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


Message 46 of 213 (153765)
10-28-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AdminHambre
10-28-2004 2:35 PM


Re: God Alert
But he mentioned God's creation not me.
You see Quetzal - abuse of power - rather than use of it. Here AdminHambre is annoyed at mike's babble so he abuses his admin status.
That's twice you've used your admin power to try and refute irrefutable mike.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 01:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AdminHambre, posted 10-28-2004 2:35 PM AdminHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminHambre, posted 10-28-2004 3:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
AdminHambre
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 213 (153770)
10-28-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 2:51 PM


Re: God Alert
Wise up, wiz. Don't confuse "irrefutable" with "incoherent." Take the God talk to the Faith forum.
Adminssimo Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:51 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 48 of 213 (153863)
10-28-2004 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 2:03 PM


Why is it that you're always ignoring the substance of my posts to focus on the tangential? That could get irritating fairly quickly there, Mike.
But man derives from Noah, manus, manu, man.
Really? I didn't know Noah spoke Sanskrit. Learn something new every day. Certainly the Indo-European root of the modern word "man" comes from the Sanskrit "manu", although I thought "manus" was Latin for hand. However, we were discussing the scientific classification of the species, not some religious myth. In any case, you don't really want to go down the Noah road unless you're prepared to deal with the lack of genetic markers in all humans from the extreme population bottleneck he represents. Wrong thread for that.
I think that humans have a priveliged place - and an abused power.
Really? That's nice. Of course, you have just loads of objective evidence to indicate that this bare assertion has some support? Again, another thread. We're talking about a new hominid fossil species, right?
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.
But here, my friend, you run smack into the point I made earlier: if this critter ISN'T "man" in the sense I used the term originally, then the creationists are dead in the water - even the "sort of" creationist you claim to exemplify. After all, the evidence indicates the species was tool using, used fire, lived communally, etc. I.e., was intelligent. Unless God made TWO intelligent creatures, you've got a problem.
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?
Another good question. Are you limiting yourself to one good question per post, or something?
As an answer (and I'm speculating a lot here), I would say if it's not classed as Homo, then we have another tool-making-and-using primate that evolved seperately. Convergent evolution, as I noted in my previous post. Obviously, its relationship to our species would then be "cousin" at best - like the chimp. A very, very human-level intelligent chimp. As to the morphology, that's one of the strong indicators the species is closely related to ours, possibly as an off-shoot of erectus. If it's shown that the species isn't an offshoot of our line, then convergent evolution - two species developing similar responses to similar environments - is the most likely. Not really "coincidence" as we usually use the term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 8:17 PM Quetzal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 213 (153867)
10-28-2004 7:25 PM


adding frankypoo topic in here
http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....
Frankypoo writes:
I always get, "where's the missing link," and I assume that question to mean, "where's the mendelian genetic baggage carrying on into this generation." If that's what the question means... that according to mendelian genetics, there should be at least one anomolous popup of erectus in our genepool somewhere, asuming we came from erectus *prepares for a blow*. Anyway, that question vexed me too; however, in my archaeology class today my teacher put some skulls on the table. It ranged from a. africanus to habilis, then erectus, heidelbergensis, and then three more... the first of the three was a robust one, which he called cro-magnon, the second was clearly h. sapiens, then the last one everyone thought to be another erectus. However, he picked it up shaking his head to every attempt and finally said, "Modern aborigine. Just a few years ago. There's your genetic baggage." It exhibited, arguably, as many erectus traits as sapien traits. The take was either coexisting convergence, or sapien/erectus sex resulting in the earlier mentioned anomolous mendelian "popups" of genetic baggage. Evidentally, at least according to my teacher, you can find about as many gracile erectus looking aborigines today as sapiens in one population.
Is it just me or do others see correlations between this bit by Frankypoo and the original information on the Homo floriensis? The mixture of traits?
Add in comment from Iason and it gets even more interesting
(http://EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis)

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: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 50 of 213 (153880)
10-28-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 7:16 PM


