Were homo floriensis human?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:59 pm

Thanks to Mightor for bringing attention to this story...

"The remains of a tiny and hitherto unknown species of human that lived as recently as 13,000 years ago have been discovered on an Indonesian island."

" Examination of the remains shows members of the species stood just 1 metre tall and had a brain no bigger than a grapefruit.

A handful of stone tools from the same period were also found in the caves, along with the bones and teeth of several dwarf stegodons, an ancestor of the modern elephant. Other animal remains, including rats, bats and fish, show signs that they were cooked around the time H. floresiensis inhabited in the caves."

Quotes from New Scientist.com

OK, for me this is about as big as the first moon landing! I would just love to hear the creationist explanation for this one.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:30 pm

The question of "were they human" forces us to define human, or perhaps re-define it. Based on archaeological obervations, Flores Man had some human features, and some pre-human features:

Flores Man walked upright, made stone tools, built fires and worked together to hunt large game, yet sported a grapefruit-sized brain about a quarter the size of the brains of modern humans. Its brain capacity and stature are more in line with a pre-human species that lived in Africa more than 3 million years ago, but other features, like large eye sockets and small front teeth, put the creature in the more modern Homo family.

I would hesitate to postulate further if only because this information is very fresh right now, and a hoax is not out of the question. The remains claim would have to be verified by others before we could start seriously discussing the implications. Other dwarf animal skeletons found on Flores makes me skeptical about this claim for a number of reasons.

That said, speculation leads us in many different directions, including the idea that there could have been other species besides humans who could use tools, cook their food, etc. On the other hand, if, as the above article suggests, this race of humans experienced natural selection for dwarfism or something like that, then we would really have to model how the human species interacted with its environment in pre-civilization.

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:15 pm

I would have to say that they are not human. Just because they share some anatomical characteristics and lived near humans does mean that they are human. Homo neanderthalensis shared some anatomical features and lived side by side human populations but most scholars say that it was not a subspecies of homo sapiens. I don't see how these little critters are any different other than the fact that they are small.

Mightor · Post by **Mightor** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:55 pm

Mightor say they as human as Mightor, but more puny.

Mightor say so far their Genus name Homo and all Homos human.

Mightor say these puny humans are Homos and they should be proud to be Homos.

Mightor is funny.

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:04 pm

Those hobbits near the Brandywine river definitely are queer.

*EDIT*Submitted too soon there, crazy preview button.

Anyways I think we should wait a bit until there has been enough time to check out all the details before we jump to conclusions either way.

2 and 92 · Post by **2 and 92** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:52 pm

“Human” is a very loose term…

Are they Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern human species)? I would guess that they are not.

Are they a subgroup of Homo Sapiens in general? That is a close call, I am not sure with the evidence available at this time.

Are they in the classification of Homo? Yes.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:04 pm

2 and 92 wrote:

“Human” is a very loose term…

Yes, in this instance it is. Although they aren't homo sapiens, they seem to be like us in many ways, not least of which are their behaviours as inferred from their tools. I guess I'm looking for the christian perspective on this question. How much like us does floriensis need to be to be considered human? They seem to belong to our 'kind', to use the biblical term. Are they descended from Adam? Do they have souls? Did Jesus die for their sins? Or, should they be dismissed as apes or deformities?

2 and 92 · Post by **2 and 92** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:34 am

Lotan wrote:2 and 92 wrote:
“Human” is a very loose term…
Yes, in this instance it is. Although they aren't homo sapiens, they seem to be like us in many ways, not least of which are their behaviours as inferred from their tools. I guess I'm looking for the christian perspective on this question.

Since I am a Christian, what I have stated is one Christian’s perspective. Christians, like all other humans, are going to have varied positions on just about any subject.

How much like us does floriensis need to be to be considered human?

Biologically or some other measure?

They seem to belong to our 'kind', to use the biblical term. Are they descended from Adam?

No one is “descended” from Adam in a literal sense. Adam is a fictional character in a morality play meant to teach a theological truth. Adam represents humanity, he is you and I and his failings to deal with life in a moral and altruistic fashion are your and my failures.

Do they have souls?

I have no idea; there is no handy soul-o-meter for me to check it out with.

Did Jesus die for their sins?

I have no idea.

Or, should they be dismissed as apes or deformities?

Why, as a Christian who believes that the entire universe is God’s creation, would I dismiss any thing in the universe and unimportant? Everything is important; everything is where it is for a reason. I do not know the reason, but as a Christian I believe there is a reason.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:25 pm

2 and 92 wrote:

Christians, like all other humans, are going to have varied positions on just about any subject.

D'oh!
You are quite right. I should have said that I was looking for the creationist perspective on this question. My bad.

2 and 92 · Post by **2 and 92** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:59 pm

Lotan wrote:2 and 92 wrote:
Christians, like all other humans, are going to have varied positions on just about any subject.
D'oh!
You are quite right. I should have said that I was looking for the creationist perspective on this question. My bad.

Please remember that creationism does not equal Christianity. Creationists are actually a minority among Christians, a very loud and sometimes obnoxious minority, but a minority none the less.

In my opinion, creationism is a dangerous cult of Christianity that does damage to the rest of the religion.