GogglesPisano writes "CNN.com reports that scientists digging in a remote Indonesian cave have uncovered a jaw bone that they say adds more evidence that a tiny prehistoric Hobbit-like species once existed." From the article: "The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia." More Evidence For Hobbit Sized Species Log in/Create an Account | Top | 243 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 243 comments 0: 237 comments 1: 181 comments 2: 120 comments 3: 36 comments 4: 17 comments 5: 9 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Ever think.... (Score:1) by Durrok (912509) on Tuesday October 11, @05:16PM (#13768493) It could have just been a young kid? I'm sure the hobbit idea is much more interesting though... [ Reply to This Re:Ever think.... (Score:5, Interesting) by Namronorman (901664) on Tuesday October 11, @05:21PM (#13768557) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 05, @10:49PM) Bone structures change over time, especially from child to adult. I think they would have been able to tell easily if it were. The main controversy here that I see from the article is that some people believe that the bones found have been that of a person who suffered from microencephaly or dwarfism. [ Reply to This | ParentMini elephants by boldtbanan (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:50PMRe:Ever think.... by ray-auch (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:52PMRe:Ever think.... by jbrader (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:23PM Re:Ever think.... (Score:5, Funny) by geeber (520231) on Tuesday October 11, @05:25PM (#13768614) It could have just been a young kid? I'm sure the hobbit idea is much more interesting though...I am sure that idea never occured to the scientists doing the digging. You should write to them and let them know your brilliant theory. That would save everyone involved a lot of time. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Ever think.... by commodoresloat (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:30PMRe:Ever think.... by technomancer68 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:41PMRe:Ever think.... by 't is DjiM (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:50PMSmall people = hobbit? by 't is DjiM (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:47PMRe:Small people = hobbit? by MightyMartian (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:45PMRe:Small people = hobbit? by VE3MTM (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @10:06PMRe:Small people = hobbit? by alicenextdoor (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:46PMRe:Ever think.... by dogbreathcanada (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:28PMRe:Ever think.... by Locke2005 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:39PMIt's a jaw... by Kozar_The_Malignant (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:19PM7 replies beneath your current threshold. Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Informative) by RailGunner (554645) * <Rail_Gunner&hotmail,com> on Tuesday October 11, @05:16PM (#13768496) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 11, @11:39AM) From TFA: A vocal scientific minority insists the Hobbit specimens do not represent a new species at all. They believe the specimens are nothing more than the bones of modern humans that suffered from microencephaly, a broadly defined genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.And, at least two groups of opponents have submitted their own studies to other leading scientific journals refuting the Flores work."This paper doesn't clinch it. I feel strongly that people are glossing over the problems with this interpretation," said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and provost of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. [ Reply to This Or it could be a chromosome (Score:4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, @05:21PM (#13768550) Or a G-nome. [ Reply to This | ParentOr it could be the Smurfs by ackthpt (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:30PMRe:Or it could be the Smurfs by Holi (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:48PMlink by Main Gauche (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:10PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by aachrisg (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:51PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by blamanj (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @07:34PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by mydocuments (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @09:21PMAnthropologist FAQ on Flores by John Hawks (Score:1)Wednesday October 12, @12:26AM Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:4, Informative) by RailGunner (554645) * <Rail_Gunner&hotmail,com> on Tuesday October 11, @05:27PM (#13768640) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 11, @11:39AM) So, what do these naysayers think would constitute speciation?How about the inability to sexually reproduce with the original species? A human with microencephaly can still sexually reproduce with another human that does not have this disorder.However, to call it a new species seems extremely short sighted. [ Reply to This | Parentit's a semantic argument by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:38PMRe:it's a semantic argument by Grishnakh (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:24PMRe:it's a semantic argument by Mr. Slippery (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Or it could be a dwarf by Tatarize (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:04PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by mortong (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @10:23PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by digitalunity (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:57PM Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Informative) by the phantom (107624) * on Tuesday October 11, @05:33PM (#13768701) (http://darwinia.co.uk/) Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Funny) by IthnkImParanoid (410494) * on Tuesday October 11, @05:53PM (#13768904) ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relativeYou've been waiting to use that for a while, haven't you? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Or it could be a dwarf by the phantom (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:55PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by Prof. Pi (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:35PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by aussie_a (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.BBC Documentary Argued This by John Muir (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:07PMRe:Or it could be a dwarf by bcrowell (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. All makes sense (Score:3, Funny) by powerpuffgirls (758362) on Tuesday October 11, @05:17PM (#13768510) (http://diynews.interneh.com/) Wow! Eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia, which is close to New Zealand, which is where LOTR was shot. [ Reply to This Re:All makes sense (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, @05:35PM (#13768719) which starred Ian MacKellen who was also in X-Men with Donna Goodhand, who was in Cavedweller with... Kevin Bacon. