Biology Magazine

Was “the Hobbit” a Human with Down Syndrome? Probably Not

Posted on the 12 August 2014 by Reprieve @EvoAnth

The human family once cintained a lot more than just humans, with all sorts of weird off-shoots developing over the course of our evolution. Like humans with the head of a gorilla. But by far the weirdest is “the hobbit” (Homo floresiensis), a 3 foot tall species of human that lived about 13,000 years ago. That last part is what makes them especially weird, as by that point the only humans supposed to still be alive were your boring, generic Homo sapiens.  As such there’s been a lot of debate over whether the hobbit really existed, or whether it was just a diseased modern human. In the decade since its discovery the evidence has always landed down in favour of the “it’s actually a species” hypothesis; but now a team of researchers think they may have finally figured out the disease responsible for this “species”.

Their condition of choice? Down syndrome, which the researchers claim could explain every weird aspect of this “species”. The skull, for example, has a degree of asymmetry; like that seen in people with Down syndrome. Their brain also falls in the range of a child with the condition, which would also explain their short stature1. The list of such similarities goes on, leading the researchers to conclude

the abundant pathological signs that mark cranial and postcranial morphology of the LB1 [the most complete hobbit fossil] in- dividual establish a very high probability of that specimen manifesting DS1

It’s a fairly bold claim that’s, understandably, been leapt on by most media outlets; from ABC to the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe to creationists (who seem to think any mistake by those pesky evolutionists vindicates their position). And most are reporting the research uncritically, with even the “skeptics” guide only including a single sentence at the end urging caution. So surely these studues are solid as a rock (I mean there are even two papers, surely that has to count for something)? Well, as you may have guessed from the title of this article, there’s actually a fairly substantial problem with this research that really undermines the conclusion.

In a word (or two) this problem is “cherry picking”. Whilst the researchers did a thorough job of examining all the bits of hobbit anatomy associated with the symptoms of Down syndrome they ignored all the other bits; including the parts that contradicted their diagnosis, or which it couldn’t explain. It’s a bit like hypothesising someone died of a knife to the stomach and upon finding said knife declaring validation; all the while ignoring the rest of the body, including a gunshot wound to the head.

Actually I think that analogy is a bit too harsh (but sadly the only one my hobbit-sized intellect could come up with) as the researchers are far from incompetent. As I said, they did a thorough examination of the symptoms which did at some points require some very ingenious analysis to circumvent the lack of data1. But still, their omission of key aspects of the hobbits’ anatomy that disagree with their diagnosis fundsmentally undermines their conclusion.

The most important such piece of evidence is the wrist of the hobbit. A lot of research has focused on this bit of their body as it’s part of what makes the hobbit so weird. You see, over the course of our evolution our wrist changed from a more ape-like joint to the modern one we have; the former being better for climbing trees whilst the latter is better for tool manipulation. The new wrist evolved at some point between 1.8 and 0.8 million years ago and, you’ve guessed it, the hobbit had the old version. A version not seen in modern humans for 800,000 years. I don’t think Down syndrome explains that.

(Their second paper on the subject does briefly mention the wrist, but quickly dismisses it because it was not part of the original definition of Homo floresiensis and contradicts one of the hypotheses abiut its evolution. Because researchers are never allowed to examine new data and must only consider one idea at a time)2.

Similarily, their humerus lacks the rotation seen in modern humans (which is why, if you stand up straight, your elbow faces inwards slightly). Their shoulder blade is also angled more forwards than ours (which may be what the lack of rotation was compensating for). Crucially, whilst this is very different from what you see in modern humans it does seem to be the norm in Homo erectus3, not people with Down syndrome.

There’s also the fact that imprints of their small brains suggest that, relatively speaking, they had the large, long frontal lobes typical of modern humans (which makes their old wrists extra mysterious)4. Meanwhile people who suffer from Down syndrome typically have shorter, squatter frontol lobes than normal. I’m can’t say much more about this as the neurology of Doen syndrome is not my strong point; but this is yet another piece of evidence that doesn’t fit in with this model.

In other words, there’s an awful lot of evidence thst contradicts the Down syndrome hypothesis (and supports the idea the hobbit really was a distinct species); but these were missed by the researchers as they were looking for symptoms of Down syndrome. Nobody looks for it in the wrist, so that was ignored. Yet those are the bits that contradict their hypothesis and until they’re addressed they render the Down syndrome explanation unconvincing (although the fact several similarities could be identified is quite interesting, and worthy of a further look).

Personally, I would’ve hoped the Skeptics Guide to the Universe – one of my favorite podcasts – would not be misled by a study based around cherry picking; one of the most basic fallacies.

1. Henneberg et al. 2014. Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo floresiensis. PNAS
2. Ekhart et al. 2014. Rare events in earth history include the LB1 human
skeleton from Flores, Indonesia, as a developmental singularity, not a unique taxon. PNAS
3. Larson, S. G., Jungers, W. L., Morwood, M. J., Sutikna, T., Saptomo, E. W., Due, R. A., & Djubiantono, T. (2007). Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder. Journal of human evolution, 53(6), 718-731.
4. Falk, D., Hildebolt, C., Smith, K., Morwood, M. J., Sutikna, T., Brown, P., … & Prior, F. (2005). The brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis. Science, 308(5719), 242-245.


Note: I’m typing this on an iPad which makes adding photos a pain. So they will be added in a week, when I get to use a real computer again.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog