March 3, 2005
I SIT BESIDE THE FIRE AND THINK OF PEOPLE LONG AGO
"Hobbit" Brains Were Small but Smart, Study Says (Hillary Mayell, 3/03/05, National Geographic News)
The recently discovered "hobbit" fossils do in fact represent a new human species, according to a new study of a hobbit braincase. What's more, the little humans seem to have been more intelligent than expected, given their extremely small brains—a finding that may completely change how scientists view human evolution. [...]H. floresiensis grew to be only about three feet (one meter) tall—prompting archaeologists to christen them "hobbits," after the diminutive Lord of the Rings characters.
Despite having very small brains—roughly the size of a chimpanzee's—they appear to have hunted animals twice their size, made stone tools for hunting and butchering, and used fire for cooking.
"It's remarkable. We've always been taught and thought that as humans evolved, the bigger the brain, the better they are," said Charles Hildebolt, a physical anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
"If this little creature actually made the tools and was using the tools, built the fire and was using the fire, then that really tips human evolution upside down and changes the way we have to think about brain evolution. It may indicate that the reorganization of the brain was just as important and may be even more important than size." [...]
Falk and her team created a virtual, three-dimensional cast of the interior of the fossilized H. floresiensis skull. Called an endocast, the model shows a variety of features, including the brain's size, shape, vessels, and convolutions.
This hobbit endocast was then compared with virtual endocasts and latex endocasts of modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, an adult female Pygmy, and three early human ancestors: Australopithecus africanus, a species that lived around 2.5 million years ago; Paranthropus aethiopicus, a species that appears in the fossil record about 2.7 million years ago, and Homo erectus, a species that lived from about 1,600,000 to 250,000 years ago.
Hard to decide which part of this is the most fun: (1) that they're drawing all these conclusions from evidence they manufactured themselves; (2) the way it guts all the just-so stories about how brain size forced all kinds of adaptations; or (3) the insistence that a smaller human is a separate species.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 3, 2005 10:07 PM
Or (4) the predictability with which you gleefully seize upon any old article some hack has thrown together, waved in front of the editor a few minutes before deadline with the great journalistic refrain, "Will this do?"; and then pretend that it represents the latest wacko thing that "they" (all evolutionary scientists) have cooked up, as if its inherent silliness represents a threat to the enormous body of painstakingly acquired knowledge built up over decades of microscopic study of the natural world.
That's quite fun, too.
Posted by: Brit at March 4, 2005 3:56 AMBrit:
"the enormous body of painstakingly acquired knowledge built up over decades of microscopic study of the natural world."
Forgive me, but you sound like a father chewing out his selfish kids for not being appreciative enough of all their mother has done for them.
One thing that makes darwinists so cute is they can't seem to agree on whether the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive or whether there are huge gaps they assure us will be filled by future research. I am completely unqualified to judge, but it is striking how they seem to hold both views at the same time. But then, there are lots and lots of different explanations within evolution for all kinds of different things, aren't there? Tons of 'em.
Peter:
The evidence from many different fields - archaelology, bio-geography, natural history, genetics etc - that evolution happens is overwhelming to the point where it's just a fact.
Since evolution covers all of life - billions of species - over all of the history of life - billions of years - even though there are overwhelming quantities of evidence, there are also obviously lots of gaps in specific areas. Those gaps get plugged all the time.
Posted by: Brit at March 4, 2005 7:00 AMBrit:
So do the dikes of Holland, but they still spring leaks.
Posted by: Peter B at March 4, 2005 7:41 AMWell I guess that means something. Certainly sounds good :)
Posted by: Brit at March 4, 2005 7:43 AMBrit-
Is the 'hobbit' a seperate species or not? This science seems to assume certain things which have not been proven. In the spirit of open inquiry, I should like to ask why?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at March 4, 2005 7:54 AMBrit:
It means that while you give blithe assurances about evidentiary gaps being steadily "plugged" scientists are deluging us with a steady stream of discoveries like this one that they say will force us to "rethink" some aspect of evolution. You've really got us coming and going, don't you, you clever chaps?
Posted by: Peter B at March 4, 2005 8:14 AMNo, its journalists who are providing the deluge, and Orrin who is pointing it your way.
"Nassssty Dawisssses. Smeagol hates Darwinssses."
(No substantive comment intended. Just funnin'.)
Posted by: Mike Morley at March 4, 2005 8:32 AMThere's no contradiction between being sure of the outline while uncertain of the details.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at March 4, 2005 12:38 PM