If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Scientists uncover possible new species of human
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in General Chat
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/index.html
AP) -- In a breathtaking discovery, scientists working on a remote Indonesian island say they have uncovered the bones of a human dwarf species marooned for eons while modern man rapidly colonized the rest of the planet.
One tiny specimen, an adult female measuring about 3 feet tall, is described as "the most extreme" figure to be included in the extended human family. Certainly, she is the shortest.
This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.
She is the best example of a trove of fragmented bones that account for as many as seven of these primitive individuals. Scientists have named the new species Homo floresiensis, or Flores Man. The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old.
"So the 18,000-year-old skeleton cannot be some kind of 'freak' that we just happened to stumble across," said one of the discoverers, radiocarbon dating expert Richard G. Roberts of the University of Wollongong in Australia.
Flores Man was hardly formidable. His grapefruit-sized brain was about a quarter the size of the brain of our species, Homo sapiens. It is closer in size with the brains of transitional prehuman species in Africa more than 3 million years ago.
Yet evidence suggests Flores Man made stone tools, lit fires and organized group hunts for meat.
Just how this primitive, remnant species managed to hang on and whether it crossed paths with modern humans is uncertain. Geologic evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption sealed its fate some 12,000 years ago, along with other unusual species on the island.
Still, researchers say the perseverance of Flores Man smashes the conventional wisdom that modern humans began to systematically crowd out other upright-walking species 160,000 years ago and have dominated the planet alone for tens of thousands of years.
And it demonstrates that Africa, the acknowledged cradle of humanity, does not hold all the answers to persistent questions of how -- and where -- we came to be.
"It is arguably the most significant discovery concerning our own genus in my lifetime," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who reviewed the research independently.
Discoveries simply "don't get any better than that," proclaimed Robert Foley and Marta Mirazon Lahr of Cambridge University in a written analysis.
To others, the specimen's baffling combination of slight dimensions and coarse features bears almost no meaningful resemblance either to modern humans or to our large, archaic cousins.
They suggest that Flores Man doesn't belong in the genus Homo at all, even if it was a recent contemporary.
"I don't think anybody can pigeonhole this into the very simple-minded theories of what is human," anthropologist Jeffery Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh. "There is no biological reason to call it Homo. We have to rethink what it is."
Details of the discovery appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
Researchers from Australia and Indonesia found the partial skeleton 13 months ago in a shallow limestone cave known as Liang Bua. The cave, which extends into a hillside for about 130 feet, has been the subject of scientific analysis since 1964.
Near the skeleton were stone tools and animal remains, including teeth from a young Stegodon, or prehistoric dwarf elephant, as well as fish, birds and rodents. Some of the bones were charred, suggesting they were cooked.
Excavations are continuing. In 1998, stone tools and other evidence were found on Flores suggested the presence 900,000 years ago of another early human, Homo erectus. The tools were found a century after the celebrated discovery in the 1890s of big-boned H. erectus fossils in eastern Java.
Now, researchers suggest H. erectus spread to remote Flores and throughout the region, perhaps on bamboo rafts. Caves on surrounding islands are the target of future studies, they said.
Researchers suspect that Flores Man probably is an H. erectus descendant that was squeezed by evolutionary pressures.
Nature is full of mammals -- deer, squirrels and pigs, for example -- living in marginal, isolated environments that gradually dwarf when food isn't plentiful and predators aren't threatening.
On Flores, the Komodo dragon and other large meat-eating lizards prowled. But Flores Man didn't have to worry about violent human neighbors.
This is the first time that the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia.
Scientists are still struggling to identify it's jumbled features.
Many say that its face and skull features show sufficient traits to be included in the Homo family that includes modern humans. It would be the eighth species in the Homo category.
George Washington's Wood, for example, finds it "convincing."
Others aren't sure.
For example, they say the skull is wide like H. erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of H. erectus has steeper sides and a pointed crown, they said.
The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller than modern human teeth.
