Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
49 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,170 Year: 4,282/6,534 Month: 496/900 Week: 20/182 Day: 8/12 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 213 (153652)
10-28-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
10-28-2004 8:02 AM


Re: An informative blog entry
Nice article -- goes through all the logical explanations wit pros and cons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, particularly if other specimens are found on other Islands or on Australia. One also wonders if this couldn't be the source of all those myths about the "little people" (hobbits notwithstanding) -- as I am of the belief that Neanderthals and H.erectus are also sources of some myths of trolls, ogres and such.

And particularly if they can get some DNA ... to compare to the neander and human DNA ...

enjoy.

ps - I threw out the pygmyism from sapiens as a loss-leader, the skull shape (what I could see of it from the picture) is too different for me to consider it seriously, more like H.erectus.

I used to have a composite picture of skulls that has gone missing with several changes in e-mail names (to avoid spam).


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 8:02 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 213 (153653)
10-28-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dan Carroll
10-28-2004 11:01 AM


I don't think u got it then.

The refutation was that there was no coco cola 13-18,000 years ago. Ho hum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-28-2004 11:01 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-28-2004 11:21 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 213 (153659)
10-28-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 11:12 AM


The refutation was that there was no coco cola 13-18,000 years ago. Ho hum.

Yes, Mike. I got it. It was just stupid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 11:12 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 11:27 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 213 (153663)
10-28-2004 11:23 AM


But you can;t possibly know that, Mike - after all, you were not there at the time. It's just a THEORY that there was no coca cola 13-18,000 years ago.

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 627 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 35 of 213 (153665)
10-28-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:36 AM


Objection Overruled
Mike asks,
quote:
Aren't you first accepting evolution - THEN finding evidence and saying "it must be evolution...."/ Because creationist usually get told that they use the bible - THEN look at evidence.
The explanatory framework of evolution is based on a copious amount of evidence, as has been pointed out again and again. This is more than enough reason to try to assimilate new information into the theory instead of starting from scratch every time a bone gets dug up.

By way of analogy, consider this. The assumption that all fingerprints are different is based on literally millions of observations, and the assumption has led to many, many acknowledged successes in forensics and various investigations over the years. Of course, it's true that the observations that establish the validity of the Fingerprint Hypothesis comprise a vast but vanishing subset of all fingerprints that have ever or could ever exist. If you were a defense lawyer, would you propose to a jury that your client's fingerprints at a crime scene do not necessarily establish his presence there? After all, the Fingerprint Hypothesis is assumed to be true in every case even though only one case of identical fingerprints would falsify the hypothesis. Isn't that really what you're asking?

regards,
Esteban "Dabs" Hambre


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 213 (153666)
10-28-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dan Carroll
10-28-2004 11:21 AM


Dan - I was discreet - I could have said "explain it if you got it".

So I have;

1. Gave you a compliment in naming you, and 2. been discreet, as to not show you up. If you can't take it as it was intended - then I need say no more.

Personally - I think you're angry cos of how I came on this thread like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-28-2004 11:21 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by CK, posted 10-28-2004 11:41 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 38 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-28-2004 11:42 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
CK
Member (Idle past 3362 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 37 of 213 (153678)
10-28-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 11:27 AM


Mike - I notice that you use that line a lot - "you must be angry because.."

why?

Is it some form of hairshirt?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 11:27 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 213 (153679)
10-28-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 11:27 AM


I'm sorry, Mike. Your joke was very funny. Here's a cookie.

*pats Mike's head*


"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 11:27 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 213 (153681)
10-28-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:36 AM


Hey Quetzal - you say species of human, or "man". Can you please define "kind"? Thanks. You can't have it both ways - they are either mankind - or evokind, in that they are a homo rectifier etc... Either remove their relevance to "man" - or continue to agree with me that the are young mankind

Au contraire, the answer to your question is simple: I define Man (note the capital "M"), as "any member of the genus Homo". In this I follow the standard taxonomic categorization. It's an inclusive, vice exclusive, viewpoint. Now, YOU define "kind", and explain what the basis for your exclusionary definition is. Nice try.

Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution?

Hey, there's actually a legitimate question in your post. I'm impressed. Although I'm going to have to speculate a bit, since I haven't read the original literature to know what all the data is on this particular species (IOW, the details on why they decided on the Homo genus), I think I can make a case as to why this provides evidence of evolution:

1. The profile fits with geographic isolation leading to allopatric speciation.

2. Morphology (what few details have been released), indicates that the samples are most closely related to H. erectus, an acknowledged precursor of H. sapiens. However, there are substantial differences in the shape of the skull, let alone size, which makes classification difficult - and makes them not simply aberrant erectus either. The skull apparently does not resemble any fossil or modern ape. It will be interesting to see what the final classification is - if it's not Homo, then we have an even more fascinating example of convergent evolution - some other primate from another lineage developed intelligence (tools, fire, evidence of cooked food). As a creationist, you better PRAY that it's classified as genus Homo - because otherwise your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated.

