PZ Myers. 2004 Nov 12. Flores man controversy. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/flores_man_controversy/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Friday, November 12, 2004
Flores man controversy
Science magazine has published a short comment on Flores man. Among others, it cites Maciej Henneberg, who has also left some comments on my article on Homo floresiensis.
When a research team announced last month that it had found a new species of 18,000-year-old tiny human in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, it seemed almost too amazing to be true (Science, 29 October, p. 789). Now a small but vocal group of scientists argues that the skeleton dubbed Homo floresiensis is actually a modern human afflicted with microcephaly, a deformity characterized by a very small brain and head. Meanwhile, an Indonesian scientist who also challenges the skeleton's status has removed the skull to his own lab for study. But members of the original team of Australian and Indonesian scientists staunchly defend their analysis, and outside experts familiar with the discovery are unmoved by the critique.
The main challenge comes from paleopathologist Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide in Australia and anthropologist Alan Thorne of the Australian National University in Canberra. Neither has seen the specimen itself, and as Science went to press, they had yet to publish their criticisms in a peer-reviewed journal. But Henneberg published a letter in the 31 October Adelaide Sunday Mail arguing that the skull of the Flores hominid is very similar to a 4000-year-old microcephalic modern human skull found on the island of Crete. And at a press conference on 5 November, Indonesian paleoanthropologist Teuku Jacob of Gadjah Mada University in Jakarta claimed that the specimen was a diminutive modern human. Jacob, once described as the "king of paleoanthropology" in Indonesia (Science, 6 March 1998, p. 1482), has had the skull transported to his own lab from its original depository at the Center for Archaeology in Jakarta, according to center archaeologist Radien Soejono, who is a member of the original discovery team.
In its original paper, the team considered and rejected several possible deformities, including a condition called primordial microcephalic dwarfism (Nature, 28 October, p. 1055). But Henneberg claims that the authors failed to consider a related condition called secondary microcephaly. "They jumped the gun," he told Science. Henneberg, who with Thorne favors a multiregional model of human origins that some say is at odds with the finding of a distinct but recent human species on Flores, concludes that the skeleton is "a simple Homo sapiens with a pathological growth condition." (Multiregionalism holds that modern humans evolved after 2 million years of interbreeding among worldwide populations; the evolution of a distinct species would require a long period without interbreeding).
But archaeologist Michael Morwood of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, a leader of the team that discovered the skeleton, insists that the skeleton is not a pathological case. "We now have the remains of at least seven individuals," he says. "All are tiny, and all can be referred to as Homo floresiensis."
The team is backed by several outside researchers. Anthropologist Leslie Aiello of University College London says the skeleton cannot be that of a modern human because the postcranial bones indicate a separate species. "The pelvis is virtually identical to that of an australopithecine," much wider than the modern human pelvis, she says. And compared with modern humans, "the arms are long in relation to the legs." Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London sums up many researchers' opinions by saying, "This cannot be a peculiar modern human."
It's frustrating to lack an unambiguous answer, but this is how science is done: ideas are challenged, people wrestle over the data, and we hope, are encouraged to seek out new data to test hypotheses. I'm inclined to favor that the Flores skeleton is representative and not pathological, based on the evidence of the other fragments, but can see that Henneberg and Thorne have a reasonable argument…what would settle it once and for all, though, would be the discovery of a second skull. Let's see more digging!
Posted by PZ Myers on 11/12 at 08:48 AM
Science • Organisms • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Science • Organisms • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
I don't know that I can put much stock in any criticisms by Alan Thorne, given how resolutely he and Wolpoff tried to push Mungo Man as evidence for their multiregionalist position, in spite of the existence of straightforward alternative explanations.
#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 11/12 at 09:16 AM
-
Gentlemen:
Does anyone mind if I quote myself?