Quetzal - I basically didn't disagree with a lot of what you said in that other post - hence the POTM, and the apology. So, I only picked what I had a problem with in your post.
When you say;
if this critter ISN'T "man" in the sense I used the term originally, then the creationists are dead in the water - even the "sort of" creationist you claim to exemplify. After all, the evidence indicates the species was tool using, used fire, lived communally, etc. I.e., was intelligent. Unless God made TWO intelligent creatures, you've got a problem.
Well - maybe - maybe a problem with Genesis, but this would only effect my belief in Genesis being accurate - sut it wouldn't bother me too much if Genesis is wrong. I still think God might make other intelligent beings apart from us...and since evolution doesn't go against my personal "creationist" outlook - it's not that big a deal to me. Edit to add - but did God say he only created one intelligent being anyway? Didn't I actually say; "..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species"
I would say if it's not classed as Homo, then we have another tool-making-and-using primate that evolved seperately. Convergent evolution, as I noted in my previous post.
Yes I know, I read it. However - can such a small brain allow for the intelligence equal to a human's? I mean, I already know about Erectus and neanderthal - but do you think these species could talk - or write?
Again - I'm not ignoring the substance of your posts - I just don't respond if I don't have any problems with it.
The key to what mike is doing in this thread - is seen in his first post. Don't take him too seriously.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 07:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 7:16 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 8:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 8:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 10:00 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 213 (153881)
10-28-2004 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 8:17 PM


brain power is a function of surface area more than volume, hence the convolutions in even normal brains to increase this. certainly the "grapefruit" size is equal to the size of many gifted children, so the ability to think cogently is not really an issue of brain size so much as culture, exposure to ideas (education), and data processing.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 8:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Ben!, posted 11-12-2004 11:50 PM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 52 of 213 (153886)
10-28-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 8:17 PM


I also think you may be making a mistake in equating brain power or intellegence as a positive trait. What determines success is whether a species lives long enough to reproduce. So if a member of the group Homo has enough intellegence, enough brain to meet the needs and pressures of Natural Selection, is there an advantage to having more?
If you look at humans, or any other critter out there, they are a Rube Goldberg collection of just good enough half assed systems. Our eyes are just good enough; our skeletons are just good enough; our joints are just good enough; our muscles are just good enough.
In addition, we and most other critters also have a bunch of left over pieces parts that no longer serve any useful function and that could certainly be better than they are. Even little things like some extra padding on shins and elbows, or in other things, getting the slime out of okra, would be a distinct improvement.
So if the environment favored smaller stature with lower energy input needs at the expense of not having excess brain size, would there be an advantage to the critter that had a larger brain? Might it seem out of proportion to the opposite sex? Is it possible that Natural Selection might favor a better aesthetical proportion when it came to mating habits that would penalize those with larger brains and heads in relation to their body size?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 8:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2004 5:22 AM jar has replied

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


Message 53 of 213 (154039)
10-29-2004 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
10-28-2004 8:46 PM


I also think you may be making a mistake in equating brain power or intellegence as a positive trait. What determines success is whether a species lives long enough to reproduce. So if a member of the group Homo has enough intellegence, enough brain to meet the needs and pressures of Natural Selection, is there an advantage to having more?
It may not be in general a positive trait; but it surely is for a group of group living, tool-using, hunting, fire making hominids, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 8:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 6:07 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Riley
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 213 (154040)
10-29-2004 5:33 AM


Certainly the Indo-European root of the modern word "man" comes from the Sanskrit "manu", although I thought "manus" was Latin for hand.
Not really sure what Mike was on about, but "man" and all the "manu"s do not trace to the same source at all. "Man" enters the language from the Germanic, while all the hand business is, indeed, Latin. The Indo-European roots are similar, but they're not identical.

