Homo floresiensis

A dramatic discovery. Very exciting. And one can't help imagining the discovery of a small extant population of another Homo species on some little island in the pacific, unlikely though that may be.

This is one of those BIG DEALS that you only see come in science once every decade or two. Not subscribing to Nature, I'm hoping an accessible source like SciAm comes out with all the details. This is pretty phenomonal. We have Neandertals managing to hang out in Spain until about 30,000 years ago, and now another cousin is discovered who was in Indonesia 18,000 years ago, while moderns were well on the way to spreading all over the globe.

It's probably too much to hope that Flores Man has managed to survive somewhere in the jungles of south Asia, and I find it a little to pat to talk about legends of the wee little people being these apparent descendants of earlier H. erectus migrations into Asia. Still this is awesome stuff.

Compare and contrast: Americans are getting taller.

We have Neandertals managing to hang out in Spain until about 30,000 years ago, and now another cousin is discovered who was in Indonesia 18,000 years ago, while moderns were well on the way to spreading all over the globe.

Here is a very nice summary of the significance of the find by John Hawks, an anthropologist (he has a nice blog too in general).

Just to maintain the normal comfort level of this forum, here is the anticipated reaction from the Great Unwashed. I'd hoped for something a bit more, uh, scriptural, but there it is.

Hmmmm... Did the investigators find any evidence indicating whether H. floresiensis possessed a soul?

Soggy dwarf bones An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans by Carl Wieland, Australia

The remains have many features strikingly similar to Homo erectus, which we have also long maintained is really just a variety of Homo sapiens. The researchers who discovered the Flores bones apparently think that they are dwarfed descendants of Homo erectus. We would agree.

In short, the discovery is exciting and interesting. Evolutionists are surprised and astonished by it. However, they will doubtless find ways to fit it into their ever-flexible evolutionary framework, even using it to reinforce evolutionary notions. The Flores discovery fits very nicely into a biblical view of history.

Like so many other things, all of this was predicted by that giant among atheists, Frank Zappa:

City of tiny lites
Don't you wanna go
Hear the tiny auto horns
When they tiny blow
Tiny lightnin'
In the storm
Tiny blankets
Keep you warm
Tiny pillows
Tiny sheets
Talkin' bout those tiny cookies
That the peoples eats
City of tiny lites
Maybe you should know
That it's over there
In the tiny dirt somewhere

("City of Tiny Lights", from the Sheik Yerbouti 2LP)

What great timing! National Geographic's excellent new issue clearly and concisely states Darwin's revolutionary theory for everyone to read. And now we have an astounding new discovery off of Indonesia. Could this be the spark that lights the fire of enlightenment for the nearly 50% of the country who still clings to fantasy of the literal biblical interpretation of history? Likely not, but we can only hope it inspires a few!

Zappa, hell. It was predicted by Matt Groening! (Look! I've created Lutherans!)

P.S.: Perhaps I should add that Mr. Groening is a big fan of Mr. Zappa's work.

OK, so I read the original article and a couple of others, including the one kindly pointed to by 'flint' above, that tend to take the position that this is not another step on the path to todays version of humans.

I am left believing nothing other than that either something closely related to the ape, or the human species has been found.

My question is, so what ? From an evolutionary point of view this can neither prove nor disprove any version of evolution, nor creationism. It certainly would be of scientific and sociological interest, but I can't see that it has any more significance than that.

Live wolves appear closely related to live dogs. Does that mean the dog has evolved from the wolf or vice-versa ? Am I too slow ?

If we're all evolving toward the perfect single organism of the future (having begun as a single organism way back in a primordial soup), why are there so many different evolutionary paths in the same place ? subject to the same evolutionary forces ? Why start as a single organism and evolve to ... a single organism ? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Jebus, no wonder it doesn't make any sense to you, if you think "we're all evolving toward the perfect single organism of the future." We aren't. Evolutionary biology does not and never has claimed that we are. Your problem is that you are completely wrong, probably about everything there is to know about science.

