Comments on: New Aegyptopithecus zeuxis Find

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:07:09 +0000

Dogu4- I see what you mean about what you were saying before. I also think it is interesting that scientists often have assumed that skulls were of individuals with genetic conditions, the “hobbits” you mentioned being a very good example of this. Sometimes, I suppose one could get the feeling that these scientists maybe point to that possibility too much, as if nature DID favor these types of skulls, which is of course not true. Interesting that that possibility wasn’t brought up here, though. I personally think it is something to keep in mind when looking at any sort of specimen where there is only one sample to go on. I look forward to seeing if any others turn up that can be studied and compared.

I am totally with you on greater precision with scientific news offered to the public.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:44:16 +0000

I get what ya mean there, mystery man, and of course I don’t seriously think that you or anyone really thinks fossilization favors the debilitated in any meaningfull way. The entire misunderstanding may be an unintended but unavoidable artifact of the process of expository writing for a mass audience, since it’s not likely the “science writer” (ususally someone who is good in english, likes science stuff, but sucks at math, like me) wants to bog down the reader with details on which the writers themselves barely have a handle and it is part of my personal campaign for greater precision in the public forum on science in general.

I guess in regards to our little ancestral cousin here, having a few more examples will in all likelihood flesh out the story a bit better,and I’m sure we’d all look forward to that.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:03:15 +0000

Dogu4- Right. I also find it interesting that so much confidence can be put into what was found with this skull. I of course don’t think fossilization favors developmental diseases, but it is possible that this particular skull is not necessarily representative of the species as a whole. I find it interesting that based on this one intact sample, it can be assumed that it is an accurate portrayal for the brain size of an entire species. I suppose that the lack of other intact skulls leaves no room for a comparative analysis, but it goes to show how much weight is put on a very limited sampling of the population.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Wed, 16 May 2007 02:54:34 +0000

Every time a skull is discovered it is, apparently, forced to fit into human evolution. Most are found, after intensive study, to fit only into monkeys or apes.

Please, if you are absolutely sure, and if you can absolutely prove the the theory of evolution by your discovery, then can you scientifically show that your discovery fits that man is descended from apes. Until then you have nothing more than a different type of ape skull (at best).

Using the same methodology, man and bigfoot are the same species (or close) by inference and speculation.

I’m saying simply this: prove it. If not, all the theories in the world won’t help but will only muddy the issue.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 15 May 2007 23:27:08 +0000

Loren, I can go along with the significance of the anomlaously large visual cortex in relation to the miniscule brain because supposedly one of the reasons for our larger brains was the need to develop such complexities as enhanced visual acuity, etc..

But what doesn’t make sense to me though is the automatic assumption it’s one of our ancestors.

If in 28 million years from now an advanced race of super intelligent space wombat archaeologists return from the colonies on the moon they used to survive nuclear conflagration on Earth, and they find the skull of a marmoset with a titchy cavity where its brain was, does that mean creatures with larger skulls and larger brain cavities like ours didn’t exist at the same time?

Just a thought.

O, and just to be certain, Loren - you and Craig and everyone else who visits this blog are all super intelligent space wombats like me too, right?

Right?

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:59:09 +0000

Mystery Man. That’s an interesting question. What I find interesting is that is comes up so often. It was just a scant year and a half ago that the Indonesian head of the state anthro lab suggested the same thing for the recent hobbit skull(s). I seem to recall, of course, the very first neaderthal skulls found and displayed were presumed to be the skull of a “crimean” (read that as asiatic, i.e.: less intelligent) idiot. Fossils are so rarely created in nature, what reason would there be for nature to favor the fossilization of those with developemental diseases?

It is interesting also that despite the new skull’s being only half the size it was determined to be the same species. I think that reveals that the use of the term “species” is a bit different when we’re discussing fossils of lineages no longer extant.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:26:04 +0000

Very fascinating article. I wonder how likely it is, though, that the specimen that was whole enough to be CT scanned had such a small brain due to some individual genetic condition?

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:45 +0000

He may be your relative, but it’s not mine. Missing link is extremely doubtful on such a paucity of evidence, in any event it makes for a good debate.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:20:06 +0000

Interesting find! Thanks for that.

It does underscore how tenuous our understanding of brain size and intelligence is.