I just thought there is a pattern on the "Are Older Than Scientists Thought" part to make a discovery exciting (it seems to be what is indeed exciting here), a quick search on "are older than scientists thoughts " you get
Universe Older Than Thought...
The moon is older than scientists thought..
Land plants are older than scientists thought...
Written zero 500 years older than scientists thought -...
Your dog is 10,000 years older than scientists thought...
Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought ...
Some [adjective] [commonly known subject matter/celebrities]'s [attribute] is/are [older/newer/bigger/smaller/...] than scientists/we thought.
Scientists usually (hopefully!) try not make bigger claims than the evidence supports. Occasionally new evidence emerges that allows them to make bigger claims. Theoretically there should be an asymptotic effect but we're not there yet in some fields.
Given how fast the discovery dates of different technologies are being pushed back across the globe, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the ideas that Graham Hancock has popularized about advanced civilizations existing before the ice age get validated within the next few decades. Even in the five years since he was banned from TED, a ton of new research has come out about Gobekli Tepe, the Younger Dryas impact theory, etc.
Hancock doesn't enjoy much reputation in the scientific community, with good reason: science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true, Hancock is more about letting the imagination fly, based on cherry-picking something here and there. It doesn't mean that his theory about a 'mother-culture' will eventually prove totally incorrect, but there is ample reason to remain skeptical as long as there is no "smoking gun" so to speak.
One good reason to await solid evidence (if such a reason might at all be needed) is that the idea of an ancient, superior culture has been used in ideology before: the Atlantis story was one of the cornerstones of the Nazi mythology [0], but of course without the archaeological evidence to back it up. No need to repeat past mistakes.
> science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true
No, science is about what we can formulate testable predictions. It can be completely unreasonable, yet still be science. Many major breakthroughs have been from unreasonable ideas.
Like many words in the English language, the term "reasonable" has more than one meaning. I think the OP was using it for a meaning that fits your explanation of science.
That prediction could be right even if that hypothesis was wrong. Hypothesis 2: City X different than Troy existed is equally well made more plausible by digging a city up in Asia Minor.
I had to look up who Graham Hancock is. The wikipedia article on him is less than complementary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock)... I wouldn't put any stock in his "theories" whatsoever.
Not referring to Graham Hancock per se (I hadn't heard of him before this post) but when it comes to articles about people with even a hint of controversy around them, I would trust Wikipedia about as far as I could throw one of their server racks. It is always a good idea to at least check the talk page in addition to whatever is on the initial page.
Whether you're exploring this idea, or more far-out ideas like Graham Hancock's, one must admit there's a profound romance in this premise.
It excites me to consider that there were once entire axioms of culture, intellect, technology, spirit, and society as a whole that we have forgotten. Who knows what sort of mysteries we unlocked through entheogen-enabled consciousness exploration. Who would we be if we could find reconciliation?
This is something that I have guessed is true for a long time based on the fact that humans have been genetically modern for hundreds of thousands of years. It makes sense that they would behave the same, at the same level of technological development.
No we haven't. We aren't even the same genetically as people living in historical times. There has been a huge amount of human evolution since the rise of agriculture. Living humans are much better adapted to modern society than our hunter gather ancestors.
What is probably more accurate is to say most human traits have very long genetic histories. Much the same way as human-like traits can be found in our great ape relatives, traits quite close to modern traits can be found in our ancestors.
I'm a complete layman regarding biology, so I'm aware my question might be completely stupid. I understand that the genotypes within a species change in response to environmental change. What I do not know is: is the amount of difference between the genetic difference between two random modern humans and the genetic difference between a random modern human and a random 100,000 year old human significant?
This is a very complex question and it depends on what traits you are looking at. A single nucleotide change at a single loci can cause a very significant change in phenotype. On top of this most evolutionary charge is not caused by new mutations sweeping through the population, but changes in the relatively frequency of different alleles (genes) in the population.
Also what makes this a difficult question to answer is we don’t have a good idea what genes contribute to what human traits. We know that individual humans differ, and we know that a large amount of reason for this difference is genetic, what we don’t know is what genes are responsible for this difference.
This is a long way of saying we know that the people living 100,000 years ago were genetically different to modern humans, but we don’t know how different and in which particular ways. Evidence points towards us being calmer in large groups (domestication), better able to digest agricultural foods, and better at abstract thinking.