Robert H:

Evolution produces the tree of life. Each species, once branched off a prior branch, is forever independent and doesn't re-merge with any other branch. Over time, the result is exactly the opposite of what you think - more and more species appearing, with old ones going extinct.

Think of life as consisting of countless different critters, each gradually adapting to an ecological niche. Think of the niche as being a moving target, because the Earth is not a stable place on these time scales. The goal of evolution is to survive to breed one more time, a timespan varying from minutes (for bacteria) to years (for you). That's as long-range as evolution works. There's no grand plan; it's one day at a time.

Finding new life forms, either living or extinct, is always exciting to at least a few specialist geeks. When the life form is even somewhat similar to our exalted selves (ahem), then lots of people get excited. This is because people are vain.

Flint: Finding new life forms, either living or extinct, is always exciting to at least a few specialist geeks. When the life form is even somewhat similar to our exalted selves (ahem), then lots of people get excited. This is because people are vain.

Learning about where we came from, about the paths that - but for the grace of contingency - our lineage might have gone down, discovering a close relative we never knew existed... this is all vanity? I think not.

Did AIG say whether these guys were on the ark or not?

Russell:

Am I permitted to disagree with you, albeit politely? It is exactly vanity. This isn't intended as a criticism, but just an observation. Of course we are most interested in ourselves. As a cat owner, I notice that my cats pay no attention when their food is devoured by possums and raccoons, but let a strange cat get anywhere nearby, and they all have apoplexy. Cats are attuned to cats, humans to humans (or similar enough).

I would argue that the entire evolution/creation debate takes place for reasons of vanity only, and for no other reason. If scientists would only say that OK, maybe everything else evolved but our vain selves were created in the image of the creationists' god, then evolution would be as warmly embraced as gravity and color TV. But evolution says WE, that is, MY grandfather, was a monkey (in the vernacular). This insult is intolerable, precisely because we are vain.

And there is really no other reason why finding this distant cousin should be more exciting than finding a previously undiscovered Cnidarian. I'm certainly more excited myself. This finding resembles ME! That's vanity.

That is a very peculiar comment. So the problem is that we're just too vain, and unwilling to compromise?

You've got it all wrong. Scientists aren't in this to make nice, or let people feel good about their myths. It's an attempt to describe reality as best we can. The truth does not lie halfway between what the evidence says, and what people's superstitions claim.

i wish i knew more about them

Am I too slow ?

This finding resembles ME! That's vanity.

An exciting find, but maybe for reasons not apparent to you guys. Wait till the genewennies get ahold of these. Hopefully they will have someone more competent than the bunch that came up with the Neanderthal procedure i.e. not filter too much out so as to slant the results.

Wolpoff and the Regional guys will love this.

No way this is an "evolved" Africanus or is apelike/primitive. I hate it when idiots print such prejudical junk. It clearly is homo.

EX: Not even close to morphology of an australopithicene--even in Johanson's wildest national geographic funded dream (gotta love the pic Nature already has published---very, very uncool/scientific with so little evidence on bodyhair,etc. Says they found needles. Why is the pic then naked?).

If it had an australopithicene pevis, it did not have the same gait as homo and had oppositional thumbs/big toes--see Oxnard, etc. Same reason Lucy did not make the Laotoli footprints.

This looks to me like a dwarf erectus. By the way, the classic Erectus or Neanderthal is at ONE END of the spectum of skull characteristics. Most are not so severe--note the Mt. Carmel skull that has flopped between Neanderthal and Modern several times. Don't forget the Cro Magnon skulls with the HEAVY brow ridges, receeding chins, occupital buns and flat domes that they DON'T show on TV.

This find will hopefully make people realize the elasticity of the HUMAN skull morphology and that the question is how the brain is WIRED and not it's size.

Remember, you can demonstrate with Modern skulls a spectrum of characteristics that go Nearly to Neanderthal/Erectus. Too much homo speciation hair splitting.

Compare this find to Kow Swamp and Mongo Man. I'll bet we later find the Dating is a sloppy morass too--very politically driven. No way these guys walked to the island either.

From an evolutionary point of view this can neither prove nor disprove any version of evolution, nor creationism.

