Earth 'could collide with Mars'?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Did you bother to read the article from post #18?
Morwood has overestimated the water crossing ability of H. erectus according to Colin Groves of Australian National University in Canberra, and I agree with him. Unknown land bridges are a better explanation. The area is renowned for volcanic geological activity.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Yes I did. The article makes it clear that opinion is divided, but that there is definite support for the notion that homo erectus could cross the ocean. There is no reason, apart from anthropomorphism (sensuo stricto) to doubt seafaring capabilties of homo erectus. If you wish to dispute it you need to come up with some counter evidence.
I had not but now have and see how extreme is your "cherry picking." True, "even unknown land bridge" is mentioned in the earlier speculations as an unlikely possibility after suggesting that the crossing was by boats / water craft like rafts. I.e. early investigators said the crossing could EVEN be by unknown land bridge.
Then, nearer the end of the article, based on more recent and careful work you find:
"All this has convinced those who have worked at Mata Menge that H. erectus was there--and that they arrived by raft or other watercraft. Even when the sea level was at its lowest, these humans would have had to cross 19 kilometers of water to get to Flores from the closest island of Sumbawa--after a 25-kilometer crossing over treacherous waters between Bali and Sumbawa. And an even longer crossing would be needed if they came from Sulawesi to the north, says Morwood. "You've got to be talking about watercraft," he says.
That has broad implications for H. erectus in Asia and beyond: "They were intelligent, thinking animals. Once you take into account the use of watercraft and their rapid radiation out of Africa, you have to rethink H. erectus. They must have had language for the collective effort needed to achieve this sea travel. …"
I.e. because H. erectus must have crossed by water craft, the entire understanding of their language and tool making skill has recently been up graded.
SUMMARY:
The link in post 18 does not support your POV - it contradicts it!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
BillyT, you will see I have said much the same thing. common_sense_spurner either cherry picks, or is too blind to understand that his citations do not support his case. I would be embarrassed to offer such contrary evidence in support of my views, but clearly it does not bother CSS in the slightest.
Yes, and the article has absolutely nothing to do with your absolutely nonsense hypothesis. One person would rather attribute the presence of H. erectus on Flores to hypothesized volcanic activity that miraculously created a land bridge across a plate boundary versus as opposed to granting some level of intelligence to H. erectus. Even then, he did not propose something as completely and utterly stupid as a planet swinging by that somehow raised a land bridge but did not leave any other traces of its passage.
Perhaps common_sense_seeker is basically correct, but just does not understand that "land bridge" was the name of the extra-terrestrial space ship that ferried H. erectus across the open ocean waters to Flories.
Yes, that must be it - this is the first hard proof the Earth has been visited by ETs.
H. erectus could not have been as capable as our ancestors - building rafts and speaking any language.
--------------------
PS
I am sciforum’s self appointed “Sheriff of Nonsense,” but the work load here at Sciforum is getting too great. I need a couple of deputies. Both of you seem qualified. The first to volunteer will be “Sheriff of Nonsense, deputy 1” and the second, if both do, is of course is “Sheriff of Nonsense, deputy 2” You are already doing the job, for years; why not claim the title?
Also as you may know, I am also the editor of Communications Relating All Complex Karma Propositions Or Theories, which is sometime known as the "CRACKPOT news." We are understaffed now so if you spot any posters starting threads like:
DRZion’s “ambient heat conversion” (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2274884&postcount=1)
Please direct my attention to it. The CRACKPOT news usually extends (for a small fee and your referral cut, of course) and invitation to the OP author to publish with world-wide internet exposure, but not always – we require a high standard of nonsense, difficult to achieve.
Yes, that must be it - this is the first hard proof the Earth has been visited by ETs.
H. erectus could not have been as capable as our ancestors - building rafts and speaking any language.
--------------------
PS
I am sciforum’s self appointed “Sheriff of Nonsense,” but the work load here at Sciforum is getting too great. I need a couple of deputies. Both of you seem qualified. The first to volunteer will be “Sheriff of Nonsense, deputy 1” and the second, if both do, is of course is “Sheriff of Nonsense, deputy 2” You are already doing the job, for years; why not claim the title?
Also as you may know, I am also the editor of Communications Relating All Complex Karma Propositions Or Theories, which is sometime known as the "CRACKPOT news." We are understaffed now so if you spot any posters starting threads like:
DRZion’s “ambient heat conversion” (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2274884&postcount=1)
Please direct my attention to it. The CRACKPOT news usually extends (for a small fee and your referral cut, of course) and invitation to the OP author to publish with world-wide internet exposure, but not always – we require a high standard of nonsense, difficult to achieve.
Last edited by a moderator:
The latest findings suggest that the ancestors of H. floresiensis was H. habilis - even earlier than H. erectus! The foot that may prove 'hobbits' existed (May 2009).
What evidence is there that H. habilis had water crossing capability? (NONE!)
I admit that a land bridge due to volcanic geological activity within the region is a lot more likely than the uplift caused by an ultra-close near miss of a massive body. It is the possibility which shouldn't be ruled out. There IS a connection with the peopling of Australia around 40,000 years ago and the geomagnetic excursion event which is firmly recorded within the ice core data. It is just about possible that an ultra-close near miss event DID occur at this time and created a temporary land bridge. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited:
That is of course anything but conclusive. One person conjectures that H. floresiensis was H. habilis. There are still some who think H. floresiensis was H. sapiens.
