https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:37:21 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5347 Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:37:21 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5347 Considering these Flores specimens lived as recently as 18,000 years ago, has the possibility of collecting mitochondrial DNA samples been ruled out? I know tropical climates are bad for that but it would be the only definitive proof of their species.

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5346 Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:17:25 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5346 There are a few matters that I am uneasy about in accepting the Hobbit of Flores as a new species.1) Date of the skeletal remains as distinct from the sediment.Has the original skeleton and skull been dated or are we relying entirely on the dating of the surrounding sediment?If it has not been dated, maybe it is time that this was done and presented.2) Number of specimensHow many skulls and mandibles have been found? Is the talk about a new species resting on the discovery of one skull only?3) Has the pathology hypothesis been adequately laid to rest?A new species living at the same time and location as modern Homo sapiens is a big call. Has Ockham’s razor been wielded with sufficient rigor? The pathology explanation (eg cretinism arising from prenatal iodine deficiency) would appear to be a simpler explanation. To be convincing, measurements on skulls of people with this kind of condition would need to be presented.

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5345 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:30:55 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5345 M:Good question. There have been a number of studies that have looked at pathological individuals. The samples in this case are not, or at least, are abundantly and overwhelmingly typical humans but of a great geographical and temporal range, thus representing humans pretty well.

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5344 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:16:06 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/21/the-flores-hobbits-were-member/#comment-5344 I haven’t read this paper, but from your post it sounds like the human samples are all(?) “normal.” Am I missing a fundamental assumption, or shouldn’t it be difficult to rule out pathology unless measurements on pathological samples have been made?

]]>