Homo floresiensis

Why hasn't anyone asked about the Discovery Institute,
that Seattle-based think tank. Where a Stephen Meyer
is acting as Director at its' "Center for Science and
Culture'"This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 01:14 AM

The problem is . . . .This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-27-2005 05:40 PM

::Indonesia's Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) ?! I hope it not Piltdown discovery :See: Above [response in the thead to & from Freeloader]
Is anybody, besides myself, interested in a Osteologically (fully 1:1) correct:cast (or replica) ?This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-27-2005 05:18 PM

The problem I have is not having the education to justify a flight to see them . I might be able to reconstruct a portrait of . . Flores Man But, that does not mean I have been trained in Forensic reconstruction (although I did attend a workshop)This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 01:19 AM

I hope your not wrong, with the comments of Teuku Jacob seem next to absolute ZEOR, hmm The problem I have is comming at it from a Palaeoanthropology perspective Just "Who" has made casts, Is only the austrailian team or or possibly UGM (Universitas Gadjah Mada) the creature's crainal capacity is an issue that can be denied but never ignored They must have my problem when I write where you can't tell where any one thing starts and another begins (or ends) What's left to do, there got to be something left to look at with the endocasts of the endocraina.. .. This is not my trafficing [or exercising] some spoof line of questions in this these inquires Are you at all serious or are you just being sacrastic, huh ? What does this mean, our blithe acceptance of Bible-thumper's take on the Flores Man then ??? I hope that helps to use a term like blithe here. (Really) This is anything but me being smart. That being said with a reminder that I am not being cute Plainly, the Flores' Hobbit was "not a diseased" human then what could explain it? What can you explain to a public then ? What 's a "Ape-sized" brain is doing in a dwafted sized person? This isn't my idea of some joke ......Could someone have noticed something OTHER than the remains apparently [were] not fossilized (mineralized) What is the point in bringing it up ? Can anyone draw some inference from that statement about LB1 condition ?? So then, What about the Anthrometric measurements of the braincase fell a long way below the normal range of Modern Humans? Not to make a point per say but to inquire:
1.) - How will the creationists misintrepret this after: Prof Jacob's team has examined the bones ( apparently only a few may get their paws on it ) ????
2.) - Who is making casts, Is only the austrailian team or Prof. Jacob team from Tentang UGM (Universitas Gadjah Mada) of the paleoanthropology Department ALLOWED to have casts [ and replicas ] of Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) ?! And, No one is commenting on the measurements of the braincase fell a long way below the normal range of Modern Humans ??? This is a bizzare little Hominoid creature If you've read any of this? If NOTHING else then, Couldn't somebody show some pictures that reveal (the) brain region in question. That area of Flores-MAN ( and being sure not to miss the Frontal region) in a comparitive exploration in that endocast (?) Wasn't there some casts highlighting it's larger lobes and ridges associated w / higher cognitive-thinking Somewhere next to the region around its' (OMPFC)cortex or again "the area associated with higher cognitive abilities'"braincase fell a long way below the normal range must "mean" what ?!? Now there's a question! There is not a obvious line of questioning here However, this is only scratching the outside surface of the matter. If you can get the drift of my meaning How is "the" public to interpret the finding of something From the Radiology Lab :'Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology along with Florida State University, reported that[again from] casts made of the interior cranium walls revealed that the brain had enlarged lobes and ridges associated with higher cognitive reasoning/abilities'. Again a point is in: "the 'results, described in an issue of the journal Science'" Outside the facial morphological aspects (?) Can someone show the paper or their findings ? What do the findings indicating then ??? Anyone with an idea or three ??? Online news said the Univ. of New England in Australia, findings appeared to be consistent with the use of stone tools and other traces of advanced technology and behavior" I'm not calling people biblethumpers or being that smug Anyone, please to show the actual pictures of the braincast ? Perhaps anyone from the '0THER" side still in the "Creation" (Young earth) Scientists camps might explain how they maintain a cautious wait-and-see attitude What?! A cautious wait-and-see attitudeI hope it "is" N0T at all like the PILTD0WN discovery :~ And to you a [Glory] GLORIOUSLY Wonderful Easter:See: Above [response in the thead to & from Freeloader]
Is anybody, besides myself, interested in a Osteologically (fully 1:1) correct:cast (or replica) ?
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 04-05-2005 03:27 AM

Tentang "spin"
(?) With someone like me often until you get to know me I can come across as a being so smug it is actually harmful to any debate (w/ ranting about morphology) Discovery Institute 's Stephen Meyer : Center for science and culture shouldn't have casts [and replicas] of Indonesia's Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) then ?! . . Curious, Why would a University even mention people like Ken Ham, Duane Gish if not Will Dembski specifically What would you expect from this University to say ??? When hominids aren't talked about that much It's somewhat strange that a Tentang University official would know to mention this. If I could I would angle for a job from Gish (or the fore mention Ken) on creating a portrait of Flores Man. To many they might again come across like they are a modern cult (not unlike one in a Branch Davidian compound aka Mt. Carmel) I shook hands with each of them once And they were especially & specifically firmly within an Indepth knowledge of evolution but chanenging probably everything Nevertheless Ham and Gish both were surprisingly professional outside the Hail Jesus portion of a Lecture in 1982 (or 1984) I had the pleasure of sitting throughThis message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 04:05 AM

I would be interested in seeing such a cast. The pictures at the UFO site are almost humorous in their lack of scale and rather overemphasis on the difference in size of H. Floresiensis and a fully modern human (basketball star?).
One would expect fringe groups to latch onto curious findings and then try to make of them things they are not.Try replying to a post by Andya Primanda (Message 91 and Message 93)-- he is the best link to local information we have.{added by edit}
We also have already seen the AIG article on this discovery:
Hobbits Were True Humans! | Answers in Genesis enjoy

Implications or Speculations N0 'actual pictures' has become particularly irksome

Image > From:LONDON ( This is a common Image) --http://www.nhm.ac.uk/.../items/2004/Oct/images/braincast.gif (?) :