you must be mistaken
The earth's only 6000 years old so the poo can't be older than that
The ancient people who have long been thought to be the first humans to colonise North America were actually johnny-come-latelies, according to scientists who have comprehesively analysed the ancient fossilised poo of their predecessor Americans. The new revelations come to us courtesy of Copenhagen university, where some of the …
The earth's only 6000 years old so the poo can't be older than that
that while nearly *half* (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm) of the US adult population believes Bishop Ussher's Young Earth creationism chronology, most of them are unwilling to accept his more important (and more mainstream) Christian theology. (Or, for that matter, the bishop's more plausible history describing unicorns, King Lucius, and the creation of a second-century Christian episcopate in Britain.)
Actually the universe is only 7 years old and was created by the Great Zabu.. On that date we were all created in our current forms, complete with false memories, jobs, diverse cultures, religious beliefs, and complete back history.
Zabu has a sick sense of humour. All hail Zabu.
That joke is older than 6000 years...
It is even more ironic that neither myself or anyone I have known for my entire life has ever participated in one of these "polls".
People in the UK might get tired of it but then again they don't have school boards trying to push creationism as valid science in their schools. Lucky bastards.
Not in schools perhaps. Academies on the other hand...
In the UK the school system is derived from the Thomas Huxley tradition. Him of the 'rather be descended from a monkey' debat with Bishop Wilberforce.
In contrast a crucial court decision in the USA held that science is not covered by constitutial restrictions on teaching religion.
It is important to understand that this is not a debate about the meaning of Science (History and Philosophy of Science), or about the meaning of Religion (Comparitive Religion), it is a debate about a Legal decision and the consequences that flow from it.
Huxley regarded Darwinism as part of an alternate explanation for the big existensial questions, and argued that the new English school system should allow space for it as a third religion, alongside Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. This lead to the historic split between the govenment school system and the RC school system in England, since the Roman Catholic establishment insisted that the schools they sponsered had to include explicit RC indoctrination. He would have been appalled by the anti-scientific fundamentalism that Darwinisism descended to, but at least his school system allowed teaching competing systems of belief.
The court decsion in the USA holding that (with regard to the funding dispute) Drawinism is not Religion was perverse in itself, having no regard to modern ideas of the History and Philosophy of Science, or Comparitive Religion, the history of the development of kludges to try to fix up naive Darwinism, the dificulty getting theories like Contenential Drift or the development of single cell organisms accepted, the conflicting High School Biology theory of Evolution and the standard Palentological theory of Evolution, etc.
And, being perverse, has lead to the perverse outcome that since Science is not Religion, then (by the same standard) Religion is not Religion either.
But it is important to remember that this is a perverse Legal outcome, nothing to do with Science or Religion.
And of course it is perverse to try to use the courts to answer scientific or religious questions, but exactly the kind of thing that the courts do. As Dickens wrote -- the law is an Ass.
Actually this one we're in right now was rebooted from a backup image just over five minutes ago.
Oh yes we do - we got a bunch of creationists approved to run a school very recently.
We're on our way down the shitter right alongside you
*groan* Just when you thought that kids may well have a chance in life, these idiots come along and take the UK back several hundred years......................before long they will have them believing that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the planet!!!!!
Once again a winner, however I thought the BBC had all the rights on using the word "poo" in headlines.
...the first colonists were aliens.
Well, Clovis NM is not that far from Roswell (as US distances go), so you may be onto something ...
> ...the first colonists were aliens.
and likely illegal ones at that.
Well considering I grew up near both trust me you don't want to visit either. Not only are they dumps but they are fairly rural dumps as well.
I had the misfortune of having to go there for a sporting event and wow what a dump. Being New Mexico its roads are very poorly maintained. Being very close to West Texas there is nothing to do and nothing around for miles. I went into the one convenience store in town and wanted to get some things for the road when I noticed a few local cops were reading the riot act to some dumb yocal teen who was caught shoplifting. I went to buy the things and the hick clerk freaked out when I tried to buy it with a credit card. He was like I'm sorry we don't take those (which in America is very very unusual). "You will have to go to ATM." I was like ok where? He told me the only one in town was in the bank which was closed because it was the weekend. Didn't get my food, never been back to that crap hole and haven't missed it a bit.
Who decided to call them the Clovis? They sound like a brand of butter.
Established scientific opinion says: "I can't believe it's not Clovis.".
When I see the word Clovis mentioned, I start humming the New World Symphony and want to push a bike up a hill.
Eee, that's reet grand!
Surely that's just bread AND butter to these guys?!
Prehistoric poo -- nice alliteration, Lewis. But you missed out on "DNA droppings dating"...
Cave coprolite curtails Clovis crowd's criticism?
Does that make it human poo with the, er, producer's DNA in it, or poo from something that ate a human with the human's DNA in it? Oooh, what if a human ate another human and had a poo, which he saved for posterity, just to mess with future scientists?
and another scientist then ate that poo and ...
sorry, I've gone too far
> and another scientist then ate that poo and ...
Don't say you haven't heard of Fecal Transplants?
Sure I have. But that doesn't go in the end you eat through...
> But that doesn't go in the end you eat through...
Well, it can do. But via a tube.
The transplant site is in the upper colon, I believe -- how long a tube are we talking about here? Yeesh.
> how long a tube are we talking about here?
See the wikipedia link I posted earlier, and its cites.
So, the clovis travelled all the way from Asia to the US only to find someone had already shat in their caves.
At least they didn't have Homeland Security
So where does the pub come in? I wanted reassurance that our Clovis and earlier ancestors got pissed, made fools of themselves and woke up with heaaches.
From the Clovis folks
and their predecessor who
Were there as number 1
So Clovis is number 2
And we know all of this thanks to poo.
Wait, wait, I'm confused! Does this mean the peaceful herbivorous aborigines, whom our ancestors slaughtered with smallpox and stole land from &c. ad nauseam, were in fact just as human as we are after all? The ramifications for your local university's Ethnocultural Studies department will be severe!
You are naive. Native Americans were not peaceful, herbivorous aborigines. But, they were indeed human, i.e. they went to war with other tribes, enslaved their captives, and -- wait for it -- ate meat (yeah, buffalo most likely was not a vegetable even a thousand years ago).
Pop quiz: Name a country on this planet that was not formed by conquering those who were there before (queue Jeopardy! theme song).
And they smoked tobacco!
Whose back-pocket troll account are you?
That works well in the UK, but doesn't play so well in AUS, where your local university's Ethnocultural Studies department can point out that the local aboriginal community was NOT formed by conquering those who were there before.
Indeed, the equivilant debate in AUS is the question if first aboriginal settlers wiped out the mega-fauna (evil right-wing revisionist theory), or if the mega-fauna was wiped out by climate change (noble-savage/left-wing tree-hugger theory).
Well it just so happens there was a program on Sunday about this very thing. Their conclusion: not climate change, not the Aborigines actually eating the beasties, but the 'fire stick farming' they used changed the vegetation mix and indirectly killing off the megafauna. The lesson here is, it doesn't pay to be a fussy eater.
Poop-poking palaeontologists prove predecessors practised persistent plodding.
Well played Sir.
Have a thumb. ;o)
Archaeologists have a habit of getting to the bottom of things.
First, "Petrified poo" flows better than "fossil poo." I can't say I can attest to the quality of the darts in the prehistoric pub, but when I went to the loo, I got petrified poo all over my shoe.
Frankly, I can't imagine petrified poo flowing well at all.