i was with the person who discovered this...we both discovered this site and he wants to keep this secret. since this is on state land just 1,000' or so beyond his 33acre land boundary. thickly overgrown and has been cleared out we wont dig in case we destroy some artifacts left behind. he is in the process of buying that chunk of land and he wants to protect it. in the 1800s, there were witches in the area arrested and hanged in the salem witch trials. was it built by them i wonder?
well, you were talking about stones....i have a question for you. what is a person supposed to do if he finds an unknown stone circle while exploring deep woods and the circle seems to be 12' - 13' in diameter? you can dig down 6' or more and there doesnt seem to be an end. no heiroglyphs or stick figures engraved but 2 stones have 2 parallel etched lines barely noticeable. 3 are leaning different directions. what is this? pagan ritual site or what? theres 8 stones. just curious thats all.
Finally something worth watching on You Tube ,I absolutely love David Attenborough and highly reccomend "The Secret Life Of Plants" to anyone who hasn't seen it.
@Pulsar89 Geeeez, Thnx, I thought he was dead, I heard last year some time. I was spewing cause I really like him. Death rumors on the Internet got me. Thnx again.
lighter material cannot float India upwards & force mountains to rise on a much larger continent. what's the humongous FORCE? if ever it foated the heavier continent would have more downward gravitational pressure than sideways pressure to hit rock & uplift 29,000 ft thousands of miles long mountain ranges. without a source of energy/force to uplift, no mountain range & no theory.
picturing in head is pleaded by preachers. not science. there MUST be consistency. does that explain the rockies & andes? the longest mountain chain in the world? over 13,000 feet. also very young after the death of dinos? nope. something happened 65 million years ago that changed everything. too many humongous events happened in a relatively very short time frame. Himalaya, Rockies, Andes & ALL the new ocean floors. the very short timeline is extremely telling. what's the FORCE?
There is one small area of land in the North West US that is the oldest continually air exposed, never submerged and pushed back above the waters. Life evolves on the edges of stability...
I'm really getting sick and tired of seeing "and I'm a mormon" commercials on any video having to do with science, secularism, skepticism, or rationality.
And train all the monks and nuns to work as/with archeologists! Their lives are mind-numbingly tedious and repetitive anyways, so they won't mind the change! In fact I think they'll enjoy it!
I propose we loot and pillage all the world's cathedrals, mosques, temples, and other pricy, useless edifices, starting with Vatican City, and use the spoils to build natural-history museums and universities! I can't think of a better way to replace religion with Science&Reason! (i can think of more peaceful ways, yeah, but they'll take too long. and are less fun)
At about 8:40 mr Attenborough names the ancestors of plants as photosynthesising and then proceeds to name the ancestors of fungi and animals who absorb nourishment from the environment directly. Then he remarks that they (the latter) would later evolve. I would like to add that plants evolved as well.
ALL OF THE PRESENT DAY OCEANS IN THE WORLD ARE (now fasten your seat belts) LESS THAN 120 MILLION YEARS OLD. ALL OF THEM. surprised? I thought so.
The continents are BILLIONS OF YEARS old. this data is taken from the US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY done by the US navy. the ocean floor map is freely available in the internet.
there is a MASSIVE CONFLICT with the data & theories. but all the scientists are avoiding that data like the plague. why?
@nayanmalig You asked why fossils are found in one place rather than another. I maintain it is because it is a lot easier - and cheaper - to LOOK in one place than the other, so that's what people are going to do. You want to fund deep-ocean palaeontology, I am sure there will be interested universities.
@demonella ALL of today's oceans are less than 120 mn yrs. today's sea floor wasn't even there before 120mn yrs ago. that's the reason oldest fossils are found on land. there's even no point looking for very old fossils on the sea floor.