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


Message 55 of 213 (154043)
10-29-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Jack
10-29-2004 5:22 AM


Well, from the evidence available so far, these people, regardless of where they are eventually classified, had enough intelect to make and use tools, hunt, make fire.
Enough.
Evolution is simply a record of what happened. It appears that these folk did just fine for some extended period.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2004 5:22 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2004 5:13 PM jar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 213 (154055)
10-29-2004 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 2:03 PM


Mike wrote:
quote:
and not exercising dominion over the animals properly.
I think the animals would be hard pressed to think of any aspects of "dominion" we have failed to exercise as vigorously as possible.
Remember we wer enot given responsibility for care of the animals, but rather dominion. If we wish to put them all to the sword, we can. God gave them to us.
On intelligence:
Personally, I doubt that intelligence can ever be a fitness-reducing element. The principle of all these data systems is to extract meaningful, useful information from the array of signals. I canl;t see how improved clarity of comprehension can be detrimental to an organism.
It may well be true that its marginal benefits outweigh the calorie budget costs required; cost benefit relationships still apply. the more intelligence you have, the less they apply.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 10-29-2004 07:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 57 of 213 (154077)
10-29-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 8:17 PM


Quetzal - I basically didn't disagree with a lot of what you said in that other post - hence the POTM, and the apology. So, I only picked what I had a problem with in your post.
Okay, Mike. You just need to remind me occasionally with a simple phrase stating you either accept or don't want to rebut something I said. Otherwise it appears you're ignoring the most important bits. After all, we're communicating through a medium that doesn't lend itself to interpretation of body language, etc. As the saying goes, "You say what you mean and mean what you say." (With a nod and tip-o'-the-hat to WT).
Well - maybe - maybe a problem with Genesis, but this would only effect my belief in Genesis being accurate - sut it wouldn't bother me too much if Genesis is wrong. I still think God might make other intelligent beings apart from us...and since evolution doesn't go against my personal "creationist" outlook - it's not that big a deal to me. Edit to add - but did God say he only created one intelligent being anyway? Didn't I actually say; "..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species"
I'd say "certainly" a(nother) problem with Genesis. Your approach is admirable, although after this much time on EvCforum I'm surprised you still think there may be something to Genesis in the first place...
On the "one intellgent being": I think you're right. I don't remember anything in the Bible that explicitly limits God-given intelligence to humans, although that's definitely the interpretation the fundamentalists use. I think I'd quibble with your "most intelligent" caveat, however. Intelligence is a continuum, and defining "most" is subjective and anthropocentric. We certainly have developed the most toys, but I'm not sure what that implies for the capacity for intelligence. More of a philosophical argument, IMO. In any event, I would certainly classify tool and fire using/making, cooperative societies as "intelligent". Too bad we can't make them take a Turing Test or something.
Yes I know, I read it. However - can such a small brain allow for the intelligence equal to a human's? I mean, I already know about Erectus and neanderthal - but do you think these species could talk - or write?
Well, whether they talked (as we understand it) or not is not a question that probably could ever be answered. It appears from what's been published that they were cooperative, so obviously they had to communicate effectively. How much and how complicated these communications were is probably unanswerable at this remove. As to brain capacity - don't forget that in addition to what RAZD mentioned on surface area, the key to "brain power" is the brain-body ratio - not the mere size of the brain. Tiny tool-makers obviously had the intelligence to not only make relatively complicated tools, but pass on the learning to subsequent generations. This is the key difference between human-level intelligence and say chimp-level: chimps use tools, and can even modify them to be more appropriate for the task and pass on the knowledge laterally (through imitation), but apparently have to reinvent them each time. Humans don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 8:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 2:25 PM Quetzal has replied

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


Message 58 of 213 (154163)
10-29-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Quetzal
10-29-2004 10:00 AM


