Archaeologica.org

Fair enough, but I fail to see any logic that supports walking to the Andaman Islands. The other day you were on about Homo walking to the Marshall Islands. The species you were referring to were long gone before the Marshalls were occupied, and there was deep water around by the time they were occupied.
Seeming logical to you is a valid point, but the chap I mentioned argued that his support for the Aether was logical, as does Uni for his views.
Logic will carry us only so far, it has to be supported in some manner, after all, two beams of light approaching each other would lead to the logical conclusion that any impact would take place at twice the speed of light, would it not?

Roy.

Digit wrote:Fair enough, but I fail to see any logic that supports walking to the Andaman Islands.

Then see the maps that I posted about them.

The other day you were on about Homo walking to the Marshall Islands. The species you were referring to were long gone before the Marshalls were occupied, and there was deep water around by the time they were occupied.

Yeah?
When was that then?
The Pitcairn islanders, descendants of the Bounty mutineers, moved collectively to Norfolk Island, 50 years later. Perhaps the descendants of the originally migrating Denisovans settled on Sulawesi, or a Philipine island, to which they walked/waded, because they could. It was glacial max, after all. And stayed there for millennia (when, much later, the already shrinking Würm abruptly collapsed, and sea levels rose dramatically by 300 to 400 feet; perhaps in as little as a few decades). But at some point they migrated on, to the Marshalls, when something motivated them to do that (as something apparently did!).
Whether they walked/waded or boated that last stretch depends entirely on exactly when they covered that last stretch and what the conditions were then.
From what I think I know of the settling of Pacific islands by humans I'm under the strong impression that all of it happened during the holocene. Not before. So that was most probably by boat. Including the Marshalls.

Seeming logical to you is a valid point, but the chap I mentioned argued that his support for the Aether was logical, as does Uni for his views.
Logic will carry us only so far, it has to be supported in some manner, after all, two beams of light approaching each other would lead to the logical conclusion that any impact would take place at twice the speed of light, would it not?

I won't venture an opinion here, as E=mc2 is not my forte. I'm an alpha, not a beta.
The delta in me, though, tells me it's a trick question, no?

When was that then?

The subject was the new species found, remember?

I won't venture an opinion here, as E=mc2 is not my forte. I'm an alpha, not a beta.

May be not RS, but I would venture to suggest that few people are likely to support what they consider to be illogical would they?
You support the holocaust, Uni denies it, each thinks that the other is wrong, presumably for some reason that each believes is logical, agreed?
Thus logic breaks down.

Roy.

Digit wrote:I would venture to suggest that few people are likely to support what they consider to be illogical would they?

I counterventure that the vast majority would!
If it served their interests.

You are making the standard mistake to assume that what you think/feel/mean goes (or at least should go) for the majority. A.k.a. 'projection', in psychology circles.

So as your view on walking is a minority view it is therefore logical. That's illogical.
Any logic that isn't based on provable facts is supposition.
And there is still no way people walked to the Andaman Islands any more than there was nuclear war in India 10000yrs ago.

Roy.

Digit wrote:So as your view on walking is a minority view it is therefore logical.

Where did you get that from? I never said that.
Whether an argument is a minority view or not doesn't prove it's logic one way or the other.

And there is still no way people walked to the Andaman Islands any more than there was nuclear war in India 10000yrs ago.

You are entitled to your opinion.
But do tell me about that nuclear war! Yummie! Sensation!

Check back through Uni's posts, it's in there somewhere, try the Search function. I'm surprised you missed it.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But science shouldn't be about opinions of course.

Roy.

Digit wrote:science shouldn't be about opinions of course.

But it is IRL, unfortunately. More specifically about the relative weight attributed to those opinions.
Just follow the money and you'll see.

I agree.

Roy.