So the problem is that we're just too vain, and unwilling to compromise? You've got it all wrong. Scientists aren't in this to make nice, or let people feel good about their myths. It's an attempt to describe reality as best we can.

This is a surprizing discovery. This will radically change the theories of human origins. You just don't see these types of discoveries everyday.

3 feet! That makes African pygmies look tall.

What are they going to unearth next, ancient bones of a giant race?

That reminds me. Do you remember the Homo Erectus Meganthropus? only a few jaw fragments and teeth have been found, but these are massive; like twice as big as a modern mans. Some estimate he was 7 or 8 feet tall and 500-700 lbs.

This will radically change the theories of human origins.

keith B >"Did AIG say whether these guys were on the ark or not?"

Thats bloody hillarious man. I don't know how people can still cling to those rediculous fables

Robert H>

I suggest you read more on the topic and educate yourself further. I dont know how anyone can still disbelieve evolutionary theory. They must be throw backs from the darkages. We can literally see evolution occuring continuiously in lower life forms with short life spans. Insects and other short lived creatures are constantly changing. Take the fruit fly for example that sometimes decides to have 4 wings instead of 2 and will drastically change over short peroids of time depending on what leads to continued survival. Or look at moths in england who were white to start with but turned gray as the air became filled with smog. later to turn back to white when the air cleared.

evolution is a trial an error method of progress. It is flaws and deviations in genes that create the changes... if the change is good the creature survives and passes its genes if not then it dies and its poor genes die with it. We evolve literally by mistake... "we pull a homer" when we hit a good change... its a fluke.. more often the changes suck.

if you possibly can doubt evolution because your missing a few brain chromosomes like many people seem to be... get yourself a fruit fly coloney and see it happening with your own two eyes... the fruit flies will be watching you with two... no wait now its 4... wait... now its 2 again... wow... (P.S. additional body parts such as 4 eyes usually lead to more trouble then they are worth so they often are not successfull... go see for yourself.)

...Homo floresiensis branched off from Homo erectus and evolved into a dwarf form... ...The Asian population of Homo erectus had little, if anything, to do with our own origins....

"This will radically change the theories of human origins" -
Yes it will. This specimen clearly show us, how little brain is necessary for making tools, using fire and collective hunting. No one of these behaviours led to the big size of our brains. Long distance throwing (useless in a tropical forest island) and language (probably not developed by Homo floresiensis) were the most important behaviours for human brain evolution.

Theories of the origin of human characteristics may change. May. But I suspect J Strouse meant the lineage relationships.

From the point of view of (our) lineage relationships I would agree with your opinion Steve - Homo floresiensis doesn't mean anything for the origins of modern humans.

No, it won't. It's an exciting discovery, but it doesn't necessarily mean much for human origins.

You're late to the party, A.

Great brains haven't been developed without reason, they are too expensive from reproductional point of view. The important question is: which behaviors affected brain size? And the (not real surprising) answer from Homo floresiensis is: Non of the so called "human-like behaviors". What we have to look for now is a behavior important to other humans but not to Homo floresiensis which could affect brain size. And I bet, that long distance throwing will be an important part of the the answer in the end.

I believe God created Homo Floresiensis bones one minute prior to discovery.

That's right HalfTrack. And He's hard at work now with Ploink Ploink and a few other invisible omnipotent "gods" designing the bones of a fossilized minotaur that a scientist named Herbert Fludsnick is going to dig up in 2023. That'll be a big year for creationists, let me tell you!

"Long distance throwing"???? What is this, an arguement that baseball is a driving force in modern human evolution?
There are many more incentives to devloping large brains than throwing... a skill especially useful in forests by the way, as birds make for good eating and edible fruit often grows on inaccessable branches.
One of the greatest incentives for large brains seems to be our tremendous mobility, as compared with other apes. We have to remember more, as the larger our range becomes, the more resources we must keep track of. Now, I'm not suggesting that the brain reduction in H.floresiensis is due to their restricted range, but it is worth considering.

