June 15, 2005

GRUBBY LITTLE FINGERS AND DIRTY LITTLE MINDS:

A Bone to Pick in Indonesia: Discovery of remains in a cave that may be of a previously unknown species of tiny human has set off a full-sized row among scientists. (Richard C. Paddock, June 15, 2005, LA Times)

"On Flores, evolution has resulted in the most extreme morphological changes ever seen in hominids, including the smallest stature and brain size for any known hominid species," said professor Michael Morwood of Australia's University of New England, a co-leader of the excavation team.

Scientists say the pygmies and modern humans overlapped in the region for at least 40,000 years, but no evidence of contact between them has been found. The pygmy bones were uncovered beneath a layer of volcanic ash that is about 12,000 years old. All traces of Homo sapiens in the cave were found above the ash layer.

"There are still many problems to solve," said Thomas Sutikna, an Indonesian archeologist on the discovery team. "How did they survive in the same period with modern humans? Maybe they had contact with modern humans. We don't have information about that."

The phenomenon of large animal species "dwarfing" in isolated island habitats is well known to scientists, although it had not been seen in humans. In this process, scarce food supplies give the evolutionary edge to smaller creatures, resulting in the larger species' shrinkage over time. Stegodon, an elephant that also reached Flores more than 800,000 years ago, gradually shrank to the size of a water buffalo.

Even as larger species can dwarf in an island environment, the opposite can happen to smaller species. In the absence of predators on Flores, the rats evolved to become gigantic. Locals say the rats still exist and are sometimes caught and barbecued.

While evolving its short stature ...


Bet you didn't know the Japanese were a separate species until we boosted their caloric intake after WWII and their heights started catching up to ours.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 15, 2005 12:00 AM
Comments

"Bet you didn't know the Japanese were a separate species until we boosted their caloric intake after WWII and their heights started catching up to ours."

It's understandable that changes in their nutrition could affect the height of the Japanese after WW II, but what was the change in their cranial capacity from, say, 1940 to the present day? Any?

According to the discovery team, these little people carried out complex tasks with brains smaller than a chimpanzee's.
Posted by: creeper at June 15, 2005 8:57 AM

Yes, brain capacity doesn't matter. They were humans.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 9:02 AM

Does nutrition alone have an effect on morphological changes or changes in cranial capacity?

Posted by: creeper at June 15, 2005 9:26 AM

Likely not alone.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 9:32 AM

Does nutrition have an effect on morphological changes or changes in cranial capacity at all?

And what else can have an effect on such changes over successive generations?

Posted by: creeper at June 15, 2005 9:45 AM

Yes, considerable, though perhaps not exclusive:

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/040405fa_fact

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 10:37 AM

Perhaps you misunderstood the question. It wasn't about height, whereas the article you cited was.

The question was about morphological changes (say, receding foreheads becoming prominent foreheads) and/or changes in cranial capacity. The article you cited does not concern itself with those.

Posted by: creeper at June 15, 2005 10:59 AM

You get bigger your head changes.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 11:04 AM

"You get bigger your head changes."

By that logic a 5 foot human male would be expected to have a significantly smaller cranial capacity, pronounced eyebrow ridges and receding forehead, while a 7 foot human male would have much larger cranial capacity and prominent forehead.

Is this something that is confirmed by what we see around us?

What was the change in the cranial capacity in the Japanese from, say, 1940 to the present day? Any?

Posted by: creeper at June 15, 2005 11:16 AM

yes. different races have different skull shapes and brain sizes. Doesn't seem to make much difference

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 12:45 PM

Perhaps they were a tribe of jockeys?

Posted by: carter at June 15, 2005 2:55 PM

You guys do realize that there is little or no correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence, right? And that the idea that there is such a correlation is one of the favorite tropes of white supremicists?

Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2005 4:51 PM

Indeed, some prior iterations of homo sapiens had larger cranial capacities but don't seem to have been more intelligent than we.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 4:58 PM

Yes, David, I'm well aware of that, and it wasn't really what the discussion was about. I'm taking issue with Orrin's claims that (1) nutrition brings about morphological changes and changes in cranial capacity (without anything to back this up other than his say-so) and (2) that cranial capacity and skull shape are in direct correlation to height, which clearly isn't the case - or children would have skulls like this and yet grow up to have skulls like this.

Posted by: creeper at June 16, 2005 4:10 AM

Orrin,

"yes. different races have different skull shapes and brain sizes. Doesn't seem to make much difference"

I don't know how you got onto that subject from what we were talking about. The Japanese did not change race from the 1940s to the present day.

Posted by: creeper at June 16, 2005 4:14 AM

No, they changed "species"

Posted by: oj at June 16, 2005 7:28 AM

Sarcasm, right? You can't be serious.

Posted by: creeper at June 16, 2005 10:32 AM
« YOU WON THE WAR...ACT LIKE IT: | Main | »