New Study Shows Mystery 'Hobbits' Not Humans Like Us (phys.org) 127
According to a study published on Monday, diminutive humans that died out on an Indonesian island some 15,000 years ago were not homo sapiens, but rather a different species. The Homo floresiensis, known as "hobbits" since they looked like small humans, were found to be a distinct species based on the layers in the specimens' skulls. This discovery could be the end of one of the most heated arguments in anthropology.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's a squatch in these woods!" --> "There's a hobbit in these holes!"
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard a peep on pedal extremities or body hair yet. So it is still too early to tell.
Ao hobbits was an approriate name (Score:4, Interesting)
So, they were called hobbits because they look like small humans. They are NOT humans, but they still LOOK like humans, just like Tolkein's hobbits (the commonest association), so the name is appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Would they truly be aliens if they lived here? You don't suppose they fell in love , flew to another planet to reproduce, and came back to live and die or anything do you?
Well I guess they could have died in space and just got dumped in the cave instead of space. But you would assume if that was the case you would find artifacts somewhat more advanced nearby.
Re:Ao hobbits was an approriate name (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't suppose they fell in love , flew to another planet to reproduce, and came back to live and die or anything do you?
Or maybe they were the rejects that an alien species wanted to get rid of. They could be the Biebers or Jersey Shore of some ancient alien race. We just haven't developed the technology to get rid of said rejects.
What is new here? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hobbits were humans in Tolkien's universe much closer to humans than the Orcs were to Elves because they weren't twisted by magic.
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious about many mythological creatures were based off of prehistoric encounters with creatures and subspecies.
Neanderthals seem to have many aspects we would point out to Trolls and Ogres.
We have had a bunch of species that were around when we were too, many of them having divergent evolutionary traits. As humans had expanded we were in competition. And humans had the ability to win. But with such challenges, I would expect word of mouth tales about the evil monsters who once inhabited the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Neanderthals are just Basque. [aoi.com.au]
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, a seriously bad article. Nearly everything it says about Basque (except for its being a language isolate) is wrong. E.g. "The structure of the Basque language is also very distinctive, it is said to contain only nouns, verbs, and suffixes." Hundreds of languages fit that description: having suffixes and lacking adjectives. But Basque isn't one of them; it has adjectives (see e.g. http://mylanguages.org/basque_... [mylanguages.org], or the Wikipedia article on Basque grammar), and at least two prefixes. And the arti
"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:5, Funny)
How do we have to imagine this? More "english gentlemen drinking brandy in front of a stuffed Lion, disagreeing slightly", or more "Thunderdome!!! Two opinions enter, one opinion leaves!"...?
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:5, Informative)
I read it as 'emacs vs. vim' kind of an argument.
The argument has been a bit more heated than that. For many decades humans, unlike all other known species, were thought to have an evolutionary tree without any branches. Over the last couple of decades it turns out that:
1) The human evolutionary tree had many, many, many branches.
2) Dwarfism in humans existed, i.e. the hobbits.
3) Archaic forms of humans existed until fairly recently, again the hobbits.
4) It turns out you can recover large amounts of DNA from ridiculously old samples and discover extinct species of humans without ever touching a shovel and scraping at dirt with a bricklayer's trowel.
5) Some of the diverse branches of the human evolutionary tree merged again when modern humans mated with archaic forms of human. Well know examples of this are Neanderthals, Denisovans plus at least a couple of other archaic species unknown from anything except DNA. Upwards of 20% of the DNA of the Neanderthal for example still exist in our genome.
6) There are a lot of surprises still left to discover, like Albert Perry's Y-chromasome which pre-dates the oldest know modern human fossil by 140000 years.
