Re: Homo floresiensis
From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 10/29/04
- Previous message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- In reply to: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Next in thread: Joe Jefferson: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:20:21 -0500
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
> news:10o364ifdr77l74@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>I.E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>>>"Per Rønne" <spam@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
>>>news:1gmdteo.3q5e6n1qs0biaN%spam@husumtoften.invalid...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Martyn Harrison <nospam@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Two items of significance, for me, the fact that there could still be
>>>
>>>another
>>>
>>>
>>>>>intelligent species sharing the planet, obviously.
>>>>
>>>>Well, it is said that they descend from Homo erectus, a species without
>>>>the ability to speak and without the ability to think in any abstract
>>>>manner - burials of the dead is only found in species H.
>>>>neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
>>>>
>>>>Furthermore, these newly found H. floresiensis specimens [the word
>>>>"hobbit" seem to be the every-day name given to the species] had a brain
>>>>at only 1/3 of H. sapiens. I wouldn't call such a species sentient or
>>>>intelligent.
>>>>--
>>>>Per Erik Rønne
>>>
>>>
>>>Your assumption can be correct. No doubts about that. But I guess we have
>>>to
>>>realise that we H. sapiens aren't believed to use 1/3 of our brain's
>>>capacity.... thus it's difficult to say which size of brain is needed for
>>>intelligence to be possible to exist....
>>>
>>
>>Inger,
>>
>>That business about our using only some fraction of our brain capacity is
>>not true or useful. It's an urban myth, and is debunked here:
>>
>>http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
>>
>>In modern humans, brain size among geniuses varies between about 1000cc
>>and 1800cc. The same applies among the other end of the intelligence
>>curve. Brain size is not all that diagnostic of intelligence among us.
>>It may not be among H.f. either. Let's wait to see what their material
>>culture (you know, archaeology, like what we're supposed to be discussing
>>on this ng, not that you could tell) looks like.
>
>
> we had some discussion around the department today about this. the item of
> interest to our paleo/geoarch guy is how they arrived at their dates; the
> chair wants to see more about the assemblage; and our cultural guy is just
> happy to have something else to discuss besides the AAA meeting move.
Yes. It is really, really interesting ARCHAEOLOGY.
>
> i for one am happy to see a topic arise here that has nothing to do with...
> well, lets just say i'm happy to have a new topic. ;-)
Yes. It is really, really interesting ARCHAEOLOGY.
We should probably stretch first :-).
-- Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
- Previous message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- In reply to: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Next in thread: Joe Jefferson: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
