Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 213 (190655)
03-08-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Brad McFall
03-08-2005 3:05 PM


Re: yep, it looks that sarcastic
Yeah, and no fair publishing only the first page.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Brad McFall, posted 03-08-2005 3:05 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Freeloader
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 213 (194663)
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Great images of the scientific discovery found here
The discovery has been proven to be legitmate. The Hobbit was a real species, and only 3' tall!
No webpage found at provided URL: http://ufo.whipnet.org/new/index.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 2:58 PM Freeloader has not replied
 Message 109 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 3:17 PM Freeloader has not replied
 Message 110 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 3:21 PM Freeloader has not replied
 Message 111 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 3:28 PM Freeloader has not replied
 Message 115 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 5:16 PM Freeloader has not replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 213 (194835)
03-27-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Freeloader
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Great scientific discovery found (of a scientific discover) :
Why hasn't anyone asked about the Discovery Institute,
that Seattle-based think tank. Where a Stephen Meyer
is acting as Director at its' "Center for Science and
Culture'"
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 01:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Freeloader, posted 03-26-2005 11:36 AM Freeloader has not replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 213 (194838)
03-27-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Freeloader
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Re: My 2nd biggest regret is not having my hands on "this" scientific wonder :
The problem is . . . .
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-27-2005 05:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Freeloader, posted 03-26-2005 11:36 AM Freeloader has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2005 3:30 PM Godfearingatheist has replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 213 (194841)
03-27-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Freeloader
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Oh, I will take "it" TO ALL in this osteological (scientific) find :
::Indonesia's Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) ?! I hope it not Piltdown discovery
:
See: Above [response in the thead to & from Freeloader]
Is anybody, besides myself, interested in a Osteologically (fully 1:1) correct:cast (or replica) ?
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-27-2005 05:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Freeloader, posted 03-26-2005 11:36 AM Freeloader has not replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 213 (194842)
03-27-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Freeloader
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Great images of the scientific discovery found here
The problem I have is not having the education to justify a flight to see them . I might be able to reconstruct a portrait of . . Flores Man But, that does not mean I have been trained in Forensic reconstruction (although I did attend a workshop)
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 01:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Freeloader, posted 03-26-2005 11:36 AM Freeloader has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 213 (194843)
03-27-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Godfearingatheist
03-27-2005 3:17 PM


edited to add AIG article link
I would be interested in seeing such a cast. The pictures at the UFO site are almost humorous in their lack of scale and rather overemphasis on the difference in size of H. Floresiensis and a fully modern human (basketball star?).
One would expect fringe groups to latch onto curious findings and then try to make of them things they are not.
Try replying to a post by Andya Primanda (Message 91 and Message 93)-- he is the best link to local information we have.
{added by edit}
We also have already seen the AIG article on this discovery:
Hobbits Were True Humans! | Answers in Genesis
enjoy
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*27*2005 03:34 PM

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 109 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 3:17 PM Godfearingatheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Godfearingatheist, posted 04-05-2005 4:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 213 (194845)
03-27-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Andya Primanda
12-16-2004 7:19 AM


Re: To EvC only: A translated comment from Teuku Jacob
I hope your not wrong, with the comments of Teuku Jacob seem next to absolute ZEOR, hmm The problem I have is comming at it from a Palaeoanthropology perspective Just "Who" has made casts, Is only the austrailian team or or possibly UGM (Universitas Gadjah Mada) the creature's crainal capacity is an issue that can be denied but never ignored They must have my problem when I write where you can't tell where any one thing starts and another begins (or ends) What's left to do, there got to be something left to look at with the endocasts of the endocraina.. .. This is not my trafficing [or exercising] some spoof line of questions in this these inquires Are you at all serious or are you just being sacrastic, huh ? What does this mean, our blithe acceptance of Bible-thumper's take on the Flores Man then ??? I hope that helps to use a term like blithe here. (Really) This is anything but me being smart. That being said with a reminder that I am not being cute Plainly, the Flores' Hobbit was "not a diseased" human then what could explain it? What can you explain to a public then ? What 's a "Ape-sized" brain is doing in a dwafted sized person? This isn't my idea of some joke ......Could someone have noticed something OTHER than the remains apparently [were] not fossilized (mineralized) What is the point in bringing it up ? Can anyone draw some inference from that statement about LB1 condition ?? So then, What about the Anthrometric measurements of the braincase fell a long way below the normal range of Modern Humans? Not to make a point per say but to inquire:
1.) - How will the creationists misintrepret this after: Prof Jacob's team has examined the bones ( apparently only a few may get their paws on it ) ????
2.) - Who is making casts, Is only the austrailian team or Prof. Jacob team from Tentang UGM (Universitas Gadjah Mada) of the paleoanthropology Department ALLOWED to have casts [ and replicas ] of Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) ?! And, No one is commenting on the measurements of the braincase fell a long way below the normal range of Modern Humans ??? This is a bizzare little Hominoid creature If you've read any of this? If NOTHING else then, Couldn't somebody show some pictures that reveal (the) brain region in question. That area of Flores-MAN ( and being sure not to miss the Frontal region) in a comparitive exploration in that endocast (?) Wasn't there some casts highlighting it's larger lobes and ridges associated w / higher cognitive-thinking Somewhere next to the region around its' (OMPFC)cortex or again "the area associated with higher cognitive abilities'"braincase fell a long way below the normal range must "mean" what ?!? Now there's a question! There is not a obvious line of questioning here However, this is only scratching the outside surface of the matter. If you can get the drift of my meaning How is "the" public to interpret the finding of something From the Radiology Lab :'Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology along with Florida State University, reported that[again from] casts made of the interior cranium walls revealed that the brain had enlarged lobes and ridges associated with higher cognitive reasoning/abilities'. Again a point is in: "the 'results, described in an issue of the journal Science'" Outside the facial morphological aspects (?) Can someone show the paper or their findings ? What do the findings indicating then ??? Anyone with an idea or three ??? Online news said the Univ. of New England in Australia, findings appeared to be consistent with the use of stone tools and other traces of advanced technology and behavior" I'm not calling people biblethumpers or being that smug Anyone, please to show the actual pictures of the braincast ? Perhaps anyone from the '0THER" side still in the "Creation" (Young earth) Scientists camps might explain how they maintain a cautious wait-and-see attitude What?! A cautious wait-and-see attitude
I hope it "is" N0T at all like the PILTD0WN discovery :~
And to you a [Glory] GLORIOUSLY Wonderful Easter
:
See: Above [response in the thead to & from Freeloader]
Is anybody, besides myself, interested in a Osteologically (fully 1:1) correct:cast (or replica) ?
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 04-05-2005 03:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-16-2004 7:19 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminJar, posted 03-27-2005 4:25 PM Godfearingatheist has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 213 (194852)
03-27-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Godfearingatheist
03-27-2005 3:33 PM