@branahawk ocean floor map is freely available in the internet. just type it. I saw it months ago. also you may notice that ALL & I MEAN ALL the oldest sea life has been unearthed from the land. NOT A SINGLE billion year old found anywhere in the ocean. (as far as I know). way too much of a coincidence. even the Himalayan mountain range is also new. even the rockies. you can correct me on any of these if you know otherwise.
@nayanmalig just give me a direct link I don't have the patience to look it up. if you're talking about ocean floor being no older than that, then that's normal, due to tectonic plate convection. if you're talking about ocean WATER then I need a link.
@nayanmalig yes it's normal because the ocean floor keeps " recycling " itself so to speak, going under the crust of the earth, and lava is erupting from beneath the earth to reform itself (which is why rocks from ocean floor are young, they are mostly volcanic)... continents are too heavy for this process so they "float" on the sea bed so to speak. yes it is normal.
@nayanmalig esentially the continents are carried off by the much lighter oceanic crust beneath them, and they collide ocassionaly forming new continents or break away from each other. it's all about tectonic plate movement. again, I encourage you to read about convection :)
@branahawk heavy continents being carried by much lighter oceanic crust beneath them will make it float. but it does not give the energy or the force to raise a much larger continent to peaks more than 29000 ft. more than a hundred Himalayan peaks are over 20, 000 ft.reading the present explanations like "India began to forge northward" is very casual. There has to be a better explanation. geology like all other sciences must advance. that's my take.
@nayanmalig it does actually, if you look at it from a different timescale perspective. the himalayas grow by a few centimetres every year due to india pushing into them. it may not seem like much, but over millions of years, it adds up. and don't forget, the oceanic crust + the continents are absolutely nothing compared to the mass and density of inner earth.
@nayanmalig there's nothing casual about scientific facts, they are casual if you look them up on wikipedia or read them in a children's book, but there are *mountains* (heh, heh) of evidence to sustain these claims, you just have to read more. it's real easy to dismiss an entire discipline based on studying it for how long? 15 minutes? xD
you have to picture it in your head - the sea floor, slowly being moved upward due to to one plate pushing from beneath as it slides under another plate... sorry I can't explain better, watch a geology documentary. the proof for this? well. if you go to the himalayas and take some rocks from anywhere there, you'll find that they are mostly marine limestone - the sedimented skeletons of coral formations.
@nayanmalig i'm sorry to spam 4 comments but i notice the mistake in your reasoning (while I was making tea), so read just this one if you wish. the continents are NOT the ones rising up per se, the SEA FLOOR is being thrust upwards when 2 continents collide, therefore forming mountain chains. Other mountains are formed through volcanic erruptions - so the continents don't mysteriously rise to the sky (as far as I know :p)
@nayanmalig alright I think I figured out what you're talking about (I hope so because your way of expressing yourself is very vague). so you're saying the ocean floor ROCKS are no older than 120 million years (although most say it's 200 mill but whatever). That is true. That's also why it's highly unlikely to find any fossils on the sea floor. But do you know why that is so? That's because there are many, many, underwater volcanoes constantly spewing out new material.
@nayanmalig think of the sea floor like a conveyor belt, constantly falling underwater into the earth's crust at one end, while some sea floor gets thrust upwards when continents collide due to tectonic plate movement. just look up tectonic plate convection. so yes, it's quite possible that most - if not all - ancient marine fossils can only be found on land. It works out to our advantage, though. It would be hard to dig them up otherwise :)
@nayanmalig technically the himalayan is new in the sense that it has formed recently (and is still rising btw) and the rockies as well - but the rocks they're composed of are mainly precambrian, almost 1.8 billion years, or in the case of the rockies, cambrian/ordovician. You need to inspect the field of geology a little bit more but you're on the right path with your curiosity :) geology is a very interesting subject.
@branahawk I am no geologist but I find this very unscientific - "When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history -- and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India's northward journey".
began to forge northward????
By studying the history???
what's the force that made india surge & why ONLY India?
studying history? what has history got to do with geology & what history?
