Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
506 online now:
Faith, kjsimons (2 members, 504 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,814 Year: 21,850/19,786 Month: 413/1,834 Week: 413/315 Day: 9/82 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15627
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 152 of 213 (250812)
10-11-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Jack
10-11-2005 12:02 PM


Re: More finds
The jaw should help if it has (or doesn't have) the double-rooted teeth. The fragments - well it will depend on the reconstruction. Unless they're pretty large it could just fuel the controversy as the sides dispute attempts at putting the fragments together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 12:02 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 3:51 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 153 of 213 (251011)
10-11-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Jack
10-11-2005 9:29 AM


Re: More finds
of nine more individuals,

I read the article as they have found a total of nine, adding some new found parts to LB1.

bbc writes:

Now, the same team tells Nature journal it has skeletal remains from at least nine of the "Hobbit-like" individuals.

Thanks

This species issue can only be firmly resolved by finding more fossils, I'm afraid.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 9:29 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2005 4:00 AM RAZD has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 829 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 154 of 213 (251027)
10-12-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
10-11-2005 11:14 PM


Re: More finds
They have 9 individual jaw bones, but I'm still going to side with the scientists who say it's not a seperate species, it's just an individual with a bad birth defect.

In this case a combination dwarfism and nine-headed-ness.

Wouldn't have wanted to be that guys prom date


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2005 11:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 3:41 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2005 4:54 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 155 of 213 (251198)
10-12-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Nuggin
10-12-2005 4:00 AM


Re: More finds
time

and a few more fossils

will tell


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2005 4:00 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 156 of 213 (251201)
10-12-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by PaulK
10-11-2005 1:04 PM


Double Rooted Teeth
The jaw should help if it has (or doesn't have) the double-rooted teeth.

FROM: The Loom Blog about life etc (click)

The key conclusion of the paper is that these fossils look a lot like the original Hobbit bones reported last year. The new jaw, for example, has the same peculiar roots on its teeth as the old one, and both also lack a chin. If the original Hobbit was just a pathological human, the authors argue, then all of these new individuals would have to be pathological too. And the fact that these fossils span 80,000 years makes it even harder to hold the pathology argument.

That may be from a blog, but the link is from Scientific American which gave it one of their Science & Technology Web Awards 2005

Both are good reads.

Enjoy.

{changed subtitle}

This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*12*2005 03:51 PM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2005 1:04 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 157 of 213 (251228)
10-12-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Nuggin
10-12-2005 4:00 AM


Re: More finds
Nuggin writes:

Wouldn't have wanted to be that guys prom date

I dunno. My prom date said I had ten hands, and she didn't seem all that unhappy about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2005 4:00 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 158 of 213 (251936)
10-15-2005 9:08 AM


Nature Article Links
Here is a Nature Editor's Summary of articles

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7061/edsumm/e051013-08.html

The discovery of a small-bodied hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia, caused a great deal of interest. Its classification as a new species was controversial, but now there is more evidence for the endemic human species, Homo floresiensis. The remains excavated at Liang Bua on Flores include another tiny adult mandible, 15,000 years old, and the right arm bones of the original find, known as LB1. The new findings confirm the presence of a long-term dwarfed population from before 74,000 to 12,000 years ago and argue against the idea that LB1 was an individual with a growth disorder. There is also evidence for the use of fire, and butchery of the mammoth-like Stegodon.

Sign in required to access the articles:

More evidence for hobbit unearthed as diggers are refused access to cave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7061/full/437934a.html

Palaeoanthropology: Further fossil finds from Flores
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7061/full/437957a.html

Further evidence for small-bodied hominins from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7061/full/nature04022.html
("1st paragraph" is same as above)

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Carson O'Genic, posted 10-17-2005 3:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
Carson O'Genic
Junior Member (Idle past 4449 days)
Posts: 20
From: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 159 of 213 (252427)
10-17-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
10-15-2005 9:08 AM


Re: Nature Article Links
My heart sinks when I read about how the fossils were mishandled and broken. Teuku Jacob's should be made to resign in shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 9:08 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2005 7:01 PM Carson O'Genic has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 160 of 213 (252477)
10-17-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Carson O'Genic
10-17-2005 3:58 PM


Re: Nature Article Links
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I know more. He could have been researching the inside shape in a more traditional manner. We do not know what documentation he made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Carson O'Genic, posted 10-17-2005 3:58 PM Carson O'Genic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Carson O'Genic, posted 10-18-2005 8:36 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Carson O'Genic
Junior Member (Idle past 4449 days)
Posts: 20
From: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 161 of 213 (252862)
10-18-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
10-17-2005 7:01 PM


Re: Nature Article Links
When you say 'in a more traditional manner" do you mean to suggest that fossils are often broken using some 'traditional' technique of measurement? I have no problems with alternative hypotheses to explain the fossils. (Although with the recent finds, I think the case for mutation has fallen apart.) I have problems with the most acclaimed anthopologist of Indonesia screwing up fossils of immense value to all of humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2005 7:01 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
666_DBz
Inactive Junior Member


Message 162 of 213 (289422)
02-22-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Jack
10-11-2005 12:02 PM


Re: More finds
I just registered and was wondering if there were any extractions of their Dna ???


Interests are : Philosophy, Archaeology, UFOs, Science and the Life Sciences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2005 12:02 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2006 9:17 AM 666_DBz has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 163 of 213 (289494)
02-22-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by 666_DBz
02-22-2006 1:59 AM


Re: More finds
Not yet.. and it could very well be that there is none.. which would be a shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by 666_DBz, posted 02-22-2006 1:59 AM 666_DBz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by 666_DBz, posted 03-03-2006 11:01 PM ramoss has responded

  
666_DBz
Inactive Junior Member


Message 164 of 213 (291956)
03-03-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by ramoss
02-22-2006 9:17 AM


Re: More finds
There exists the will to get a sample I thought the Jo "Nature" was going to produce something from the sequencing and analysis of extracted "Dna" Has anyone heard the same ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2006 9:17 AM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 11:43 PM 666_DBz has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 165 of 213 (291961)
03-03-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by 666_DBz
03-03-2006 11:01 PM


Re: More finds
The problem is that the conditions which the bones were in was not condusive for the preservation of DNA. I am sure they will want to try to extract DNA. That does not mean they will be successful. I know I want them to be able to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by 666_DBz, posted 03-03-2006 11:01 PM 666_DBz 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