Palanth Forum
February 08, 2012, 01:43:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1
  Print  
Author Topic: HOMO FLORESIENSIS -- A new explanation: inbreeding.  (Read 3377 times)
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« on: June 30, 2007, 09:14:02 AM »

While we are all waiting to hear  from Morwood, Brown and colleagues about the results of their ongoing work at Liang Bua, here is a new paper that should fuel the ongoing controversy:

Hershkovitz, Israel, Liora Kornreich, and Zvi Laron. 2007. Comparative Skeletal Features Between Homo floresiensis and Patients With Primary Growth Hormone Insensitivity (Laron Syndrome). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 000:000-000

ABSTRACT:
Comparison between the skeletal remains of Homo floresiensis and the auxological and roentgenological findings in a large Israeli cohort of patients with Laron Syndrome (LS, primary or classical GH insensitivity or resistance) revealed striking morphological similarities, including extremely small stature and reduced cranial volume. LS is an autosomal recessive disease caused by a molecular defect of the Growth Hormone (GH) receptor or in the post-receptor cascades. Epidemiological studies have shown that LS occurs more often in consanguineous families and isolates, and it has been described in several countries in South East Asia. It is our conclusion that the findings from the island of Flores, which were attributed to a new species of the genus Homo, may in fact represent a local, highly inbred, Homo sapiens population in whom a mutation for the GH receptor had occurred.

KEY WORDS: Homo floresiensis; Laron syndrome; human evolution; GH receptor

CLICK HERE for access to the full article.

For recent, additional information pertaining to Homo floresiensis matters,
CLICK HERE.

Jacques


Logged
Mike Keesey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2007, 06:31:04 PM »

Don't people with Laron syndrome have abnormally large foreheads?
Logged
trehinp
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289



« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2007, 04:07:32 AM »

Don't people with Laron syndrome have abnormally large foreheads?
Here is a website that may provide some general information on Laron Syndrome: Click here for more

There are a few skeletal pictures that are provided on this site, that's a start... Specialists of skeletal fossils palaeontology may want to explore this theory linking homo Floresiensis to Laron Syndrome more in depth...

Not being a specialist of this domain, I'd be glad to have their views on this theory...

Paul TREHIN
Logged

Paul Trehin
Mike Keesey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2007, 11:06:35 AM »

Me, too.

Maybe it's well-argued in the paper, but I am really struggling to see the similarity.
Logged
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2007, 08:44:23 PM »

Mike and all:

I thiink all of us would like whatever information we can get on this matter.  Not that it's going to be settled any time soon.
Anne G
Logged
mg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2008, 05:53:48 AM »

Assuming that this paper is correct for a moment - if LB1 was in fact part of a population of pygmy Homo sapiens with a GH mutation, wouldn't the find still qualify as a new species? After all, the remains discovered are spread over at least 80,000 odd years, and the author's suggest 'inbreeding', so the population must have been stable over a reasonably long time span, and reproductively isolated.
Logged
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2008, 08:17:21 PM »

mg:

But if the paper is correct, and they're H.sapiens, how would that make them a species?  Unless you're using the term very loosley?
Anne G

Assuming that this paper is correct for a moment - if LB1 was in fact part of a population of pygmy Homo sapiens with a GH mutation, wouldn't the find still qualify as a new species? After all, the remains discovered are spread over at least 80,000 odd years, and the author's suggest 'inbreeding', so the population must have been stable over a reasonably long time span, and reproductively isolated.
Logged
mg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 05:27:39 AM »

But as I understand it (and admittedly I'm not a natural scientist) the two primary definers of a species are i) stability over a reasonable period of time, and ii) reproductive isolation. The authors declare LB1 to be Homo sapiens, but following their line of argument I don't understand what stops it from being a new species? After all, LB1 seems morphologically more different from modern Homo sapiens than neanderthalensis does.
Logged
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2008, 01:38:34 AM »

mg:

A population can be very "stable" for a long period of time, and be (at least somewhat) isolated for a period of time, and yet still interbreed with "incomers".  This has happened among a number of nonhuman populations where they have been separated in various ways, but due to changes in climate or human intervention or some other factor, the range of one expands or both expand or. . . .The other consideration is, that the populations in question have to be "generalistic" in their habits.  I know, for example, that the "wolves" around the Great Lakes area have some genes that appear to be derived from coyotes.  I also know, because I see them every day, that the gulls in my area are hybrids between two "species", but all that matters as far as these gulls are concerned is, they have pink feet(apparently). 

Since, imo, humans have been evolving to be more and more "generalistic", it's  not impossible that *if* the "incomers" and the Flores people were not that different in behavior(and at present, nobody seems to know this), then there probably wouldn't have been much of a barrier to interbreeding, if any at all.  Which is possibly why the aforementioned authors consider them to be H.sapiens.  At present, I, myself, am "agnostic" about this issue, since there seems to be more heat than light being shed on the Flores people at the moment.
Anne G
Logged
Bones
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2008, 07:28:13 AM »

The latest claiming this is balderdash:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124418.htm
Logged
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2008, 03:00:17 PM »

Bones:

Oh yeah.  The "hobbit wars" go on and on.
Anne G
Logged
Pages: 1
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!