Basing conjectures on top of conjectures is not the best way to proceed.
Finally, some common sense. Do try to use that capability more often.
It is easily ruled out. An encounter close enough to cause geological effects would have resulted in drastic changes in the Earth's orbit as well as changes in the Earth's rotational rate and axial tilt. The signs would be everywhere, not just one place.
You are mistaking coincidence with causality. Just because two events happened to occur at about the same time does not mean they are related.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You can play the shell game with marks at the county fair. It won't work with me. Such intellectual dishonesty is best ignored since ad hominems berating it are thought unacceptable.
Ophiolite;
I noticed that you didn't comment on the FACT that the stone tools don't suggest that H .erectus (or similar) had seafaring capabilities. It is because the tools are found on land which is currently surrounded by water which has made people ASSUME that they must have! The title is totally misleading and misrepresents the facts. I've only just noticed it myself. Do you have difficulty in admitting your mistakes perhaps?
I noticed that you didn't comment on the FACT that the stone tools don't suggest that H .erectus (or similar) had seafaring capabilities. It is because the tools are found on land which is currently surrounded by water which has made people ASSUME that they must have! The title is totally misleading and misrepresents the facts. I've only just noticed it myself. Do you have difficulty in admitting your mistakes perhaps?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Listen dumbass, the facts are wholly consistent with the possession of seafaring capabilities with whichever hominid species is responsible for the tools on Flores. What I am referring to is your constant switching of goals posts and topics. This is one of three things.
1. Gross attempts to deceive the gullible that your argument still holds water when your own citations offer support for the opposite position.
2. Constrained intellectual development that prevents you understanding what is written. (In other words, you are thick.)
3. A pathological inability to admit you are talking crap.
Which is it?
1. Gross attempts to deceive the gullible that your argument still holds water when your own citations offer support for the opposite position.
2. Constrained intellectual development that prevents you understanding what is written. (In other words, you are thick.)
3. A pathological inability to admit you are talking crap.
Which is it?
Ophiolite, I feel sorry for you. How does "simple flakes and cobbles" relate to a seafaring ability??
You are employing fallacies and leaping to conclusions once again. The fallacy lies in your use of a straw man and appeal to ridicule. The invalid conclusion to which you have leapt is that the set of tools that this one small group of this hominids died with represents the full extent of the technological advancement possessed by the ancestors of that group that originally populated Flores. This ignores that the very reason why some think this small group represents a new species, H. floresiensis: Its ancestors evolved. The evolutionary pressures that made them what they were (diminutive in size and in brain capacity) may well have had adverse impacts on their intelligence.
This is simply an incorrect statement of the facts. An expert has said that there IS another possiblity; an unknown land bridge due to volcanic geological activity. The tools themselves DON'T suggest any advanced technology. It is only because the land that the tools are found on is CURRENTLY surrounded by water which has led Morwood to assume advanced capability.
I don't actually believe that this is the case for the peopling of Flores. It is the peopling of Australia 40,000 years ago which could have been via a temporary land bridge resulting from a gravitational uplift. There is some evidence of Samba deer being present on the Australian mainland. These are native to Asia and the northern islands. Did these also make boats?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Which expert? Remind me. Point me to the post where you offer a reference to peer reviewed research.
Don't give me land bridges. Unknown land bridges were the excuses for two generations of geologists to ignore the evidence for continental drift. There is no evidence for a land bridge. No sunken volcanoes here. Nothing to see. Move along.
He didn't assume it. He deduced it.
Did you know Samba deer are a pest in parts of Australia having been introduced by settlers. Do you suppose the evidence is nothing more than early remains of these Samba?
Did you know samba deer are good swimmers?
The samba deer were features of aboriginal rock art in the Kimberleys, dating to around 17,000 years ago. The author of the book concludes that seafaring ability must have been rife, the images being the product of regular visits to the northern islands. I propose that it is more likely that the distinctive images where made more in situ, the deer being the remainder of survivors who walked across a temporary land bridge some 40,000 years ago.
It should be remembered that our knowledge of the ice ages is particularly poor. The main mechanism for Earth's cooling is still a mystery. Maybe the sea levels were a lot lower than currently calculated. I also think that the treacherous currents, notorious for the region, are a major factor. Maybe there was a change in the circulation of the ocean currents for some reason? The Antarctic ice core climate data only stretches back 800,000-900,000 years. Maybe the first ice age of this cycle was a lot more severe and the water was locked up in the poles, so lowering sea levels. Maybe the treacherous currents didn't exist before this time? We can't be sure, that's all I'm saying..
We all need to keep an open mind.
It should be remembered that our knowledge of the ice ages is particularly poor. The main mechanism for Earth's cooling is still a mystery. Maybe the sea levels were a lot lower than currently calculated. I also think that the treacherous currents, notorious for the region, are a major factor. Maybe there was a change in the circulation of the ocean currents for some reason? The Antarctic ice core climate data only stretches back 800,000-900,000 years. Maybe the first ice age of this cycle was a lot more severe and the water was locked up in the poles, so lowering sea levels. Maybe the treacherous currents didn't exist before this time? We can't be sure, that's all I'm saying..
We all need to keep an open mind.