|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
One thing to consider is that it is normal for a species isolated on an island to trend to {pygmy versions \ smaller sizes} (pygmy mammoths on California’s Channel Islands for instance), so this may just be a case of evolution to a smaller species from Homo sapiens. There are pygmy humans living in various parts of the world today - I would hope that the scientists in question had already compared the skulls of this 'new' species to them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Which discredits RAZD's suggestion that these might just be a pygmy varient of homo sapiens, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
It doesn't really address the question of whether they were descended from sapiens as RAZD says or erectus. It implies that they aren't pygmyied homo sapiens. Pygmyism has characteristic effects on the comparitive size of body and brain (the brain shrinks less than the body), since this specimen shows a very small brain even if compared to a known homo sapiens example of pygmyism it implies that this species is not an example of pygmyism in Homo Sapiens as RAZD suggested. (This is actually discussed in that blog you posted, and he does a rather better job than me of explaining it all)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened? Because the evidence we do have is not consistent with any alternate theory, and the evidence from other species is incontravertable.
This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola. Don't be stupid. The wear patterns from tooth decay are entirely different from the wear patterns from normal usage.
You see, this is the problem with evo's - if you can play with five thousand years - then why not play with millions? I guess she has 13,000 year old hand - and an 18,000 year old leg or something. No. They've found more than one specimen of Homo floresiensis at this site - the different specimens are not giving the same date (as would be expected since there's no reason they should).
I say it's either a human child with some warpages to the skull - or an ape that looks like a human skull. No. The structure of the skull is not consistent with any known pathologies, and the bone structure and dentician are not consistent with a juvenile. It is an 'ape', so are we. The structure of the hips and skull does not match even vaguely with any extant ape, or any non-hominid extinct ape.
BTW - they automatically assume this means great things for evolution? Why is that? Isn't that an emotional response? I mean - shouldn't they not jump to conclusions - aren't they assuming evolution is the answer as a pre-cursor to the evidence????! Evolution is already an established fact, so of course they assume it. Just as they assume physics and chemistry still work just like they did yesterday. As to saying it means 'big things' well that may be jumping the gun a bit and is no doubt an emotional response. Of course scientists respond emotionally to new findings they are human after all - the whole point of science however, is to take every possible measure to ensure that the final result is not biased by these emotional responses to the findings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution? Because it is consistent with theories of evolution, but not consistent with any competing explanation.
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. Evolution has already been established from the evidence. The exact path of human evolution is currently unknown to us, this new evidence helps us understand the nature of human evolution but has no baring on whether that evolution happened or not.
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? Homo floresiensis does not appear to have branched from either sapiens or neanderthalis, thus we have no reason to expect that it would show smooth transition to either. Evolution is not a directed path, or a ladder of progress - it is a 'bush' of semi-successful approachs, this new find is just one small part of that bush. This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-28-2004 09:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I also think you may be making a mistake in equating brain power or intellegence as a positive trait. What determines success is whether a species lives long enough to reproduce. So if a member of the group Homo has enough intellegence, enough brain to meet the needs and pressures of Natural Selection, is there an advantage to having more? It may not be in general a positive trait; but it surely is for a group of group living, tool-using, hunting, fire making hominids, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Results from braincase analysis of "Homo Florensis" indicate that it is not, after all, simply a case of a diseased human.
Full story: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Hobbit was 'not a diseased human'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | New 'Hobbit' disease link claim
There was a Horizon on this last night, but unfortunately I only caught the end. There seems to be a strong movement towards a disease-link claim - does anyone have any more scientific details?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | More Flores 'Hobbits' described
They're claiming to have found the skeletons of nine more individuals, so either this is a population of homo sapiens with some genetic, or pandemic, pathology (how unlikely this is, I don't know?) or it really is a new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
They've filled in more details in the article
quote: Jaw and cranial fragments should be sufficent to demonstrate a matching skull, shouldn't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
The wrist structure is shared with Australopithecines, early Homo and other apes, indicating that the seperation of Homo sapiens & Homo floresiensis between .8 & 1.8 Ma ago but there's nothing in the paper to indicate that they should be removed from Homo.
From the paper:
quote: and
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024