Auburngirl05 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I'm not sure if there's already a thread on this, I couldn't find one and thought I'd start one to open up some discussion, especially since human evolution has been a recent topic of discussion on here. http://www.nature.com/news/specials/flores/index.html No, they're not excavating Hobbiton. All joking aside, I can't wait to see if there are further discoveries of remains and possible archaeological sites that give further evidence as to their living conditions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Wow, that's an amazing find-an entirely new species of human. A quote from one of the articles: "But modern humans must surely have encountered this tiny relative of ours..." Yes, right before they wiped them off the face of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That's a fascinating find and i'm looking forward to finding out about them. That has alsorts of potential implications historically, culturally and biologically. Yes' date=' right before they wiped them off the face of the earth.[/quote'] You make being the evolutionary winners sound sordid. Better Cain than Abel surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Better Cain than Abel surely? lol, better for Cain at least. I imagine that Cain has a few other siblings and cousins stashed away in his closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 It probably would have been a bit lonely otherwise. Funny how the Bible never mentioned the Hobbit hunting. Now that could have been fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 After all, it would illustrate a fundamental principle of human morality. If it looks different it must be evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburngirl05 Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 All of the reports I've seen have said the specimen was "three feet tall with a brain capacity one third the size of modern humans." My question is: how does their body/brain ratio compare with Homo sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firedragon52 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Wow, its always excited finding new Homo Sapiens. I can't wait till they test the DNA, to see where exactly this species fits in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 My question is: how does their body/brain ratio compare with Homo sapiens?A back-of-the-envelope calculation without the envelope suggests they were smarter! Brain size is partially a function of body mass. At half the height of a present day human these hominids would have had roughly an eighth of the body mass. (If you want to be slightly more accurate it is closer to 1/6.) Yet, their brains were only 1/3 the size, ergo smarter! I'm sure the real biologists out there can demolish this logic in short order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000B7CEA-EA31-117E-AA3183414B7F0000 Just two more articles on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I love this!!! I'm Going' nuts, I've been so excited overthis story since last night i nearly bust!!!! The thing that troubles me most is that natives having been telling stories about the "ebu gogos," if these stories are true, and these hominids actually did survive to as recently as five hundred years ago, it means we just missed um!!! I'm so dissapointed!!! I'm going to have an aneurism!!! http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/28/1098667906170.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 A back-of-the-envelope calculation without the envelope suggests they were smarter! Brain size is partially a function of body mass. At half the height of a present day human these hominids would have had roughly an eighth of the body mass. (If you want to be slightly more accurate it is closer to 1/6.) Yet, their brains were only 1/3 the size, ergo smarter! I'm sure the real biologists out there can demolish this logic in short order. Well, as I'm sure others will point out, how smart they actually were depends not just on brain size, but how big certain areas were, as well as other factors. To be totally honest, brain size, even compared to body size isn't necessarily a good indicator of intelligence. Some of the larger varanid lizards are pretty low on the brain:body ratio, but are cable of amazing (and sometimes frightening/dangerous) displays of intelligence and rapid learning when given suitable motivation (which pretty much means "food"). IMHO, the best way to establish the intellect of this species of Homo will be the tools we hopefully will find. Of course, that's also not a perfect measure, but hey, when it's been dead a long time, you have to take what you can get for info. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firedragon52 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 If they were smarter than us, I would have to wonder how they even became extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 We were probably more agressive........ and obviously bigger........ at the time there were no guns, so I think brute force would win in a fight, over tactics, doesn't matter how good your tactics are if your outnumbered and overpowered your gonna lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firedragon52 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 We were probably more agressive........ and obviously bigger........ at the time there were no guns, so I think brute force would win in a fight, over tactics, doesn't matter how good your tactics are if your outnumbered and overpowered your gonna lose. *sigh* Will brawns always defeat brains in this world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 *sigh* Will brawns always defeat brains in this world? No, given time, brains will always defeat brawn. Given that the Flores man has a much smaller cranial capacity coupled with the fact that he used the same tools as Homo erectus it is more likely that Homo sapiens is more intelligent. Also, the fact that Flores Man did not spread over the rest of the world and defeat Homo sapiens is again evidence that Homo sapiens is more intelligent. However, since there is no evidence that there was a land bridge between the mainland and the island it is possible that Flores Man built a boat and traveled to the island, which is a feat that could only be accomplished by an intelligent species. I would also wager that Flores Man was at least as intelligent as Homo erectus. The island may have dwarfed his body but I highly doubt that natural selection would result in a less intelligent species of man. His cranial capacity may have shrunk because the pelvis size of the women shrank and their