Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Homo floresiensis - advanced brain features

  1. #1 Homo floresiensis - advanced brain features 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    172
    Scientists (neanderthal ones) claimed that of course since the brain of the hobbit was small it was naturally dumb and disabled. Shakes head.

    "What we have is a little tiny brain that has four features that you can see with your eyes that are advanced and distributed from front to middle to back," Falk said. "In other words, this thing appears to be globally rewired. Those are really advanced features. They're not like humans, they're not like anything."

    I thought that was interesting.

    http://www.livescience.com/1282-hobbit-declared-species-debate-continues.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by emilito View Post
    Scientists (neanderthal ones) claimed that of course since the brain of the hobbit was small it was naturally dumb and disabled. Shakes head.
    Please provide a citation from a peer reviewed research article that demonstrates your unsupported assertion that scientists claimed Homo floresiensis was "dumb and disabled".


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by emilito View Post
    Scientists (neanderthal ones) claimed that of course since the brain of the hobbit was small it was naturally dumb and disabled. Shakes head.
    Please provide a citation from a peer reviewed research article that demonstrates your unsupported assertion that scientists claimed Homo floresiensis was "dumb and disabled".
    I couldn't retreive the original article written by these scientists but it bashed the hobbit's capacity for intelligence in many ways. It has also been seen by others in the hobbit forum. However here is another article I found that saw the same things.

    There has been some speculation that the stone tools found with it were actually made by Homo sapiens, mainly because it is hard to believe a creature with such a small brain could make such sophisticated stone tools. There is no other evidence in support of this, however, and if it were not for the small brain size, there would be no hesitation about assuming floresiensis made the tools because of the close association between the tools and the fossils. The same tools are found through the entire deposit (from 90,000 to 13,000 years ago) and, interestingly, they are not like any stone tools made by Homo erectus.

    Homo floresiensis: the Hobbit

    It's funny too because when you think of how small a bee's brain is and all it does! It even has rituals to prevent infestation in their hives where they will stop an infected bee before entering the hive and rough him up in from of the other bees, shaking him up and knocking off the mites. They could bite them off and crush them which they often do, but no they rough him up and show the other bees. The other bees then begin group cleaning rituals and pass on the trait to other bees so they can learn. Bees can even detect the larvae hidden inside of young cells, and remove them before hatching, implementing cleaning and contamination procedures. When did humans begin hygiene rituals and learn decontamination understanding? When did they learn to recognize how to prevent infestations? Did they have big brains or little brains then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    So, the researchers did not describe the hobbits as "dumb and disabled". This was emotional and misleading vocabulary you chose to use to support your agenda. Do you think that is appropriate behaviour on a science forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    So, the researchers did not describe the hobbits as "dumb and disabled". This was emotional and misleading vocabulary you chose to use to support your agenda. Do you think that is appropriate behaviour on a science forum?
    Not really. to me, an able bodied being that can use use simple tools sees the statement of saying a hobbit could not is very much defined in my words as being very much disabled, as well as dumb compared to most standards. They assumed the hobbit was too dumb to use basic tools because it had a small brain. Now you want me to say sorry for it? I have offended you? I see that the very idea of intelligence being limited to the size of a brain is stupid nowadays. Very much how the scientists regard the hobbit is how they themselves are being now in truth, dumb and disabled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The OP's article states "Critics dismissed the remains as that of a human with a pathological condition called microcephalia, characterized by a small head, short stature and varying degrees of mental retardation."

    In other words, scientists doubted the first skeleton was actually a different species. They thought instead it was a Homo Sapiens, but with the condition of "microcephalia".

    That is very different from saying that they believed Florensis was its own species, but assumed it would be dumb just because it has a small brain. Clearly brain size doesn't always predict intelligence.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The OP's article states "Critics dismissed the remains as that of a human with a pathological condition called microcephalia, characterized by a small head, short stature and varying degrees of mental retardation."

    In other words, scientists doubted the first skeleton was actually a different species. They thought instead it was a Homo Sapiens, but with the condition of "microcephalia".

    That is very different from saying that they believed Florensis was its own species, but assumed it would be dumb just because it has a small brain. Clearly brain size doesn't always predict intelligence.
    If they were small people would their cells be smaller too, so maybe they still had the same number of neurons in their brains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    172
    Kojax the time lord.. i zoned out and imagined many things as i stared at your name and the article. it got me thinking and wondering how Q (star trek) must have felt when he created his first bipedal species. then i was like maybe the Q continuum is real and he created the hobbit because he likes magic and imagination and potential, and enjoyed lord of the rings as result. Maybe he thought it was insane that we thought we knew all about our history and popped an entire civilization into place in history. i imagined he thought it fitting that some in the science industry would crap themselves being many so anti-woo. I wonder if he had Gandolf teach them magic too. I can almost see Q smiling now as they named the new species cataloguing the findings.

    hobbits and the Lord of the time continuum(ring)

    i wish i had a ring like that. i wonder if there is one... where would one be, where would one hid it i wonder. Where would i hide something.. well the best place to look would be in plain sight i think. hmmm. and yet the ring can make you invisible...among other things. and yet the eye still sees you, like you are alone with the eye when it is on. so clear.. hidden..
    Last edited by emilito; October 8th, 2014 at 03:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. it is ok to disable all windows features exclude IE
    By steelcat in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 21st, 2014, 07:35 PM
  2. Google+ Features VS Facebook Features
    By David101 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 18th, 2012, 03:38 PM
  3. What geologic features indicate that plate tectonic activity
    By cyberfriend in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 09:14 AM
  4. Is homo floresiensis a person?
    By Pong in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2008, 02:26 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •