October 28, 2004
MEANWHILE, DAWKINS IS IN IRELAND DIGGING FOR FAIRY BONES
Our not so distant relative (Henry Gee, The Guardian, October 28th, 2004)
When Indonesian and Australian archaeologists started to excavate a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, they weren't prepared for what they found, the skeleton of an entirely new species of human, Homo floresiensis, that lived as recently as 18,000 years ago."When we first unearthed the skeleton, I was simultaneously gobsmacked, puzzled and amused," says geochronologist Bert Roberts of the University of Wollongong.
"We had been looking for the remains of the earliest modern humans in Indonesia, so when we found the skeleton of a completely new species of human, with so many primitive traits and that survived until so recently, it really opened up a whole can of prehistoric worms. The discovery of Homo floresiensis was sweet serendipity."
Peter Brown, an anthropologist from the University of New England in Armidale, New South Wales, says: "I would have been less surprised if someone had uncovered an alien." The discovery at Liang Bua cave, described in Nature this week, could alter our outlook on our own place in nature.[...]
This isolation had its effects on the human inhabitants. One of the most surprising things about the skeleton is its size: in life, no more than a metre tall, about the same size as one of the giant rats. Living in a hole in the ground and chased by lizards of mythical proportions, the creature has, perhaps inevitably, been nicknamed "hobbit" by some of the researchers - a reference to the tiny hole-dwelling heroes of The Lord of the Rings. [...]
By the same token, evidence for the diversity of human species through time has been downplayed, first by the cultural inertia of stories of an upwards progression towards the human state; second, by the curious chance that Homo sapiens happens to be the only species of human around today - a situation probably unprecedented in 7m years. The evidence for the coexistence of humans and Neanderthals in Europe for at least 10,000 years until Neanderthals disappeared around 30,000 years ago, and the fact that anthropologists have known for years of the multiple lineages of prehumans living in Africa between 4-2m years -has done little to dent the robust idea that humans are so distinct from the rest of the animal world that they rule the earth by virtue of inherent perfection, or divine fiat.
The Flores finds could change all that with a single stroke.For one thing, they underscore the fact of human diversity until very recent times. "Maybe little folk from Flores will hammer the point home more effectively because they are so different in anatomy but so close in time," says Tim White. "How will the creationists cope?"
For another, the evidence challenges the human-centric idea that humans characteristically modify their surroundings to suit themselves, rather than allowing natural selection to adapt them to their environment. If the Flores skeleton is evidence of the kind of evolutionary size change more associated with animals such as rats and elephants, this, says Brown "is a clear indicator" of human-like creatures "behaving like all other mammals in terms of their interactions with the environment".
"Darwin and Wallace would be pleased," adds Tim White. "What better demonstration that humans play by the same evolutionary rules as other mammals?"
Of perhaps more current concern to anthropologists is the degree to which Homo floresiensis, with its small stature and - especially - tiny brain, will force a redefinition of humanity, at least in terms of anatomy. "I think the discovery challenges the very notion of what it is to be human," says Stringer.
"Here is a creature with a brain the size of a chimpanzee's, but apparently a tool-maker and hunter, and perhaps descended from the world's first mariners. Its very existence shows how little we know about human evolution. I could never have imagined a creature like this, living as recently as this."
Russell Ciochon, a paleoanthropologist from the University of Iowa, says: "I suspect that creationists will act very negatively toward this discovery.
"It shows that humans were not alone. There may be other dwarfed species lurking in the caves of other isolated islands. Each new discovery will subtract some essence from the uniqueness of humans. I wonder if this discovery might even be discussed in our current political campaign? It is no secret that Bush is anti-evolution. If he is smart, he will not touch this one."
Here we have maybe the two millionth excited proclamation that scientists have put the final nail in the religious coffin. This one is indeed too funny for words. For centuries, men of the scientific enlightenment have scorned the tendency of ordinary people to spice up dry theology with tales of leprechauns, trolls, monsters, etc. Such things simply did not exist and were the figments of uneducated and overactive spiritual minds. Now we are treated to the spectacle of scientists sipping champagne to celebrate the imminent death of religious belief based upon the discovery of a secret tribe of dwarves in the Indonesian forest.
What's the possibility that they found a 12 year old's skeleton? Or maybe it was an alien. What's the deal with Pygmies? The possibilities are endless.
Posted by: AllenS at October 28, 2004 7:07 AM(As promised...)
Come on, Peter - you've got to admit it's interesting.
Island dwarfism among genetically-isolated populations is already a well-known phenomenon in evolution. It's usually attributed to the general scarcity of food on islands, thus favouring smaller, more efficient creatures, plus the lack of predators negating the necessity to be big and mean. Examples are the dinky island foxes in the Northen Channel Islands. There even used to be have mini-mammoths ('mammoth exilis') there.
It would be fascinating if this was the same thing happening to our distant relations.
Well, we'll see how it turns out.
But a few things are for sure:
1. Yes, creationists will react badly - you already have, for a start...
2. They're damn cute.
There were several skeletons of small stature, so it is unlikely that all were children. The article I read didn't say, but it is likely the bones have adult characteristics such as fused skull sutures.
Interestingly, the natives kept oral traditions about little people in the jungles, left food for them, and legends indicate some were still around as late as the 1500's. As Peter elaborated, most scientists would have rolled their eyes at such squishy 'evidence'....