"...This specimen clearly show us, how little brain is necessary for making tools, using fire and collective hunting. No one of these behaviours led to the big size of our brains. Long distance throwing (useless in a tropical forest island) and language (probably not developed by Homo floresiensis) were the most important behaviours for human brain evolution."

Not only is it likely H. erectus had language: it's also reported in the historical record of the Flores islanders that these "ebu gogo" "murmured to each other" (millenia of practice avoiding the limited hearing-range of Komodo dragons?), and could parrot human speech (not understanding it, of course). Of course, this assumes that the ebu gogo survived into historical times -- long past the 18 000 BP dating of this particular skeleton.

I have yet to figure out why H. floresiensis is considered a different species from H. erectus. Sure, it's small, but there are populations of small modern humans, and they're not split off. Much is made of how small the brain is, but it doesn't seem disproportionately small, compared to standard sized H. erectus, considering the small body size. Is there something else that sets it off from H. erectus?

I have yet to figure out why H. floresiensis is considered a different species from H. erectus. Sure, it's small, but there are populations of small modern humans, and they're not split off. Much is made of how small the brain is, but it doesn't seem disproportionately small, compared to standard sized H. erectus, considering the small body size. Is there something else that sets it off from H. erectus?

Thank you, Aaron Clausen, for your response.
All right, the brain is about 1/3 the size of H. erectus. At 1/2 the height, if the proportions are the same, it would have a mass of about 1/8 that of the standard, and therefore it seems like a very generous brain. Of course, proportions don't stay the same, at least not in modern humans, mass growing at a rate less than the cube of the height, and generally skull size varies less than body size--that's why unusually small persons seem to have abnormally big heads and large persons seem to have abnormally small ones. Even taking that into account, a 1/3 size brain in a body that was probably less than 1/4 the mass of a standard sized H. erectus doesn't seem particularly small. How big is the brain of a chihuahua compared to that of a tosa or some other breed of big dog? And yet they are the same species. New Guinean and African pygmies are the same species as Watussis (and ourselves), dispite their considerable difference in size. There's enough difference between H. erectus and H. sapiens that I have no difficulty with splitting the two, without having to run a breeding test, but everything I have read has said that H. floresiensis is very similar to H. erectus, a sort of H. erectus analog to a chihuahua.

In #9250 GWW postulates a missing link between man and beef. Well, xxxx a duck, now here's the missing link between mammals and birds .. http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2004/October/_251004platypus.asp . Well, it would be if the creature wasn't obviously a hoax.

Hi Aaron Clausen:
There was a link above, where you can learn more about body size and the associated brain size we would presume for individuals with comparable mental abilities:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/liang_bua.html

The brain of Homo floresiensis is by far smaller than we would predict for a "small Homo erectus".

Hi C.A.M.:
The body mass of Homo floresiensis has been estimated somewere by 30 kg - that may be half the mass of Homo erectus - not 1/8 or 1/4! The brain of Homo floresiensis is very small for a homo - follow the link above, it's a good one.

Hi Neahga:
The argument isn't that baseball is a driving force in human evolution, the argument is, that no other animal has a body and a brain which would allow them to play baseball. Precise long distance throwing is associated with very high demands towards body and brain.
By the way: 400 000 years ago Homo erectus in Europe used throwing spears with flight characteristics comparable to modern javelins.

Another argument about brain/bodysize of Homo floresiensis: In both measures he's matching living chimpanzees!

Comandante Gringo wrote:
"Not only is it likely H. erectus had language: it's also reported in the historical record of the Flores islanders that these "ebu gogo" "murmured to each other""

If you should meet some "ebu gogo" somewhere, ask them first, if they are really Homo floresiensis.
Please, don't mix legends with scientific evidence.

re. Kirschmann

Your arguement that no other animal has the body/brain combination to play baseball is something of a tautology, as no other animal plays baseball.

The link between brain size and throwing is not merely unproven, but is highly questionable, especially your statement that it is useless in a forest environment. Look at nearly every human group living in forests, tropical or otherwise for proof of how useful projectiles are in said environment.

