Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 213 (154201)
10-29-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed
10-29-2004 2:31 PM


Re: Similar to human??
And in an interesting additional bit of speculation, one anthropologist seems to think the critter might be more closely related to the Australopithecines. Now wouldn't THAT be a kick? They were thought to have died out around 1.4 mya. Here's his blog/article.
Oooh, this one's going to be fun...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2004 2:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3814 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 62 of 213 (154212)
10-29-2004 5:04 PM


Piccies
In most of the UK papers a reconstruction appeared. Here it is for those who've not seen it:
Attributed to Peter Schouten, AP.
Though why it shows a male figure when all the reports talk about a female figure is beyond me.
Main article here
Another good source is The Guardian
Enjoy.
Edited because I cannot spell.
This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 10-29-2004 04:08 PM

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

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


Message 63 of 213 (154217)
10-29-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
10-29-2004 6:07 AM


brain size vs abilities
jar writes:
these people ... had enough intelect to make and use tools, hunt, make fire.
there are several species of primate that are able to use tools and be able to pass such knowledge on to others in their group through social interactions - even some instances of totally taught behavior being transfered: american sign language for instance.
there are two elements here that to me seperate out these primate\human specimens: (1) the number of tools that would appear to be kept, transported and used multiple times, and (2) the use of fire.
what we don't know is if they learned these behaviors from the Homo sapiens that moved in to the island or did they have these skills before their arrival?
I think of the myths of the little people being mischievous and trading objects for things like tools left out over night.

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 55 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 6:07 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 64 of 213 (154240)
10-29-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed
10-29-2004 2:31 PM


Re: Similar to human??
You think the skull has been warped in some way? That I think we'll have to leave to the experts.
Well, it's just a suggestion really - but if the "others" have the same warpages, they might not be warpages afterall, depending on how many they find - and if they find ones in other locations. But then there might be a possible "condition" causing the warpages. I'll shut up though.
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.
That might be a bad thing, as I kinda like this town.. well, I apreciate your tolerance anyway Ned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2004 2:31 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 65 of 213 (154247)
10-29-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mike the wiz
10-29-2004 6:44 PM


Warping
Well, it's just a suggestion really - but if the "others" have the same warpages, they might not be warpages afterall, depending on how many they find - and if they find ones in other locations. But then there might be a possible "condition" causing the warpages. I'll shut up though.
That's not a bad idea actually Mike, the shutting up that is.
While warping or disease deformities could be raised there would have to be some reason to do so. To discard these you'd have to understand the preparation of the specimens. Getting a high degree of symmetry suggests that crushing etc. isn't a likely cause. The set of characteristics isn't something that any know disease (AFAIK) can cause. In addition, those characteristics do tie in with H. erectus finds elsewhere (I think).
Thus there is no reason for bringing the idea up. You have to have reasons for making things up you know. There don't seem to be any here.
I found an article on the globe and mail (http://www.globeandmail.com)
that has this odd line:
quote:
For the past several decades, humans have developed the idea that the progression from ape-like ancestors to modern humans was a long, inexorable, orderly march, culminating in the rule of Homo sapiens as the only human for millions of years, Dr. Gee said.
I don't understand why this Dr. Gee would say this since I've read popular articles for years now talking about the 'bushy' nature of the development to H. sapiens. I didn't think the "orderly march" was a picture that had been current for quite awhile. This just accentuates the degree to which the bushyness may have been true. It doesn't, in my limited knowledge, overturn anything really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 6:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 66 of 213 (157043)
11-07-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Quetzal
10-29-2004 3:29 PM


Hi Quetzal and Ned. Thanks for being patient with me. I have taken it upon myself to study more about the homo genus. I am eager to know if you think Floresiensis will still be classified in "homo" genus.
I have a question. Is the homo genus really monophyletic if these instances occur - and she is classed as in the homo genus? (Probably a silly question but I thought of it so, if it is just ignore me).
Anyway - I have read what AIG think of this find. Quite remarkably - IMHO, they have almost unwittingly admitted evolution occurs. AIG's thoughts
Is it just me or do they admitt to a mutation being beneficial - must be my eyesight;
AIG writes:
Even a mutational stunting, like some hereditary instances of dwarfism today, might be favoured in such a situation and come to dominate a population
So if a mutation for stunting is beneficial - why couldn't it happen over a long period of time resulting in evolution?
The link says that homo erectus and floresiensis should be classed as homo sapiens;
link writes:
we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens
But then it says;
link writes:
NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human.
It seems to me that if the skull and brain capacity are different then erectus was a human? I personally thought that erectus had the intelligence of a "baby sapien" according to a science program I watched. So why not include chimps in the human kind?
P.S. Sorry about my siliness in this thread Quetzal - you were bang on correct, this is an exciting find for evolutionary Theory. I owe you this post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 3:29 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 11-07-2004 7:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 7:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 9:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 9:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 67 of 213 (157049)
11-07-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


Mike,
The family of critters that we call Homo is still pretty much in flux. There is habilis, erectus, sapiens, sapiens sapiens and now floresiensis. I doubt that is the whole picture simply because fossils are really unusual things, happen seldom and so there is a very, very good chance we will find far more examples over time.
In addition, the divisions between Homo and the apes, chimps and bonobos is also still quite arbitrary. Hopefully as we gather more genetic information we'll know more but there will always be a certain amount of the "where to put it?" issue. DNA studies are showing that we are more closely realted to Neanderthal than to the chimps, but the variations are simply not all that great. Should there even be a seperation between chimps and Homo?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 68 of 213 (157058)
11-07-2004 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