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:All makes sense by Krach42 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:51PMRe:All makes sense by kai.chan (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:37PMRe:All makes sense by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:31PMRe:All makes sense by Blakey Rat (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:13PMRe:All makes sense by xSauronx (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:45PMThese aren't hobbits by commodoresloat (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:36PM isn't it obvious to you all? (Score:5, Funny) by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Tuesday October 11, @05:18PM (#13768517) the jawbone was placed there by satan to test your faith [ Reply to This Re:isn't it obvious to you all? (Score:4, Interesting) by RedNovember (887384) on Tuesday October 11, @05:28PM (#13768651) Speaking of which...What is the religious answer to this? Do they contend that these were a failed first protoype of later man? Someone give me an argument to go on... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:39PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Refrag (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:19PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:24PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:46PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by tompaulco (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by Rude Turnip (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:56PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by mortong (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @10:40PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by PakProtector (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:24AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by bdcrazy (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:57PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by 3nd32 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:20PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:29PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by 3nd32 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:49PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by tompaulco (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:49PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Goody (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:21PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:31PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by aussie_a (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @09:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by The Lynxpro (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:32PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:42PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by DrCode (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:26PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by aussie_a (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:04PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by pavon (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:37PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by dasunt (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:42PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Grishnakh (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:48PMtheory behind the book of Job by Brigadier (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:29PMRe:theory behind the book of Job by Brigadier (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:11PMRe:theory behind the book of Job by tompaulco (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:58PMRe:theory behind the book of Job by falzer (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:isn't it obvious to you all? by lemkebeth (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:04PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Hex4def6 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @09:59PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by G-funk (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:25PMmany arguments by globaljustin (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @09:57PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by Grishnakh (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:34PMRe:isn't it obvious to you all? by tompaulco (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:41PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. CBC Also has the news (Score:1) by Devastator (44460) on Tuesday October 11, @05:18PM (#13768520) (http://www.blakecrosby.com) http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/10/1 1/hobbit-flores051011.html [www.cbc.ca] [ Reply to This They should check New Zealand (Score:4, Funny) by complexmath (449417) * on Tuesday October 11, @05:18PM (#13768525) I hear Peter Jackson found a whole town of them there. [ Reply to ThisRe:They should check New Zealand by Ranger (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:44PMRe:They should check New Zealand by aussie_a (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:07PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. What about modern "Small Folk" (Score:3, Interesting) by ThosLives (686517) on Tuesday October 11, @05:19PM (#13768537) (Last Journal: Wednesday August 10, @12:16PM) You know, I just watched Willow again the other day and it's full of "small" people. How are these "ancient" remains different from modern small folk (other than being old, of course)? None of the articles say anything about that. For instance, we don't classify folks with dwarfism as nonhuman, so why would an ancient instance of dwarfism indicate a different species?Shouldn't the first thing in studying these remains to be to eliminate this possibility (along with full explanations as to why). I admit I've not delved too deep into this, but it is something which has always bothered me in the back of my mind. [ Reply to This Re:What about modern "Small Folk" (Score:5, Insightful) by the phantom (107624) * on Tuesday October 11, @05:24PM (#13768600) (http://darwinia.co.uk/) Not knowing the data that well, midgets and dwarfs seem to make up only a very small proportion of the population. If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20? The more skeletons they find that are similarly proportioned, the less likely it is that they represent statistical outliers, and the more likely it is that they represent the norm. Given the number of skeletons that have been found, I find the argument that they are statistical outliers to be unconvincing (though still possible, I suppose). A more likely explanation is that the small skeletons represent a significantly different population, whether it be an isolated group of Homo erectus, or an offshoot of the Home erectus line. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by DavidTC (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:43PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by animeshpathak (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:45PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:54PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by IthnkImParanoid (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:58PM Re:What about modern "Small Folk" (Score:4, Interesting) by ImaLamer (260199) <john.lamarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 11, @06:30PM (#13769230) (http://mintruth.