Setting aside the mechanics of throwing, something which apes, especially chimps can do quite well once exposed to the concept, the processing side of throwing is little more demanding than the catching/avoiding side of the projectile debate.

As I'm sure you have noticed, dogs are especially good at catching things, as are birds, dolphins, insects, bats, frogs,and fish. Indeed the arguement could be made that frogs are as effective throwers as humans. And their prey, of course, must also dedicate significant mental processing to avoiding being caught.

The main point being that there are a huge number of factors contributing to intelligence and/or large brain size. We don't know the half of them, nor how they interact with each other to produce results of one sort or another. To pick out something as questionable as throwing in particular strikes me as narrow and limited.

And the language issue... it's generally safe to assume that if a creature like H.floresiensis is making detailed tools and living in groups, that they must have some method for transferring reasonably complex and abstract ideas to each other.

The stuff about throwing projectiles being an important variable in brain evolution in hominids comes from William H. Calvin. It is summarized here. While it is speculative, it is not nearly as simple-minded (!) a proposition as the postings so far seem to suggest.

RBH

Interesting ideas on that link, but the author makes some rather large leaps in the interests of promoting his speciality.

Thank you, Kirschmann. Finally something with some actual information in it.

The "hand axes are really for throwing" section seems particularly iffy. The claim that a thrown axe which sticks into its target would transfer more momentum than a rock which bounces off is simply incorrect; inelastic collisions can only transfer half as much momentum as elastic ones. And it seems very unlikely that a tearing wound to the back would cause a grazing mammal to reflexively collapse--I'm no expert, but I've watched enough nature shows to see that struggling prey can keep their feet quite well even with a predator actually hanging off their haunches and clawing their back.

I think Calvin could stand to spend a few months chucking sharp rocks at, say, a herd of goats, before he further develops his speculations on axe-assisted hunting.

Not that this has much to do with Floriensis, sorry...

Re. Neahga:

"Your arguement that no other animal has the body/brain combination to play baseball is something of a tautology, as no other animal plays baseball."

You're heartly invited to try to teach them - we'll see how many success you'll have.

"The link between brain size and throwing is not merely unproven, but is highly questionable, especially your statement that it is useless in a forest environment. Look at nearly every human group living in forests, tropical or otherwise for proof of how useful projectiles are in said environment."

Modern humans living in forest environments are living there no more, than some 10 000 of years. They had no time to loose their throwing adaptations. They are using it as good as they can, but the important questions are:
1) if the benefit of throwing in this environment is justifying the costs.
2) what maximal distance makes sense in this environment.

Fact is, that none of the throwing spears used by known "primitive people" shows flight characteristics as good as the 400 000 years old spears of Schoeningen, made by homo erectus.

"Setting aside the mechanics of throwing, something which apes, especially chimps can do quite well once exposed to the concept, the processing side of throwing is little more demanding than the catching/avoiding side of the projectile debate. As I'm sure you have noticed, dogs are especially good at catching things, as are birds, dolphins, insects, bats, frogs, and fish. "

There's a lot of nonsense told about the throwing performances of chimps. The greatest ever recorded range for a chimp was below 8 meters (27 ft). humans have thrown spears more than 100 and balls and stones more than 130 meters far.
Catching/avoiding is by far less demanding than throwing. There's no need for distance assessment, you can derive very simple from the growing retinal image of the projectile when and where the missile will arrive - a very simple problem from neurologic point of view. Timing precision of your reaction is less crucial than in throwing and there are no comparable demands to the sensitivity of your hand.

" Indeed the arguement could be made that frogs are as effective throwers as humans. And their prey, of course, must also dedicate significant mental processing to avoiding being caught."

1) Just compare the quotient: distance between the eyes/range
for humans and frogs and you'll see, that humans have to solve a much greater problem in terms of distance assessment. And distance assessment in human throws is much more important, because the projectiles are flying so long, that gravity can cause remarkable deviations.

2)Frogs are using always the same "projectile", there's no need to analyse the individual characteristics of every single (stone) projectile, like in humans.

3) The acceleration-device in frogs is simpler built and therefore easier to steer. Humans are using the whole body in throwing and have to adjust the movements of all body parts very fine.

