|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
From the Nature article.
In the meantime, researchers are hoping to find DNA in the bones, which would help to clarify the relationships between species. DNA has previously been extracted from European Neanderthals living in the same time period. But they have so far failed to find DNA in the teeth of the Stegodon found in the same cave, says Brown. It looks like there is at least the possibility of finding DNA. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yeah, and no fair publishing only the first page.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Before jumping too quickly on competition as the cause of their demise, it's important to note that there were also some significant natural events in the area of the South Pacific around 15-18K years ago. There are indication that it might have been a rather active tectonic time with some big time volcanic activity.
It's too soon IMHO to even speculate on what lead to the disappearance of the Hobbits. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Eckhardt's report is supposedly going to be published today in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I looked and did not see it there but mayhaps someone else can find it. Here is more news on what is supposedly included.
Basically Eckhardt seems to be saying that what is seen is just pretty normal Homo. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or what the Creationists keep claiming doesn't exist, Yet Another Example of a Transitional.
Sheesh. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then provide a cite to the article you are referencing.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The title he mentions, "experts split over human hobbit remains." is from a 2004 news story, source, that was carried on abc in australia.
However nothing in that says that they were monkeys. In addition, there has been a lot learned since 2004. 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