body’s' ability to support a larger head was reduced but that doesn't mean that their intelligence was diminished. There are examples of people today that have brains that have been compressed to the size of tennis balls that appear to have perfectly normal intelligence. Also, the tools found were similar to the tools used by Homo erectus. I would make a guess that Flores Man's intelligence was somewhere between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. There is quite a gap between the period that Homo erectus was thought to have lived and the time that Flores Man died out so the species had some time to evolve a greater degree of intelligence, but that doesn't mean that they did. This also brings up the question of whether other offshoots of man survived until much more recently than we thought. Homo Sapiens’s history could have been quite bloody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernstein Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 It is an amazing find, of tremendous scientific significance. The existence of this diminutive species thoroughly shatters the current story of human evolution. I just hope that these little people did not suffer from a specieswide Adlerian inferiority complex because of their small size. Our ancestors would have wiped them all out for being hostile, obnoxious, and antagonistic in polite company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburngirl05 Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 Well' date=' as I'm sure others will point out, how smart they actually were depends not just on brain size, but how big certain areas were, as well as other factors. To be totally honest, brain size, even compared to body size isn't necessarily a good indicator of intelligence. Some of the larger varanid lizards are pretty low on the brain:body ratio, but are cable of amazing (and sometimes frightening/dangerous) displays of intelligence and rapid learning when given suitable motivation (which pretty much means "food"). Mokele[/quote'] That's a really good point, I haven't read Gould's Mismeasure of Man but I think he goes pretty in depth with that issue in it. (It's on my reading list for holiday break, lol). I was still interested in the ratio, just out of curiosity, and posed the question on another forum, and was cited these stats out of the Nature article. (If anyone has a copy of the pdf, I"d really appreciate you sending it my way...) "H. floresiensis weighed 16-28.7 kg based on height/mass scaling formulae, or 36 kg based on femoral cross-section. Brain mass is 433.2 g. Encephalization quotient is 2.5-4.6 in H. floresiensis, 5.8-8.1 in H. sapiens, 3.3-4.4 in H. erectus/ergaster, and 3.6-4.3 for H. habilis." But again, you have a good point about how it size doesn't exactly pinpoint intelligence, correct me if I'm wrong but I think human female brains tend to be smaller than males, but make up for it with a higher neuron density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 There are examples of people with brains that weigh twice the average who have normal intelligence. There are also examples of people that are extremely intelligent whose brains only weighed about 2/3 to 3/4 the average. Also, people survive when their brains have been compressed to 25% its normal volume and appear to have normal intelligence. Some people are born with only half a brain yet they are still able to live normal lives with normal intelligence (not totally positive about that one.) Whales have very large brains and a huge body mass because they have no problem supporting all that mass. There is probably an advantage to having a larger brain mass but that doesn't mean that an intelligent species of man could not develope with a smaller brain mass or continue to have the same level of intelligence with a reduced cranial capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Is it possible that, given the proper situation, flores-man culd have been "smarter" than humans, but just didn't develop the corresponding technology and society we usually associate with high-intellect simply because of the small size and isolation of their overall world? Limited to an island, cut off from the pressures thrown at other humans, maybe they just weren't motivated to stretch their mental muscles. As far as i can tell, the only real predator they had to look out for were those big lizards (unless the big rats were carnivorous?) or maybe some large bird of prey. As long as their niche didn't conflict with those of the other large predators, and as long as they were protected against those predators, would the species really need to develope the way we did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Could it have been a oneish off mutation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Since the initial find includes the remains of eight individuals,then that does not compute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 The existence of this diminutive species thoroughly shatters the current story of human evolution. It adds an interesting chapter, but in what way does it shatter the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Of course, there is another thing that the little people of Flores had to worry about, other than marrauding Homo sapiens... Flores is a small island in Indonesia, with several close neighboring islands. One of these islands is one I'm sure you've heard of: Komodo. And the endemic giant lizards aren't actually restricted to Komodo, and populations exist on several adjactent islands even today, including Flores. And, while it's not common, the Kodomo monitor has been known to prey on Homo sapiens, even in modern times. Now imagine how a 3 foot tall, 30 kg Humanoid reacts to the sight of a 10 foot long, 100kg carnivorous lizard. Of course, the reverse reaction is pretty easy to figure out: "Look, dinner!" I doubt the Komodo played a role in their disappearance, but it cannot have made life very fun for them, especially without any tools or weapons that could pierce the lizard's osteoderm-laced hide. Mokele, rooting for the lizards as always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Now imagine how a 3 foot tall' date=' 30 kg Humanoid reacts to the sight of a 10 foot long, 100kg carnivorous lizard. [/quote']I tried that. I thought it might be much the same way a 1.8m tall, 80kg Cro-Magnon might have reacted to a mammoth. "Wow. There's a lot of meat on that. I wonder, if we could just drive it over a cliff somehow?" [Meanwhile, back on Flores, could be heard the plaintiff call of a proto-Mokele - 'You can't do that. Thoe lizards are nice,"] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now