H floresiensis
I am eager to know if you think Floresiensis will still be classified in "homo" genus.
That will be left to the experts of course based on details but that's where it is so far and looking at the pictures sure suggests that. I think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising.
I have a question. Is the homo genus really monophyletic if these instances occur - and she is classed as in the homo genus? (Probably a silly question but I thought of it so, if it is just ignore me).
Thanks Mike, I learned something. I had to look up monophyletic. She is classed as Homo. I think Homo is monophyletic, moderately sure in fact.
None of this is silly Mike. All good questions.
And thanks for the AIG link. I'll have a read of that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-10-2004 9:53 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 11-11-2004 9:58 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 69 of 213 (157063)
11-07-2004 7:57 PM


Jar writes:
The family of critters that we call Homo is still pretty much in flux. There is habilis, erectus, sapiens, sapiens sapiens and now floresiensis. I doubt that is the whole picture simply because fossils are really unusual things,
Good point Jar - I suppose we aren't going to have a real "full" picture yet, which leads me to think that we might find lots more instances like homo floresiensis. Did you forget Ergaster?
As for the rest of your post - I'm the wrong dudeguy to ask - your own knowledge probably trumps mine. Where's Quetzal when u need him.
Ned writes:
think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising.
That also suprised me - what with her being able of tool-making etc...my knowledge of Australopithicines is small tho - very small.
Thanks Mike, I learned something. I had to look up monophyletic. She is classed as Homo. I think Homo is monophyletic, moderately sure in fact.
Lol, there's also polyphyletic aswell - and "paraphyletic"
Enjoy the link anyway - and please chip in if you find anything in there you want to mention, - I noticed they said this find is a problem for the old-earther's rather than them.

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


Message 70 of 213 (157078)
11-07-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


AIG's views
Is it just me or do they admitt to a mutation being beneficial - must be my eyesight;
I think you need glasses or to clean them. They are clear that it is "pre existing" information or a loss of information that is what allows the smallness. Or we have genes for smallness.
If there is any DNA to sequence they may be sorry about his suggestion. We'll have to wait to see.
You are right about the other point about H. erectus is being just a human variant is a bit dangerous for them too. As they widen what is "human" they bring us closer and closer to the chimps. If they get the gap too small the claim that we are so very separate weakens.
As more discoveries are made AIG's views will get more and more difficult to maintain. It is amusing to watch though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 71 of 213 (157196)
11-08-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


chimps
mike the wiz writes:
So why not include chimps in the human kind?
Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says
A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species.
Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study.
'Nuff said?

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 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-12-2004 7:17 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-05-2005 1:16 PM RAZD has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 213 (157934)
11-10-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NosyNed
11-07-2004 7:43 PM


Re: H floresiensis
quote:
That will be left to the experts of course based on details but that's where it is so far and looking at the pictures sure suggests that. I think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising.
On the flipside, I just read recently that Indonesia's prominent human origins researcher Prof Teuku Jacob said the Australians were wrong and floresiensis, he said, are just small Homo sapiens. Chris Stringer reacted by saying it isn't so; but Prof Jacob's team is now going to examine the bones themselves. This will be interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 7:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 10:07 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2004 10:25 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 73 of 213 (157943)
11-10-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Andya Primanda
11-10-2004 9:53 AM


Controversy over grouping
, There doesn't seem to be a tooth dug up that doesn't have camps arguing over it. That's the way we will get a better answer to these questions.
In truth we have a year or 5 to wait before we can get an idea of what the consensus view is. It is so hard to be patient.
"Are we there yet?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-10-2004 9:53 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 74 of 213 (157949)
11-10-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Andya Primanda
11-10-2004 9:53 AM


Re: H floresiensis
I wouldn't want to bet on the one well-preserved skull being a pathological specimen. IMHO Prof. Jacob is going out on a limb on this one. He might be right, but I don't think its very likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-10-2004 9:53 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 75 of 213 (158343)
11-11-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NosyNed
11-07-2004 7:43 PM


Re: H floresiensis
That will be left to the experts of course based on details but that's where it is so far and looking at the pictures sure suggests that. I think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising.
I'm not sure how much credence to lend to the Australopithecine-descendent claim. The anthropologist in question is basing his suggestion on a couple of details that are IMO rather far from compelling. His principal point is something along the lines of trying to correlate nanism in an island population with "loss of intelligence". IOW, a "smart" H. erectus whose body got proportionately smaller over the generations due to the known selection pressures that create nanism on islands would of necessity lose intellectual capacity (for things like tool-making and fire, etc). Since "brain power" loosely speaking is related not so much to size (although there appears to be an absolute limit somewhere), but rather to brain-body ratio and brain complexity, I think he's making pure speculation on little evidence. He maintains that it is more likely that a derived Australopithecine, who were roughly the same size as the new specimen, maintained or even increased intelligence that would have been lost in a "reduced" erectus. Again, there's no evidence that would indicate nanism equates to loss of capability in any other organism that has undergone this type of size reduction, so why it would apply to floresiensis and no other critter is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 7:43 PM NosyNed 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