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 05, @06:40PM) If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20?Depends on where you do the sampling. In Finland or an Amish country and it could be higher (Cartilage-hair hypoplasia) because these groups don't date outside of their groups enough (genetic shift) to make these "rare" exceptions rare anymore.If you had a group that lived alone you could get a "tribe" of little people, but they would still be human. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by DonGar (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:34PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by the phantom (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:42PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by Nuroticat (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.They are studing it. by pavon (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:55PMTwo Reasons: by oni (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:07PMRe:Two Reasons: by the phantom (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:20PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by Locke2005 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:49PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by jim_v2000 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:59PMRe:What about modern "Small Folk" by aussie_a (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. From TFA (Score:2, Funny) by max99ted (192208) on Tuesday October 11, @05:20PM (#13768540) However, the researchers acknowledge that the Hobbit shares a bizarre and unexplained mixture of modern and primitive traits. For example, its long, dangling arms were thought to have belonged only to much older prehuman species that were confined to AfricaYet more evidence of FSM, I say. [ Reply to ThisRe:From TFA by Sebilrazen (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:34PMRe:From TFA by IthnkImParanoid (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:02PMRe:From TFA by mattsucks (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:13PM Maybe it was all of the cave graffiti that says (Score:5, Funny) by Gadgetfreak (97865) on Tuesday October 11, @05:21PM (#13768559) Frodo Lived! [ Reply to ThisAnd Just Walked Right Into Morder by Greyfox (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:25PMRe:Maybe it was all of the cave graffiti that says by MechTard (Score:1)Wednesday October 12, @12:06AM Moses.. (Score:2) by jimmyCarter (56088) on Tuesday October 11, @05:24PM (#13768596) (Last Journal: Sunday November 10, @12:58AM) Did the hobbits appear before or after Moses? I'm confused.. [ Reply to ThisRe:Moses.. by programic (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:44PM Wet cave? (Score:2) by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday October 11, @05:25PM (#13768617) > The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia.Thiss preciousss twelve thousands of yearses olds jawsbone... found in dark deep dripsy cave... thiss iss not ssomethings that's coming from tricksy hobbitses! [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!? (Score:3, Interesting) by sczimme (603413) on Tuesday October 11, @05:27PM (#13768637) (AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man. I thought the Hobbit reference was thrown [gratuitously] into the summary to grab the attention of the /. crowd. Lo and behold, the AP actually made the comparison - interesting. [ Reply to ThisRe:The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!? by Buran (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:36PM Orcs & Trolls????? (Score:1, Troll) by big-giant-head (148077) on Tuesday October 11, @05:28PM (#13768644) When they the jaw bones of some Orcs and Trolls THEN I'LL BE IMPRESSED! [ Reply to ThisRe:Orcs & Trolls????? by WillyMF1 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:37PMRe:Orcs & Trolls????? by Physics Nobody (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:45PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Actually... (Score:4, Interesting) by michaelzhao (801080) on Tuesday October 11, @05:30PM (#13768668) There is a pygmy like species in parts of Asia and Africa. Although they are off the species Homo Sapien, they are much shorter because they do not have a growth spurt. Scientists are really interested in them because they wonder what genes cause growth and if they can be influenced. I went to a bio conference in Atlanta with my AP Biology class to listen to one. Extremely interesting. Linkage here ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmyrel=url2ht ml-16837 [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy> [ Reply to ThisRe:Actually... by the phantom (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:40PMRe:Actually... by michaelzhao (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:43PMRe:Actually... by the phantom (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:49PMRe:Actually... by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:54PMPLEASE... by nonlnear (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Flat earthers (Score:1) by Belseth (835595) on Tuesday October 11, @05:32PM (#13768688) Amazing the scientific dogma involved. Apparently if you believe the naysayers there was a plague of identical birth defects on Flores. The problem is it's more than size alone. The "hobbits" have quite a number of primative features and if you look at the general shape of the skull it looks far more like Homo Erectus than a modern human. It the skeletons were dated at 500,000 years instead of 12,000 years there would have been no debate which in of itself should end the debate. The flat earthers won't accept the new species because it doesn't fit into their narrow view of history. It has nothing to do with the facts. Even if DNA is found that is not from a modern human it won't end the debate. I doubt finding a live one would completely end the issue. [ Reply to ThisRe:Flat earthers by MightyMartian (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:14PMRe:Flat earthers by Belseth (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:21PMRe:Flat earthers by The Lynxpro (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:40PMRe:Flat earthers by wkitchen (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:01PM DNA (Score:3, Interesting) by truckaxle (883149) * on Tuesday October 11, @05:36PM (#13768724) If only they could find some DNA sound like a clone of these little fellas would make some great servants being established tool makers and all.On a serious side it would be interesting to see what the development of the nominal human code of ethics (ie thou shall not kill) would have been if there were some creatures alive today positioned between modern humans and chipanzees in terms of intellect. [ Reply to ThisRe:DNA by the phantom (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:44PMRe:DNA by deathy_epl+ccs (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:49PMRe:DNA by The Lynxpro (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:43PM