Today’s New Reason To Believe

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

New research confirms biological differences between H. floresiensis and modern humans

The way a person walks says a lot about them. For example, someone who is confident will usually walk erect and briskly. Those who amble about with their hands in their pockets and shoulders hunched portray dejection.

Hominid’s various walking styles also say a lot about these creatures. Recently a team of anthropologists from State University of New York at Stony Brook reported on the gait of the hobbit-sized creature Homo floresiensis at the American Association of Physical Anthropology meeting held in Columbus, Ohio. Based on an analysis of a foot taken from the remains of a nearly complete specimen (known as LB-1 and dating around 18,000 years old), the researchers concluded that this hominid ambled about in an unusual manner.

These creatures, which stood just over three feet tall, had unusually large feet. This characteristic forced H. floresiensis to bend further back at the knees (more so than modern humans) when they walked, leading to a high-step march. The research team also noted another difference: The shape of H. floresiensis’ big toe was similar to that of modern humans, but ape-like in size.

The foot structure and gait of this creature represent one more piece of evidence that it was a hominid with strong kinship ties to Homo erectus. This interpretation has been recently challenged by several anthropologists who claim that these animals were actually microcephalic human beings. Other researchers have also suggested that these creatures were insular dwarfs and cretins.

The new analysis of the foot and gait of H. floresiensis, along with an ensemble of additional fossil and archeological evidences indicate that any interpretation of H. floresiensis as a diseased modern human lacks comprehensive support. It is unclear what a high-step march communicates in terms of body language. But for anthropologists it means that H. floresiensis wasn’t a modern human.

The biological and behavioral differences between modern humans and H. floresiensis find ready accommodation in the RTB model of human origins. This scientific theory of creation views the hominids as creatures made by God to possess some level of intellectual and emotional capacity. Still, according to the RTB view, these creatures lacked God’s image. The model predicts that the hominids should be biologically and behaviorally distinct from modern humans, and indeed that appears to be the case for H. floresiensis.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

New research confirms affinity between H. floresiensis and H. erectus

For the last few weeks I have discussed the controversy surrounding Homo floresiensis. (Go here and here to read the past articles.) At times, it seems like anthropologists are all over the place when it comes to determining the identity of this diminutive creature. New research, however, indicates that anthropologists were headed in the right direction all along when they interpreted this creature to be a hominid with close connections to Homo erectus.

The confusion began in the fall of 2004. Australian and Indonesian paleoanthropologists shocked scientists with the publication of evidence for hobbit-sized hominids that coexisted for a time with modern humans. Fossils recovered on the Flores Island of Indonesia indicate that these hominids stood just over three feet tall with a chimpanzee-like brain size (380 cm3). Their cranial and facial features bear resemblance to Homo erectus and their post-cranial skeleton combines characteristics of the australopithecines (like “Lucy”) and H. erectus. The paleoanthropologists who recovered these remains classified them as a new species, Homo floresiensis.

Of the fossils recovered, the most remarkable specimen was a nearly complete skeleton of a female that dates to about 18,000 years in age. Other fossil and archeological evidence indicates that H. floresiensisexisted on Flores Island from about 95,000 to 12,000 years ago, when they became extinct. It appears that H. floresiensis coexisted with modern humans. Still, paleoanthropologists are not sure if the hominids had any actual contact with human beings.

Archeological evidence and animal remains indicate that H. floresiensis hunted and scavenged the dwarf elephants on the island, as well as rats, fish, snakes, frogs, birds, and tortoises.

Due to the coexistence of H. floresiensis with modern humans and their remarkable behavior—given their small brains—a minority of paleoanthropologists argue that these creatures are microcephalic human beings. Others have suggested that these creatures were insular dwarfs and cretins.

These interpretations of H. floresiensis have been met with skepticism by many paleoanthropologists. Since the discovery of the initial H. floresiensis remains, paleoanthropologists have recovered fossils from twelve other individuals, all of which display identical characteristics to the original find. Even though H. floresiensis used tools and hunted, their behavior was still crude when compared to modern humans. Like H. erectus, they used tools reminiscent of the Acheulean industry. Based on these findings, H. floresiensis behaved in nonhuman ways.

Brain shape studies and additional characterization of skeletal features distinguish H. floresiensis from microcephalic humans and confirm its status as a distinct hominid. New work adds support to this interpretation. A team from George Washington University performed multivariate analysis on the external physical features of the H. floresiensis skull, correcting for size difference effects. They concluded that the shape of this hominid’s skull differs significantly from the shape of modern human skulls. Based on skull shape, H. floresiensis appears to relate most closely with H. erectus, and to a lesser degree with H. habilis.

