Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 15 of 213 (153588)
10-28-2004 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
10-27-2004 5:11 PM


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?

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 16 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 5:40 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 17 of 213 (153591)
10-28-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
10-28-2004 5:40 AM


Which discredits RAZD's suggestion that these might just be a pygmy varient of homo sapiens, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 5:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 20 of 213 (153604)
10-28-2004 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
10-28-2004 6:48 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2004 8:42 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 25 of 213 (153630)
10-28-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 28 of 213 (153648)
10-28-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
10-28-2004 10:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 53 of 213 (154039)
10-29-2004 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
10-28-2004 8:46 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 8:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 6:07 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 96 of 213 (189980)
03-04-2005 5:46 AM


Latest news: not a diseased human.
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'

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2005 7:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 102 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-07-2005 3:48 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 139 of 213 (245909)
09-23-2005 9:42 AM


What's the latest?
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2005 7:34 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 149 of 213 (250717)
10-11-2005 9:29 AM


More finds
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2005 9:55 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2005 11:14 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 151 of 213 (250795)
10-11-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
10-11-2005 9:55 AM


Re: More finds
They've filled in more details in the article
quote:
The new discoveries include missing parts of the old skeleton - designated LB1 after the caved dig site at Liang Bua - and a collection of other bones, such as jaw and cranial fragments, a vertebra, arm and leg bones, toes and fingers.
Jaw and cranial fragments should be sufficent to demonstrate a matching skull, shouldn't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2005 9:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2005 1:04 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 162 by 666_DBz, posted 02-22-2006 1:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 186 of 213 (424258)
09-26-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chiroptera
09-26-2007 10:23 AM


Re: New study: Hobbits aren't people!
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:
This difference between human and nonhuman primate trapezoid shape is concomitantly reflected by the shapes and articular configurations of the carpals that articulate with the trapezoid, and all of these carpals are derived in modern humans in comparison to those in other primates (Figs. 2 and 3) (9, 13). Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens and Neandertals share these derived morphological features with modern humans, suggesting that they are most likely inherited from a recent common ancestor (13). A capitate attributed to Homo antecessor (16) and dated to 0.8 million years ago (Ma) (17) also shares the derived condition (13, 16). Thus, the current paleontological evidence suggests that this complex of wrist features evolved by at least 800,000 years ago.
and
quote:
The wrist morphology of LB1 may ultimately help falsify or support specific hypotheses regarding the phylogenetic position of H. floresiensis (1, 5, 7). Unfortunately, no carpals are attributed to Homo erectus sensu lato, which is otherwise well represented in the fossil record between 1.8 and 0.8 Ma, with the exception of a partial lunate from Zhoukoudian (32). However, if hominin carpals that date within this period of time are discovered, their primitive or derived morphology will allow a firmer assessment of their phylogenetic relationship to other Pleistocene hominin species, such as modern H. sapiens and H. floresiensis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 10:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 11:41 AM Dr Jack 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