Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Feb '12 13:05
    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!
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Feb '12 05:03 / 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.
  3. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    20 Feb '12 07:15
    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 ?
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Feb '12 11:28
    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.
  5. 20 Feb '12 12:13
    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.
  6. 20 Feb '12 16:13
    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
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Feb '12 16:56
    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?
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Feb '12 17:24
    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.
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Feb '12 17:33 / 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".
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Feb '12 21:54
    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.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Feb '12 01:46 / 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.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '12 22:09
    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 boat
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    23 Feb '12 00:32
    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 boat
    I don't need to know that.
  14. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    23 Feb '12 04:00
    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.
  15. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    23 Feb '12 04:38
    If people didn't feed the troll, maybe it would give up. You can't reason with trolls, they're incapable of rational thought.