Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 213 (153589)
10-28-2004 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
10-28-2004 5:24 AM


The brain capacity of pygmies is within the normal range for Homo sapiens. The brain capacity of floresiensis is below even that of erectus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 5:24 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 5:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 17 of 213 (153591)
10-28-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
10-28-2004 5:40 AM


Which discredits RAZD's suggestion that these might just be a pygmy varient of homo sapiens, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 5:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 213 (153598)
10-28-2004 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Jack
10-28-2004 5:46 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 5:46 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 213 (153602)
10-28-2004 8:02 AM


An informative blog entry

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 11:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 20 of 213 (153604)
10-28-2004 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
10-28-2004 6:48 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 8:42 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 213 (153606)
10-28-2004 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
10-28-2004 8:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 8:23 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 213 (153622)
10-28-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
10-27-2004 5:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2004 5:11 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 10:26 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 10-28-2004 10:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 10:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 213 (153627)
10-28-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:06 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:06 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:36 AM Quetzal has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 213 (153628)
10-28-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:06 AM


quote:
If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened?
enough to say that, yes, IMO.
quote:
This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 25 of 213 (153630)
10-28-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 213 (153636)
10-28-2004 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 10:26 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 10:26 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2004 10:55 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 35 by MrHambre, posted 10-28-2004 11:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 213 (153647)
10-28-2004 10:54 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-28-2004 11:01 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 11:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 28 of 213 (153648)
10-28-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 213 (153649)
10-28-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:54 AM


Please, please make Dan show up so he can "get" my coke joke
I got it. It was just stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:54 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 11:12 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 213 (153650)
10-28-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:54 AM


Do you understand evolution?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024