Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 213 (153494)
10-27-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
10-27-2004 5:11 PM


Prediction game
Shall we play a little game of prediction? How will the creationists misintrepret this find?
There is already some misunderstanding in the actual news article: "and has radically altered the accepted picture of human evolution."
Which I don't see given that we have understood the bushyness of our family tree for some time now. The only wonderful surprise is that the a branch of the bush almost made it to modern times.
It is a great shame that they didn't. (Well, given our treatment of actual H. sapiens, maybe not).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2004 5:11 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 10-27-2004 8:21 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 10-28-2004 4:24 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 174 by pop, posted 07-24-2006 12:25 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 213 (154165)
10-29-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
10-29-2004 2:25 PM


Similar to human??
...the skull looks similar to humans
Well, it you take genus Homo to be the definition of human then yes. And that is where it appears to belong.
The couple of pictures I've seen (front and side) make it clearly very different from sapiens though. Look at the brow ridges and the low cranial vault, low forehead and ridge of top. Those are obvious even to someone with my almost non-existant knowledge of this.
You think the skull has been warped in some way? That I think we'll have to leave to the experts. With only pictures to go on and no skill in this area I don't see how we can judge that. There isn't any clue in the published pictures anyway.
You see Genesis to me - is not a scientific explanation, it's a significant and mysterious book of the bible.
And if you say the above then you are one the same side as all the mainstream Christians and atheists here. There is no argument with those who don't pretend that there is any science in the creationist movement. If everyone agreed with you this forum would not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 2:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Quetzal, posted 10-29-2004 4:51 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 6:44 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 213 (154247)
10-29-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mike the wiz
10-29-2004 6:44 PM


Warping
Well, it's just a suggestion really - but if the "others" have the same warpages, they might not be warpages afterall, depending on how many they find - and if they find ones in other locations. But then there might be a possible "condition" causing the warpages. I'll shut up though.
That's not a bad idea actually Mike, the shutting up that is.
While warping or disease deformities could be raised there would have to be some reason to do so. To discard these you'd have to understand the preparation of the specimens. Getting a high degree of symmetry suggests that crushing etc. isn't a likely cause. The set of characteristics isn't something that any know disease (AFAIK) can cause. In addition, those characteristics do tie in with H. erectus finds elsewhere (I think).
Thus there is no reason for bringing the idea up. You have to have reasons for making things up you know. There don't seem to be any here.
I found an article on the globe and mail (http://www.globeandmail.com)
that has this odd line:
quote:
For the past several decades, humans have developed the idea that the progression from ape-like ancestors to modern humans was a long, inexorable, orderly march, culminating in the rule of Homo sapiens as the only human for millions of years, Dr. Gee said.
I don't understand why this Dr. Gee would say this since I've read popular articles for years now talking about the 'bushy' nature of the development to H. sapiens. I didn't think the "orderly march" was a picture that had been current for quite awhile. This just accentuates the degree to which the bushyness may have been true. It doesn't, in my limited knowledge, overturn anything really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2004 6:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 68 of 213 (157058)
11-07-2004 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


H floresiensis
I am eager to know if you think Floresiensis will still be classified in "homo" genus.
That will be left to the experts of course based on details but that's where it is so far and looking at the pictures sure suggests that. I think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising.
I have a question. Is the homo genus really monophyletic if these instances occur - and she is classed as in the homo genus? (Probably a silly question but I thought of it so, if it is just ignore me).
Thanks Mike, I learned something. I had to look up monophyletic. She is classed as Homo. I think Homo is monophyletic, moderately sure in fact.
None of this is silly Mike. All good questions.
And thanks for the AIG link. I'll have a read of that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-10-2004 9:53 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 11-11-2004 9:58 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 70 of 213 (157078)
11-07-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
11-07-2004 7:07 PM


AIG's views
Is it just me or do they admitt to a mutation being beneficial - must be my eyesight;
I think you need glasses or to clean them. They are clear that it is "pre existing" information or a loss of information that is what allows the smallness. Or we have genes for smallness.
If there is any DNA to sequence they may be sorry about his suggestion. We'll have to wait to see.
You are right about the other point about H. erectus is being just a human variant is a bit dangerous for them too. As they widen what is "human" they bring us closer and closer to the chimps. If they get the gap too small the claim that we are so very separate weakens.
As more discoveries are made AIG's views will get more and more difficult to maintain. It is amusing to watch though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2004 7:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 213 (157943)
11-10-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Andya Primanda
11-10-2004 9:53 AM


Controversy over grouping
, There doesn't seem to be a tooth dug up that doesn't have camps arguing over it. That's the way we will get a better answer to these questions.
In truth we have a year or 5 to wait before we can get an idea of what the consensus view is. It is so hard to be patient.
"Are we there yet?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-10-2004 9:53 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 100 of 213 (190220)
03-05-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Chiroptera
03-05-2005 1:09 PM


quirks and quarks from vancouver is about to start
One of the pieces is discussing H florensiensis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2005 1:09 PM Chiroptera 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