Accepted theory or timeline of human development

originally posted by: Jackfish28
Does anyone on here really buy it. I thought it was probably bull# when I was high school.

Have you actually studied anthropology simce high school? If that's what you were taught then I'd be angry with your teachers as opposed to anthropologists.

Humans are 100,000 years old

Actually closer to 300 KA based on remains found in Morrocco

but lived in caves and like animals until like 6000 years ago

Completely false nothing in the archaeological record or in paleoanthropology supports this at all so I'm not sure what errant source youve obtained your information from. There was a long period between the development of cultures, which in some cases go back hundreds of thousands of years, the development of civilization and the development of writing. There was no quick and sudden change as you claim.

then developed civilization magically at same time when they discovered how to farm.

Again, your "facts" don't reflect reality. Any citations to support an iota of your supposition based claims?

Really ????

Not the way you paint the picture, no.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: CrazyWater
a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for this, My sister lives in Nampa Idaho, Im sure they would love to check this information out!

Hope she likes wasting time.
Nampa figure hoax

Harte

All ancient artifacts are hoaxes. Every single one of them because someone always says so and gives their opinion on why. You can't prove it was a hoax and neither can your link, they just claim it is because they think it is.

You didn't read the link, and you don't know how the object was "found."
If you did, you would know that there's no way on Earth that this Nampa figure could have survived intact.

Not to mention native children in the same time period that the figure came to light were playing with the exact same kind of figures.

Harte

originally posted by: peter vlar

Again, your "facts" don't reflect reality. Any citations to support an iota of your supposition based claims?

Well, there IS an entire series of thoroughly researched informative documentaries about this.

It starts here

Harte

a reply to: LABTECH767

It wasn't a fair question because i was being sarcastic.

The term "civilization" has specific hurdle points before it can be worn. While the culture/society of the Amerinds is well storied, there is very little that we cite as "civilization". Maybe Cahokia? I've not seen much real study of the area, with most of what i've seen relating to some incomplete concepts (the site is much larger, and likely needs to be explored in a larger degree).

The Iriquios Nation may be more like a civiliation, but even then their "cities" were more like seasonal campgrounds that they would use. Like hunter gatherers.

As you move further south you find civilization. But the north American indians retained a mostly hunter gatherer lifestyle save for a few exceptions like Pueblo and Cahokia. The Blackfoot were a society, or a culture. They were not a civilization. That was my point.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: CrazyWater
a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for this, My sister lives in Nampa Idaho, Im sure they would love to check this information out!

Hope she likes wasting time.
Nampa figure hoax

Harte

Nothing is a waste of time if its interesting , even if it is a hoax, its a part of the history of the area.

Gee you must be really fun at parties, would you like a stick remover?

a reply to: CrazyWater

yeah, but honestly, these finds from north america are always ridiculous in the end. And it really only hurts the actual study, as for years anyone suggesting anything that didn't bow before Clovis First was laughed out of a job.

Dogma comes from something. Nothing arises in a vacuum. We are where we are today because past hoaxes require a healthy dose of skepticism to be a default position. And it really is unfortunate...but it is what it is for a reason.

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: CrazyWater
a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for this, My sister lives in Nampa Idaho, Im sure they would love to check this information out!

Hope she likes wasting time.
Nampa figure hoax

Harte

Nothing is a waste of time if its interesting , even if it is a hoax, its a part of the history of the area.

Gee you must be really fun at parties, would you like a stick remover?

No, don't need it.
You gotta admit somebody around here has to do what I do.

And I do it well, if I may say so myself.

Harte

originally posted by: halfoldman
Even with modern archeology, for example, Gobekli Tepe in modern Turkey, apparently shows no sign of modern agriculture.

In fact it's accepted it was probably built by hunter-gatherers.
en.wikipedia.org...

Agriculture isn't necessary to a high civilization at that time in history, though. Not when you've got huge herds of 10 ton mammals walking around.

Modern hunter/gatherers have to move around because they're lucky to catch anything over 200 kilos.

I think, however, that populations remained small, because the land was dominated by huge "monsters" or "giants" (which today we call "animals".)

There was no benefit in growing the population. No need for a favorable young to old ratio, when you can make one kill and feed a whole village for a month.


... and in a small family scenario, each child would have gotten the highest available level of education.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: halfoldman
Even with modern archeology, for example, Gobekli Tepe in modern Turkey, apparently shows no sign of modern agriculture.