By the way: frogs are adapted for "throwing"!

"The main point being that there are a huge number of factors contributing to intelligence and/or large brain size. We don't know the half of them, nor how they interact with each other to produce results of one sort or another. To pick out something as questionable as throwing in particular strikes me as narrow and limited."

The aim of science isn't to hide behind "a huge number of factors", but to isolate and identify them. So let's see how much throwing is able to explain and serch than for additional factors - if necessary (and it is necessary, because throwing adaptations can't explain language, they only can contribute to the explanation).

"And the language issue . . . it's generally safe to assume that if a creature like H.floresiensis is making detailed tools and living in groups, that they must have some method for transferring reasonably complex and abstract ideas to each other."

I've contradicted this idea five years ago and so I do today. They didn't need much more than chimps already have. And the brain size indicates, that I'm right.

I'm wondering if the larger-size ancestors of these 'people' were the ones who had the tools & culture, etc. As they dwarfed over time maybe they just kept up the traditions (those that helped survival & maybe some others) of The Old Ones, their ancestors - rather in the way Neaderthal technology didn't change for a very long time.

RBH wrote:

"The stuff about throwing projectiles being an important variable in brain evolution in hominids comes from William H. Calvin. ... While it is speculative, it is not nearly as simple-minded (!) a proposition as the postings so far seem to suggest."

Thank you RBH. Calvin is indeed an important pioneer from the point of view of the throwing theory. His main contribution was to emphasize, that throwing is a ballistic movement (it's too fast for feedback control and therefore very demanding from the point of view of the brain). I think his idea that throwing may have served as preadaptation for language development is also very interesting. Beside this he has produced a lot of questionable ideas, based on wrong calculations. It's better to refer to Jonathan Hore et al and their experimental research if you're interested in timing precision and it's demands in throwing.

Re Anton Mates:

Calvin's throwing theory isn't the only one. Here you can learn something about mine:

www.werfer.de/introduction/introduction.html

Regarding the small brain size of the flores folk, I reccmommend a web search on hydrochephalus. It may shed some light on what abilities flores folk may have lost or gained through reduced brain volume.

I originally came to this web site because the general media made some pretty specific statements of fact about Flores Man. I thought it incredible that so much scientific fact was found at such an ancient archeological sight. I'm trying to decipher the difference between:

1)What the evidence truly shows, and
2)What is speculation sold as fact in an attempt to further someone's career or social agenda.

I challenge everyone who has followed the above dialog to honestly answer this question:

How many 'statements of fact' presented above are based on strong scientific evidence and how many are based on personal opinion, wild speculation, or people trying to convince themselves & others of preconceived notions? Even most of the research cited seems to fall in the wild speculation category.

It seems that this web site, instead of being the bastion of scientific objectivity here to "defend the integrity of both science and science education," instead is a place where scientific research is conducted in two fashions:

1) Find some scientific data and then extrapolate conclusions based on your own personal opinions/speculations. Then later cite those extrapolations as fact and make further extrapolations.
2) Do a Google web search on a topic, and then claim your results to be the equivalent to an exhaustive meta analysis of the subject.

Furthermore, it seems that whenever someone disagrees with a point of view/argument that a person is making, instead of addressing the true validity of the concept, people will take quotes that do not represent the crux of the true meaning what the person is trying to communicate. He will then rip apart/on that small quote, and then consider the original presenter's concept of null and void.

I find this academically dishonest and scientifically narrow minded. Science is the pursuit of the Truth. When someone presents an argument or point of view, you need to address if the argument is supported by the scientific evidence, not the prevailing (or your own personal) philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, I like to hear peoples personal opinions and speculations. They simply should be stated as such, not as fact.

That being said,

Could someone please lay out: what is the hard evidence that was found at the site?

We can start a reasonable discussion from that point.

The hard evidence found at the sites consists of bones of several individuals, including a nearly complete skeleton, stone tools, the remains of hearths, and evidence of prey, such as Stegadon.

