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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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. 😏
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". 😏
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.
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🙂
20 Feb '12 05:032 edits
8,000 yo stone age boatmakers!, underwater now:
Back to Top