3. Nanism (dwarfism) is one of the two likely outcomes of long isolation on islands. Examples include Elephas falconeri, an elephant the size of a pony from Sicily, and Stegodon sondaari, another pony-sized elephant relative from Flores itself. It is well within the realms of evolutionary theory that an isolated population of early erectus or other hominid got to Flores, found things to their liking, and lived there for anywhere up to a million years or more up to the present. In the absence of predators and due to chronic food shortage, dwarfism could have been the result.

Anyway, you get the picture. Once the final reports are published, we should have a lot more info to go on. As a forewarning, it will be a hotly contested classification - but remember that everyone outside creationist circles arguing this subject will simply be arguing over the details of evolution - not the fact.

I say that the diversity of life will get so complicated - that no smooth evolution will be found, I mean - is a small brained human - living before neanderthal - really a smooth transition?

Why is it that you have such a difficult time accepting that there were multiple species of human? If H. floresiensis does finally get classed as human, we'll have THREE different human species living at the same time (if not at the same location): floresiensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens. I can't imagine anything neater than that. Doesn't it thrill you to know we're (or at least weren't) not alone?

Now, having disposed of your quibbles, please address the substance of my post - which you completely ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 11:53 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:03 PM Quetzal has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 213 (153688)
10-28-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 11:44 AM


Actually the simple existence of species in the same genus as Homo sapiens is evidence for evolution. Given evolution it would be very surprising if it were not so. Given the typical creationist view of mankind as a unique creation it is surprising indeed to find species so closely resembling our own. Even a more general creationist view would not as strongly predict the existence of taxonomically close species as evolution does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 11:44 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 12:09 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 213 (153698)
10-28-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
10-28-2004 11:53 AM


Thanks PaulK. I agree. I thought of putting something along those lines in as one of my points. However, I remembered just in time that we're talking to people who deny that 95-98% genetic homology (say between Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens) means the two are even remotely related.

As an aside, I think it's enormously fitting that this newest find occurred in Indonesia: the island archipelago where Wallace independently "discovered" natural selection and evolution using just this kind of close relationship among species on different islands. Whittaker is right: "...islands, being discrete, internally quantifiable, numerous, and varied entities, provide us with a suite of natural laboratories, from which the discerning natural scientist can make a selection that simplifies the complexity of the natural world, enabling theories of general importance to be developed and tested." (Whittaker, RJ 1998, "Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation", Oxford Uni Press, pg 1).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 11:53 AM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 12:41 PM Quetzal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 213 (153714)
10-28-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 12:09 PM


Song of the Dodo
Have you ever read The SONG OF THE DODO: ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY IN AN AGE OF EXTINCTIONS by David Quammen?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684827123?v=glance

excellent and very readable.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 12:09 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 12:57 PM RAZD has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 213 (153723)
10-28-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
10-28-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Song of the Dodo
I just (well, a couple of weeks ago) finished reading it for the third or fourth time. It's one of my favorites, even tho' some of his conclusions may be questionable (f'rinstance the dodo-tambalacoque linkage is disputed). However, his writing style is incredible. The description of the death of the last dodo never fails to move me - lyrical, almost poetic, and infinitely sad. I can't imagine any creationist ever reading that book (among others) and not becoming convinced of both evolution and what we humans, with our God-given dominance over nature, are losing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 12:41 PM RAZD has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 213 (153748)
10-28-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
10-28-2004 11:44 AM


Au contraire, the answer to your question is simple: I define Man (note the capital "M"), as "any member of the genus Homo".

But man derives from Noah, manus, manu, man.

As a creationist, you better PRAY that it's classified as genus Homo - because otherwise your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated.

I think that humans have a priveliged place - and an abused power.

However - since you define man, may I define creotionist?

You see - My personal creationism definition is this; " Believes God created the heavens and the earth - and everything therein "....Since any evolution being used as a predicate - is not contradicitve of my definition - I would not pray about such a thing, as the definition says nothing about how God created the heavens and earth..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species - and that God cares for us despite us wrecking the earth - and not exercising dominion over the animals properly. Abuse of power and use of it - are two different things.

If this new species is classed as not homo..., then how is it related to homosapiens, and therefore - how is it's morphology the same or similar? Would it be down to coincidence?

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 01:04 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 11:44 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminHambre, posted 10-28-2004 2:35 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2004 7:16 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 10-29-2004 8:17 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
AdminHambre
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 213 (153760)
10-28-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 2:03 PM


God Alert
Quetzal's response to you focused on the species classification of the fossil in question. Theological arguments belong elsewhere.

Adminíssimo Hambre


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 2:51 PM AdminHambre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022