@TheMundaneMadcap ALL the oceans in the world today are LESS THAN 120 MILLION YEARS OLD! (from the US geological survey done by the navy). cannot get more accurate than that. the ocean floor map is freely available on the internet. continents are billions of years while ALL of today's oceans are less than 120 mn yrs. today's sea floor wasn't even there before 120mn yrs ago. that's the reason oldest fossils are found on land. there's even no point looking for very old fossils on the sea floor.
@nayanmalig land masses change over time and so do ocean levels and formations, some land masses (including great plains and forests) were possibly under water at some point in our 4 billion year history.
@fallen4life080 some land masses (including great plains and forests) were possibly under water at some point in our 4 billion year history. right. but the fact is that NONE of the present day oceans existed before 120 mn years ago. they are new formations that came into being billions of years after the continents formed. source - US geological survey of the ocean floors done by US navy.
@Swidhelm koran is obsessed about banning things. they ban pork, women learning, showing the face, masturbating, keeping dogs, people of other faiths to enter their mosques etc. they even banned the skin of the sausage.
@nayanmalig Oh I know. But do a search for Islam and science, you get so many fundies claiming that the koran is full of science and that there are scientific explanations of things and events long before modern science discovered these things. It's absolute bull of coarse, but doesn't stop them from making those claims.
@Faustaao It's meant as a joke. ;-) This is a great series, but I'm surprised they didn't start with the Gunflint Formations and earlier. Life has been here for almost 3.8 billion years, but I think that long period of microbial life wouldn't hold the audience's attention for very long. Shame. With out the basic biochemistry and processes that first appeared in prokaryotes, none of us would be here to ask these questions.
@NorthForkFisherman Yeh, I saw on another doco, info about the partnership between mitochondrial DNA and the origin of the symbyotic relationship to the cell. I found that very interesting.
@ChArLieR0mAna Indeed, based on sequencing of what remains of the DNA in a mitochondria, it appears that they are related to Archean methanogns. The part I really want to learn about is the beginning of metabolism, how all that went from fermentation to the Krebs Cycle, and what preceded both? That's the question. We've got a lot better understanding today of the RNA world and membranes, but what about the engine of the cell? Lots to learn - and don't get me started on photosynthesis.
i was with the person who discovered this...we both discovered this site and he wants to keep this secret. since this is on state land just 1,000' or so beyond his 33acre land boundary. thickly overgrown and has been cleared out we wont dig in case we destroy some artifacts left behind. he is in the process of buying that chunk of land and he wants to protect it. in the 1800s, there were witches in the area arrested and hanged in the salem witch trials. was it built by them i wonder?
bikr1975 6 days ago
well, you were talking about stones....i have a question for you. what is a person supposed to do if he finds an unknown stone circle while exploring deep woods and the circle seems to be 12' - 13' in diameter? you can dig down 6' or more and there doesnt seem to be an end. no heiroglyphs or stick figures engraved but 2 stones have 2 parallel etched lines barely noticeable. 3 are leaning different directions. what is this? pagan ritual site or what? theres 8 stones. just curious thats all.
bikr1975 6 days ago
*recommend
tracybuddha 1 week ago
Finally something worth watching on You Tube ,I absolutely love David Attenborough and highly reccomend "The Secret Life Of Plants" to anyone who hasn't seen it.
tracybuddha 1 week ago
1 Person didn't evolve.
tracybuddha 1 week ago
God? Who?
VzDkz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ChArLieR0mAna 2 weeks ago
@ChArLieR0mAna
He's still very much alive.
Pulsar89 2 weeks ago
@Pulsar89 Geeeez, Thnx, I thought he was dead, I heard last year some time. I was spewing cause I really like him. Death rumors on the Internet got me. Thnx again.
ChArLieR0mAna 2 weeks ago
David Attenborough is easily the greatest broadcaster on natural history ever. What a guy!!!