From earlier post on Flores Man:
10/28, comment No. 65:
I was thinking Bob Flynn and His Dozen Pea-Brained, Midgets from the Paleozoic Age
If this turns out to be a fraud, y’all gonna look real, real, I mean, real dumb
These paleontologist geeks are always claiming they found some Holy Grail of something or other, just to boost their own research funding. This has fraud written all over it. I'm gonna miss my pea-brained brethren, though.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 10:54 AM -
(sorry, PZ)
Bob, I guess Stephen Hawking's recently refuted hypotheses about radiating black holes made him a fraud and made him look real, real dumb too.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 12:11 PM -
"It’s frustrating to lack an unambiguous answer, but this is how science is done: ideas are challenged, people wrestle over the data, and we hope, are encouraged to seek out new data to test hypotheses."
Nonsense. That is NOT how we discover what is true! Here's how it's really done:
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 12:19 PM -
Timmy,
Actually, Hawking was quite above board and honorable. He saw that his pet theory on black holes didn't wash. And changed his theory.
Some of you boys need to follow suit. The problem, though, like your politics, is that you are emotionally invested in many of your scientific theories. You want Flores Man to be true so bad -- that all normal antennas for skeptism fall by the wayside. This is the main failing I see.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 12:29 PM -
My recollection is that when Maciej Henneberg popped in here with ideas about alternate ideas on brain size she was given a fair hearing. Nobody declared her wrong.
It is interesting that the evidence revealed so far points towards the new species view, but certainly many are interested in corroborating or disproving that evidence.
Hawking did not change his mind the minute someone proposed alternate theories, but no doubt he looked at and tested the theories presented that made sense to him.
This is scientific investigation. It is far too early to know where this newly presented information will lead us, but it is fascinating to realize that there is always more to learn.
I do not believe that someone wrote TRUTH down once in a special book and that nobody can question the words in the book.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 12:46 PM -
Maciej Henneberg is a he.
And please, this is a perfect example of why Flynn is a moron to be ignored: here I've made a post saying that the critics have made a reasonable argument and that we need more specimens, and he's babbling about our "emotional investment" in pet theories and denial of skepticism. -
Heh!
On Politics:
Myers: Kerry will win (Sorry, no)
On Paleontology:
Myers: It’s like discovering that Munchkins were real. (Sorry, looking doubtful)
And, I'm the ignorant moron? Bwa ha ha wa ha!
The hallmark of good science is the prediction: You are 0 for 2!
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 01:03 PM -
....oops. I was trying to be gender neutral since I did not know and I slipped up anyway.
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 01:05 PM
-
If a theory is an explanation for a set of facts, when the theory stops explaining new facts, you must adjust the theory or replace it with one that does. A scientist whose theory has never been tweaked is not pushing the edge.
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 02:30 PM
-
PZ is in a class of the exceptionally reserved if he has only made two predictions.
#: Posted by Evan Murdock on 11/12 at 03:00 PM
-
I have a pretty good source who's told me what went wrong in Bob's life:
Bob was a happy child, dutiful and obedient, and renowned for his beautiful singing voice. But his life took a turn for the worse when several bad things happened in the same week, and he's never been the same since.
It all started when his family was invited to help celebrate his great-aunt Edna's 90th birthday. Aunt Edna was the former principal of Bob's elementary school, and members of the school board, parents and teachers, and even a number of Bob's little school chums showed up.
Speeches were made, the press attended, even a couple of Senators arrived to pay tribute to the Grand Dame of local education.
The peak moment of the evening came when 12-year-old Bob appeared on stage, dressed in a little tuxedo, with a cute little bow tie, singing his heart out to the crowd. For the grand finale, Aunt Edna, dressed in a sequined white gown, with her little champagne poodle Hemingway resting in her lap, was wheeled out in her wheelchair for Bob to sing the final number.
Bob began the first notes of the song that expressed the entire county's love for this old woman who had devoted her life and done so much for education. A hush fell over the room, and the only sounds were the tinkling of the piano and Bob's sweet clear voice. Even the dog, Hemingway, sat up, his head cocked and eyes and ears intently focused on the boy, as the round, commanding notes of Bob's voice filled the room.
