Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
313 online now:
Hyroglyphx, PaulK (2 members, 311 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,199 Year: 20,235/19,786 Month: 632/2,023 Week: 140/392 Day: 0/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
jar
Member
Posts: 31604
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 211 of 213 (434475)
11-15-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by AdminNosy
11-15-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Not so fast Molbio
The title he mentions, "experts split over human hobbit remains." is from a 2004 news story, source, that was carried on abc in australia.

However nothing in that says that they were monkeys. In addition, there has been a lot learned since 2004.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by AdminNosy, posted 11-15-2007 11:25 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by molbiogirl, posted 11-16-2007 12:47 AM jar has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 953 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 212 of 213 (434486)
11-16-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
11-15-2007 11:35 PM


From Jason777's "source"
He said the earhole, palate, pelvis, tibia and femur of the Hobbit were more similar to another type of early human, Australopithecus, than Homo.

If this is the source to which you referred earlier...

Australopithecus is a hominid.

Not a "monkey".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 11-15-2007 11:35 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 213 of 213 (434536)
11-16-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jason777
11-15-2007 10:55 PM


www.abc.net.au title;experts split over human hobbit remains.

How about a link to the article? The main page has no "evolution box" but it does have a search feature.

Searching for {hobbit wrist} takes you to a 21 Sept 2007 article, Wrist gives hobbit theory the flick

quote:
The hobbit had wrists more like those of non-human apes than those of modern humans, according to researchers who say their findings are more evidence that Homo floresiensis is a new species.

"The primitive morphology of the LB1 [hobbit specimen] wrist bones confirms what other H. floresiensis traits indicate," says Morwood.

Scientists have been debating since 2004 whether the bones are really those of a new species or a sick modern human.

Morwood himself says there is now a plethora of both published and unpublished work that supports his case.

He says the stature, body proportions, brain size and structure as well as shoulder, pelvis, jaw and teeth of specimens found in the cave all suggest the hobbit is a new species that evolved in isolation on the island.

"In total these traits all indicate that the species is derived from long-term, insular evolution operating on representatives from a very early, small-bodied, small-brained, primitive proportioned hominin dispersal out of Africa," he says.


This doesn't match your claims at all.

Searching for "experts split over human hobbit remains" takes you to a 29 Oct 2004 article which doesn't mention the wrist at all.

You post like you're loaded for bear, but all you have are blanks?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 10:55 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019