Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 213 (153582)
10-28-2004 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kapyong
10-28-2004 1:08 AM


Psycic Movies
I think it's weird how after "Jurrasic Park" we discovered the Utah raptor and just before the relese of "Lord of the Rings: the return of the king" special edition we discover Homo floresiensis.
Just doing my part in filling our quota for hobbit jokes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kapyong, posted 10-28-2004 1:08 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 213 (158902)
11-12-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
11-08-2004 9:44 AM


Chimps, Gorrilas, Humans, Orangutans
I was always under the impression that chimps gorillas and humans were more closely related to eachother than any of them are to orangutans. As such classing the "apes" as seperate from humans is a mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 9:44 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Quetzal, posted 11-12-2004 9:05 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 213 (159126)
11-13-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
11-13-2004 12:18 PM


What is this latest info?
I thought Bonobo's were closer than standard chimps. Where is this latest info you speak of? Did something change? I'm very interested.
By the way Welcome to the forum Bencip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2004 12:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2004 2:56 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 213 (159130)
11-13-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Ben!
11-13-2004 12:45 AM


So what's your position on birds?
I had a Biology teacher who was intent on proving that birds should not be put in the same class as reptiles. He argued, quite perswasively, that we should abolish class Avis because all of the derived characteristics birds display can be found in reptiles. Migration, feathers, territorial songs, flight, warmblooded-ness, care for young etc.
Nevertheless becase birds seem so "unreptile-like" we decide to put them in an almost honorary class.
Perhaps a similar thing is happening here? If we were able to look at apes and humans more objectively we might not have these problems.
Is genetic analysis objective enough? Or does it miss the "important" differnces in functional abilites as bencip seems to suggest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Ben!, posted 11-13-2004 12:45 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Ben!, posted 11-14-2004 6:18 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 213 (159311)
11-14-2004 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Ben!
11-14-2004 6:18 AM


Wel thats the problem isn't it
Well thats the problem with cladistics in general isn't it? We can do genetic mapping and come up with a bunch of nice clades and we can compare morphology and come up with clades that usualy match up pretty nicely. OR we can do waht Aristotle did and classify things by how we think in our gut they ought to be classified. When we do this starfish wind up being more closely reated to earthworms than they are to us birds aren't reptiles and everythings a mess.
I have a strong hunch that our reluctance to place floresiensis closer to sapiens is more of the latter kind of cladistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Ben!, posted 11-14-2004 6:18 AM Ben! 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