GreenGuy42 Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Found this on msn.com while sifting through the tech/science area. Interesting. Quote
Max Jenius Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 this was linked from it... also interesting.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6291903/ We should make an awesome science thread... all for say aye? AYE! Quote
JELEINEN Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 And back on topic, I had read an article on this on a different site. Seeing these little guys running around and hunting pygmy elephants and trying to avoid getting eaten by komodo dragons would make for an awesome fantasy or SF setting. Quote
GreenGuy42 Posted October 28, 2004 Author Posted October 28, 2004 this was linked from it... also interesting....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6291903/ We should make an awesome science thread... all for say aye? AYE! Aye! Quote
wolfx Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I'm just wondering.... How do they make sure that the skeleton they found wasn't 1.) A child's (i'm sure they can though) 2.) Or some prehistoric version of a midget. 1 skeleton doesn't prove a whole species exists. I can just imagine one day when aliens dig up our remains, they'll look at my valks and think we worship "transforming idols". Quote
bsu legato Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I'm just wondering....How do they make sure that the skeleton they found wasn't 1.) A child's (i'm sure they can though) 2.) Or some prehistoric version of a midget. Didja try reading the article? Clues from the skeletonThis much is clear: Its worn teeth and fused skull show it was an adult. The shape of the pelvis is female. The skull is wide like that of Homo erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of Homo erectus has straight sides and a pointed crown, they said. The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller and more like modern human teeth. The eye sockets are big and round, but unlike other members of the Homo genus, it has hardly any chin or browline. The rest of the skeleton looks as if it walked upright, but the pelvis and the shinbone have primitive, even apelike features. T'ain't no child nor midget. Quote
mikeszekely Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 this was linked from it... also interesting....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6291903/ We should make an awesome science thread... all for say aye? AYE! You want to start a super thread? You, the Scourge of Threads? The Destroyer of Topics? Quote
bsu legato Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Is the video in that link working for anybody? I can't get it to run. Quote
JELEINEN Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 (edited) I'm just wondering....How do they make sure that the skeleton they found wasn't 1.) A child's (i'm sure they can though) 2.) Or some prehistoric version of a midget. 1 skeleton doesn't prove a whole species exists. I can just imagine one day when aliens dig up our remains, they'll look at my valks and think we worship "transforming idols". While I don't think it's true in this case because the scientists are being pretty thourogh (they found this skeleton 13 months ago and are just now releasing info), this has actually happened. Some the first neanderthal skeletons found belonged to individuals suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, and so for a long time the whole group was always depicted with a very stooped posture Edited October 28, 2004 by JELEINEN Quote
McKlown Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 (edited) While I don't think it's true in this case because the scientists are being pretty thourogh (they found this skeleton 13 months ago and are just now releasing info), this has actually happened. Some the first neanderthal skeletons found belonged to individuals suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, and so for a long time the whole group was always depicted with a very stooped posture Check out these quotes from Yahoo's article on it. "Delicate artifacts found in the cave were described as "toy-sized" versions of stone tools made by H. erectus. They suggest that Flores Man retained intelligence and dexterity to flake small weapons with sharp edges, even if its body shrunk over time." If all their tools were scaled down that would mean the entire population was that size, not just a few of them. And apperently there were enough of them running around to start legends among other islanders. "Folklore experts have reported persistent legends of little people living on Flores and nearby islands. Islanders called the creature "Ebu Gogo" and say it was about 3 feet tall." And about that one skeleton doesn't prove anything....am I the only one that remembers Lucy(or whatever that ape's name was)? Edited October 28, 2004 by McKlown Quote
JELEINEN Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Check out these quotes from Yahoo's article on it."Delicate artifacts found in the cave were described as "toy-sized" versions of stone tools made by H. erectus. They suggest that Flores Man retained intelligence and dexterity to flake small weapons with sharp edges, even if its body shrunk over time." If all their tools were scaled down that would mean the entire population was that size, not just a few of them. And apperently there were enough of them running around to start legends among other islanders. "Folklore experts have reported persistent legends of little people living on Flores and nearby islands. Islanders called the creature "Ebu Gogo" and say it was about 3 feet tall." And about that one skeleton doesn't prove anything....am I the only one that remembers Lucy(or whatever that ape's name was)? Please re-read what I said. I wasn't disputing the article or the findings of the scientists involved. I was merely giving an anecdote about a situation in the past where a few non-standard individuals were thought to be definitive of the entire group. Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Check out these quotes from Yahoo's article on it."Delicate artifacts found in the cave were described as "toy-sized" versions of stone tools made by H. erectus. They suggest that Flores Man retained intelligence and dexterity to flake small weapons with sharp edges, even if its body shrunk over time." If all their tools were scaled down that would mean the entire population was that size, not just a few of them. And apperently there were enough of them running around to start legends among other islanders. "Folklore experts have reported persistent legends of little people living on Flores and nearby islands. Islanders called the creature "Ebu Gogo" and say it was about 3 feet tall." And about that one skeleton doesn't prove anything....am I the only one that remembers Lucy(or whatever that ape's name was)? Please re-read what I said. I wasn't disputing the article or the findings of the scientists involved. I was merely giving an anecdote about a situation in the past where a few non-standard individuals were thought to be definitive of the entire group. this is actually a source of great controversy in anthropology. just for instance, Australopithicus is usually divided into two sub groups, gracile and robustus, but since there haven't been many complete skeletons found, some researchers think that robustus and gracile are actually just one species and the difference a result of sex dimorphism. kind of how if you saw the skeletons of a male and female gorrila you might think they were two distinct species because of the large size differences. And then there's this whole other group calle homo archaic and they don't fit in anywhere.. some have chimp like features, some look almost like homo sapiens. etc, but they're all from around the same time period. With this stuff.. which many scientists consider a "soft" science.. it's best to take findings with a grain of salt.. you'd be surprised how much evidence just gets ignored so that people's pet theories will make more sense... I'm not talking about the whole evolution versus creationism thing.. even within evolution.. like washburn's idea that multiple homo sapiens evolved seperate from one another and how that explains the various races, or how some people think that homo sapiens either evolved in the American continents or came MUCH earlier than is currently accepted because of tool and skeletal findings in Mexico... blah blah blah. Quote
Bad Mother Focker Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I found a map to the archaeology site if you guys want to visit the dig... http://www.ooblick.com/text/tomordor/ Quote
Anubis Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I say go on the superscience thread! Give me an excuse to keep up with popular science. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.