The weight of evidence points anthropologists away from any interpretation that regards H. floresiensis as a diseased or dwarfed modern human and sends them towards the erectines.

How does H. floresiensis fit into RTB’s human origins model? The easiest way to accommodate these creatures would be as diseased or dwarfed humans. But even as hominids, they still find a place in RTB’s creation model.

RTB’s biblical creation model views the hominids as animals created by God. Accordingly, these extraordinary creatures walked erect and possessed some level of intelligence, which allowed these animals to cobble crude tools and even adopt some level of “culture.” The RTB model maintains that the hominids were not spiritual beings made in God’s image, but reserves that status exclusively for modern humans.

The RTB model predicts biological similarities will exist among the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But, because the hominids were not created in God’s image, they would be expected to be distinct from modern humans in their cognitive capacity, behavior, “technology,” and “culture.”

Accordingly, H. floresiensis stands distinct from modern humans, not only in anatomy, but in behavior. Remarkable creatures in their own right, but nonetheless creatures that lacked the image of God.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

New research raise questions about the identity of Homo floresiensis, or does it?

Anyone who has read or seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy knows that the noble creatures called hobbits played a pivotal role. Recently, a team of anatomists have suggested that real-life hobbits were not the hobbits of Tolkien fame, but cretins known as Homo floresiensis, nick-named hobbits because of their small stature.

In the fall of 2004, Australian and Indonesian paleoanthropologists stunned the archeological world when they published evidence for hobbit-sized hominids that co-existed for a time with modern humans. Fossils recovered on the Flores Island of Indonesia indicate that these hominids stood just over three feet tall with a chimpanzee-like brain size (380 cm3). Their cranial and facial features appear to bear resemblance to Homo erectus and their post-cranial skeleton seems to combine characteristics of theaustralopithecines (like “Lucy”) and H. erectus. The paleoanthropologists who recovered these remains classified them as a new species, Homo floresiensis.

The most remarkable specimen recovered was a nearly complete skeleton of a female that dates to about 18,000 years in age. Other fossil and archeological evidence indicates that H. floresiensisexisted on Flores Island from about 95,000 to 12,000 years ago, when they became extinct. It appears that H. floresiensis, co-existed with modern humans. Still, paleoanthropologists are not sure if the hominids had any contact with human beings.

Archeological evidence and animal remains indicate that H. floresiensis hunted and scavenged the dwarf elephants on the island, as well as rats, fish, snakes, frogs, birds, and tortoises.

The coexistence of H. floresiensis with modern humans and their remarkable behavior—given their small brains—has prompted a minority of paleoanthropologists to argue that these creatures are microcephalic human beings. This interpretation of H. floresiensis has been met by skepticism from many paleoanthropologists.

Recently a team of scientists proposed that the hobbits were modern humans suffering from congenital hypothyroidism. This condition severely limits growth and results in a small brain. Researchers reached this conclusion after analyzing a cast of the only skull of H. floresiensis that has been recovered to date. They point to an enlarged pituitary fossa at the base of the skull behind the nasal cavity. This feature is a diagnostic for endemic cretinism that results from hypothyroidism.

Other paleoanthropologists are unconvinced. They claim that the cast the researchers used in their analysis was a poor replica because the research team did not have access to the actual fossil. This is not uncommon in paleoanthropology. More often than not, researchers have to rely on replicas of the actual fossil specimen. If the replica is poorly made, analyses based on it will be flawed by definition. It appears as if this is the case for the replica that led the team of anatomists to conclude that the hobbits were cretins. The casts of the H. floresiensis skull that are part of the collections of Dean Falk and Ralph Holloway don’t show any evidence for an enlarged pituitary gland.

Peter Brown, who was among the paleoanthropologists who discovered H. floresiensis, also disagrees with the cretin interpretation. He maintains that the actual specimen has a poorly preserved pituitary fossa that doesn’t permit the measurements needed to support the notion that this hominid suffered from hypothyroidism. Brown is one of the few scientists who have seen and handled the actual H. floresiensis skull fossil.

At this juncture, it appears that the original interpretation of the Flores fossils stands. The hobbits aren’t cretins, but remarkable creatures that had close kinship to H. erectus. For a discussion of why it’s unlikely that H. floresiensis were microcephalic humans and of how these hominids fit into RTB’s human origins model, see the article I wrote for our free minimagazine Connections.