|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The brain capacity of pygmies is within the normal range for Homo sapiens. The brain capacity of floresiensis is below even that of erectus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Which discredits RAZD's suggestion that these might just be a pygmy varient of homo sapiens, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, it refutes the idea that these are not a distinct species. It doesn't really address the question of whether they were descended from sapiens as RAZD says or erectus (as the articles I've seen say).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
It doesn't really address the question of whether they were descended from sapiens as RAZD says or erectus. It implies that they aren't pygmyied homo sapiens. Pygmyism has characteristic effects on the comparitive size of body and brain (the brain shrinks less than the body), since this specimen shows a very small brain even if compared to a known homo sapiens example of pygmyism it implies that this species is not an example of pygmyism in Homo Sapiens as RAZD suggested. (This is actually discussed in that blog you posted, and he does a rather better job than me of explaining it all)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Unfortunately the same argument applies to erectus. And there are no other plausible ancestors known to have lived in the area.
So I don't think we can rule out sapiens as a possible ancestor at this point, although I don't think it likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Erm, ahem - may I say something?
link writes: And shows how little we really know about human evolution."
If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened?
link writes: "We thought the skull and the mandible was from a child.......But after a week, we checked the teeth and saw that they were already worn, and that the molars had erupted, so she was more than 20 years old This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola.
link writes: Accelerator mass spectrometry dating suggests that LB1's remains are 18,000 years old. But New Scientist has learned that some bone fragments could be as young as 13,000 years You see, this is the problem with evo's - if you can play with five thousand years - then why not play with millions? I guess she has 13,000 year old hand - and an 18,000 year old leg or something. I say it's either a human child with some warpages to the skull - or an ape that looks like a human skull. BTW - they automatically assume this means great things for evolution? Why is that? Isn't that an emotional response? I mean - shouldn't they not jump to conclusions - aren't they assuming evolution is the answer as a pre-cursor to the evidence????! This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 09:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened? Oh please, Mike. You know better than this. Why is it every time some new discovery occurs in anything, all the creationists immediately jump to the conclusion that evolution is dead? Assuming the identification is borne out, I think this might be the neatest thing to happen since the discovery of Australopithicus afarensis. In spite of journalistic hyperbole to the contrary, this find may represent a different species of human - not a putative ancestor. I'm really excited to realize that there were three species of Man living contemporaneously within the last 50,000 years. It doesn't overturn human evolution - it provides even more evidence for it.
This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola. Facetious commentary aside, how does this call into question dating methods?
You see, this is the problem with evo's - if you can play with five thousand years - then why not play with millions? I guess she has 13,000 year old hand - and an 18,000 year old leg or something. Oh good grief. Did you even read the article? They've found the remains of seven different individuals. As to the dating discrepency, there are any number of explanations - from contamination to a 5000-year-long continuous occupation of the site. As more studies are conducted, the dates will undoubtedly be refined. Happens ALL THE TIME. That's how science works.
I say it's either a human child with some warpages to the skull - or an ape that looks like a human skull. Or rather seven human children. And if it's an undescribed species of ape, then it's going to be the most advanced ape anyone ever found. After all, the remains were found with chipped stone tools. And the ape classification would be even MORE devastating to the creationists - after all, this would mean humans aren't the only species to develop worked tools. So much for the great divide between ape and human, hunh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: enough to say that, yes, IMO.
quote: Nonsense, unless by some bizarre coicidence decay due to coke's acidity looks exactly like abbrasive damage. Which I seriously doubt, having seen a tooth dissolved in coke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened? Because the evidence we do have is not consistent with any alternate theory, and the evidence from other species is incontravertable.
This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola. Don't be stupid. The wear patterns from tooth decay are entirely different from the wear patterns from normal usage.
You see, this is the problem with evo's - if you can play with five thousand years - then why not play with millions? I guess she has 13,000 year old hand - and an 18,000 year old leg or something. No. They've found more than one specimen of Homo floresiensis at this site - the different specimens are not giving the same date (as would be expected since there's no reason they should).
I say it's either a human child with some warpages to the skull - or an ape that looks like a human skull. No. The structure of the skull is not consistent with any known pathologies, and the bone structure and dentician are not consistent with a juvenile. It is an 'ape', so are we. The structure of the hips and skull does not match even vaguely with any extant ape, or any non-hominid extinct ape.
BTW - they automatically assume this means great things for evolution? Why is that? Isn't that an emotional response? I mean - shouldn't they not jump to conclusions - aren't they assuming evolution is the answer as a pre-cursor to the evidence????! Evolution is already an established fact, so of course they assume it. Just as they assume physics and chemistry still work just like they did yesterday. As to saying it means 'big things' well that may be jumping the gun a bit and is no doubt an emotional response. Of course scientists respond emotionally to new findings they are human after all - the whole point of science however, is to take every possible measure to ensure that the final result is not biased by these emotional responses to the findings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hey Quetzal - you say species of human, or "man". Can you please define "kind"? Thanks. You can't have it both ways - they are either mankind - or evokind, in that they are a homo rectifier etc... Either remove their relevance to "man" - or continue to agree with me that the are young mankind.
Seriously though - you really did take mike's bait today.
It doesn't overturn human evolution - it provides even more evidence for it. Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution? Aren't you first accepting evolution - THEN finding evidence and saying "it must be evolution...."/ Because creationist usually get told that they use the bible - THEN look at evidence. I say that the diversity of life will get so complicated - that no smooth evolution will be found, I mean - is a small brained human - living before neanderthal - really a smooth transition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Please, please make Dan show up so he can "get" my coke joke, lest we evolve and no longer have big enough brains to get it. Because apparently - evolving a smaller brain is now deemed beneficial.
Oh wow - yeah - evolving a smaller brain - I can see the benefits. Hang on - a brain wave; Monkey dudeguy - small brain human - monkey dudeguy - big brain human. Bizarro these smooth transitions. Roflmao.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution? Because it is consistent with theories of evolution, but not consistent with any competing explanation.
Aren't you first accepting evolution - THEN finding evidence and saying "it must be evolution...." Because creationist usually get told that they use the bible - THEN look at evidence. Evolution has already been established from the evidence. The exact path of human evolution is currently unknown to us, this new evidence helps us understand the nature of human evolution but has no baring on whether that evolution happened or not.
I say that the diversity of life will get so complicated - that no smooth evolution will be found, I mean - is a small brained human - living before neanderthal - really a smooth transition? Homo floresiensis does not appear to have branched from either sapiens or neanderthalis, thus we have no reason to expect that it would show smooth transition to either. Evolution is not a directed path, or a ladder of progress - it is a 'bush' of semi-successful approachs, this new find is just one small part of that bush. This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-28-2004 09:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Please, please make Dan show up so he can "get" my coke joke I got it. It was just stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because apparently - evolving a smaller brain is now deemed beneficial. Please point out where or how you arrived at that conclusion?
Oh wow - yeah - evolving a smaller brain - I can see the benefits. Do you understand what determines whether an evolved trait is successful or unsuccessful?
Monkey dudeguy - small brain human - monkey dudeguy - big brain human. Please translate that into a sentence that makes some sense. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024