TheReegar 3 weeks ago
lighter material cannot float India upwards & force mountains to rise on a much larger continent. what's the humongous FORCE? if ever it foated the heavier continent would have more downward gravitational pressure than sideways pressure to hit rock & uplift 29,000 ft thousands of miles long mountain ranges. without a source of energy/force to uplift, no mountain range & no theory.
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
picturing in head is pleaded by preachers. not science. there MUST be consistency. does that explain the rockies & andes? the longest mountain chain in the world? over 13,000 feet. also very young after the death of dinos? nope. something happened 65 million years ago that changed everything. too many humongous events happened in a relatively very short time frame. Himalaya, Rockies, Andes & ALL the new ocean floors. the very short timeline is extremely telling. what's the FORCE?
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
There is one small area of land in the North West US that is the oldest continually air exposed, never submerged and pushed back above the waters. Life evolves on the edges of stability...
mikieginokc1 4 weeks ago
I'm really getting sick and tired of seeing "and I'm a mormon" commercials on any video having to do with science, secularism, skepticism, or rationality.
luccaskunk 1 month ago
And train all the monks and nuns to work as/with archeologists! Their lives are mind-numbingly tedious and repetitive anyways, so they won't mind the change! In fact I think they'll enjoy it!
727Phoenix 1 month ago
I couldn't understand the predition of the movement of the creature. (time line at 40.xx)
sakthi0911 1 month ago
I propose we loot and pillage all the world's cathedrals, mosques, temples, and other pricy, useless edifices, starting with Vatican City, and use the spoils to build natural-history museums and universities! I can't think of a better way to replace religion with Science&Reason! (i can think of more peaceful ways, yeah, but they'll take too long. and are less fun)
727Phoenix 1 month ago 2
I have always loved watching these nature documentaries. Where can I buy or get them?
bobmokful 1 month ago
Awesome, wonderful LIFE, THANKS for uploading this very important show, a MUST SEE !!!
k9a2g6 1 month ago in playlist David Attenborough's First Life (BBC)
At about 8:40 mr Attenborough names the ancestors of plants as photosynthesising and then proceeds to name the ancestors of fungi and animals who absorb nourishment from the environment directly. Then he remarks that they (the latter) would later evolve. I would like to add that plants evolved as well.
FHomeBrew 1 month ago
why are ALL the oldest fossils found in forests & not in the ocean bottom?
nayanmalig 1 month ago in playlist More videos from EvolutionDocumentary
@nayanmalig Because it's easier to hunt for fossils in your back yard than at the bottom of the ocean, possibly.
demonella 1 month ago
@demonella
not really. the real answer may amaze you.
ALL OF THE PRESENT DAY OCEANS IN THE WORLD ARE (now fasten your seat belts) LESS THAN 120 MILLION YEARS OLD. ALL OF THEM. surprised? I thought so.
The continents are BILLIONS OF YEARS old. this data is taken from the US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY done by the US navy. the ocean floor map is freely available in the internet.
there is a MASSIVE CONFLICT with the data & theories. but all the scientists are avoiding that data like the plague. why?
nayanmalig 1 month ago
Comment removed
demonella 1 month ago
@nayanmalig You asked why fossils are found in one place rather than another. I maintain it is because it is a lot easier - and cheaper - to LOOK in one place than the other, so that's what people are going to do. You want to fund deep-ocean palaeontology, I am sure there will be interested universities.
demonella 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@demonella ALL of today's oceans are less than 120 mn yrs. today's sea floor wasn't even there before 120mn yrs ago. that's the reason oldest fossils are found on land. there's even no point looking for very old fossils on the sea floor.
nayanmalig 1 month ago
@nayanmalig link
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@branahawk ocean floor map is freely available in the internet. just type it. I saw it months ago. also you may notice that ALL & I MEAN ALL the oldest sea life has been unearthed from the land. NOT A SINGLE billion year old found anywhere in the ocean. (as far as I know). way too much of a coincidence. even the Himalayan mountain range is also new. even the rockies. you can correct me on any of these if you know otherwise.