The eye sockets are big and round, but they don't carry a prominent browline.
The tibia in the leg shares similarities with apes.
"I've spent a sleepless night trying to figure out what to do with this thing," said Schwartz. "It makes me think of nothing else in this world."
Who knows what is out there!
AP) -- In a breathtaking discovery, scientists working on a remote Indonesian island say they have uncovered the bones of a human dwarf species marooned for eons while modern man rapidly colonized the rest of the planet.
One tiny specimen, an adult female measuring about 3 feet tall, is described as "the most extreme" figure to be included in the extended human family. Certainly, she is the shortest.
This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.
She is the best example of a trove of fragmented bones that account for as many as seven of these primitive individuals. Scientists have named the new species Homo floresiensis, or Flores Man. The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old.
"So the 18,000-year-old skeleton cannot be some kind of 'freak' that we just happened to stumble across," said one of the discoverers, radiocarbon dating expert Richard G. Roberts of the University of Wollongong in Australia.
Flores Man was hardly formidable. His grapefruit-sized brain was about a quarter the size of the brain of our species, Homo sapiens. It is closer in size with the brains of transitional prehuman species in Africa more than 3 million years ago.
Yet evidence suggests Flores Man made stone tools, lit fires and organized group hunts for meat.
Just how this primitive, remnant species managed to hang on and whether it crossed paths with modern humans is uncertain. Geologic evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption sealed its fate some 12,000 years ago, along with other unusual species on the island.
Still, researchers say the perseverance of Flores Man smashes the conventional wisdom that modern humans began to systematically crowd out other upright-walking species 160,000 years ago and have dominated the planet alone for tens of thousands of years.
And it demonstrates that Africa, the acknowledged cradle of humanity, does not hold all the answers to persistent questions of how -- and where -- we came to be.
"It is arguably the most significant discovery concerning our own genus in my lifetime," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who reviewed the research independently.
Discoveries simply "don't get any better than that," proclaimed Robert Foley and Marta Mirazon Lahr of Cambridge University in a written analysis.
To others, the specimen's baffling combination of slight dimensions and coarse features bears almost no meaningful resemblance either to modern humans or to our large, archaic cousins.
They suggest that Flores Man doesn't belong in the genus Homo at all, even if it was a recent contemporary.
"I don't think anybody can pigeonhole this into the very simple-minded theories of what is human," anthropologist Jeffery Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh. "There is no biological reason to call it Homo. We have to rethink what it is."
Details of the discovery appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
Researchers from Australia and Indonesia found the partial skeleton 13 months ago in a shallow limestone cave known as Liang Bua. The cave, which extends into a hillside for about 130 feet, has been the subject of scientific analysis since 1964.
Near the skeleton were stone tools and animal remains, including teeth from a young Stegodon, or prehistoric dwarf elephant, as well as fish, birds and rodents. Some of the bones were charred, suggesting they were cooked.
Excavations are continuing. In 1998, stone tools and other evidence were found on Flores suggested the presence 900,000 years ago of another early human, Homo erectus. The tools were found a century after the celebrated discovery in the 1890s of big-boned H. erectus fossils in eastern Java.
Now, researchers suggest H. erectus spread to remote Flores and throughout the region, perhaps on bamboo rafts. Caves on surrounding islands are the target of future studies, they said.
Researchers suspect that Flores Man probably is an H. erectus descendant that was squeezed by evolutionary pressures.
Nature is full of mammals -- deer, squirrels and pigs, for example -- living in marginal, isolated environments that gradually dwarf when food isn't plentiful and predators aren't threatening.
On Flores, the Komodo dragon and other large meat-eating lizards prowled. But Flores Man didn't have to worry about violent human neighbors.
This is the first time that the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia.
Scientists are still struggling to identify it's jumbled features.
Many say that its face and skull features show sufficient traits to be included in the Homo family that includes modern humans. It would be the eighth species in the Homo category.
George Washington's Wood, for example, finds it "convincing."
