Homo floresiensis

Erm, ahem - may I say something? If we know so little, can we really say with any certainty that it happened? This just shows how dodgy human's dating methods are - afterall, the child could have just drank a lot of coca cola. 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.I say it's either a human child with some warpages to the skull - or an ape that looks like a human skull.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????!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 09:11 AM

Hey Quetzal - you say species of human, or "man". Can you please define "kind"? Thanks. You can't have it both ways - they are either mankind - or evokind, in that they are a homo rectifier etc... Either remove their relevance to "man" - or continue to agree with me that the are young mankind. Seriously though - you really did take mike's bait today. Seriously though - why should it be evidence FOR evolution?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.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?

Please, please make Dan show up so he can "get" my coke joke, lest we evolve and no longer have big enough brains to get it. Because apparently - evolving a smaller brain is now deemed beneficial.Oh wow - yeah - evolving a smaller brain - I can see the benefits. Hang on - a brain wave;Monkey dudeguy - small brain human - monkey dudeguy - big brain human. Bizarro these smooth transitions. Roflmao.

I don't think u got it then.The refutation was that there was no coco cola 13-18,000 years ago. Ho hum.

Dan - I was discreet - I could have said "explain it if you got it".So I have;1. Gave you a compliment in naming you, and 2. been discreet, as to not show you up. If you can't take it as it was intended - then I need say no more.Personally - I think you're angry cos of how I came on this thread like this.

But man derives from Noah, manus, manu, man. I think that humans have a priveliged place - and an abused power.However - since you define man, may I define creotionist? You see - My personal creationism definition is this; " Believes God created the heavens and the earth - and everything therein "....Since any evolution being used as a predicate - is not contradicitve of my definition - I would not pray about such a thing, as the definition says nothing about how God created the heavens and earth..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species - and that God cares for us despite us wrecking the earth - and not exercising dominion over the animals properly. Abuse of power and use of it - are two different things.If this new species is classed as not homo..., then how is it related to homosapiens, and therefore - how is it's morphology the same or similar? Would it be down to coincidence?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 01:04 PM

But he mentioned God's creation not me.You see Quetzal - abuse of power - rather than use of it. Here AdminHambre is annoyed at mike's babble so he abuses his admin status.That's twice you've used your admin power to try and refute irrefutable mike.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 01:53 PM

Quetzal - I basically didn't disagree with a lot of what you said in that other post - hence the POTM, and the apology. So, I only picked what I had a problem with in your post.When you say; Well - maybe - maybe a problem with Genesis, but this would only effect my belief in Genesis being accurate - sut it wouldn't bother me too much if Genesis is wrong. I still think God might make other intelligent beings apart from us...and since evolution doesn't go against my personal "creationist" outlook - it's not that big a deal to me. Edit to add - but did God say he only created one intelligent being anyway? Didn't I actually say; "..I think we are privelidged in that we are the most intelligent species" Yes I know, I read it. However - can such a small brain allow for the intelligence equal to a human's? I mean, I already know about Erectus and neanderthal - but do you think these species could talk - or write?Again - I'm not ignoring the substance of your posts - I just don't respond if I don't have any problems with it.The key to what mike is doing in this thread - is seen in his first post. Don't take him too seriously.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2004 07:23 PM

You just have to remember - I'm 70% goon, and the rest of me doesn't take me too seriously at all. I am aware of this topic being a great thing for evo's - and so it's perfect ground for a few controversial statements Quetzal, unfortunately you guys all have this notion that we have to "come around" to agreeing with everything your side says eventually if we hang around this town. I think there's a lot to Genesis - and this find doesn't remove Genesis or make it wrong - I was too quick to say that - but then I realised I was mistaken - it would only be a problem for a literalist. You see Genesis to me - is not a scientific explanation, it's a significant and mysterious book of the bible. Ofcourse - I won't deny the intelligence of animals - but if you're honest, they've never written a bible or went to the moon. Fair enough - when you find an electric screwdriver at your next dig - be sure to inform me. ...No, but seriously - I am aware of the brain to body ratio being important, I guess I still think that God's intended important and immortal creatures are meant to be us. This isn't arrogance - please don't assume that misconception like others have. It's just a matter of fact - that here we are - the moon-goers..Well, I am lil confused about the lineage thing - the skull looks similar to humans - would such a similar looking creature really be outside of the "homo" section? Could it be a dwarf with skull warpages through process of time? How many skulls of this species have been found?

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 might be a bad thing, as I kinda like this town.. well, I apreciate your tolerance anyway Ned.

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 thoughtsIs it just me or do they admitt to a mutation being beneficial - must be my eyesight; 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; But then it says; 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.

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. That also suprised me - what with her being able of tool-making etc...my knowledge of Australopithicines is small tho - very small. 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.