Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 213 (190201)
03-05-2005 1:09 PM


another theory
Another idea that seems to be floating around is that Homo florensiensis represents another line from Australopithecus (or, at least, from H. habilis) than the one that led to H. sapiens.
Not being an anthropologist, I can't evaluate these hypotheses myself, but all of these ideas are fascinating.
Edited the last sentence: "can" changed to "can't".
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-05-2005 15:36 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2005 2:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2005 4:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 213 (341998)
08-21-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Barbarian
08-21-2006 2:46 PM


"If elephants could do it twice, surely other humans came more than once to the island," Eckhardt told Discovery News.
Heh. Because it is well-known that wherever there are elephants, there are always humans, too.
I'm sure that this person was probably speaking "off the cuff" and not giving enough thought to what he was saying, but statements like this do produce doubts whether the guy is too emotionally attached to his own ideas.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Barbarian, posted 08-21-2006 2:46 PM Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 4:52 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 180 by jar, posted 08-21-2006 6:12 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 8:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 213 (342087)
08-21-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by kuresu
08-21-2006 4:52 PM


I know what he was referring to. I was pointing out the appearance of certainty, that since elephants did it then humans must have as well.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 4:52 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 7:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 213 (424228)
09-26-2007 10:23 AM


New study: Hobbits aren't people!
Or at least not modern Homo sapiens.
A recent study led by the Smithsonian shows that the wrist bones of H. floresiensis are much closer to extant (non-human) apes and early hominids than they are to Homo. In fact, if I'm reading the article correctly, it may be that this species might be removed from the genus Homo.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Jack, posted 09-26-2007 11:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 213 (424259)
09-26-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Jack
09-26-2007 11:37 AM


Re: New study: Hobbits aren't people!
The wrist structure is shared with ... early Homo....
Ah. I misread the Science Daily article. Thanks.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Jack, posted 09-26-2007 11:37 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 213 (434287)
11-15-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:29 AM


I agree with EighteenDelta.
I just read the lastest report....
You did not. Are you a troll?

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:29 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 213 (434401)
11-15-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jason777
11-15-2007 5:50 PM


Either the article you read misrepresented the scientific findings, or you are remembering the article incorrectly.
The relevant article is from the September issue of Science. In case people can't read the abstract:
quote:
The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin Evolution
Matthew W. Tocheri, Caley M. Orr, Susan G. Larson, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wahyu Saptomo, Rokus Awe Due, Tony Djubiantono, Michael J. Morwood, William L. Jungers
Whether the Late Pleistocene hominin fossils from Flores, Indonesia, represent a new species, Homo floresiensis, or pathological modern humans has been debated. Analysis of three wrist bones from the holotype specimen (LB1) shows that it retains wrist morphology that is primitive for the African ape-human clade. In contrast, Neandertals and modern humans share derived wrist morphology that forms during embryogenesis, which diminishes the probability that pathology could result in the normal primitive state. This evidence indicates that LB1 is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect; rather, it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.
The creationist argument has been that H. florensiensis are the remains of modern humans with a disease; the wrist bones are an indication that H. florensiensis are not simply diseased humans -- they are on a distinct branch of the hominid line.
I see one of two possibilities:
you read where the wrist bones different from those of modern H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis, and you are misremembering, thinking they were saying that these are the wrists "of a monkey," or
the article you read is now trying to spin the news, changing the creationist story from H. florensiensis being diseased humans to being completely non-human.
Until you can actually cite the actual article that you read, I will remain content to assume you are not remembering the article correctly, or did not understand it when you read it, or the article is more creationist propaganda.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

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