|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nice article -- goes through all the logical explanations wit pros and cons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, particularly if other specimens are found on other Islands or on Australia. One also wonders if this couldn't be the source of all those myths about the "little people" (hobbits notwithstanding) -- as I am of the belief that Neanderthals and H.erectus are also sources of some myths of trolls, ogres and such.
And particularly if they can get some DNA ... to compare to the neander and human DNA ... enjoy. ps - I threw out the pygmyism from sapiens as a loss-leader, the skull shape (what I could see of it from the picture) is too different for me to consider it seriously, more like H.erectus. I used to have a composite picture of skulls that has gone missing with several changes in e-mail names (to avoid spam). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I don't think u got it then.
The refutation was that there was no coco cola 13-18,000 years ago. Ho hum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The refutation was that there was no coco cola 13-18,000 years ago. Ho hum. Yes, Mike. I got it. It was just stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
But you can;t possibly know that, Mike - after all, you were not there at the time. It's just a THEORY that there was no coca cola 13-18,000 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1415 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Mike asks,
quote:The explanatory framework of evolution is based on a copious amount of evidence, as has been pointed out again and again. This is more than enough reason to try to assimilate new information into the theory instead of starting from scratch every time a bone gets dug up. By way of analogy, consider this. The assumption that all fingerprints are different is based on literally millions of observations, and the assumption has led to many, many acknowledged successes in forensics and various investigations over the years. Of course, it's true that the observations that establish the validity of the Fingerprint Hypothesis comprise a vast but vanishing subset of all fingerprints that have ever or could ever exist. If you were a defense lawyer, would you propose to a jury that your client's fingerprints at a crime scene do not necessarily establish his presence there? After all, the Fingerprint Hypothesis is assumed to be true in every case even though only one case of identical fingerprints would falsify the hypothesis. Isn't that really what you're asking? regards,Esteban "Dabs" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Dan - I was discreet - I could have said "explain it if you got it".
So I have; 1. Gave you a compliment in naming you, and 2. been discreet, as to not show you up. If you can't take it as it was intended - then I need say no more. Personally - I think you're angry cos of how I came on this thread like this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4150 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Mike - I notice that you use that line a lot - "you must be angry because.."
why? Is it some form of hairshirt?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I'm sorry, Mike. Your joke was very funny. Here's a cookie.
*pats Mike's head* "If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars." -George Meyer, Simpsons writer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 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 Au contraire, the answer to your question is simple: I define Man (note the capital "M"), as "any member of the genus Homo". In this I follow the standard taxonomic categorization. It's an inclusive, vice exclusive, viewpoint. Now, YOU define "kind", and explain what the basis for your exclusionary definition is. Nice try.
Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution? Hey, there's actually a legitimate question in your post. I'm impressed. Although I'm going to have to speculate a bit, since I haven't read the original literature to know what all the data is on this particular species (IOW, the details on why they decided on the Homo genus), I think I can make a case as to why this provides evidence of evolution: 1. The profile fits with geographic isolation leading to allopatric speciation. 2. Morphology (what few details have been released), indicates that the samples are most closely related to H. erectus, an acknowledged precursor of H. sapiens. However, there are substantial differences in the shape of the skull, let alone size, which makes classification difficult - and makes them not simply aberrant erectus either. The skull apparently does not resemble any fossil or modern ape. It will be interesting to see what the final classification is - if it's not Homo, then we have an even more fascinating example of convergent evolution - some other primate from another lineage developed intelligence (tools, fire, evidence of cooked food). As a creationist, you better PRAY that it's classified as genus Homo - because otherwise your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated. 3. Nanism (dwarfism) is one of the two likely outcomes of long isolation on islands. Examples include Elephas falconeri, an elephant the size of a pony from Sicily, and Stegodon sondaari, another pony-sized elephant relative from Flores itself. It is well within the realms of evolutionary theory that an isolated population of early erectus or other hominid got to Flores, found things to their liking, and lived there for anywhere up to a million years or more up to the present. In the absence of predators and due to chronic food shortage, dwarfism could have been the result. Anyway, you get the picture. Once the final reports are published, we should have a lot more info to go on. As a forewarning, it will be a hotly contested classification - but remember that everyone outside creationist circles arguing this subject will simply be arguing over the details of evolution - not the fact.
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? Why is it that you have such a difficult time accepting that there were multiple species of human? If H. floresiensis does finally get classed as human, we'll have THREE different human species living at the same time (if not at the same location): floresiensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens. I can't imagine anything neater than that. Doesn't it thrill you to know we're (or at least weren't) not alone? Now, having disposed of your quibbles, please address the substance of my post - which you completely ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Actually the simple existence of species in the same genus as Homo sapiens is evidence for evolution. Given evolution it would be very surprising if it were not so. Given the typical creationist view of mankind as a unique creation it is surprising indeed to find species so closely resembling our own. Even a more general creationist view would not as strongly predict the existence of taxonomically close species as evolution does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thanks PaulK. I agree. I thought of putting something along those lines in as one of my points. However, I remembered just in time that we're talking to people who deny that 95-98% genetic homology (say between Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens) means the two are even remotely related.
As an aside, I think it's enormously fitting that this newest find occurred in Indonesia: the island archipelago where Wallace independently "discovered" natural selection and evolution using just this kind of close relationship among species on different islands. Whittaker is right: "...islands, being discrete, internally quantifiable, numerous, and varied entities, provide us with a suite of natural laboratories, from which the discerning natural scientist can make a selection that simplifies the complexity of the natural world, enabling theories of general importance to be developed and tested." (Whittaker, RJ 1998, "Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation", Oxford Uni Press, pg 1).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Have you ever read The SONG OF THE DODO: ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY IN AN AGE OF EXTINCTIONS by David Quammen?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684827123?... excellent and very readable. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I just (well, a couple of weeks ago) finished reading it for the third or fourth time. It's one of my favorites, even tho' some of his conclusions may be questionable (f'rinstance the dodo-tambalacoque linkage is disputed). However, his writing style is incredible. The description of the death of the last dodo never fails to move me - lyrical, almost poetic, and infinitely sad. I can't imagine any creationist ever reading that book (among others) and not becoming convinced of both evolution and what we humans, with our God-given dominance over nature, are losing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Au contraire, the answer to your question is simple: I define Man (note the capital "M"), as "any member of the genus Homo". But man derives from Noah, manus, manu, man.
As a creationist, you better PRAY that it's classified as genus Homo - because otherwise your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated. I think that humans have a priveliged place - and an abused power. However - since you define man, may I define creotionist? You see - My personal creationism definition is this; " Believes God created the heavens and the earth - and everything therein "....Since any evolution being used as a predicate - is not contradicitve of my definition - I would not pray about such a thing, as the definition says nothing about how God created the heavens and earth..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species - and that God cares for us despite us wrecking the earth - and not exercising dominion over the animals properly. Abuse of power and use of it - are two different things. If this new species is classed as not homo..., then how is it related to homosapiens, and therefore - how is it's morphology the same or similar? Would it be down to coincidence? This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 01:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminHambre Inactive Member |
Quetzal's response to you focused on the species classification of the fossil in question. Theological arguments belong elsewhere.
Adminssimo Hambre
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024