About those Hobbits: Heading Back in an Apelike Direction?
One of the mysteries of the Flores hobbits is that they combine some fairly advanced human-like traits with other traits that are more ape-like. I bounced a possible explanation off of my Point of Divergence friends, and wanted to share it with you:
I think one thing scientist may be missing is that chimps and orangutans aren't just relics left over from a population that was going to become human. In the early days, and even to some extent now, they were competitors with humans, at least at the margins.
Chimps are better at a set of things than humans are, and humans are better at a different set of things than chimps are. In the absence of humans, chimps would probably colonize savannas and eat meat to a greater extent than they currently do because the niche would be open to them and humans wouldn't be there to kill them. As a matter of fact, I believe I recall reading that when they're protected on reserves, chimps do colonize savannas, become more frequent tool users, etc.
Basically, when both humans and great apes are present, they subdivide a niche, with each specializing in a portion of it. When you think about it that way, chimps are less human-like because the part of the niche that being human-like would help them fill is already occupied.
The other half of that subdivision is that there is a part of the niche that humans can't use as effectively as chimps. Humans are less chimp-like than they might otherwise be, because chimps already occupy the niche that being more chimp-like would help humans fill.
Now, put a primitive human, probably something at about the level of the Georgian Homo erectus, on an island with no great apes. The part of the great ape/human niche that humans occupied is open, but so is the part that is occupied by chimps or orangutans on the mainland. I would be surprised if the primitive humans didn't develop/redevelop some apelike characteristics. Open ecological niches get filled if there is something out there to fill it, and primitive humans would not be far from being able to fill that niche. Primitive humans colonizing the part of the ape/human niche that apes normally hold would lead to a confusing mosaic of human traits (read as advanced traits) and ape-like traits (read as primitive). Does that make sense?
I think one thing scientist may be missing is that chimps and orangutans aren't just relics left over from a population that was going to become human. In the early days, and even to some extent now, they were competitors with humans, at least at the margins.
Chimps are better at a set of things than humans are, and humans are better at a different set of things than chimps are. In the absence of humans, chimps would probably colonize savannas and eat meat to a greater extent than they currently do because the niche would be open to them and humans wouldn't be there to kill them. As a matter of fact, I believe I recall reading that when they're protected on reserves, chimps do colonize savannas, become more frequent tool users, etc.
Basically, when both humans and great apes are present, they subdivide a niche, with each specializing in a portion of it. When you think about it that way, chimps are less human-like because the part of the niche that being human-like would help them fill is already occupied.
The other half of that subdivision is that there is a part of the niche that humans can't use as effectively as chimps. Humans are less chimp-like than they might otherwise be, because chimps already occupy the niche that being more chimp-like would help humans fill.
Now, put a primitive human, probably something at about the level of the Georgian Homo erectus, on an island with no great apes. The part of the great ape/human niche that humans occupied is open, but so is the part that is occupied by chimps or orangutans on the mainland. I would be surprised if the primitive humans didn't develop/redevelop some apelike characteristics. Open ecological niches get filled if there is something out there to fill it, and primitive humans would not be far from being able to fill that niche. Primitive humans colonizing the part of the ape/human niche that apes normally hold would lead to a confusing mosaic of human traits (read as advanced traits) and ape-like traits (read as primitive). Does that make sense?