Others aren't sure.
For example, they say the skull is wide like H. erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of H. erectus has steeper sides and a pointed crown, they said.
The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller than modern human teeth.
The eye sockets are big and round, but they don't carry a prominent browline.
The tibia in the leg shares similarities with apes.
"I've spent a sleepless night trying to figure out what to do with this thing," said Schwartz. "It makes me think of nothing else in this world."
Who knows what is out there!
0
Comments
a wee hobbit.
Agree with that. Evolutionary theory rox!
Charles Darwin
(taken from today's Independent)
Not actually to do with this discovery (actually concerns the MEPs' revolt over the European Commision's choice of Justice Minister) but does serve to remind us that we're not all that detached from the rest of the animal kingdom.
yeh, totally, that's why it's called the Theory of evolution.
Both theorys, but in a completely different league.
Didn't we already know that tho?
surprisingly alot of people think that humans and animals as we define them are two totally different things.
they do nothing to prove or add to the theory of evolution.
they do not have one eye in the middle of their heads. they do not have fish scales or feathers ...they are fully fledged humans ...but short arses.
the theory of evolution is actualy falling apart to the point where ...because of lack of fossils ...in fact not one single one ...that shows any creature in a transition state going from one kind to another ...they are now saying we must have come from space!
there a billions of fossils in storage around the world ...not a single one shows any creature changing.
an elephant is always an elephant ...a wasp a wasp.
they have house flies trapped in amber millions of years old ...exactly the same as the one that just sat on your bacon butty.
there should be millions of fossils that ...even if not showing transitions ...should at least show one eye until stereoscopic vision developed ...ears in the wrong place ...noses in the wrong place ...or do you believe this incredible series of millions of accidental happenings produced perfect creatures all adapted for their roles?
HAHA! Way to lower the tone man!
I dont buy your argument against evolution. If something only had one eye, its not going to evolve 2. Just like were not liklely to evolve 3 eyes, even if it would be handy. Evolution is a lot more subtle than that, and how do you expect to see changes happening in a fossil? Its a rock. There are subtle differences throughout the ages. An elephant hasnt always been an elep[hant. Had you never heard of wooly mammoths?
We evolved from apes, there have been remains found that clearly show the progress throughout prehistory, neanderthal man etc etc..
SOme creatures are still very similar to what theyve always been like, insects for instance. maybe they havent needed to evolve much past the stage theyre at, and maybe also they dont have the sort of brains to be particularly selective about only mating with the biggest strongest fly.
and a fly mating with the strongest fly produces ...a fly.
the survival of the fittest has been proven to have no evolutionary use ...the fittest wolf may well survive where weaker ones die but ...it still remains a wolf.
explain to me why there are is nothing in the fossil record to show transition. absolutely zilch.
that is why ...they are still looking for the missing link ...there should be millions ...they still haven't found one or it wouldn't be missing.
i'll try and geyt some up to date stuff which shows the dissaray of the theory of evolution.
"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
"All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
"The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)
"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)
"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."
Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.
"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57)
hmm bbc news have been quoted by me as saying
"the locals believe that there is a feint chance that some of these hobbit like creatures, may still exist on unexplored parts of the island"
What do you believe in the M.R? because thew theory of creation has about a billion more flaws in it than the theory of evolution ever had.
Maybe we need to just accept we`re never going to know.
when you read up on this stuff ...it is amazing to discover that life just suddenly appears in rock strata ...no transitional kinds at all ...life just appears in it's full blown glory from daisys to rabbits and tigers and ANTS ...trees and grasses and ducks and sharks ann whales and on and on.
you can drill and dig all you like ...the first layer of life is an abundance of it.
one argument is some kind of major upheavel within the earth buried or destroyed all the evidence ...but thats not what the geology shows. another problem is the sediments with this explosion of life are global ...not just in one place or a few.
i believe in a creation. how i don't know but ...it will take some doing to now convince me otherwise.
...and the big bang theory ...another load of nonsense.