I really love it when things like this happen. Scientific communities tend to settle into a routine. They are like a bunch of people in a conference room who have dominant theories to explain much of the way things work and most of the work that still need doing is to extend and improve these theories and the oddballs with weird theories have been pushed into a corner and are being ignored. Then, just as people were settling into a routine under the fatherly guidance of the big names in the field, somebody opens the door and brings in a discovery like this or Svante Pääbo's discovery of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern humans (Ian Tattersall has been eating crow on that score ever since) or my other recent favourite contribution to the human origins debate which is Eske Willerslev 's discovery [nature.com] of people that were genetically closely related to modern Europeans but who lived in Siberia. It turns out that these people contributed significantly to the groups that settled the Americas, meaning that Native Americans and Europeans are actually very closely connected by genetic bonds that stretch back way, way, way, way before Columbus (as in 24000 years ago)... so here we once again have the revenge of the scientific oddballs.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for this.
One question, though. Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
Re: (Score:1)
but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
So they never once brought up Horses and Donkeys, and how they can interbreed to produce Mules, and Hinny's?
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, that definition leaves out the subject at hand, that past species of humans interbred and created clearly fertile offspring (considering that large numbers of their descendants are still alive and probably commenting on this forum today).
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe that is why the general consensus for categorizing similar but distinct asexually reproducing organisms ( especially viral organisms) are "strains"?
That is beside the fact that the sciences generally are not using the OLD way of categorizing things into kingdom > genus > species > subspecies anymore when talking about evolutionary trees. Now it is defined by phylogenetic trees, but the old descriptors haven't fully died out from the old fogeys in the field yet.
A better descriptor that is star
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:5, Interesting)
Species are generally considered to be separate if they can't breed to create FERTILE offspring. Lots of closely-related species can breed, but the offspring are usually sterile.
Usually sterile, but not always, and not always to the same degree. And therein lies the rub: placing a thing in one category or another implies the difference is discrete and readily observable, but in the cases of populations of organisms differences are along a continuum.
The way high school students are taught about what a species is is simplistic; or at least it seems to be to me after years of working with scientists to support their data needs. I believe you can think of the concept of "species" as describing, not just a population of organisms, but a population of researchers studying those organisms. A taxonomic designation is a tool researchers use to communicate with each other; a division of a population into two species is dependent upon the their communication needs, not some kind of objective Truth.
Inability to crossbreed to produce fertile offspring is certainly one thing that researchers need species to tell them; if two populations can't interbreed then that will certainly force researchers to distinguish between them. But there are other reasons to recognize new species, and I've certainly seen cases where populations that can interbreed to produce entirely viable offspring have been put into two different species. Let me tell you that's a PITA for people who are keeping records. "We collected species X, species Y, and what appears to be an X/Y hybrid..."
It would be really nice if there were some simple, objective, observable criterion for generating a new species designation, but that's not how it works. The way it actually works is some journal editor accepts an article describing the proposed new species. Then after the ensuing argument a consensus is formed that some people like, some people dislike, but most people can live with. It's a matter of how people feel about the impact of the new species on their work, not some objective distinction -- although because objective distinctions like physical traits are involved I think researchers sometimes lose sight of the fact that naming a population with those traits is a mere convention. It's easier to see the essential arbitrariness of the process when you're sitting off on the sidelines watching.
So bottom line: "species" reflects the needs of researchers to communicate with each other, not some kind of objective reality. Reality can force researchers to recognize a new species, but it can't prevent them from doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
The way high school students are taught about what a species is is simplistic;
the problem is that even scientists don't agree on what a species is, and besides, if there is some reasonable basis it's genetic and they don't have enough genetics yet because school sucks. it's reasonable to provide an abstraction. the problem is that in school they teach you THIS IS HOW IT IS and not just this is good enough for now, and that is what is contrary to actual science
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:4, Insightful)
The way high school students are taught about what a species is is simplistic; or at least it seems to be to me after years of working with scientists to support their data needs.
Absolutely, yes. The tree of life is not a tree. it's a directed acyclic (has to be causal) graph. At coarse scales, it looks very much a tree. Defining species is essentially the same as performing clustering on nodes of the tree (or leaves if you happen to be a cladist) such that the clusters represent a good compression of the graph in that the tree structure of the clusters is similar to the structure of the underlying graph.
