About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
klr wrote:No sign of a repeat next weekend, not that I can see. It'll come around again ... sometime.
Yeah. Probably on Eden or something.
I'm sure it'll be on the net somewhere in 2-3 days.
It's on the BBC iPlayer now - just set up a UK proxy...
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
klr wrote:No sign of a repeat next weekend, not that I can see. It'll come around again ... sometime.
Yeah. Probably on Eden or something.
I'm sure it'll be on the net somewhere in 2-3 days.
It's on the BBC iPlayer now - just set up a UK proxy...
Oh yeah. Like I know how to do that.
Actually, I was trying to find one but couldn't - sorry. I am sure that you can ask around. If it is a web-based proxy, you just have to enter the URL in a box and you go there - but through the proxy site - and it tricks the BBC into thinking you are British. There are loads of US based proxies - and plenty of pay-site UK ones - there must be free ones too - try tech forums.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
Interesting programme. I hope they verified that fossil properly, I really, really do. If it's a hoax it would be without doubt one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of science. Not knowing the full provenance of the artefact i.e . not knowing in detail who found it, when and where would worry me shitless. Also the people examining it didn't take it out of its surrounding material. So who did? Were they a professional palaeontologists or just a relic hunter. Where was it for the 25 years between it's discovery and sale? Suppose it is a very, very clever hoax and after a few year's it gets outed? The scientists sooo wanted it to be real. Lots of bad feelings abut this, totally irrational I know.
CJ wrote:Interesting programme. I hope they verified that fossil properly, I really, really do. If it's a hoax it would be without doubt one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of science. Not knowing the full provenance of the artefact i.e . not knowing in detail who found it, when and where would worry me shitless. Also the people examining it didn't take it out of its surrounding material. So who did? Were they a professional palaeontologists or just a relic hunter. Where was it for the 25 years between it's discovery and sale? Suppose it is a very, very clever hoax and after a few year's it gets outed? The scientists sooo wanted it to be real. Lots of bad feelings abut this, totally irrational I know.
It's not just you CJ I'm left with a nagging doubt about it too .
CJ wrote:Interesting programme. I hope they verified that fossil properly, I really, really do. If it's a hoax it would be without doubt one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of science. Not knowing the full provenance of the artefact i.e . not knowing in detail who found it, when and where would worry me shitless. Also the people examining it didn't take it out of its surrounding material. So who did? Were they a professional palaeontologists or just a relic hunter. Where was it for the 25 years between it's discovery and sale? Suppose it is a very, very clever hoax and after a few year's it gets outed? The scientists sooo wanted it to be real. Lots of bad feelings abut this, totally irrational I know.
It's not just you CJ I'm left with a nagging doubt about it too .
Skeptics? Here?
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
CJ wrote:Interesting programme. I hope they verified that fossil properly, I really, really do. If it's a hoax it would be without doubt one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of science. Not knowing the full provenance of the artefact i.e . not knowing in detail who found it, when and where would worry me shitless. Also the people examining it didn't take it out of its surrounding material. So who did? Were they a professional palaeontologists or just a relic hunter. Where was it for the 25 years between it's discovery and sale? Suppose it is a very, very clever hoax and after a few year's it gets outed? The scientists sooo wanted it to be real. Lots of bad feelings abut this, totally irrational I know.
It's not just you CJ I'm left with a nagging doubt about it too .
Confirmation bias is a dangerous beastie. Scientific method is supposed to prevent it but we all know that things sneak through from time to time. Scientists ignore anomalies, approximate in the more convenient direction and even downright lie from time to time. I really hope that is not the case here. We all know how fundies are prone to seizing on a single spurious result as evidence that science is WRONG.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
CJ wrote:Interesting programme. I hope they verified that fossil properly, I really, really do. If it's a hoax it would be without doubt one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of science. Not knowing the full provenance of the artefact i.e . not knowing in detail who found it, when and where would worry me shitless. Also the people examining it didn't take it out of its surrounding material. So who did? Were they a professional palaeontologists or just a relic hunter. Where was it for the 25 years between it's discovery and sale? Suppose it is a very, very clever hoax and after a few year's it gets outed? The scientists sooo wanted it to be real. Lots of bad feelings abut this, totally irrational I know.
I had these thoughts as well, but I doubt there's anything to be worried about. Eminent scientists from various fields would not have put their reputation on the line unless they were completely satisfied it was kosher. Also, I've yet to see any suggestion in the press that it could be anything other than completely genuine. Very likely it just never entered the program makers minds to address any concerns people might have on this point, because they didn't perceive it to be an issue. Time spent explaining how the fossil was dated and verified would have eaten into the time needed to address the main points of the program, as in what all this means in terms of primate evolution.
By all accounts, the Messel Pit really is something out of the ordinary:
Hoisted on his own petard ...............He accuses scientists of finding transitional creatures because we look for them ,then he says
that there can be no transitional creatures , because he does not believe in evolution ?
So he starts out by saying that he WILL not believe ANY evidence , SO why fucking bother with a ten min talk about why THIS example
is not transitional ?
mrenutt4 wrote:Hoisted on his own petard ...............He accuses scientists of finding transitional creatures because we look for them ,then he says
that there can be no transitional creatures , because he does not believe in evolution ?
So he starts out by saying that he WILL not believe ANY evidence , SO why fucking bother with a ten min talk about why THIS example
is not transitional ?