Go back
8,000 yo stone age boatmakers!, underwater now:

8,000 yo stone age boatmakers!, underwater now:

Science

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53321
Clock
16 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-17049295

Amazing find in 12 meters of water, a huge settlement where they were making boats 8000 years ago!

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
20 Feb 12
2 edits

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-17049295

Amazing find in 12 meters of water, a huge settlement where they were making boats 8000 years ago!
The woman claims that in 6000 B.C. the sea was not there. The video makes
no claim that boat making was taking place 8000 years ago. The sea may
not have been there in 5000 or 4000 B.C. either. She is only guessing.

P.S. She could have said the sea was not there in 16000 B.C. and I would
agree, but that proves nothing about when the boats were made. I guess
I should be careful about quoting someone saying B.C. That might be
considered too spiritual.

Kewpie
Felis Australis

Australia

Joined
20 Jan 09
Moves
390195
Clock
20 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Looking for other references to ancient boatmaking, I came across this page:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

The information is more than two years old, but I missed out on hearing about it then. I found it fascinating, as it seems to support the theory that humans are not necessarily descended from apes, but rather than humans and apes share a common ancestor. Has anyone seen any further references to this species named Ardipithecus ramidus ?

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
20 Feb 12

Originally posted by Kewpie
Looking for other references to ancient boatmaking, I came across this page:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

The information is more than two years old, but I missed out on hearing about it then. I found it fascinating, as it seems to support the theory that ...[text shortened]... tor. Has anyone seen any further references to this species named Ardipithecus ramidus ?
The missing link is still missing. 😏

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
20 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kewpie
I found it fascinating, as it seems to support the theory that humans are not necessarily descended from apes, but rather than humans and apes share a common ancestor. Has anyone seen any further references to this species named Ardipithecus ramidus ?
Humans are apes (Great Apes, to be specific) and are descended from apes. They are not descended from any other currently living species of ape, but share a common ancestor with them.

Humans are also Monkeys, Primates, Mammals, Vertebrata, Chordata, Animals, and fit within various other classifications. You'll notice that some people will reject the Monkey and Ape classifications but accept that we are Mammals. Just goes to show how illogical people can be when their ego is involved.

Shallow Blue

Joined
18 Jan 07
Moves
12477
Clock
20 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kewpie
Looking for other references to ancient boatmaking, I came across this page:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

The information is more than two years old, but I missed out on hearing about it then. I found it fascinating, as it seems to support the theory that ...[text shortened]... tor. Has anyone seen any further references to this species named Ardipithecus ramidus ?
That's nothing new whatsoever. Zebras are also not descended of horses, but share a common ancestor with them; whales are not descended of hippos but share a common ancestor with them; and budgerigars are not descended from Tyrannosaurus Rex but share a common ancestor with them. This is, I repeat, nothing new to any biologist, or to anyone who has an honest (honest, Hindsey!) interest in evolution.
There never was a missing link. The missing link is not a link at all. Men and apes share many ancestors, but only a fundamentalist nutjob believes that evolution is supposed to make men descend from chimpanzees, and demand a missing link between them.

Richard

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53321
Clock
20 Feb 12

Originally posted by RJHinds
The missing link is still missing. 😏
Even if we found one you wouldn't believe it so what's the difference?

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
20 Feb 12

Originally posted by twhitehead
Humans are apes (Great Apes, to be specific) and are descended from apes. They are not descended from any other currently living species of ape, but share a common ancestor with them.

Humans are also Monkeys, Primates, Mammals, Vertebrata, Chordata, Animals, and fit within various other classifications. You'll notice that some people will reject the Mo ...[text shortened]... that we are Mammals. Just goes to show how illogical people can be when their ego is involved.
Humans are not even classified as monkeys by the scientist, you dumbo. 😏

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
20 Feb 12
2 edits

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
That's nothing new whatsoever. Zebras are also not descended of horses, but share a common ancestor with them; whales are not descended of hippos but share a common ancestor with them; and budgerigars are not descended from Tyrannosaurus Rex but share a common ancestor with them. This is, I repeat, nothing new to any biologist, or to anyone who has an h ...[text shortened]... pposed to make men descend from chimpanzees, and demand a missing link between them.

Richard
You are confusing ancestory with common traits. What is common in all
life forms is the designer. The animals that have a common ancestor are
within the same "Kind". A monkey is a not the same "Kind" as man. It
does not make any difference if man decides to classify them within the
same category because of common traits they are still different "kinds".
One "kind" of animal can not reproduce an animal outside its "kind". 😏

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53321
Clock
20 Feb 12

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are confusing ancestory with common traits. What is common in all
life forms is the designer. The animals that have a common ancestor are
within the same "Kind". A monkey is a not the same "Kind" as man. It
does not make any difference if man decides to classify them within the
same category because of common traits they are still different "kinds".
One "kind" of animal can not reproduce an animal outside its "kind". 😏
That would be 'species', not 'kind'. That is what makes species, species.

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
21 Feb 12
1 edit

Originally posted by sonhouse
That would be 'species', not 'kind'. That is what makes species, species.
So a species can not mate with a different species either? I was not aware of
that. If so, I guess that would be the same is a kind.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53321
Clock
22 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by RJHinds
So a species can not mate with a different species either? I was not aware of
that. If so, I guess that would be the same is a kind.
You do realize a goat is a different species from bovines, right? There is no such thing as a govine or a boatπŸ™‚

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
23 Feb 12

Originally posted by sonhouse
You do realize a goat is a different species from bovines, right? There is no such thing as a govine or a boatπŸ™‚
I don't need to know that. 😏

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
10 Dec 06
Moves
8528
Clock
23 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Even if we found one you wouldn't believe it so what's the difference?
I gave you the thumbs down, dont egg it on. You constantly complain about these people, and here you are giving him treats, what gives?

Thats was a rhetorical question.

Kewpie
Felis Australis

Australia

Joined
20 Jan 09
Moves
390195
Clock
23 Feb 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

If people didn't feed the troll, maybe it would give up. You can't reason with trolls, they're incapable of rational thought.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.