If you follow the link to my site, you will find that I've cited the two papers published in Nature, which document the evidence.

What, exactly, are you complaining about?

Hi GJ,

what I've written about throwing is indeed my personal opinion, but it isn't based on wild spekulation. It is just a simple consequence of a theory of human evolution, which I've developed between 1994 and 1999 and which is basad on strong scientific evidence. Within this theory I've rejected the concept of bio-cultural feedback as driving force of human brain evolution. That's the reason, why Homo floresiensis doesn't produce problems within my theory of human evolution.

My simple message is: The interpretation of Homo floresiensis as a proof that brain size doesn't mean much for human intelligence is not the only one. The alternative (elaborated in detail long before Homo floresiensis has been found) is to take him as a proof, that tool production, fire using and hunting doesn't mean much for human intelligence.

All contradictions of the traditional theory ignored, evolutionary dogma continues to be shoveled with the dirt that uncovered Homo flores. Yet there is good news. The bones of Homo flores found are apparently not fossilized. That means scientists are hopeful they might yield DNA that could shed the truth on evolutionary theory and the absurdity of human descent from apes by proving Homo flores is genetically human.

"Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., is a scientist, patent attorney and adjunct law professor of bioethics."

Ph.D in what? She's a lawyer. Or does having a BFA make me a scientist, too?

Hi Jason Spaceman,

Kelly Hallowell's article is pure propaganda. Homo floresiensis doesn't affect evolutionary theory in general, quite the reverse! He underlines, that human evolution follows just the same rules, known from other animals. It was the multiregional hypothesis of human evolution that caused some problems from evolutionary point of view. The evidence, that an isolated population of humans has developed other characteristics matches well with evolutionary theory.

The small brain is a challenge, but only to the favoured so far explanations of human brain evolution and not for evolutionary theory in general.

In my opinion the most important aspect of this remarkable discovery is that Homo floresiensis is telling us something about our own future. If Homo genome is so flexible new human species can arise in the period of forced isolation due to war or climate change. Science can help such development if some population decides in the future to "improve" their genome. The civilization and modern medicine are already influencing our evolution, but we do not know what will be the final result.

In my opinion the most important aspect of this remarkable discovery is that Homo floresiensis is telling us something about our own future. If Homo genome is so flexible new human species can arise in the period of forced isolation due to war or climate change. Science can help such development if some population decides in the future to "improve" their genome. The civilization and modern medicine are already influencing our evolution, but we do not know what will be the final result.

Hi Davor Juretic,

this are interesting thoughts. Before Homo floresiensis the "cerebral rubicon" was an important borderline between humans and prehumans - a human should have a clear bigger brain than known from apes. Although this borderline isn't clear defined in ccm, I think it was justified.

But what about Homo floresiensis? He has been classified as Homo (human), because he seems to be a descendant from Homo erectus and couldn't be called "prehuman" for that reason. Nevertheless, taking in account his brain volume and the cerebral rubicon - critereon, he is not human. Maybe the only solution is, to call him a "posthuman".

I told my friends small people had really existed just based on the Irish legend of the Leprachaun. It is using intuition on the reading available. Out-of-context Man can not decipher information handed down. The probabilities seem unreal. I always felt the Chinese dragon had been true. It is an ancient country and people. Small people (floresiensis) have become true! I predict all the mythology of small hominins is true. The Flores find matches local verbal hand-down. Legend is rich in Scandanavia, Germany and Ireland. There may have been several forms of several sizes, both black and white. Big ears was defence from the tigers. Would someone please excavate in the caves on the N & S sides of the Harz mountains in Germany, and also in the Hohenstein Region. You will find more evidence!

[A question for the brite sparks,
what really influences a small body and small mind?

The adaptive influences of the enviroment,
when pygmies live in Africa with extemely tall
tribes around them.

Gene mutational influences...adaptive to the enviroment, appears
are major hurdle here to explain small animals and people.] :)

The adaptive influences of the enviroment, when pygmies live in Africa with extemely tall tribes around them. Gene mutational influences . . . adaptive to the enviroment, appears are major hurdle here to explain small animals and people