homo floresensis

Post Reply New Topic

Fascinating subject. To think that this relative was alive near the beginning of recorded history.... (well, "recorded" is defined loosely here).

I wonder what the DNA tests showed. I haven't been able to find the results yet. How closely related was the species to us?

I wonder what their social systems and language were like. I believe only modern humans painted on cave walls and etc, so only modern humans would have developed written language. However I read that it was suspected that Neanderthals had religion (because they buried their dead with their tools, after wrapping the tools up in a tight bundle) in which case they certainly have verbal language.

Although really unlikely, it would be really cool if some of them were still around. Imagine meeting and talking to one of these poeple (yes people) at the pub. I'm sure they'd have a lot to say. [If they are still around, it probably would have been next to impossible to find them until a few decades ago. Early Homo sapiens sapiens (doubly wise human) are suspected for the mass genocide (xenocide? what do you call mass murder of an entire species?) of other hominids around the time of the Ice Age. So any survivors would likely have had to have learned to evade us to the point that we wouldn't be able to see them naturally. Modern technology tips the scale back in our favor though, should anyone bother to try to look. There are also those that suspect Homo sapiens sapiens were better liars, though this is next to unprovable for the obvious reasons. If it is true, then it would imply that modern humans have more advanced communication and social systems - something that is equally hard to prove or disprove.]

And so this thread isn't completely off-topic, I wonder how they would score on the Aspie quiz. Would other hominids be closer to NTs or Aspies?

Jen Birch says in her book that she believes that, since we know that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred, that autism is caused in people who have more Neanderthal background - she is quick to point out that this doesn't mean that autistics are base people or anything - just different . . . she thinks that this explains our different processing and general enjoyment of nature . . .

It seems to me that after this many years any inital genetic features from two different species would be whittled down enough that they would not produce that much of a neurological difference - but it is an interesting idea . . .

Apparently it would also explain why I am such a terrible liar . . .

I read an extensive article on rdos.net that elaborated on that theory as well as tried to present proof.

However, I find a flaw in a major premise: autistics seem to have as much trouble communicating with each other as they do with NTs. (Obviously they can, and when they do they also find that they relate to each other better.) But an aspie probably has as much trouble reading the body language of another aspie as that of reading an NT.

Also, the fact that HFAs seem to have a general trend of high performance IQs and low verbal IQs while aspies are the other way around implies that both groups are not just different in terms of body language or social skill but different in a cognitive sense as well.

Another things is that Neanderthals are unlikely to have raised dogs. Has nothing to do with the topic, but they wouldn't need dogs because they have a highly developed sense of smell.

I should clarify. I don't mean that the Neanderthal theory is wrong. If NT Homo sapiens sapiens had better verbal ability and body language, while the Neanderthals had almost none, it is very easy to see how the Neanderthals could have been taken over by them.

The theory is plausible. I would just find it suprising that an entire species of social hunters would have underdeveloped communication skills. But they would have had less competition as well (unlike hss who had to outcompete other hominids in Africa before migrating out) so it is definitely a possiblility.

we are all different that fits with the theory because we wouldn’t all have all the same geans as any one if this theory is true every one with red hair has at least one of the Neanderthal geans this would also explain why a lot of NT have traits of AS particle family members and why there are such a cluster of closely related disorders with blurry lines and over lapping. so we would all be affected differently

not none, different

::still rolls eyes at Neandertal theory:: Good lord, we're human. Give it up! Autism is likely a newer development, as in the last couple thousand years.

Anywho, yeah, I've gone on all about the lil' floresiensises. I don't know if they've done any DNA testing. Not even sure if they can. But I read that some scientists suggest they are a long-lived offshoot of Homo erectus (or was that Habilis? meh) because of the area in which they were found. I don't think Neandertals and Sapiens got over to the Indes until much later.

Some of the bones are supposedly only 13,000 years old. Though some of the natives say they might have died out only 500 years ago. Some say they never died out at all.

Despite extensive research, I find that you are right. It is highly unlikely that all the genes for the innate neanderthal socal abilities would make their way into a single hss - but the few genes that they have could interfere with otherwise hss social development. (Such genes would likely be polygenetic so there would be many genes working together to create the necessary behavior.)

I still have doubts on this theory since there is no way to show that Neanderthals did in fact have a completely different way to socialize that is rooted in genetics.


not none, different[/quote]

Well, could be none.

I think I heard that Neanderthals were likely too genetically different from HSS to interbreed smoothly - perhaps they could have hybridized but the hybrids might have been sterile, and a possible hybrid was once found but he died at the age of about 4. However, I've also heard from someone else that HSS and Asian Homo erectus or their descendants might have interbred, which would make Asians rather than African San have the "oldest genes." Who knows, though?

It's thought that Neanderthals likely spoke in some way, but they were less gregarious, preferring to stick to their small extended families rather than living in large tribes, and were probably more creatures of habit, retreating to the last remaining patches of familiar forest habitat instead of thinking to adapt to a new one and not taking up highly nomadic lifestyles like HSS did. (It's speculated that their unadventurousness did them in.) The latter things sound a little autistic-like. But that doesn't mean that the genes for autism-spectrum conditions didn't arise independently in HSS anyway and allow for the birth of exquisite engineers in thriving tribes.

No they didn't. Or at least, it's extremely unlikely. I thought that DNA tests have already shown that Neanderthals are a distinct branch and not our anscestors. That makes the interbreeding hypothesis unlikely.

I have great sympathy for them anyway. Compared to every animal except us, they were geniuses. I sort of wonder what life would have been like had they survived.

The most likely candatate is Homo erectus, others say it might have been the species that Lucy belonged. Others say they may have been hss but this last one is really unlikely.

The bones were young enough to not be fossilized. So DNA testing should be possible.

But the bones were contaminated with hss DNA I believe.