In fact it's accepted it was probably built by hunter-gatherers.
en.wikipedia.org...

Agriculture isn't necessary to a high civilization at that time in history, though. Not when you've got huge herds of 10 ton mammals walking around.

Sure, except for the fact that agricultural systems are part of the definition of "civilization."

So, hunter-gatherer it is.

Harte

originally posted by: Jackfish28
Does anyone on here really buy it. I thought it was probably bull# when I was high school.

Humans are 100,000 years old but lived in caves and like animals until like 6000 years ago then developed civilization magically at same time when they discovered how to farm.

Really ????

Why not? It sure seems to flow quite nicely...

700k years ago was about the time the human brain cavity showed expansion, shortly after that simple tools were discovered.
200k years ago Modern humans H. sapiens started after a good amount of mixing between like species of humans.
100k to 18k years ago was the ice age, all other sapiens were wiped out and we were very close too.
20k years ago we went from mainly hunter/gathers to farming and Domesticated animals too. (population explosion)
6k years ago language started and then the knowledge explosion happened

Most like man's knowledge double from 6000 to 3000 years ago, then again from 3000 to 2000, then 2000 to 1000, then 1000 to 500, then 500 to 300, then 300 to 150, then 150 to 100, then 100 to 70, then 70 to 50, then 50 to 30, then 30 to 20, then 20 to 15, then 15 to 10, then 10 to 5, then 5 to 2....

The process has been speeding up as communication became easer and more frequent most notable after the printing press, but today we have 7+billion all connected.

Get the picture.

If you want to learn about an interesting theory read about the bi-cameral mind.

It's an idea that humans weren't conscious until around 6000 years ago and basically God was talking to themselves as a voice from the other part of the brain.


en.m.wikipedia.org...(psychology)

a reply to: Jackfish28

The planet moves in Epochs.

Civilisation has had millions of years to rise and fall a few times.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Modern hunter/gatherers have to move around because they're lucky to catch anything over 200 kilos.

I think, however, that populations remained small, because the land was dominated by huge "monsters" or "giants" (which today we call "animals".)

There was no benefit in growing the population. No need for a favorable young to old ratio, when you can make one kill and feed a whole village for a month.

What was the average lifespan back then 35 years or less? We were also not the apex predator yet... I think humans by nature were also very small tribes families for a long time, and were not friendly to others, so knowledge really didn't flow at all.

originally posted by: andy06shake

The planet moves in Epochs.

Civilisation has had millions of years to rise and fall a few times.

They wouldn't have been humans if so....

Maybe lizard people...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

They may have been human, just another distinct species along the lines of Homo Neanderthalensis or Denisovan for instance.

originally posted by: andy06shake

They may have been human, just another distinct species along the lines of Homo Neanderthalensis or Denisovan for instance.

Maybe in the 100,000s years, but not millions... But even with that there isn't not much out there past crude stone tools and raw stone work. I just don't think there was ever a sizable population to infuse a knowledge expansion to happen. It seems we needed farming and livestock to expand the population then language/travel to expand our knowledge base...outside of that we just spun in circles for 100,000 of years.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I agree with the spinning in circles for 100,000 of years part any road.

Just looking at some of the ancient stone workings, the sheer size and scale, of say the stone of the pregnant women or complexity of Göbeklitepe, tells us there's something amiss and that's just recent history in the grand scheme of it all.

originally posted by: andy06shake

I agree with the spinning in circles for 100,000 of years part any road.

Just looking at some of the ancient stone workings, the sheer size and scale, of say the stone of the pregnant women or complexity of Göbeklitepe, tells us there's something amiss and that's just recent history in the grand scheme of it all.

In the end it is still raw stone work. If you think about it they had 100s of years to build their stone working technics, no one said ancient man was stupid. But as I said in the end it is still just raw stone no matter how big or finely made.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xtrozero

I agree with the spinning in circles for 100,000 of years part any road.

Just looking at some of the ancient stone workings, the sheer size and scale, of say the stone of the pregnant women or complexity of Göbeklitepe, tells us there's something amiss and that's just recent history in the grand scheme of it all.

What do you find "amiss" in your two examples?

I see nothing there that is amiss.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

There existence, purpose, and intension, for a start.

Plenty that's unknown never mind "Amiss" with both the monolith and ancient buried site.