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 28, 2004 8:20 AM"most scientists would have rolled their eyes at such squishy 'evidence'...."
As indeed would anyone with a bit of common sense, and quite rightly. Science likes evidence, not dogma or superstition. That's why it keeps changing. Anything can be admitted as long there's sufficient evidence, even hobbits.
I believe they've found 6 skeletons. They can tell they are adults by wear on the teeth and growth lines on the skull.
Posted by: Brit at October 28, 2004 8:28 AMBrit:
Who are cute, the dwarves or the creationists?
One of the discreet charms of evolutionists is how excited they become about the obscure and remote. Nothing momentous ever happens in Manhatten or just down the road, and everyday beasts like cats and dogs and mosquitos just keep on truckin' and tell us nothing. But Hawaiian fruit flies, Indonesian dwarves, peppered moths and dinky island foxes turn the universe upside down and reveal life's most profound mysteries. It really is very exotic, isn't it?
Thanks for reminding me that I'm a creationist. I'll have to remember to pick up a few books to figure out exactly what I believe.
Posted by: Peter B at October 28, 2004 8:43 AMThe legends _were_ evidence, improperly weighted. What, every story told by a culture is made up of whole cloth? Science likes evidence, but is a lot more accepting if the evidence fits a particular framework. Confirmation bias and all that.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 28, 2004 8:51 AMPeter:
Both are cute, in their own ways.
Biologists study both the exotic and the tear-inducingly dull. Hence the long discussion elsewhere on this site about eyebrow lice versus non-eyebrow lice.
But yes, even eyebrow lice can reveal awe-inspring stuff, if you're prepared look at it in the right way, and that's what floats yer boat.
Brit:
"To see a world in a grain of sand;
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
You know, I always thought Blake's sublime verses spoke of religious wonder and ecstasy. Now, to my horror, I sense they are turning into a working manual for ambitious evolutionary scientists.
Peter: You could be on to something there.
Your favourite pal Dawkins has a shtick that evolutionary science does not take the 'wonder' out of nature - which is something religious types accuse it of doing. In fact, he claims, nothing could be more awesome and wonderful than, for example, the blind evolution of the seeing eye.
Like I said, if it floats one's boat...
Posted by: Brit at October 28, 2004 9:08 AMSo Frodo Baggins was an Indonesian. Is that cool or what?
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 28, 2004 9:17 AMI just read the whole article again. They used the words "the skeleton" 5 times. Nowhere did they say anything about more than 1 skeleton. The whole thrust of their assumptions about this find, is that they were giddy about creationists getting their undies in a bunch. Let's see the damn skeleton. These people are about as intelligent as Carl Sagan. IIRC alot of his stuff turned out to be hogwash.
Posted by: AllenS at October 28, 2004 9:30 AMAllenS:
It's not impossible that it'll all turn out to be an elaborate hoax. We'll see.
But I'm reading about it in the (London) Times.
This report says that 6 separate skeletons have been found, ranging in date from 95,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago.
The possible reaction of creationists doesn't get a mention in the article. That's probably because, like hobbits, they don't exist here anymore.
Peter, the Darwinists act no more giddy than the religious do every time they come across a story of secular people in Europe or elsewhere acting in accordance with the stereotypes assigned to them by the religious. You know, they have no moral compass, they trivialize the important things and give import to the trivial, they lose their non-faith when the chips are down (no atheists in foxholes), blah, blah, blah.
For a non-creationist, you sure are touchy about any criticism of creationism.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 28, 2004 10:36 AMRobert:
Indeed. In fact, they act a lot less giddy.
I don't think there's many evolutionary biologists leaping around at this discovery crying "Yes! At last we've proven creationism wrong!"
That happened a long time ago.
The scientific interest here centres on the notion that human ancestors might not always have made the environment adapt to them, but might have had to adapt to it, among other things.
Posted by: Brit at October 28, 2004 11:38 AMIn Peter's defense, he is a true agnostic regarding Evolution and ID.
But that doesn't mean he is above tossing the occasional grenade just for the heck of it.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 11:55 AMYawn. Things like the comments by Dr. Ciochon (to say nothing of Dawkins!), do a colossal disservice to evolutionists, and science in general. My general impression is that we know that species adapt to their environment (or die), but don't have much of any idea how the process works in detail (Please don't post lists of books to read, as I have no time/interest--astrophysics is my deal). And yet as far as I can tell this skepticism would get me branded as a "creationist" (cue scary music). I realize this is the Guardian, after all, but sheesh. Can't we just agree that this story is pretty darn cool?
Posted by: brian at October 28, 2004 2:17 PMAllen, AP story says there are parts of 7 skeletons, the most complete a mature female, with fused skull and worn teeth.
As for Peter's comments about legends of little peoplee -- he did not mention menehune -- there are equally legends of big ones. When we find a 12-foot human skeleton, then you can say Gog and Magog were not just figments of the imagination of depraved goat wallopers out in the desert too long.
Also, it is a sign of ignorance to say that evolutionists delight only in the exotic and remote. A good part of Darwin's 'Origin' was devoted to pigeon breeding. And Mendel worked with sweet peas.
Genetics arose from breeding experiments with primroses.
All quotidian
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 28, 2004 2:17 PM