'Hobbit' species did not evolve from ancestor of modern humans, research finds. Bone study shows there is no evidence the 1.1-metre tall Homo floresiensis had any links with the much larger Homo erectus.
From The Guardian
Researchers who studied the bones of Homo floresiensis, a species of tiny human discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003, say their findings should end a popular theory that it evolved from an ancestor of modern humans.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/21/hobbit-species-did-not-evolve-from-ancestor-of-modern-humans-research-findsThe study, led by the Australian National University researcher Dr Debbie Argue from the school of archaeology and anthropology, found there was no evidence the diminutive 1.1-metre-tall Homo floresiensis evolved from the much larger Homo erectus, the only other early hominid known to have lived in the region.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray
Read more
It was one of several theories about the origins of the “hobbit” species. Since it was discovered, researchers have tried to determine whether Homo floresiensis was a species distinct from humans.Argue was overseas and unavailable to comment but a member of her research team, prof Colin Groves, said the theory of a link with the Asian Homo erectus, the first of our relatives to have modern human proportions, was “a good scientific hypothesis”.
“But we believe it has now been thoroughly refuted,” he told Guardian Australia.
Groves said the researchers had gone into the study of the species with an open mind. But their findings support another popular theory: that Homo floresiensis was in fact far more primitive than Homo erectus and had characteristics more similar to Homo habilis, which lived between 1.65m and 2.4m years ago, and which is the most ancient representative of the human genus.
Follow @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Apr 21. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $2.93 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 21 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.