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig just give me a direct link I don't have the patience to look it up. if you're talking about ocean floor being no older than that, then that's normal, due to tectonic plate convection. if you're talking about ocean WATER then I need a link.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@branahawk ocean floor at less than 120 mn years old while continents are billions years is normal according to present theories? no conflict?
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig yes it's normal because the ocean floor keeps " recycling " itself so to speak, going under the crust of the earth, and lava is erupting from beneath the earth to reform itself (which is why rocks from ocean floor are young, they are mostly volcanic)... continents are too heavy for this process so they "float" on the sea bed so to speak. yes it is normal.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig esentially the continents are carried off by the much lighter oceanic crust beneath them, and they collide ocassionaly forming new continents or break away from each other. it's all about tectonic plate movement. again, I encourage you to read about convection :)
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@branahawk heavy continents being carried by much lighter oceanic crust beneath them will make it float. but it does not give the energy or the force to raise a much larger continent to peaks more than 29000 ft. more than a hundred Himalayan peaks are over 20, 000 ft.reading the present explanations like "India began to forge northward" is very casual. There has to be a better explanation. geology like all other sciences must advance. that's my take.
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig it does actually, if you look at it from a different timescale perspective. the himalayas grow by a few centimetres every year due to india pushing into them. it may not seem like much, but over millions of years, it adds up. and don't forget, the oceanic crust + the continents are absolutely nothing compared to the mass and density of inner earth.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig there's nothing casual about scientific facts, they are casual if you look them up on wikipedia or read them in a children's book, but there are *mountains* (heh, heh) of evidence to sustain these claims, you just have to read more. it's real easy to dismiss an entire discipline based on studying it for how long? 15 minutes? xD
branahawk 4 weeks ago
you have to picture it in your head - the sea floor, slowly being moved upward due to to one plate pushing from beneath as it slides under another plate... sorry I can't explain better, watch a geology documentary. the proof for this? well. if you go to the himalayas and take some rocks from anywhere there, you'll find that they are mostly marine limestone - the sedimented skeletons of coral formations.
coral skeletons in the himalayas? Hmm.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig i'm sorry to spam 4 comments but i notice the mistake in your reasoning (while I was making tea), so read just this one if you wish. the continents are NOT the ones rising up per se, the SEA FLOOR is being thrust upwards when 2 continents collide, therefore forming mountain chains. Other mountains are formed through volcanic erruptions - so the continents don't mysteriously rise to the sky (as far as I know :p)
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@branahawk about.com geology - Age of the Ocean Floor
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig alright I think I figured out what you're talking about (I hope so because your way of expressing yourself is very vague). so you're saying the ocean floor ROCKS are no older than 120 million years (although most say it's 200 mill but whatever). That is true. That's also why it's highly unlikely to find any fossils on the sea floor. But do you know why that is so? That's because there are many, many, underwater volcanoes constantly spewing out new material.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig think of the sea floor like a conveyor belt, constantly falling underwater into the earth's crust at one end, while some sea floor gets thrust upwards when continents collide due to tectonic plate movement. just look up tectonic plate convection. so yes, it's quite possible that most - if not all - ancient marine fossils can only be found on land. It works out to our advantage, though. It would be hard to dig them up otherwise :)
branahawk 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig technically the himalayan is new in the sense that it has formed recently (and is still rising btw) and the rockies as well - but the rocks they're composed of are mainly precambrian, almost 1.8 billion years, or in the case of the rockies, cambrian/ordovician. You need to inspect the field of geology a little bit more but you're on the right path with your curiosity :) geology is a very interesting subject.
branahawk 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@branahawk I am no geologist but I find this very unscientific - "When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history -- and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India's northward journey".
began to forge northward????
