Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,425 Year: 20,461/19,786 Month: 858/2,023 Week: 366/392 Day: 56/41 Hour: 13/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homo floresiensis
kuresu
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 181 of 213 (342136)
08-21-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Chiroptera
08-21-2006 5:08 PM


ahh, I see what you mean. sort of like saying, if he did it twice, then surely she did it twice, without evidence to say that she did in fact do it twice.

inductive reasoning, I think it is? and science is what, deductive? hmm. . .

what was interesting in the article that jar linked was that it was claiming mircocephaly to be the cuase. Haven't other hobbits been found on the island? If so, wouldn't that tend to favor the new species argument?

especially since microcephaly is really, really rare?

anyone got some links handy for this?


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 5:08 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 8:48 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20244
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 182 of 213 (342159)
08-21-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by kuresu
08-21-2006 7:27 PM


Haven't other hobbits been found on the island?

The original report said:

The skull and bones of one adult female, and fragments from up to six other specimens, were found in the Liang Bua limestone caves on Flores Island, which lies at the eastern tip of Java.

So you could have a dwarf species with one specimen with micrencephaly and get the same results ....

A major problem is that there appears to have been some tampering with the original fossils before any proper casts were made, so the original information may have been lost (the information is upthread).

A second problem is that this find has not (yet) been replicated.

Personally I doubt the "micrencephaly theory" but I'll wait for more information.

Thanks


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 181 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 7:27 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20244
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 183 of 213 (342162)
08-21-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Chiroptera
08-21-2006 2:53 PM


Heh. Because it is well-known that wherever there are elephants, there are always humans, too.

And because it is well known that humans are such better swimmers than elephants too, after all they don't need a snorkle ... :rolleyes:

LOL -- seems like he's using the argument from incredulity here a couple of times eh?


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 177 by Chiroptera, posted 08-21-2006 2:53 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Barbarian, posted 08-22-2006 3:37 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Barbarian
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 213 (342246)
08-22-2006 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
08-21-2006 8:55 PM


I also seem to remember the claim that hobbits lived on Flores for 800k years. Whatever the basis of that claim, Eckhardt must address it. I wonder how he plans to do it; the sneak preview articles so far ignore the issue.

Edited by Barbarian, : English punctuation differs from the Hungarian one ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 8:55 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 185 of 213 (424228)
09-26-2007 10:23 AM


New study: Hobbits aren't people!
Or at least not modern Homo sapiens.

A recent study led by the Smithsonian shows that the wrist bones of H. floresiensis are much closer to extant (non-human) apes and early hominids than they are to Homo. In fact, if I'm reading the article correctly, it may be that this species might be removed from the genus Homo.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Jack, posted 09-26-2007 11:37 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 186 of 213 (424258)
09-26-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chiroptera
09-26-2007 10:23 AM


Re: New study: Hobbits aren't people!
The wrist structure is shared with Australopithecines, early Homo and other apes, indicating that the seperation of Homo sapiens & Homo floresiensis between .8 & 1.8 Ma ago but there's nothing in the paper to indicate that they should be removed from Homo.

From the paper:

quote:
This difference between human and nonhuman primate trapezoid shape is concomitantly reflected by the shapes and articular configurations of the carpals that articulate with the trapezoid, and all of these carpals are derived in modern humans in comparison to those in other primates (Figs. 2 and 3) (9, 13). Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens and Neandertals share these derived morphological features with modern humans, suggesting that they are most likely inherited from a recent common ancestor (13). A capitate attributed to Homo antecessor (16) and dated to 0.8 million years ago (Ma) (17) also shares the derived condition (13, 16). Thus, the current paleontological evidence suggests that this complex of wrist features evolved by at least 800,000 years ago.

and

quote:
The wrist morphology of LB1 may ultimately help falsify or support specific hypotheses regarding the phylogenetic position of H. floresiensis (1, 5, 7). Unfortunately, no carpals are attributed to Homo erectus sensu lato, which is otherwise well represented in the fossil record between 1.8 and 0.8 Ma, with the exception of a partial lunate from Zhoukoudian (32). However, if hominin carpals that date within this period of time are discovered, their primitive or derived morphology will allow a firmer assessment of their phylogenetic relationship to other Pleistocene hominin species, such as modern H. sapiens and H. floresiensis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 10:23 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 11:41 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 187 of 213 (424259)
09-26-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Jack
09-26-2007 11:37 AM


Re: New study: Hobbits aren't people!
The wrist structure is shared with ... early Homo....

Ah. I misread the Science Daily article. Thanks.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Jack, posted 09-26-2007 11:37 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 188 of 213 (434253)
11-15-2007 3:29 AM


I just read the lastest report and they claim it is a monkey.Kind of funny when you think about it because of all the hype it made.Seems like these things are making evolutionist look like cryptozoologist in search of the long lost manape.

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-15-2007 6:50 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Chiroptera, posted 11-15-2007 9:29 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 213 (434274)
11-15-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:29 AM


As per usual, no sources sited, just bold assertive lies.

-x


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:29 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 190 of 213 (434287)
11-15-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:29 AM


I agree with EighteenDelta.
I just read the lastest report....

You did not. Are you a troll?


Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:29 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 191 of 213 (434356)
11-15-2007 3:41 PM


The article was dated 11/14/07 in one of those scientific news articles.Im not sure but i believe it was discovery news.That makes you like all evolutionist,either a liar or misinformed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2007 7:07 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 192 of 213 (434357)
11-15-2007 3:43 PM


You can find it in the evolution section.

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 4:39 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 11-15-2007 4:48 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15554
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 193 of 213 (434366)
11-15-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:43 PM


The evolution section of which site ? How about providing a link ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:43 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 194 of 213 (434369)
11-15-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jason777
11-15-2007 3:43 PM


Well I can't find it anywhere on Discovery if that isn't where you meant maybe you could give some more direction. I think you are going to have to produce a link or be more specific, for a start the Discovery channel news site doesn't even have an evolution section.

The latest 'Flores man' article I could find on Discovery was from April and didn't suggest that they were chimps at all but rather that they were merely diminutive Homo sapiens.

So could you please provide a link that works or something to lead us to this article?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jason777, posted 11-15-2007 3:43 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 195 of 213 (434370)
11-15-2007 4:49 PM


I would if i could remember which science news site it was.Theres only thousands of them.Any way if you cant find it im sure it will be out in all of them very soon.I wish i could remember the guys name who closed the investigation that would very helpful.He said the wrist bones are monkey absolutely and that the case was closed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2007 5:29 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