|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homo floresiensis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And in an interesting additional bit of speculation, one anthropologist seems to think the critter might be more closely related to the Australopithecines. Now wouldn't THAT be a kick? They were thought to have died out around 1.4 mya. Here's his blog/article.
Oooh, this one's going to be fun...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3843 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
In most of the UK papers a reconstruction appeared. Here it is for those who've not seen it:
Attributed to Peter Schouten, AP. Though why it shows a male figure when all the reports talk about a female figure is beyond me. Main article here Another good source is The Guardian Enjoy. Edited because I cannot spell. This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 10-29-2004 04:08 PM For Whigs admit no force but argument. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
jar writes: these people ... had enough intelect to make and use tools, hunt, make fire. there are several species of primate that are able to use tools and be able to pass such knowledge on to others in their group through social interactions - even some instances of totally taught behavior being transfered: american sign language for instance. there are two elements here that to me seperate out these primate\human specimens: (1) the number of tools that would appear to be kept, transported and used multiple times, and (2) the use of fire. what we don't know is if they learned these behaviors from the Homo sapiens that moved in to the island or did they have these skills before their arrival? I think of the myths of the little people being mischievous and trading objects for things like tools left out over night. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You think the skull has been warped in some way? That I think we'll have to leave to the experts. 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.
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. That might be a bad thing, as I kinda like this town.. well, I apreciate your tolerance anyway Ned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi Quetzal and Ned. Thanks for being patient with me. I have taken it upon myself to study more about the homo genus. I am eager to know if you think Floresiensis will still be classified in "homo" genus.
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). Anyway - I have read what AIG think of this find. Quite remarkably - IMHO, they have almost unwittingly admitted evolution occurs. AIG's thoughts Is it just me or do they admitt to a mutation being beneficial - must be my eyesight;
AIG writes: Even a mutational stunting, like some hereditary instances of dwarfism today, might be favoured in such a situation and come to dominate a population So if a mutation for stunting is beneficial - why couldn't it happen over a long period of time resulting in evolution? The link says that homo erectus and floresiensis should be classed as homo sapiens;
link writes: we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens But then it says;
link writes: NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human. It seems to me that if the skull and brain capacity are different then erectus was a human? I personally thought that erectus had the intelligence of a "baby sapien" according to a science program I watched. So why not include chimps in the human kind? P.S. Sorry about my siliness in this thread Quetzal - you were bang on correct, this is an exciting find for evolutionary Theory. I owe you this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Mike,
The family of critters that we call Homo is still pretty much in flux. There is habilis, erectus, sapiens, sapiens sapiens and now floresiensis. I doubt that is the whole picture simply because fossils are really unusual things, happen seldom and so there is a very, very good chance we will find far more examples over time. In addition, the divisions between Homo and the apes, chimps and bonobos is also still quite arbitrary. Hopefully as we gather more genetic information we'll know more but there will always be a certain amount of the "where to put it?" issue. DNA studies are showing that we are more closely realted to Neanderthal than to the chimps, but the variations are simply not all that great. Should there even be a seperation between chimps and Homo? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Jar writes: The family of critters that we call Homo is still pretty much in flux. There is habilis, erectus, sapiens, sapiens sapiens and now floresiensis. I doubt that is the whole picture simply because fossils are really unusual things, Good point Jar - I suppose we aren't going to have a real "full" picture yet, which leads me to think that we might find lots more instances like homo floresiensis. Did you forget Ergaster? As for the rest of your post - I'm the wrong dudeguy to ask - your own knowledge probably trumps mine. Where's Quetzal when u need him. Ned writes: think some have suggested Australopithicine even. That would be surprising. That also suprised me - what with her being able of tool-making etc...my knowledge of Australopithicines is small tho - very small.
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. Lol, there's also polyphyletic aswell - and "paraphyletic" Enjoy the link anyway - and please chip in if you find anything in there you want to mention, - I noticed they said this find is a problem for the old-earther's rather than them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: So why not include chimps in the human kind? Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says
A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species. Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study. 'Nuff said? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: On the flipside, I just read recently that Indonesia's prominent human origins researcher Prof Teuku Jacob said the Australians were wrong and floresiensis, he said, are just small Homo sapiens. Chris Stringer reacted by saying it isn't so; but Prof Jacob's team is now going to examine the bones themselves. This will be interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
, 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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I wouldn't want to bet on the one well-preserved skull being a pathological specimen. IMHO Prof. Jacob is going out on a limb on this one. He might be right, but I don't think its very likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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'm not sure how much credence to lend to the Australopithecine-descendent claim. The anthropologist in question is basing his suggestion on a couple of details that are IMO rather far from compelling. His principal point is something along the lines of trying to correlate nanism in an island population with "loss of intelligence". IOW, a "smart" H. erectus whose body got proportionately smaller over the generations due to the known selection pressures that create nanism on islands would of necessity lose intellectual capacity (for things like tool-making and fire, etc). Since "brain power" loosely speaking is related not so much to size (although there appears to be an absolute limit somewhere), but rather to brain-body ratio and brain complexity, I think he's making pure speculation on little evidence. He maintains that it is more likely that a derived Australopithecine, who were roughly the same size as the new specimen, maintained or even increased intelligence that would have been lost in a "reduced" erectus. Again, there's no evidence that would indicate nanism equates to loss of capability in any other organism that has undergone this type of size reduction, so why it would apply to floresiensis and no other critter is beyond me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024