By studying the history???
what's the force that made india surge & why ONLY India?
studying history? what has history got to do with geology & what history?
nayanmalig 4 weeks ago
@nayanmalig Possibly because tectonis plates move, what was once the bottom of the ocean may now be dry land.
TheMundaneMadcap 1 month ago
@TheMundaneMadcap ALL the oceans in the world today are LESS THAN 120 MILLION YEARS OLD! (from the US geological survey done by the navy). cannot get more accurate than that. the ocean floor map is freely available on the internet. continents are billions of years while ALL of today's oceans are less than 120 mn yrs. today's sea floor wasn't even there before 120mn yrs ago. that's the reason oldest fossils are found on land. there's even no point looking for very old fossils on the sea floor.
nayanmalig 1 month ago
@nayanmalig land masses change over time and so do ocean levels and formations, some land masses (including great plains and forests) were possibly under water at some point in our 4 billion year history.
fallen4life080 1 month ago
@fallen4life080 some land masses (including great plains and forests) were possibly under water at some point in our 4 billion year history. right. but the fact is that NONE of the present day oceans existed before 120 mn years ago. they are new formations that came into being billions of years after the continents formed. source - US geological survey of the ocean floors done by US navy.
nayanmalig 1 month ago
Comment removed
leananshae 1 month ago
Does anyone have a link to the original series by Attenborough?
duwbryd 1 month ago in playlist David Attenborough's First Life (BBC)
Heeeeeere come the creationist
lmos26 1 month ago
looking forward to more!
monkeypeopleofearth 1 month ago
But the bible doesnt support any of this
blackdiamondmarine 1 month ago 5
@blackdiamondmarine Oh no? That's too bad. The Koran knew about all this science long before man did! :P Or at least many claim, heh.
Swidhelm 1 month ago
@Swidhelm Fack Islam and arab culture and all religion for that matter...
neocons1345 1 month ago
@Swidhelm koran is obsessed about banning things. they ban pork, women learning, showing the face, masturbating, keeping dogs, people of other faiths to enter their mosques etc. they even banned the skin of the sausage.
nayanmalig 1 month ago
@nayanmalig Oh I know. But do a search for Islam and science, you get so many fundies claiming that the koran is full of science and that there are scientific explanations of things and events long before modern science discovered these things. It's absolute bull of coarse, but doesn't stop them from making those claims.
Swidhelm 1 month ago
@blackdiamondmarine oh shit...
imation879 1 month ago
@blackdiamondmarine And you look to a 2,000 year old book for answers, why?
Faustaao 1 month ago
@Faustaao It's meant as a joke. ;-) This is a great series, but I'm surprised they didn't start with the Gunflint Formations and earlier. Life has been here for almost 3.8 billion years, but I think that long period of microbial life wouldn't hold the audience's attention for very long. Shame. With out the basic biochemistry and processes that first appeared in prokaryotes, none of us would be here to ask these questions.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman Yeh, I saw on another doco, info about the partnership between mitochondrial DNA and the origin of the symbyotic relationship to the cell. I found that very interesting.
ChArLieR0mAna 2 weeks ago
@ChArLieR0mAna Indeed, based on sequencing of what remains of the DNA in a mitochondria, it appears that they are related to Archean methanogns. The part I really want to learn about is the beginning of metabolism, how all that went from fermentation to the Krebs Cycle, and what preceded both? That's the question. We've got a lot better understanding today of the RNA world and membranes, but what about the engine of the cell? Lots to learn - and don't get me started on photosynthesis.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
Anything with Attenborough must be good. This channel rocks! :)
JabberCT 1 month ago 30
@JabberCT Ideed, I could listen to Sir David Attenborough talk about paint drying.
fallen4life080 1 month ago 4
@JabberCT Totally agree Attenborough rocks my socks! and continues to blow my mind with great information and entertainment!
opinionatediam 1 month ago
Thank you so much for this wonderful upload.
JennyFarlopez 1 month ago 17