After all, we're communicating through a medium that doesn't lend itself to interpretation of body language, etc
You just have to remember - I'm 70% goon, and the rest of me doesn't take me too seriously at all. I am aware of this topic being a great thing for evo's - and so it's perfect ground for a few controversial statements
I'd say "certainly" a(nother) problem with Genesis. Your approach is admirable, although after this much time on EvCforum I'm surprised you still think there may be something to Genesis in the first place...
Quetzal, unfortunately you guys all have this notion that we have to "come around" to agreeing with everything your side says eventually if we hang around this town. I think there's a lot to Genesis - and this find doesn't remove Genesis or make it wrong - I was too quick to say that - but then I realised I was mistaken - it would only be a problem for a literalist. You see Genesis to me - is not a scientific explanation, it's a significant and mysterious book of the bible.
We certainly have developed the most toys, but I'm not sure what that implies for the capacity for intelligence. More of a philosophical argument, IMO. In any event, I would certainly classify tool and fire using/making, cooperative societies as "intelligent"
Ofcourse - I won't deny the intelligence of animals - but if you're honest, they've never written a bible or went to the moon.
. As to brain capacity - don't forget that in addition to what RAZD mentioned on surface area, the key to "brain power" is the brain-body ratio - not the mere size of the brain. Tiny tool-makers obviously had the intelligence to not only make relatively complicated tools, but pass on the learning to subsequent generations.
Fair enough - when you find an electric screwdriver at your next dig - be sure to inform me. ...No, but seriously - I am aware of the brain to body ratio being important, I guess I still think that God's intended important and immortal creatures are meant to be us. This isn't arrogance - please don't assume that misconception like others have. It's just a matter of fact - that here we are - the moon-goers..
Well, I am lil confused about the lineage thing - the skull looks similar to humans - would such a similar looking creature really be outside of the "homo" section? Could it be a dwarf with skull warpages through process of time? How many skulls of this species have been found?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 10:00 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2004 2:31 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 3:29 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 213 (154165)
10-29-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
10-29-2004 2:25 PM


Similar to human??
...the skull looks similar to humans
Well, it you take genus Homo to be the definition of human then yes. And that is where it appears to belong.
The couple of pictures I've seen (front and side) make it clearly very different from sapiens though. Look at the brow ridges and the low cranial vault, low forehead and ridge of top. Those are obvious even to someone with my almost non-existant knowledge of this.
You think the skull has been warped in some way? That I think we'll have to leave to the experts. With only pictures to go on and no skill in this area I don't see how we can judge that. There isn't any clue in the published pictures anyway.
You see Genesis to me - is not a scientific explanation, it's a significant and mysterious book of the bible.
And if you say the above then you are one the same side as all the mainstream Christians and atheists here. There is no argument with those who don't pretend that there is any science in the creationist movement. If everyone agreed with you this forum would not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 2:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 4:51 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 6:44 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 60 of 213 (154180)
10-29-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
10-29-2004 2:25 PM


Quetzal, unfortunately you guys all have this notion that we have to "come around" to agreeing with everything your side says eventually if we hang around this town. I think there's a lot to Genesis - and this find doesn't remove Genesis or make it wrong - I was too quick to say that - but then I realised I was mistaken - it would only be a problem for a literalist. You see Genesis to me - is not a scientific explanation, it's a significant and mysterious book of the bible.
And in this, we have absolutely no disagreement. Read as a parable or allegory, it's a pretty neat chapter although I think Revelations is much more fun - appeals to my love of fantasy stories, I guess. And yeah, the literalists are really toast on this one, pretty much regardless of how the classification of these specimens plays out.
Ofcourse - I won't deny the intelligence of animals - but if you're honest, they've never written a bible or went to the moon.
...
Fair enough - when you find an electric screwdriver at your next dig - be sure to inform me.
We pretty much beat 'em all to the punch. Once we became the dominant critter, it's unlikely any other intelligent critter was able to compete effectively, although it appears neanderthalensis co-existed with us for quite a while before finally giving up... Maybe they're the only ones that were able to give us a run for our money. H. floresiensis was waay too isolated to have had to compete with modern humans - possibly up until the very end.
Well, I am lil confused about the lineage thing - the skull looks similar to humans - would such a similar looking creature really be outside of the "homo" section? Could it be a dwarf with skull warpages through process of time? How many skulls of this species have been found?
Well, therein lies the rub, as it were. We'll have to wait until the experts finish examining it. As Nosy pointed out, it does have supraorbital ridges, which is inconsistent with modern humans, but doesn't have the flat sides of erectus either. The teeth and jaws from the available photos don't appear to have any of the diagnostic characteristics of apes, and the chin appears hs vice erectus. As far as being a dwarf, sure why not? At least, in the sense of island isolation --> nanism. They've found some seven different specimens, all of which are consistent as to proportion, but I don't know how many skulls. I think she may be the most intact one found so far. I can't wait for the reports.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 2:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM Quetzal 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