Re: "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" ?



Wrong newsgroup. Archaeology is literally, in its broadest sense, construction, not bones. Some like to claim tools are archaeology although reall arkies do not. In any event there is likely another sci.something group that is more appropriate because it has participants who are much more familiar with the subject. Without looking, sci.anthropology?

Tried that, didn't get anywhere for various reasons. I was looking to the North Sea, not all this anyway and it was mentioned just a few days before.

It is species, not races. Species either cannot or do not interbreed. Races are as in Two Wongs don't make a White. They are "I know it when I see it" differences but no speciation has occurred.

These ARE two completely different books.

Ahh. I've been trying to come up any of the rules with a way to follow this with arrows. e.g. Neanderthals are not people. It can be more intense, like there can only be one at any one time, OR only one ancestor to any given species. I'm just butchering this.


However "people" and 100,000 years ago in the North Sea do not go together, and certainly "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" is *&^^5%%?

Not 700,000 ago by any definition. That could only be Homo Erectus and there is no way we can declare them our kind of human. It would also have been too cold as they show no sign of a clothing technology.

There are other forms of whatdya call 'em, I don't even know if I can use the term Hominids, that are like us "people" but are not us "people" and it could be them whomever is talking about. I need a refresher on who we "people" are: and possibly the rules of lineage, something like "for every ___ there is only one ____" This would simply explain scientifically why the subject statement is impossible, and I am confused why I can be reading it all over from reputable sources.

You really need to find an anthropology newsgroup.

I was surprised to see this statement not only in this ng, but also linked from a presumably reputable site. I mean I want to be able to keep up to date on what "people" are doing, but either I don't know what "people" are or other people don't. What's up?

--
In time of war people believe lies so transparent they would not accept them
from children to ease their conscience. Think of "Iraq was involved in 9/11."
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3852
http://www.giwersworld.org a1


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" ?
    ... construction, not bones. ... Some like to claim tools are archaeology ... although reall arkies do not. ... This is actual archaeology, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" ?
    ... Some like to claim tools are archaeology although reall arkies do not. ... Archaeology is the study of the physical evidence left by human beings--including their bones. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" ?
    ... Archaeology is literally, in its broadest sense, construction, not bones. ... remember seeing maps showing the progression of "people" out of Africa which began at the very latest something like 100,000 years ago, and showing how over time the earth became populated. ... am no expert on this topic and I can only vaguely perceive any simple rules governing lineages of "people" such as the DRAHESapiens. ... scientifically why the subject statement is impossible, and I am confused why I can be reading it all over from reputable sources. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast