<i>Homo floresiensis</i> and Answers in Genesis

"The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago," Jacob was quoted by The Jakarta Post newspaper as saying.

Anatomy Professor Maciej Henneberg gives significant support to the "Flores Man was a microcephalic" view....

He [Dr. Jacob] also criticized the announcement of the discovery without the consent of the Indonesian archeologists who participated in the work, saying it was unethical. A similar note was also expressed by Soejono, the head of the National Archeology Institute, who said the Australians should have involved them when making the announcement considering that none of the Australian scientists were present at the time of the discovery. Soejono said Indonesian archeologists started the research workback in 1976 but were forced to halt it in the wake of the 1997 financial crisis. "We continued the research later on by involving a team from Australia before we discovered the skeleton in September. We didn't immediately announce it because we needed to study the fossil," said Soejono. The two Indonesian archeologists said that the skeleton could not be considered a fossil, but a sub-fossil. "We would call it a fossil if everything has hardened. But we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil," said Soejono.

From an article on CMWCB re Homo floresiensis

Paleoanthropologist and primate historian Dr. Sydney Nesmith said that the skeleton likely represents a colony of diseased orangutans that were shunned several thousand years ago from a larger colony, most likely to prevent further spread of the disease.

"Everything about the anatomy -- the size, the erosion of the tooth structure, the small skull, even the position in which the skeleton was found -- suggests that these primates were suffering from the primate equivalent of human Reys-Murdonne syndrome," said Dr. Nesmith.

Reys-Murdonne syndrome is an extremely rare inherited abnormality in humans which causes stunted growth and microencephalopathy, a condition resulting in smaller-than-average skull size.

"Reys-Murdonne syndrome-like cases in primate populations have been documented in Indonesia," Dr. Nesmith said, "as have examples of primate populations shunning diseased individuals, even entire families, from a colony."

Paleoanthropologist and primate historian Dr. Sydney Nesmith said that the skeleton likely represents a colony of diseased orangutans that were shunned several thousand years ago from a larger colony, most likely to prevent further spread of the disease.

Wow, tool-using diseased orangutans. Is it just me, but that kind of a find would be even more stellar than a surviving dwarf H. erectus population?

Shame for the YEC crowd that the dating methods involved all agreed with each other really well. Aren't they supposed to be unreliable?

From an article on CMWCB re Homo floresiensis

The microcephaly claim is coming from a reputable anatomist, so certainly merits consideration. I suspect, however, that it will not pan out, for the reasons given by Chris Stringer at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1345519,00.html. Henneberg hasn't seen the original bones, and microcephaly is a very rare condition that doesn't, to my mind, explain the other erectus-like features of the skull.

The Henneberg article (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000884.html) raises another interesting point. According to all the original papers and commentary, the other bones found confirmed the size estimate for LB1 of about 1 meter tall. But Henneberg says the length of the radius is consistent with a much taller individual of 1.5-1.6 meters. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle on that. Microcephalics may be rare, but short people aren't, so it's quite possible that LB1 is atypically short for her population, or that males were bigger. Further finds should clarify this.

Salvador, can you prove that Dr. Nesmith doesn't exist and that he didn't make his statements? Until you do, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I was anything less than 100% credible.

Thanks.

Alternatively, you could admit that AIG is filled to the brim with horse crap and is an extraordinarly unreliable source for information on paleoanthropology and evolution. That would indicate that you're credible.

The debate is clearly an interesting one and no doubt has a long course to run. The ultimate outcome, after claims and counterclaims may be different to what the original authors believe.

However this state of affairs, a fascinating example of science in action, is in marked contrast to the YEC response. They rejected the conclusions of the study immediately, before enough time for any remotely reasoned response, simply because they had to. This is YEC 'science' in action and the result of holding an ancient book above all else. The study was wrong because it must be wrong. How utterly feeble.

"microencephalopathy (rare term for hyperactive child syndrome)"

Hm. I've never seen it put that way.

I think that may be a poor translation of "minimal brain damage" or "minimal brain dysfunction", which was the name given in the 20s to attention-deficit/hyperactivity; it was noticed that certain kids had attention and behavioral problems that mimicked those of people who had suffered a head trauma. Only the kids hadn't had any known head injuries.

The term was used as late as the 1970s.

The only google hit relating microencephalopathy to hyperactivity is in reference to what appears to be a Japanese patent filing, increasing the likelihood of some kind of translation issue.

- Jon , a guy with ADD who was a little perturbed at the implication that it involves a small brain. ;^)

I love this: "Alternatively, you could admit that AIG is filled to the brim with horse crap..." A modified version of that would make a great toast for a party.

I like the Jakarta Post as a source: back a few years, it was one of the major feeds for the Weekly World News with stories of 50-foot snakes and such. And it's a little odd that Soejono would complain about the announcement of the find, as he was a coauthor on both of the papers in Nature. Perhaps he was talking about a press conference?

"Paleoanthropologist and primate historian Dr. Sydney Nesmith said that the skeleton likely represents a colony of diseased orangutans that were shunned several thousand years ago from a larger colony, most likely to prevent further spread of the disease."

..since when do orangutans live in colonies? I woulnd't call their social system "colonial" at all.

"Reys-Murdonne"

Does this syndrome affect the facial bones as well? Because wouldn't the proportions of the brow, relative prognathousness, etc, between Pongo and Flo be a discernable difference if it only affects the brain?

Wasn't Nesmith the name of the lead singer of the Monkees? Is it possible that the Orangatang theory is actually someone's joke? Just guessing here - I've no expertise, but the fact that I can't find they guy through a google search either did make me wonder.

If it is a joke I quite like it - although I'm not sure of the significance of the first name.

That was Michael Neswmith, and it's orangutan.

Damn it, tried to cancel - that's Nesmith.

Actually, Davy Jones was the lead singer, wasn't he?

soma

To The Great White Wonder,

I always like joke science articles as a way to get students to think critically about what they read. Can you please post the link or a more detailed citation?

P.S. Would you give diseased orangutans sharp stones to play with? That's the Paleolithic equivalent to giving a chimp a gun.

Obeza, that's the sum total of the "information" available to me. Distribute freely, modify as you see fit.

I think this thread should be called Flores Man vs. Villiage Idiot - Round 1, as opposed to Flores Man Vs. Creationists - Round 1.

It seems the scientific community has resorted to name calling and accusations of "scientific terrorism" on ths issue. They are diametrically opposed to one another, with an Astrailian team claiming the find as that of a new species, and a recognized expert (Teuka Jacob) saying it is just a small, stupid human.

Note this article excerpt from the Guardian dated Jan. 18, 2005 by John Vidal:

And he (Alan Thorne of the Australian National University at Canberra) supports Jacob's broader points. "Paleoanthropology has lost its way and people are desperate for new species. People are more aggressive. If, as Jacob thinks, it's a case of microcephaly, there are a lot of people in my field who cannot recognize a village idiot when they see one."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Jacob loves a good row. "This is like ecstasy without the drug. It relieves you. The blood speeds up. It excites you. You think more. But it has stirred up a nest of hornets. It's like opening a can of worms and you cannot put them back in again. The creationists are using it for the wrong reason [to deny evolution]. I am not a creationist at all.

"I don't want to seem like a killjoy but we are looking for truth, not for fame. You have to look for the truth, but fame will come to you whether you look for it or not," he says. "I think it's quite possible that there are other species. But in the past 15,000 years there is only one. It's not an entirely unimportant find because it is a pygmy skeleton found in a controlled excavation. But it's certainly not the most important in the last 150 years."

I am keeping this article in my collection of articles I call "Piltdown Man"

Best,

Poco