Then, as every attendee stood transfixed and flashbulbs popped, Hemingway stood up in Aunt Edna's lap, carefully negotiated his way down the front of the wheelchair, walked over and began to earnestly hump Bob's leg.
Great Aunt Edna's sweet smile turned suddenly into shrieks of laughter, and the entire crowd dissolved into a screaming chorus of mirth.
But the really pivotal moment came when Bob got home and discovered that, for the third time, his Sea Monkeys had all died. Worse, the x-ray specs he ordered turned out to be fake. "Damn scientists!" he cried.
And he has never been the same since. -
I like how Bob can't tell the difference between "error" and "fraud", but I expected no less.
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 03:23 PM
-
"The problem, though, like your politics, is that you are emotionally invested in many of your scientific theories. You want Flores Man to be true so bad — that all normal antennas for skeptism fall by the wayside."
If I had any evidence that any of your posts contained any sort of civil, reasoned argument, I would be less inclined to burst out laughing at this. And please do provide such evidence -- I'd like my model of the workings of your mind to be as accurate as possible.
"If this turns out to be a fraud, y’all gonna look real, real, I mean, real dumb."
How? Nobody here has said, "If Flores Woman is an H. sapiens, I'll eat my pants." We are not at this moment writing Homo floreniensis into our soon-to-be-published biology textbooks. Most of us are just naturally excited over what could be the find of the century, or at least the decade. Right now, the evidence that Flores Woman is part of a new species seems strong; if that changes, we'll accept the new evidence, although I'm sure many of us will be disappointed.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 03:30 PM -
"I like how Bob can’t tell the difference between 'error' and 'fraud', but I expected no less."
I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he thought the team that discovered Flores Woman intentionally published fast without looking too hard at the bones, maybe because they were afraid a rival team would discover another skeleton and scoop them. Saying their research was more solid than it actually was would be kinda fraud. Or maybe I just gave him too much credit.#: Posted by on 11/12 at 03:38 PM -
Hank Fox,
You have way too much talent and good cheer to be hanging out with these science geeks!! Well done!
As for predictions, though, you predicted that McCain and/or Powell would abandon Bush before the election, and my small, small point is that this was more hope, than thought.
And we see a recurring pattern of this by the bearded logothete who runs this blog and his butt-kissing, uber-dork, minions here
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 04:31 PM -
Disagreeing with you necessarily entails kissing the butt of someone you disagree with? Do we get to choose whose butt we kiss? Does it have something to do with the overlord-minion relationship? I assume that each minion can have only one overlord. So if I, as (supposedly) PZ's minion, were to run into you on a linguistics blog and disagree with you about the semantic type of free-choice any, for example, would that still involve me kissing PZ's butt?
Please let us know about all the predictions you've made, by the way, as we deserve the chance to mock you as well. Also, since you're basing this attack on your own opinion of an archeological find which *gasp* is not the same as some other people's but isn't really substantiated either, please let us know your beliefs re: the blueness of the sky, the direction of the force of gravity, or any other evidence-based belief you might have, so we can attack you on equally valid grounds. Your assistance is appreciated!#: Posted by on 11/12 at 06:20 PM -
Sorry, I don't respond to vowels.
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 10:06 PM
-
Come on, Bob. Vowels are just another one of God's creatures. I advise you to love thy neighbor as they love thyself, or whatever.
Or is that not one of the "morals" that you adhere to?
You republicans, always picking and choosing the battles that only will favor yourselves.
Too bad you're running out of battles to fight...#: Posted by on 11/12 at 10:21 PM -
As a curious bystander, with no emotional investment in the Flores discovery, I think civilized forms should be always kept. On the other hand, Flynn's insults are superior.
( Log´o`thete: An accountant; under Constantine, an officer of the empire; a receiver of revenue; an administrator of a department. )#: Posted by on 11/12 at 10:46 PM -
The pragmatics of "I don't respond to vowels" are clearly "I don't want to admit I've been saying foolish things".
#: Posted by on 11/12 at 10:57 PM
-
To which I can't help say: "W is that you?"
#: Posted by on 11/15 at 10:01 AM