The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

The science or study of primitive societies and the nature of man.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Rokcet Scientist

The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:20 am

The more is learned about paleolithic conditions on Flores the better the Hobbit's relative place among hominid species and other fauna is understood. For comprehension it is necessary to take the holistic approach. And the better we factor in local pleistocene conditions and climate the better the Hobbit fits the pattern of "the island factor", whereby isolation makes large species shrink, while smaller species grow in size.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_ne ... 261713.stm

So what else is new? We know about the mini mammoths on Wrangel island and on the Catalina islands, don't we? We know about pygmies, don't we? The Hobbit was a perfectly natural phenomenon, an island variant of HE. A cousin, probably even a direct descendant, of Meganthropus paleojavanicus.

Which strengthens the case for New Guinea, the Moluccans, and Oz having been colonized via Borneo/Kalimantan, Celebes/Sulawesi, and the Phillipines. The northern route. And not via Lombok, Sumba, Sumbawa, Flores, and Timor. That route, the southern route, seems to have been a dead end street for a long time.

kbs2244
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by kbs2244 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:02 pm

Don't the pygmies live along side normaly sized people?

Rokcet Scientist

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:52 pm

kbs2244 wrote:Don't the pygmies live along side normaly sized people?
No, the Baka live isolated (or at least used to), deep in the rain forests of southeast Cameroon, northern Republic of Congo, northern Gabon, and southwestern Central African Republic. Not alongside 'normally sized people'.

kbs2244
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by kbs2244 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:09 am

But, other than the thick jungle, they were not physically separated?

What I am getting at is what does their development, or lack thereof, result from?
Were they afraid to leave the jungle?
Were the normal sized neighbors afraid to enter it?

It would seem more a cultural divide.
Does that count as Darwin?

Rokcet Scientist

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:36 pm

kbs2244 wrote:But, other than the thick jungle, they were not physically separated?
For all intents and purposes: yes.
What I am getting at is what does their development, or lack thereof, result from?
Were they afraid to leave the jungle?
Were the normal sized neighbors afraid to enter it?

It would seem more a cultural divide.
Does that count as Darwin?
A divide is a divide. Whatever causes/motivates it.
The resultant isolation (always relative) is conditional for evolution = Darwin.

User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1612
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Cognito » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:56 pm

The resultant isolation (always relative) is conditional for evolution = Darwin.
So if the Hobbit is a dwarf H. erectus, how did he acquire that A. afarensis foot?
Natural selection favors the paranoid

Rokcet Scientist

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:44 pm

Cognito wrote:
The resultant isolation (always relative) is conditional for evolution = Darwin.
So if the Hobbit is a dwarf H. erectus, how did he acquire that A. afarensis foot?
Half this dwarf HE's brain had to go somewhere!

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Digit » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:01 pm

The xclassical argument for pymies is shortage of resources caused by a limited habitat, so why would you get pygmies in a tropical forest?

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Rokcet Scientist

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:47 pm

Digit wrote:so why would you get pygmies in a tropical forest?
Because they're a nuisance in your backyard?

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Digit » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:28 pm

I thought they were garden gnomes! :roll:

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1612
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Cognito » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:56 pm

So what else is new? We know about the mini mammoths on Wrangel island and on the Catalina islands, don't we? We know about pygmies, don't we? The Hobbit was a perfectly natural phenomenon, an island variant of HE.
So, second request RS. Just how, within the confines of Darwinian evolution and island dwarfism, did the Hobbit wind up with foot morphology similar to that of A. afarensis?
Natural selection favors the paranoid

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15726
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Minimalist » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:58 am

Digit wrote:The xclassical argument for pymies is shortage of resources caused by a limited habitat, so why would you get pygmies in a tropical forest?

Roy.

During the Battle for Guadalcanal many Japanese soldiers starved to death in the jungles. Apparently, a lot of vegetation does not necessarily make it edible or have much nutritional value. The sun has difficulty penetrating to the jungle floor because of the tree canopy.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Digit » Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:04 pm

Granted Min, but equally I can't help but wonder if we are looking at this from the wrong direction.
The assumption is, as I pointed out, that reduced stature comes from isolation. The argument runs thus, Pygmy species live in small isolated areas, ipso facto, isolation results in Pymies.
A wonderful example of cirular reasoning, but let me offer an alternative that equally fits.
Suppose that these Pygmy species were already small before they colonised the areas we now see them in, that same isolation would serve to protect them from whatever caused them not to now exist elsewhere.
For example, why are the central African Pygmies so wide spread?
Hardly isolated and representative of several different ethnic types. Pygmy homonids are a world wide fact, interestingly their spread seems to follow the possible earliest OOA scenario.
Take Cogs comments about Afarensis, they would be an ideal ancestor for Pymies as they averaged only some three and a half feet in height.
Take Pygmy Hippos, hardly isolated nor short of food, so why?

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15726
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Minimalist » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:45 pm

I actually agree with you, Dig.

You see, the Japanese soldiers on Guadalcanal did not evolve into something smaller. They starved to death. Evolutionary traits need time to work. They cannot work if you are dead.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: The Hobbit = textbook Darwin

Post by Digit » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:00 pm

Or at least only very slowly! :lol:

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Post Reply