to: Godfearingatheist
There is an edit button that will let you change or fix posts. We ask that when you make significant changes to a post to indicate what those changes were, either with a summary at the bottom of the message, by changing colors to show added text, by seperating new inserstions from the original by AbE (added by edit) or some similar method. In addition, we ask that any significant changes be made in a timely manner. For example after someone replies to your post it is definitely good form to make sure you clearly note any changes, particularly if they change meanings.
Thanks and welcome to EvC.
At the bottom of this message are some links that may make your stay here more enjoyable.
Welcome Home!

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Godfearingatheist, posted 03-27-2005 3:33 PM Godfearingatheist has not replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 213 (194853)
03-27-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Freeloader
03-26-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Great images of the scientific discovery found here
Tentang "spin"
(?) With someone like me often until you get to know me I can come across as a being so smug it is actually harmful to any debate (w/ ranting about morphology) Discovery Institute 's Stephen Meyer : Center for science and culture shouldn't have casts [and replicas] of Indonesia's Flores-MAN (h. floresiensis) then ?! . . Curious, Why would a University even mention people like Ken Ham, Duane Gish if not Will Dembski specifically What would you expect from this University to say ??? When hominids aren't talked about that much It's somewhat strange that a Tentang University official would know to mention this. If I could I would angle for a job from Gish (or the fore mention Ken) on creating a portrait of Flores Man. To many they might again come across like they are a modern cult (not unlike one in a Branch Davidian compound aka Mt. Carmel) I shook hands with each of them once And they were especially & specifically firmly within an Indepth knowledge of evolution but chanenging probably everything Nevertheless Ham and Gish both were surprisingly professional outside the Hail Jesus portion of a Lecture in 1982 (or 1984) I had the pleasure of sitting through
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 03-30-2005 04:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Freeloader, posted 03-26-2005 11:36 AM Freeloader has not replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 213 (196847)
04-05-2005 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
03-27-2005 3:30 PM


Re: edited to add AIG article link
I would be interested in seeing such a cast. The pictures at the UFO site are almost humorous in their lack of scale and rather overemphasis on the difference in size of H. Floresiensis and a fully modern human (basketball star?).
One would expect fringe groups to latch onto curious findings and then try to make of them things they are not.
Try replying to a post by Andya Primanda (Message 91 and Message 93)-- he is the best link to local information we have.
{added by edit}
We also have already seen the AIG article on this discovery:
Hobbits Were True Humans! | Answers in Genesis
enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2005 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2005 7:26 AM Godfearingatheist has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 213 (196868)
04-05-2005 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Godfearingatheist
04-05-2005 4:12 AM


Re: edited to add AIG article link
and?
ps - you should use the quote boxes to quote other posts
they are in square brackets: [ ] and the begin command is qs then end command is /qs (or quote and /quote) and there is no space between the brackets and the commands
if you use {peek} on a post that is formated you can see the way it is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Godfearingatheist, posted 04-05-2005 4:12 AM Godfearingatheist has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 118 of 213 (196948)
04-05-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
11-08-2004 9:44 AM


Re: chimps
there's nothing new about chimps being human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 9:44 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2005 8:19 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 119 of 213 (196974)
04-05-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
10-27-2004 5:11 PM


I still find this discovery very fascinating. IMO there hasn’t been nearly enough publicity about the story. The little dudes are barely 1 meter tall with brains that are 1/3 the size of ours! Freaky.
I realize that there are many examples of miniaturization in nature and that it is an adaptation to isolated island conditions. But this begs a question I have for the life science experts which may be fodder for another thread, but I’ll ask it anyway; how low can they go?
I mean, are there practical limits to miniaturization that would tend to arrest the process? Is it conceivable, given the right evolutionary conditions, for a human species to be 1 foot tall with heads the size of walnuts?

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 120 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 5:38 PM Monk has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 213 (197017)
04-05-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Monk
04-05-2005 3:21 PM


I mean, are there practical limits to miniaturization that would tend to arrest the process? Is it conceivable, given the right evolutionary conditions, for a human species to be 1 foot tall with heads the size of walnuts?
My guess is that we couldn't get much smaller than the little rugrat over there in your avatar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 3:21 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2005 8:24 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 127 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 9:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024