Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8187 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 10:56 PM
79 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,105 Year: 29,946/28,606 Month: 1,675/3,328 Week: 451/674 Day: 94/70 Hour: 11/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
Jason777
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 196 of 213 (434372)
11-15-2007 4:54 PM


Oh,another thing that will be helpful.If you run across a science news site that has a window labeled evolution at the top of the page that may be it.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 11007
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 yet responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 25116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 198 of 213 (434379)
11-15-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by PaulK
11-15-2007 5:29 PM


Transitional
Or what the Creationists keep claiming doesn't exist, Yet Another Example of a Transitional.

Sheesh.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 5:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 199 of 213 (434381)
11-15-2007 5:50 PM


That is not the article im talking about.I just read it last night and it was dated 11/14/07.And in that article they claimed the hobbits wrist was that of a monkey.
Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 11-15-2007 5:51 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 202 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 6:10 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 6:14 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 11-15-2007 6:26 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 25116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 200 of 213 (434382)
11-15-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jason777
11-15-2007 5:50 PM


Cite?
Then provide a cite to the article you are referencing.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 5:50 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 201 of 213 (434383)
11-15-2007 5:53 PM


And another thing.Tool evidence is a sign they were a prey item.Did they call mammoths hunters when they found clovis points buried with them?
Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 6:15 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 702 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 202 of 213 (434387)
11-15-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jason777
11-15-2007 5:50 PM


This is a science thread.
That is not the article im talking about.I just read it last night and it was dated 11/14/07.And in that article they claimed the hobbits wrist was that of a monkey.

Then go to the History option on your browser and find the cite.

Otherwise, stop posting nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 5:50 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 203 of 213 (434389)
11-15-2007 6:14 PM


Good point.When i find it again i will.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 11007
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 yet responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 702 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 205 of 213 (434392)
11-15-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Jason777
11-15-2007 5:53 PM


Bare assertions mean nothing.
And another thing.Tool evidence is a sign they were a prey item.Did they call mammoths hunters when they found clovis points buried with them?

The difference is:

Points found with prey are found IN the prey. Or the fossil bones show evidence of butchering.
Points found with Hominids are found WITH the Hominids.

I remind you. This is a science thread. Provide evidence of your assertions or stop posting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 5:53 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16227
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 207 of 213 (434426)
11-15-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:41 PM


A slap on the wrist
The article was dated 11/14/07 in one of those scientific news articles.Im not sure but i believe it was discovery news.That makes you like all evolutionist,either a liar or misinformed.

Seeing as nobody can find your article and you can't remember where you got it from, this is a pretty bold statement.

Message 195
He said the wrist bones are monkey absolutely and that the case was closed.

That doesn't mean much without having the article to read - one would expect intermediate forms. Why do I suspect a creationist source?

Having a wrist like a monkey doesn't mean that the whole creature is a monkey - rather than an ape eh?

Message 201
And another thing.Tool evidence is a sign they were a prey item.Did they call mammoths hunters when they found clovis points buried with them?

Aren't you jumping to conclusions based on minimal information?

Doing a google news search on "Homo floresiensis" returns

Hobbits mastered use of tools 40,000 years before modern humans, November 14th, 2007

Nothing there about being monkeys or having monkey wrists, but it does talk about the tools found:

quote:
The scientists studied wear patterns and residue on about 100 stone tools found with the remains of hobbits (Homo floresiensis) in Liang Bua cave by Australian and Indonesian researchers.

The researchers found evidence of plant work and butchery on stone flakes and cobbles from archaeological layers ranging from 12,000 to 55,000 years old.

The scientists also identified blood and bone on some tools. The team discovered the remains of fires and numerous animal bones, especially of baby stegodons (small elephants), komodo dragons and giant rats. The animal bones were found near tools and hobbit remains, and had cut marks indicative of butchery.

But the researchers also found that more than 90 per cent of the residues were from woody and fibrous plants.

They said it didn’t mean that the metre-high people ate only a little meat, but rather that most of the tools studied so far were used for working with plants.


Notice that the animal bones had evidence of butchery.

Doing a google on "homo floresiensis monkey wrist" I found that this is rather old information, and not surprisingly in misrepresented ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/21/2

quote:
But the discovery of the fossilised "Hobbit", as she quickly became known, has provoked a long-running and sometimes acrimonious debate among scientists: was she really one of a race of mini-humans or was she merely one of us, but with a brain-shrinking disease?

Now scientists have analysed fossilised wrist bones that were part of the original discovery in 2003 but had not been looked at in detail. They say they prove the Hobbit really was a distinct and previously unknown type of human, and not just an abnormally small member of our own species.

That analysis has revealed significant differences between the bones and human or Neanderthal equivalents. At the same time there are crucial similarities with older species of human and living apes such as chimps and gorillas. The researchers say this puts paid to the idea that Homo floresiensis could be a "normal" human being with a brain-shrinking disease called microcephaly or some form of dwarfism.


and
Primate Diaries

quote:
In the new edition of Science (subscription required), Matthew W. Tocheri and colleagues have analyzed the wrist bones of this controversial specimen and determined that the species retains a primitive morphology from before the origin of modern humans. Wrist elements can be powerful diagnostic tools in classification because the bones are so numerous and can undergo evolutionary changes through both adaptive pressures (such as morphologies necessary for grip structure or style of locomotion) or because of neutral changes as the result of reproductive isolation.

As the authors described the bones in the article released today:

Each is well preserved and shows no signs of pathology or abnormal development. . . . [T]hese three articulating bones display none of the shared, derived features of modern human and Neandertal carpals. Instead, they show the general symplesiomorphic pattern exhibited by all extant African apes, as well as fossil hominins that preserve comparable wrist morphology and date before 1.7 Ma.
A symplesiomorphy is any trait that exists in multiple living species and also in the most recent common ancestor of those species.

This shows your assertion(s) to be wrong, thus calling into sever question your ability to cast aspersions on other people.

I suggest you look in your history file (if you haven't cleared it) to see where you saw the article.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : msg not mwg


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:41 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 208 of 213 (434467)
11-15-2007 10:55 PM


www.abc.net.au title;experts split over human hobbit remains.Here you will find so called expert colaberation with the alleged inability of the hobbit to have made tools.
Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 11:04 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2007 7:50 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 702 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 209 of 213 (434469)
11-15-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jason777
11-15-2007 10:55 PM


This is not evidence.
Your link is to the main page of a news organization.

We do not argue bare links here at EvC.

If there is a particular article that you wish to reference, you need to both provide the link to that article and show how this relates to your assertions.

Ned has already warned you about continuing with this sort of nonsense.

I suggest you step up your game.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 10:55 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by AdminNosy, posted 11-15-2007 11:25 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 210 of 213 (434473)
11-15-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by molbiogirl
11-15-2007 11:04 PM


Not so fast Molbio
He thinks he is supplying some support. Let's be patient and point out what is wrong with his attempt. He is at least trying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 11:04 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 11-15-2007 11:35 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014