Choosing the right cluster size and partitioning scheme, as with any clustering problem is very hard and the results will never be perfect. If the clustering is too coarse, it lacks descriptive power, and likewise if it's too fine, it over segments and the clusters aren't semantically meaningful.
Most of the time, fortunately, the clustering is easy. Humans for example, fir very neatly in to one cluster, and we look noticable different from and cannot breed with our pair of closest relatives.
The breeding thing covers most of it. Can breed -> same species, can't breed -> different species.
It's not perfect because some closely related species such as horses and donkeys can produce offspring ans sometimes those offspring are also fertile. However, they're not often fertile, the males never are and they have different numbers of chromosomes.
Then you get ring species ,where A can breed with B, B with C, C with D, but A can't breed with C and etc. A and D may or may not be able to breed depending on the type of ring.
And that's animals. Then you get plants which are all kinds of fucked up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...It's not perfect because some closely related species such as horses and donkeys can produce offspring ans sometimes those offspring are also fertile.
And it only takes this happening once where that fertile offspring survives and a whole bunch of others are wiped out that the fertile offspring then generates significantly more DNA into the pool. Note that in this case it is likely male children or the female child(ren) of a homo sapiens female that were fertile and passed on the Neanderthal DNA, due to the current lack of observed Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. Same for the Denisovans, etc. That interpretation is open to future data proving it wrong as
Re: (Score:2)
Note that in this case it is likely male children or the female child(ren) of a homo sapiens female that were fertile and passed on the Neanderthal DNA, due to the current lack of observed Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. Same for the Denisovans, etc. That interpretation is open to future data proving it wrong as more DNA analysis of the population as a whole proceeds.
One of the possibilities that fascinates me is that this lack of mitochondrial DNA evidence for Neanderthal ancestry through the female line may be because we haven't sampled enough of the modern human population; after all as atypical as it is to have your DNA analyzed, it's far, far more rare to have your mitochondrial haplotype analyzed.
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish I had mod points for this.
One question, though. Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
I may have used the term species a bit loosely but that also brings us to an interesting question. When have two groups of a species 'evolved apart' enough to be considered separate species? Turns out there is no hard and fast definition of this. In the old days this was done by analysing morphological differences of animals, however, recently it turns out that animals we thought were unrelated were actually genetically rather closely related or vice versa so morphology is not the best determinant all on it's own. In my opinion you have got two different species when the difference in their DNA is so great they can't produce live offspring and the ability to produce infertile offspring is then the transitional state. This means that genetics and not morphology is the best way to classify species and that is controversial. But morphology cannot be ignored. There are also cases where two different animal groups cannot practically mate due to anatomical differences even though one may be able to interbreed them in a petri dish and produce live, and even fertile offspring via artificial implanting of embryos. Are those separate species? It'a a matter of definition. Neanderthals for example are referred to as a 'species or subspecies of human in the genus Homo' in the Wikipedia article i.e. scientists are still bickering about whether the Neanderthals should be called Homo Neanderthalensis (species) or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis (subspecies of H. Sapiens). Personally I'm inclined to go with "can no longer produce offspring or only produce sterile offspring" as being the point when you get a new species and that still leaves us with the problem of defining a sub-species. According to geneticists Neanderthals and Modern humans were rather close to this point when the interbreeding events took place but they were still able to produce fertile offspring or we would not be carrying around H. Neanderthalensis and H. Denisovensis DNA now would we?
Re: (Score:1)
... Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
Short answer: It was thought that they were separate species, so they wrote it up that way. Then they found out different, but the books were all printed the old way! Result, much wringing of hands and ignoring the problem... 8-)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a lot of fun gobbledygook but if they just cracked open the Bible for once they'd know God did it. Mystery solved!
Re: (Score:2)
While that is the easy answer - saying that G-d did it, Genesis is a little light on details there, and also has more then one creation story in it....
