Archaeologica.org

I bet KFC is going to clone that one!

Just how many people are digging holes in the ground?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131530.htm

Roy.

Quite a few apparently.

Plus refining techniques over the last 150 years probably results in a lot less wasted effort. They know what kind of rocks and what time period will bring the most reward.


Of course, before you get too excited about that, I read on one of my boards where some Noah's-Ark-Was-Real nut was insisting that fossils are only found in sedimentary rock because it was all laid down at the time of the flood. I guess he doesn't understand what "igneous" rock means?

There is still some chlorine needed in the gene pool, old bean!

Insanity runs in families Min, perhaps athletics should have a higher priority in schools!

Roy.

Is there no end ro it I ask myself.....
...answer awaited.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... winopterus

...and again.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... _And_Birds

I'm having trouble keeping track...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... ian_Island


Roy.

I had great hopes for the winopterus, Dig. Alas, it turned out to be just one more flying reptile.


I'm reading Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth at the moment and his re-caps of evolutionary experiments show how quickly things can and have changed even in relatively short times. He keeps mentioning the hundreds of millions of years that evolution has been working its magic. It seems as if there was constant pressure to change but, we have no way of knowing if all these fossils are different "species" or not. Sometimes it seems as if that word "species" is terribly mis-used even by those who should know.

A species, by definition, is of course a group that can only produce off spring from others of the group. Determining that from a pile of bones could be a mite diificult!
Think Great Dane - Toy Poodle, genetically compatible but physically not.

Roy.

Exactly my point, Dig..... and why wouldn't it also apply to HE/HNS/HSS?


Perhaps these are merely arbitrary designations as well?

All I'll say is that the shape of the bones certainly wouldn't deny it, so they should not be used to suggest it wasn't possible, again a case of reading too much into the available evidence I think.

Roy.