So /his/, I have some questions and opinions I'd like to share to get a discussion started. First of all, was H. floresiensis a modern human with island dwarfism, or was it a separate species altogether? Did H. sapiens coexist on the island of Flores with them?
I'm of the opinion that they were a distinct species, because of the different structure of the cranium. Their brains must have been very different from ours. I'm also of the opinion that they lived in direct contact with modern humans. The legend of the Ebu Gogo could be compared to the idea that Trolls were actually Neanderthals that were morphed into folklore.
>inb4 paleoanthropology is /sci/
>>555109
I think the theory that they were an island dwarf form of Homo erectus seems most likely.
They survived till ~17,000 years ago, and humans were in Australia long before this, so i'd assume there was contact between them and modern humans.
I find it interesting that even though their brain size is more comparable to Australopithecus they have a more advanced style of tools.
>>555124
Supposedly brain size has little to do with intelligence. It's more about the structure of the brain.
>>555109
The best way to answer your first question wouls be to observe the skull of a modern midget, but I have yet to come across an image with such a skull.
>>555109
>I'm of the opinion
>I'm also of the opinion
Why dont you if your opions have any basis in the science?
>inb4 science belongs in /sci/
>>555276
Not OP, but it's because there are multiple theory's of the origin of this species, who know's, maybe they'll dig up another example with extractable DNA, they're certainly young enough for it to be an option, but i'm pretty sure the conditions around this area don't often lead to preservation of fossils.
This summary may be of interest.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-floresiensis
>>555255
Here's a microcephalic human skull with a cast of the hobbit skull.
>>555306
Interesting link, thanks anon
>When first discovered, it was suggested that H. floresiensis was possibly descended from Javanese H. erectus. However, more detailed analysis of skeletal remains has uncovered traits more archaic than Asian H. erectus and more similar to australopithecines, H. habilis or the hominins from Dmanisi in Georgia (classified as Homo ergaster or Homo georgicus). Most scientists that accept H. floresiensis as a legitimate species now think its ancestor may have come from an early African dispersal by a primitive Homo species similar in appearance to H. habilis or the Dmanisi hominins. This means that it shared a common ancestor with Asian H. erectus but was not descended from it. Cladistic analysis supports the lack of a close relationship with H. erectus.
>Unfortunately, no transitional forms, or the actual remains of H. erectus itself, have been found in Flores. However, stone tools that may have been made by H. erectus (or a similar species) were discovered on Flores. These date to 840,000 years ago, so indicate that a hominin species was probably living on the island at that time.
>>555307
Microcephaly isn't the same as dwarfism, but this does confirm that they're not the same.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/unknown-toolmakers-colonized-indonesian-island-long-humans-got-there
>Stone tools discovered on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia, date back to at least 118,000 years – suggesting that an archaic human species first colonized the island many millennia before our own species arrived. Exactly who they were, though, remains a mystery. The findings are published in Nature this week.
>About a million years ago, a group of hominins (that’s us and our extinct ancestors) settled on the Indonesian island of Flores. Then, about 50,000 years ago, Homo sapiens crossed to Sahul, the landmass that consists of Australia and Papua. Between Sahul and continental Asia lies a vast zone of islands, the largest and oldest among them being Sulawesi. It’s thought to play an important role in both of these dispersal events. Previous studies on rock art in limestone caves revealed that modern humans were living on Sulawesi at least 45,000 years ago.
>>557013
Modern humans have been to as far as Sulawesi for at least 100,000 years
https://media.uow.edu.au/releases/UOW208488.html
>>557600
This is from your link
>But the old ages suggest that the toolmakers were either an archaic lineage of humans or – more controversially – some of earliest modern humans to reach Southeast Asia and perhaps the ancestors of the first people to arrive in Australia.
It's more likely to have been Homo erectus. For some reason (I guess simplification) a lot of people seem to group erectus, ergastor and heidelbergensis under the term archaic human species.
>>555142
>Supposedly brain size has little to do with intelligence.
Use Google, it's not true.
>>557744
ok I used google http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/?no-ist
>>557759
>A wishy washy article that has no study that backs her claim
Try:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/3862-bigger-brains-smarter-people.html
It's obviously not the be all and end all, but it certainly plays an important role.
>>558073
so whales are smarter than humans in your opinion?
>>558073
Just so we're clear, were talking about the relationship between brain size and intelligence in general?
Because for this particular example, the other early human species with this brain size had the earliest form of tools, and no fire. While floresiensis with the same brain size had a much more advance method of making tools and has evidence of the use of fire (both of these are first observed long after and members of the Homo genus had this small a brain size.
Which suggests that the structures of the brain (while diminished in size in the case of the hobbit) still have vastly superior function than you would expect if brain size was anywhere close to being and 'important factor'.
>>558094
*long after any
>>558094
OK, not that guy, but I always thought the issue is hominid evolution was less brain size, but brain size in relation to body mass?
>>558107
Humans, and our ancestors and chimps are all on the upper edge of the brain to body ratio. pic related
>>555109
>the idea that Trolls were actually Neanderthals
Neanderthals are still there.
Very few of them, because melonheads tried to kill them using their sap servants but when neanderthals could kill 200 armed saps with bare hands you know that some of them could hide well.
>>558114
surely the size of the neo-cortex (or its convergent evolutionary equivalent) or frontal lobe is more important
>>558146
>melonhead damage control
We all know you tried to exterminate the mighty 'thals and failed
FAILED
A
I
L
E
D
>>558141
It is larger in modern humans than our ancestors, so the enlargement of it is almost certainly going to be reasonably important over long time frames in human evolution.
>>558092
He is assuming you understand that when people say large brained, they mean it in proportion to the body of the animal.
>evolutionism
Kent Hovind already debunked your darwinian myth.
>>559972
>Kent Hovind
>refuses to acknowledge scientific theories like geophysics and cosmology
>criticized by his own people for using terrible arguments
Come on anon, evolution's real but so is creation.
>>555295
>i'm pretty sure the conditions around this area don't often lead to preservation of fossils.
iirc when they found the floriensis fossils they were barely solid and needed some crazy archeomagic to get them to an extractable state without damage.
>>559972
Evolution and Creationism aren't mutually exclusive, my Protestant fellow.
>>560067
I liked Memnoch the Devil. Probably the most underrated Anne Rice novel.
>>555109
http://www.nature.com/news/human-evolution-small-remains-still-pose-big-problems-1.16170