Re: (Score:3)
is Eske Willerslev 's discovery [nature.com] of people that were genetically closely related to modern Europeans but who lived in Siberia. It turns out that these people contributed significantly to the groups that settled the Americas, meaning that Native Americans and Europeans are actually very closely connected by genetic bonds that stretch back way, way, way, way before Columbus (as in 24000 years ago)...
Interesting. I'd heard relations like that proposed by linguists 30 years ago, and more recently links of PIE ancestors to Siberian people a decade ago. But there are so many proposed macro-language families, that could just be luck.
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno about the genetics, but about the languages: A small group of nearly extinct Siberian languages (not believed to be related, btw, to Indo European languages) is quite likely related to the Na-Dene languages of North America (Tlingit, Navajo/ Dene, Slave, Carrier, and perhaps a dozen other Athabaskan languages whose names I don't recall). You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. And the Inuit ("Eskimo") languages around the polar regions are related. But afaik, there is no in
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is so much wrong with this list of 'facts'. Way too many generalizations and half-truths.
One example, you do not "recover large amounts of DNA from ridiculously old samples" and "discover extinct species of humans without ever touching a shovel".
Having worked in a world-class ancient human DNA lab at a major university, I encourage readers to be skeptical of such statements. There is a lot of hard work both in the lab and in the field associated with these findings. Simplifying the process is an insu
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out you can recover large amounts of DNA from ridiculously old samples
Or may be the samples are not as old as they thought
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:5, Interesting)
The archeologists who discovered the bones said it had all the hallmarks of a distinct homo species right from when they first discovered it. They published papers to that effect 10 years ago. This was however controversial due to the very young age of the bones. No other homo species except us is known to have survived past the last ice age, the claim that these did - and were not the same species as us - was very controversial. Especially since the fossils were so recent that it is entirely possible that humans could have encountered them (remember - most dead bodies don't leave fossils - if the fossils we have is a mere 15-thousand years old, they could have been alive as recently as 5000 or even 1000 years ago).
So a lot of scientists were understandably skeptical about their conclusions even though they were seriously thorough, they didn't publish their findings for almost two years after the discovery as they spent all that time checking and rechecking to test every likely counter-theory and only published it when all those tests were negative and they could find no other possible explanation.
That it remained controversial despite that just shows that contradicting pet theories can upset people - and sometimes, the pet theories are wrong. Interestingly, if any homo species was going to survive the ice age without our technology these guys had about the best shot. Living on a small tropical island - they probably barely even noticed it happened.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Especially since the fossils were so recent that it is entirely possible that humans could have encountered them (remember - most dead bodies don't leave fossils - if the fossils we have is a mere 15-thousand years old, they could have been alive as recently as 5000 or even 1000 years ago).
An encounter with modern humans is very likely. The people on the next island has folklore telling of small people in the "hobbit island". It has detailed descriptions, some with match the bones and some which can't be seen on the bones. For instance the women had long saggy breasts and to get around, they hung them on the shoulders. The folklore is mainly centered on one fact and that is those small people were extremely aggressive and they would likely kill you if you would be stupid enough to go to their
Re: "most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:3)
I know about the folklore but thanks for the detailed explanation. I didnt know any details about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Conclusion: if the folklore tells that modern humans encountered the hobbits, they most likely did.
That does not seem like an accurate conclusion from your stories. A similar conclusion would be that the mountain in Japan had monsters, and there's no evidence of that....
You know as well as I do, that just because we don't have evidence that it is there, does not actually prove it does not exist. I really don't think they have done any detail searches of the surrounding area.
Of course, claiming it -is- there, without any evidence, can piss people off and waste a lot of time. But that's different.
Re:"most heated arguments in anthropology" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
sheer poetry
*snicker* (Score:1)
"heated arguments in anthropology"
Two men enter, one man leaves.
Re: (Score:1)
In this case one species of man entered the argument, and two left.
That's the old hobbits. What about the new? (Score:1)
While there's a fair number of other six footers, but I wonder if we're somehow breeding a new species of short people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's the old hobbits. What about the new? (Score:4, Interesting)
The recent developements in average height, as well as within the next 100 years are not due to genetics. The timeframe for that is much too small to affect a huge population in the 100mio significantly.
