Hobbits --they existed

By Mike Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, and Richard Roberts	Photographs by Kenneth Garrett H. floresiensis reconstruction (above) by John Gurche
Diminutive hominins make a big evolutionary point: Humans aren't exempt from natural selection.

Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.

At
first we thought it was a child, perhaps three years old. But a closer
look showed that the tiny, fragile bones we had just laid bare in a
spacious cave on the Indonesian island of Flores belonged to a
full-grown adult just over three feet (one meter) tall.

Had we
simply found a modern human stunted by disease or malnutrition? No. The
bones looked primitive, and other remains from Liang Bua, which means
"cool cave" in the local Manggarai language, showed that this skeleton
wasn't unique. It was typical of a whole population of tiny beings who
once lived on this remote island. We had discovered a new kind of
human.

Back in the lab, where we analyzed the bones and other
artifacts, the full dimensions of what we had discovered began to
emerge. This tiny human relative, whom we nicknamed Hobbit, lived just
18,000 years ago, a time when modern humans—people like us—were on the
march around the globe. Yet it looked more like a diminutive version of
human ancestors a hundred times older, from the other end of Asia.

We
had stumbled on a lost world: pygmy survivors from an earlier era,
hanging on far from the main currents of human prehistory. Who were
they? And what does this lost relative tell us about our evolutionary
past?

Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.

Natural selection, is a lame escuse to try to explain somehing like this. Why then, are 'we' so superior?

Cause apparently we choose to be. We obtain power hen we want more, and we mow down those that get in our way... striving hard to be the dominant species...

Then again, I could just be ranting rubbish...

Taikenzor wrote:Then again, I could just be ranting rubbish

Don't start with that. 'We' can't choose to be anything (literaly, in this case). Its the same way that I can't simply choose to survive on Nitrogen alone, and cause you to die of oxygen poisoning.


Striving hard to be the dominant species would typically be natural, but applicable to this case. I didn't say that I have an answer to this riddle. All I'm saying is that: Categorizing it as simply Natural Selection, is a lazy approach that has didn't even prove that the two 'species' had any form of interaction anyway. I'm sure the 1st year students, will remind you of all the boring definitions that we need to know (from environmental studies).

when they talk about choose i'm sure they don't mean just switch on the nitrogen only valve ... what I think they mean is certain parts of the body will evolve or not evolve to fit the environment, for arguments sake, there are no more plants in the environment that release oxygen and so there is no oxygen, now this won't affect organisms that don't need oxygen but others that need it have to either evolve to survive or just die out

The Nitrogen/oxygen thing, was just just a hypothetical example that I made up.

Taikenzor, made it sound as if 'we' had a choice (and 'we' already made it). I can't agree with that concept.

well im nt sure about this beein real but it can be a birth effect on somebody and there assuming its a hobbit,plus thats nt hard core evidence to prove that they really exist

Jr, this isn't just a 'find' on only one specimen.
There have been others similar to this.

hmmm interesting is there any website where i can get more information on this?

There are many. I will post the few that I do have. TabooXchanz, will do the rest. I have an exam to study for, so I can't do it tonight, but I'll get it done, byt tomorrow afternoon.

ok snyper thnaks for the help ill try and see what i can get of the net.

[quote="Snyper"]

Taikenzor wrote:Then again, I could just be ranting rubbish

Don't start with that. 'We' can't choose to be anything (literaly, in this case). Its the same way that I can't simply choose to survive on Nitrogen alone, and cause you to die of oxygen poisoning.


You don't have to get all technical on me...

We chose to be superior, what I meant was that.... you know waht never mind.... what's the point of arguing with you anyway.... I'll lose no doubt...

Taikenzor wrote:We chose to be superior, what I meant was that.... you know waht never mind.... what's the point of arguing with you anyway.... I'll lose no doubt...

ahh don't be so pessimistic...

Taikenzor, I wasn't trying to put you down in any way. I just wanted to see exactly where you were getting at. All I'm simply saying is that I'm yet to see any documentation stating that these two races (species in this case) co-existed in exactly the same location (to cause the conditions you were stating earlier).