Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
Can someone tell me what Darwin theory is? Is it related to thermodynamics? Does it have something to do with the way a foot leaves an impression in a mud brick?
Human era is predicted to begin 10k bc or something, by then human are already human. 4000 years ago is like yesterday lol.
Edit: lol, didn't realize i multiposted, sorry :/
10,000 BCE is just the approximate beginning of agriculture too, anatomically modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Even the predecessors to those anatomically modern humans were pretty damn human-looking
Caveat, there was massive sea level rise around that time so early civilizations may well be older than that but we humans liked to build our early settlements next to the sea so anything older than that is going to be underwater (which is not good for preservation). iirc there are a few offshore ruins of interest that suggest there may have been older civilisations or at least some pretty impressive ceremonial sites.
There is a very simple reason that we can say with relative confidence that there were no earlier civilizations that vanished and that reason is domestication.
There is just no evidence of plant or animal domestication before a certain date range and, while that date range does keep getting pushed back, it doesn't get pushed back in a way that suggests any sort of civilization even as advanced as Sumer existed before Sumer. It gets pushed back in the "they were planting and harvesting this crop but didn't know how to make it very nutritious yet" sense.
We can see based both on morphology and genetics that there's no sign of any sort of civilization that domesticated plants and animals which then went feral after the civilization collapsed and, even with massive sea level rise, there should be some evidence. Sea levels didn't rise all of the sudden. There would have been people who had time to escape with their animals and seeds. Also, plants just have a habit of escaping on their own.
You need farming in order for a civilization to advance. You can't feed a large population via hunting and gathering.
While I don't doubt that there will be some genuinely ancient stuff now underwater, it seems unlikely that it would shift the global picture of the emergence of settle agricultural societies that much. Most "cradles of civilisation" are inland river valleys - Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Yellow River, Yangtze, Indus, Tehuacan - with the exception being sites in Peru. Being by the coast only becomes useful once you get good at building ships, after all
I'm not in any way actually qualified on this though, so if there's some actual research saying otherwise I'd be delighted to read it. There really was a lot of sea level rise in the ~10,000 years before we know that agriculture got going, so it would make a lot of sense that at least some stuff got flooded
12,000 years ago is about when we as humans decided to stop picking up our entire lives and moving on every winter.
Or, possibly more accurately, when the semi permanent settlements we'd been using became permanent either because the crops we'd been working at raising started doing really well, and/or, because moving just wasn't an option anymore.
About 40,000 years ago we started painting, and doing other creative things.
200,000 years ago the first modern humans evolved in Africa. It took 100,000 years before we were capturing fast moving prey. Another 50 thousand to wipe out all of our bipedal competitors.
First thing we did was domesticate dogs. We've found evidence of dogs being part of our tribes as early as ≈200,000 years ago. I'm honestly not sure which came first, fire or dogs.
Fire.
Control of fire and cooking food predates humans. It's part of the reason we developed such large brains.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) is generally agreed to have arrived on the world scene about 160k to 90k years ago in Africa, and genetic comparison + climate reconstruction shows that we started migrating out of Africa, first into the Middle East, about 50k to 60k years ago.
So... an anatomically modern human footprint in the ME would have to be about 15x older than this one to be any kind of unexpected.
Further, 4k years ago in Mesopotamia is... not unexpected at all, in two ways:
1 The Sumerian civilization can be archeologically traced back almost to 4000 BCE, which is 6k years ago.
2 A 4k old footprint human in mesopotamia ... is not even out of expectation for a young earth creationist, as that biblical timeline would include such people as roughly those that are supposed to have built the tower of Babel.
an anatomically modern human footprint in the ME would have to be about 15x older than this one to be any kind of unexpected.
And an anatomically-kinda-close footprint another order of magnitude. Honestly, the mud brick is much closer to being an anachronism than the footprint..
There is footprints of homo erectus from 1.5 millions years ago showing that they were walking like we do.
I think some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is 4000 years old only.
Garbage in garbage out.
Not if you believe the whole of earth history was 6,000 years ago.
So this argument is essentially a variant of “then why are there still monkeys?”
Except much stupider because humans had been around for hundreds of thousands of years before that. Even if you just restrict 'humans' to our own species, we arose around 300,000 years ago.
Somehow they think that because, according to an Anglican archbishop's interpretation of the Bible, the world started in 4004 BCE, this proves it.
Based on the username, I don't think they use the Bible for their arguments.
You've ventured into the Hindu science denial echochambers.
Good point. I just looked up 'sattology' and it's some Hindu pseudohistory thing. So I have no idea what this could be about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution
Probably one of the nutcases mentioned in the creationism section of this wiki who believe that the human species has existed for billions of years.
I'm guessing they don't understand how long ago science claims humans evolved and thought that proving humans existed 4000 years ago would contradict evolutionary theory?
Generally people arguing against evolution don’t have a clear understanding of the topic.
almost as goofy as the "god exists, because look at this banana!" proof
All the excuses Ray Comfort has made since then make the argument itself the least funny part.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_argument#Rapid_back-pedaling
4000 years ago humans were farming, living in cities and just starting to figure out writing.
Given how nicely centered the impression is, this was probably intentional, a very old foot selfie.
4000 thousand years ago?
You mean 4 million years ago?
Even our oldest common ancestors were only 2.2-2.5 million years ago. Homo sapiens is only about 250,000 years ago, and we basically instantly domesticated dogs. We've had dogs for 200,000 years.
op was making a joke about 4000 x1000 = 4000000
If this isn't a shit post then this person has a perfectly smooth brain.
4000 years ago people were already trying to make machines with gears and stuff, what the fuck are you on about?
If you mean the Antikythera mechanism, that was more like 2000 years ago.
But they had plenty of technological advancements of other sorts 4000 years ago.
well gears were used I think 1000 BC in China so almost 4000 years ago?
Almost 4000 years ago is a stretch. 3000.
considering Neanderthals existed more than 200000 years ago not much of a difference between 3000 and 4000.
Ok, but that's like saying that King Arthur had airplanes because, whomever the historical figure was that the legend is based on lived less than 1000 years before the Wright Brothers......
Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking toothed gears.
It's the theory that a dude named Charles Darwin wrote a book back in the nineteenth century.
FAILED!
He wrote 19 books!
If you know so much about him, name 10 of his books!
On the Origin of the Species
The Descent of Man
The Voyage of the Beagle
The Great Gatsby
In the Night Kitchen
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus
Beowulf
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Ready Player One
and, of course, Twilight: New Moon
Love the gradual descent into madness
10/10, no notes
We can neither confirm nor deny that he owned these books
19 books in the first century. Easy mistake to make.
Pretty sure the people who think evolution is a crock just don't understand biology, whether to shit teachers or defunct critical thinking.
^ This. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Sattology? More like scatology
Ok... I think their point is that they think it is a fossil only 4000 years old. So it proves young earth?
No, no, you guys don't get it - the "mud brick" was a science device used in an experiment comparing genetics and carbon dating! The top part of the brick was used to display results in a clear way - if a footprint showed up that meant that some future Darwin* guy will be full of shit. If a cock-print showed up Darwin would be correct.
*and his grandpa and thousands of years other people that debated and outlined in detail the exact same theory but could never gather enough evidence to go against the Church - I mean people bred livestock and mushed up plants to get the selected traits to their offsprings since before written language, ofc evolution was a known process (not to mention family members looking alike with same traits)
I wish I could ask them how do you think it would take for one species to evolve into two separate ones?