They are mostly attributed to better food, lack of child deseases and (debated) growth hormons in food or other industrial substances that may have the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Also we used to say in college that you could often guess pretty accurately from a distance which of the Asian girls were foreign students and which were American-raised just from their bust size alone.
It's even worse than that... you can guess if their home town had a McD/KFC based on that metric alone. Bust sizes went up in Japan once McD became common.
Re: (Score:2)
This IS pushing up the average human height,
Good. More 'rekt' videos on some of the gore websites. Tall people seem to suffer from the really hideous skeletal injuries to a greater degree than short ones. The down side of this; as height is selected, there is no more Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' in operation to weed the tall ones out. They will continue among us, limping around like cripples and breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an inverse correlation between female hormone levels and height (in women). High levels of female hormones also correlate with large breasts and other feminine physical characteristics. Assuming adequate nutrition, small women tend to look more feminine, hence more attractive.
Also, some guys are intimidated by tall women.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the airlines :)
Re: (Score:1)
You should go to Hong Kong some time. I felt tall for the first time in my life (I'm a 5'8" male). At least until I got into an elevator with some Germans...
Not humans like us? (Score:2)
Define human! (Score:1)
What exactly is the definition of human? The dictionary just says human = people.
So, were the hobbits people? If so, then they were humans, just like us, even if they weren't Homo Sapiens.
Re: (Score:1)
Were Neanderthals human?
They are called "homo neanderthalensis", which is Latin for "human of Neanderthal".
Re: (Score:2)
More so: the englisch word human derives directly from the latin word homo.
homo means same in Greek (homonym = same name; homophone=same sound, etc). The English word human derives from the Latin humanus by way of French.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets just say this: Human is not the same as Homo sapiens. There are many members of our species that I would not classify as human beings - primarily for their lack of humanity.
Members of Homo sapiens are persons (biological into legal) and under American terminology, natural persons.
It is not sufficient for two organism types to be able to breed to be the same species, only that they have viable offspring. A mule is sterile, as is a liger.
These "hobbits" and Neanderthals, if alive today, would a
Re: (Score:1)
The word comes from the valley where the fossils were found.
Everyone agrees the surrounding fossils were homosapiens. That is the context.
The few different ones had bendier bones
All "neanderthal" specimens in the fossil records are openly contested by secular scientists.
On the origin of "species" (Score:4, Insightful)
were found to be a distinct species based on
...the abstract and ill-defined concept of "species."
Re: (Score:2)
A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other
A may be "very similar" to B, and B may be "very similar" to C, but A may not be "very similar" to C.
So how do you divide A, B, and C up into species?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you know those crazy humans... if they can breed with something, they WILL.
Let's be honest... it doesn't matter if they can breed with it. As long as there is a suitably sized hole or protrusion, someone will try to have sex with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong:
found to be a distinct species based on the layers in the specimens' skulls.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that humans have a great deal of DNA in common with monkeys, much in common with dogs, elephants, etc., your comment requires considerable rewriting to make it correct.
My explanation of this (Score:5, Funny)
Short guys don't get dates, and since money had not been invented yet, the hobbits were selected out.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep them as pets? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ask them, "If God is so smart why do men have nipples?"
Re: (Score:2)
If evolution is real and men don't need nipples then why haven't they lost them over time?
It's a fun question. I guess men aren't a species. :)
I'd pray to god if I knew which one would be most likely to reply. No-one likes to be left hanging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are already vestigial. Beyond clamp holders they have no use. Besides Adam was created first, so it makes no sense based on Biblical "evidence". Unless since God is female or He likes nipple clamps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If evolution is real and men don't need nipples then why haven't they lost them over time?
Embryos are created female. Then later during development (~60 days) they become male. Nipples are formed before 60 days.
Doesn't anyone take biology classes in high school anymore? Or is just sex education? (e.g., how, not why)
Re: (Score:1)
Even embryos are XX or XY.
Re: (Score:2)