/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8995270
>So a few scraps of head, hands, and teeth with absolutely nothing else. Sorry for not believing the hasty-pasty scientists who cobbled this together.
And given that the transition from "ape" to "human" is reflected in dramatic changes in the hands (locomotion -> manipulation) and head (larger brain size, softer foods, broader diet), why would you NOT expect the morphology of the head and hands to be informative of whether something is more like a human or an ape?

>It may look almost exactly like a chimp's jaw
but that's wrong you fucking retard dot bee em pee
it's shorter and lighter than a chimp's jaw; it is apelike only in the angle of the chin, and humanlike in other respects.

>We're talking about hominids, not trilobites.
Yes, and homonids evolve even more slowly than trilobites due to a much longer generation time. Why are you so surprised a single species could persist for tens of thousands of years? After all, H. sapiens has been around for over a quarter of a MILLION years! Your ignorance of timescales isn't evidence against evolution; it is a mark of idiocy.

>>8937265
please see >>8935380
there is ample evidence of anti-science positions becoming mainstream within the GOP. do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party has been comparably co-opted?

>>8685971
>if the volume of the ocean increases by 0.000000000001% coastal cities will be doomed.
did the math and that's an extra 0.00001338 km^3 (or 13.38 million liters) of volume. since the surface area of the oceans is ~360,000,000 km^2, the total rise would be 3.72 E -14 km, or 0.372 angstroms.
this is slightly less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom. please consider what scales you're talking about before you throw out random numbers

(yes I know, the surface area of the oceans increases with sea level rise but for the purpose of this example I didn't feel like doing calculus and looking up a bunch of estimates related to coastal elevation gradients)