Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 40 of 213 (153688)
10-28-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 11:44 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 11:44 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 12:09 PM PaulK 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

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


Message 150 of 213 (250732)
10-11-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Jack
10-11-2005 9:29 AM


Re: More finds
It says "skeletal remains" rather than skeletons - which suggests that none of them is even close to complete. Unless they include a skull or at least a few jaws then I don't think that they will be that helpful. And if there had been a skull in reasonable condition I think that that would have been mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 9:29 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 12:02 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 152 of 213 (250812)
10-11-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Jack
10-11-2005 12:02 PM


Re: More finds
The jaw should help if it has (or doesn't have) the double-rooted teeth. The fragments - well it will depend on the reconstruction. Unless they're pretty large it could just fuel the controversy as the sides dispute attempts at putting the fragments together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 12:02 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 3:51 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 193 of 213 (434366)
11-15-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:43 PM


The evolution section of which site ? How about providing a link ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:43 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 197 of 213 (434378)
11-15-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jason777
11-15-2007 4:49 PM


You're wrong. I have found a story on the wristbones - from September, not November but it doesn't say that Floresiensis is a monkey. It does say that Floresinsis is not a dwarfed version of modern humans.
New Light Shed On The 'Hobbit'
But the hobbit's wrist is basically indistinguishable from an African ape or early hominin-like wrist--nothing at all like that seen in modern humans and Neandertals.
"Basically, the wrist evidence tells us that modern humans and Neandertals share an evolutionary grandparent that the hobbits do not, but all three share an evolutionary great-grandparent. If you think of modern humans and Neandertals as being first cousins, then the hobbit is more like a second cousin to both."
Add in the evidence of tool use and it is pretty clear that Floresiensis is a hominin - falling between humans and modern apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 4:49 PM Jason777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 11-15-2007 5:31 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 204 of 213 (434390)
11-15-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jason777
11-15-2007 5:50 PM


Unless you can produce your alleged article - and believe me, I've looked and not found any sign of it, I don't see any reason to doubt a recent, major study which concludes otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 5:50 PM Jason777 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