Archaeologica.org

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.

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

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'.

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

Digit wrote:so why would you get pygmies in a tropical forest?

Because they're a nuisance in your backyard?

I thought they were garden gnomes!

Roy.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Or at least only very slowly!

Roy.