Guest HIS girl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 "She" has caused a stir that's for sure... How does a "cousin" of Lucy, who has skeletal features similar to her show up in Indonesia but with only 10 - 13 000 years under her belt? How does one fit into the evolution timeline - ? Please explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted July 17, 2009 sorry missed her debut and couldn't fine her on google. Can you list a link or an article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Here's one.. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...oresiensis.html Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia: Homo floresienses has been described as one of the most spectacular discoveries in paleoanthropology in half a century—and the most extreme human ever discovered. The species inhabited Flores as recently as 13,000 years ago, which means it would have lived at the same time as modern humans, scientists say. "To find that as recently as perhaps 13,000 years ago, there was another upright, bipedal—although small-brained—creature walking the planet at the same time as modern humans is as exciting as it was unexpected," said Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thanks for the link, interesting. So they found the bones of tiny people....cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Well there's a bit of a bun fight within the evolution circle because the time frame for these "little guys" doesn't sit well with the broader more accepted timeline of the evolution faithfuls. Also, some of the skeletal features of Hobbit apparently haven't "evolved" much since Lucy - therefore throwing a gaping hole in the "evolution" process - It also puts some folks life works (papers) into question... AS well as the evolution "elite" aren't comfortable with the fact an Aussie and not an Englishman or American made the discovery....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Well there's a bit of a bun fight within the evolution circle because the time frame for these "little guys" doesn't sit well with the broader more accepted timeline of the evolution faithfuls. Also, some of the skeletal features of Hobbit apparently haven't "evolved" much since Lucy - therefore throwing a gaping hole in the "evolution" process - It also puts some folks life works (papers) into question... AS well as the evolution "elite" aren't comfortable with the fact an Aussie and not an Englishman or American made the discovery....... So, their growth was stunted...probably smoked really strong cigarettes from an early age. Yeah, who do those upstart Aussies think they are anyway...finding bones and causing all this trouble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That article was written in 2004 - not long after the fossils/bones were discovered. A lot of rebuttals and research have gone on since then. This is a more recent article. To the right side of the article a little ways down are links to previous articles. If you have the time and interest, perhaps you can find your answer(s) in there - at least to what the scientific community is saying: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90506144307.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 What I have put in my opening post was from a documentary I saw last week on the subject which was current thinking. Because the discovery made waves in the evo community in 2004, there has been alot of debunking, sweeping under the rug and so on - if it doesn't fit the mould, then folks don't want to know... IMO - I find it extremely hard to believe they are human bones - I'd say an extinct primate specie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 17, 2009 What I have put in my opening post was from a documentary I saw last week on the subject which was current thinking. OK, sorry, I missed that point. Because the discovery made waves in the evo community in 2004, there has been alot of debunking, sweeping under the rug and so on - if it doesn't fit the mould, then folks don't want to know... They don't know how or where to fit it into their evolution tree IMO - I find it extremely hard to believe they are human bones - I'd say an extinct primate specie. This is how I best understand it. There are certain traits of each classification that defines the classification. I don't have time to go into the explanations, but there are distinguished traits between "humans" (the Homo genus) and what we consider animal primates (argh - it looks like the classifications between primate animals has been re-worked and split apart . . . can't explain it in simple terms). The point is, the "Lucy" and the "hobbit" species have traits that seem to be a mixture of the two - by the classification system. Thus by the definitions of the classification system, these are considered "transitional species". But now scientists are putting such fossils in "branching' categories rather than a direct line between animal to human. That is, they consider such species to be evolving from "ape-like" traits to "human-like" traits, but not being the ones that evolved into humans. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the gist of what I'm getting at. A few years ago, I read about a finding that might challenge the idea of the "Lucy" species being the direct line of human ancestry (because they found a contemporary fossil that is more human-like than "Lucy" was). I don't know the results of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10 Posted July 17, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 80 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2009 Well there's a bit of a bun fight within the evolution circle because the time frame for these "little guys" doesn't sit well with the broader more accepted timeline of the evolution faithfuls. Also, some of the skeletal features of Hobbit apparently haven't "evolved" much since Lucy - therefore throwing a gaping hole in the "evolution" process - It also puts some folks life works (papers) into question... AS well as the evolution "elite" aren't comfortable with the fact an Aussie and not an Englishman or American made the discovery....... These finds are unexpected, to say the least, but that's paleaontology (and evolution and science) for you. But can you expand on the other points you make? How do these finds put a "hole" in the evolution process? How do they not fit in with the evolution faithful? (I'm one, and I can't see the problem at the moment). Whose life work is in trouble? On your last point - yes, it hurts, but we're in a good position against them in the second Test for the Ashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts