Comments on: Jakob the Hobbit?

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:24:26 +0000

Clearly, Carl writes a thoughtful and clear blog, to which I have linked in my Cryptomundo update of the media circus regarding this “technical paper,” with some interesting comments from Peter Brown.

See:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/browndsdebunk/

Allow me to point out a couple things here, in answer to the comments…

There is no DNA on LB1 because Teuku Jacob of the Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Java, not only allegedly destroyed some of the bone specimens, but he even glued one fractured bone together to mask the damage. Jacob reportedly also washed and dissolved the LB1 skull in acetone to make it impossible to extract any DNA for analysis.

Martin ignored the fact of the other 6 – 9 individuals that have been found of Homo floresiensis.

Some rather incredible things are being revealed in what is being overlooked by the microcelphaic camp in their rush to overturn this species.

Unfortunately, the media has been all too quick to accept Martin’s “feelings” on what might be occurring as “facts.”

By: Charles Fuller

Charles Fuller — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:35:46 +0000

It looks like the spirit of Rudolf Virchow is once again haunting paleoanthropology.

By: gbruno

gbruno — Tue, 23 May 2006 07:31:55 +0000

http://milkriverarchive.blogspot.com/2005/10/env-more-little-jawbones.html has this quote from: By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, The New York Times, October 12, 2005 "In Dr. Martin's view, in which he is joined by several prominent scientists, the more likely explanation for the small stature is, in part, a phenomenon known as island dwarfing." If Martin did say "island dwarfing" then he has fallen between two stools. Perhaps he has resiled back to "micro-cephalic". However I saw a report of further small bones 3000 years younger. When does a race of microCephalics become a species? Re "island dwarfing" having lived in the worlds largest Polynesian city (Auckland NZ) amongst Tongans,Samoans,Fijians & Cook Islanders, I can assure you those guys are BIG. If you are convinced of Island Dwarfing, try expounding that theory in public bar of the "Gluepot" hotel on Ponsonby Rd any evening, if you dare!

By: small brain critic

small brain critic — Mon, 22 May 2006 17:02:36 +0000

Zimmer make fun small brain critic. Why you make fun small brain critic Zimmer? Small brain critic cry. Small brain critic no like Zimmer.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 22 May 2006 09:58:57 +0000

I think these people concentrating on the braincase are missing the bigger picture (as Carl has mentioned before). Where are the microcephalics with double-rooted premolars and no chin? And why were the only two jaws found identical in this regard? How would microcephaly cause a rotation of the humerus? Some people need to open their eyes to all the evidence.

By: David B

David B — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:19:46 +0000

I’m puzzled. Surely there *are* other Hobbit fossils?? I distinctly recall a TV documentary (a respectable one, either BBC Horizon or C4 Equinox series) about this controversy, which ended with the news that the researchers had now discovered remains of about 10 individuals, ranging over a long period of time, all similar in size to the original find.

By: martin g

martin g — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:55:38 +0000

Unless I missed it, there’s no mention of DNA in the story ?

Wouldn’t that be the way to go instead of speculating about microcephaly ?

Samples from the bones were sent for DNA analysis months ago. The analysis would surely settle the arguments once and for all. What’s happened to the results ?

( that’s bearing in mind that the bones aren’t really fossils – they’re just old bones – much easier to sample than a true fossil )

By: mike

mike — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:17:18 +0000

to expand further, contemporary hunter-gatherer cultures routinely kill infants born with severe disabilities – and even twins or babies born to single mothers, simply because the necesarily mobile group doesn´t have the resources to transport or maintain these people. Would a society thousands of years ago likely have done things differently. And anyway, where ARE the normal individuals?

Regards,

Mike

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:19:27 +0000

Hey there Carl:

You write a good blog, and I thought your Soul Made Flesh was a solid, much needed work on Willis; I’ve come to expect from you thoughtful writing on matters of scientific interest for and from the lay person. I hope you won’t feel the need, therefore, to make personal attacks (“Those critics had microcephalic brains of their own to show”) or unseemly criticism (“Yet the scientists just leave us hanging with a statement that is so cryptic as to be nearly useless” – they are writing for a specialist scientific audience to whom I suspect their statements are not “useless” at all) a regular feature of your writing.

Regards

By: Manuel

Manuel — Fri, 19 May 2006 16:01:05 +0000

Filipe has a great point and I wonder why it is not raised as an argument more often against the microcephalic explanation.
To expand on this point, there were post-cranial remains found in the site suggesting other individuals of the same size. Are all of these supposed to be microcephalic too or do microcephaly proponents suggest this was a population of undersized modern humans with a microcephalic among them that happen to own the only skull to fossilize? This is a little too convenient scenario.
I think it is acceptable to disagree with a theory but only if you can propose a better alternative.

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Fri, 19 May 2006 11:45:02 +0000

This is the best picture I've seen yet for comprehending the remarkable scale of the hobbit skull.

By: Filipe

Filipe — Fri, 19 May 2006 01:56:55 +0000

The question here is plausability. In the United States there are less than 500 microcephalics. We are talking about 300 million people. In the few 10,000 years covered by the sediments in the cave the total number of people reaching adult ages on the island must have been much smaller. Of course severe dietary problems and genetic disorders could make it more common, but the probability of a microcephalic reaching adulthood in a hunter gatherer society and being the owner of the only skull found is vanishingly small. With these odds, I don’t understand how people can claim something based in subjective cranial readings.