique, and alone while just as many would be unable to treat another intelligent being as a mere animal.

Of course, the exact level of intelligence would be very important. Just how intelligent are they, as compared to us? As compared to chimps? What if they possess roughly same communication skills and intelligence as a chimp or gorilla, yet they look like us, have the same facial expressions as us, and possess the vocal cords necessary to form words? Gorillas and chimps are quite intelligent, and capable of significant levels of communication via sign language. I'm willing to bet that the major reason why they haven't been granted any legal rights is because they seem so unhuman. Give them a human looking body and the power of speech, and suddenly the situation for many people will not seem so cut and dry. Lord knows where our morality would go from there--maybe given a hundred years, those "freaks" over at PETA will get their wish and the entire animal kingdom will have rights, perhaps based on intelligence. I'm not saying I necessarily support such an idea, but it's mind-blowing to consider.

Perhaps it's fascinating for me specifically because for the last 4 years I've worked extensively with the (moderately) mentally handicapped. It's very interesting to watch how they're treated by parents, doctors, coworkers, and fellow clients. In many respects they are given a high degree of self-determination, yet there are always more subtle attempts to change them into what we want them to be. The aspect I have the most problem with is prescribing medication for the sole purpose of surpressing libido. Ok, if the client is attacking women and fondling them that's one thing, but if wacking off too much and getting caught staring at women's chests and cutting out pictures of underwear models or even, heaven forbid, having consentual sexual relations with one another is a disease, I suspect that many of us here at /. have been "infected" at one time or another. But for these people, anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are prescribed for the SOLE purpose of supressing sexual desire. Oh sure, that's not what it's officially for, but staff openly talk about the real goal of putting a client on that med. The "depression" doesn't really exist until the client gets too horny for our director's taste, and the doctor mysteriously does NOT prescribe one of the many antidepressants out that have a lower impact on sexual function. And of course, no one is ever prescribed the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which has been shown to increase sexual desire and pleasure (as I can personally attest to) and would be otherwise appropriate for many of our more lethargic clients.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we were forced to deal with a less intelligent and more primal version of ourselves, we would be forced to confront our more animalistic urges in a saner and more consistan