|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4891 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or what the Creationists keep claiming doesn't exist, Yet Another Example of a Transitional.
Sheesh. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4891 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then provide a cite to the article you are referencing.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4891 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2662 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4891 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Good point.When i find it again i will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2662 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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 ... Yes, it's a Hobbit. The debate that has divided science is solved at last (sort of) | Science | The Guardian
quote: and
Primate Diaries quote: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4891 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2662 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024