I am not an expert in this area, but what I got from the later part of the article is that the anatomy changed to modern after the new cultural behavior.
Phenotype can change in a generation. For example, the children of immigrants look a lot more like the native-born just because they eat a lot of the same things. But, outside of selective breeding, genetics change at the pace of mutation and natural selection.
> The team found obsidian tools that came from sources dozens of miles away — a sign of long-distance trade networks.
Dozens of miles is something a person could walk in a few days, so I don't see how that signifies a trade network, let alone a long-distance one.
Not that I'm doubting other things from the article, but this sentence seems a bit far fetched to me. I'm not an expert though - am I missing something?
> Many of the tools were made from a black volcanic rock called obsidian, which was brought to the site and processed there. But from where? There aren’t any obsidian outcrops near Olorgesailie. The chemistry of the tools suggests that they came from sources up to 100 kilometers away. But “these are straight-line distances that, in some cases, go over the top of a mountain,” says Alison Brooks from George Washington University.
> “There’s an occasional piece in the Acheulean that gets transported these distances,” says Brooks. “But we have thousands of pieces in this one site that’s smaller than most people’s kitchens. There has been a really major import of raw materials.”
Dozens of miles away may probably mean distance of 50-100 km (and area of control of up to 31415 km^2).
For hunter-gatherers it could be too energy-expensive to travel that distance just to collect some raw materials for their tools. It will take more than a week for round trip, considering the time needed to get the food, and the location should be already known.
That thing we thought happened
a bajillion years ago actually
happened a kazillion years ago
Honestly, this sort of headline is frequent and tedious. There are a lot of vague, presumed facts with first proven date of occurrence constantly getting upended by one more archeological dig finding an older example.
First example of brewed alcohol: over 9,000 years ago on the island of Mypos. Oh, wait, here's one in Kablokistan dated 69,000 years old.
The archeological guinness book of world of world records is only so interesting. It's like ponder other dimensions behind the big bang, and then arguing about whether or not the big bang was actually an explosion.
Listen, if it wasn't an explosion, then stop calling it some kind of bang.
Universe Older Than Thought... The moon is older than scientists thought.. Land plants are older than scientists thought... Written zero 500 years older than scientists thought -... Your dog is 10,000 years older than scientists thought... Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought ...
Some [adjective] [commonly known subject matter/celebrities]'s [attribute] is/are [older/newer/bigger/smaller/...] than scientists/we thought.
One good reason to await solid evidence (if such a reason might at all be needed) is that the idea of an ancient, superior culture has been used in ideology before: the Atlantis story was one of the cornerstones of the Nazi mythology [0], but of course without the archaeological evidence to back it up. No need to repeat past mistakes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology
No, science is about what we can formulate testable predictions. It can be completely unreasonable, yet still be science. Many major breakthroughs have been from unreasonable ideas.
Prediction: There's a buried city in Asia Minor
Test: Go there and dig it up
It excites me to consider that there were once entire axioms of culture, intellect, technology, spirit, and society as a whole that we have forgotten. Who knows what sort of mysteries we unlocked through entheogen-enabled consciousness exploration. Who would we be if we could find reconciliation?
What is probably more accurate is to say most human traits have very long genetic histories. Much the same way as human-like traits can be found in our great ape relatives, traits quite close to modern traits can be found in our ancestors.
Also what makes this a difficult question to answer is we don’t have a good idea what genes contribute to what human traits. We know that individual humans differ, and we know that a large amount of reason for this difference is genetic, what we don’t know is what genes are responsible for this difference.
This is a long way of saying we know that the people living 100,000 years ago were genetically different to modern humans, but we don’t know how different and in which particular ways. Evidence points towards us being calmer in large groups (domestication), better able to digest agricultural foods, and better at abstract thinking.
Dozens of miles is something a person could walk in a few days, so I don't see how that signifies a trade network, let alone a long-distance one.
Not that I'm doubting other things from the article, but this sentence seems a bit far fetched to me. I'm not an expert though - am I missing something?
> Many of the tools were made from a black volcanic rock called obsidian, which was brought to the site and processed there. But from where? There aren’t any obsidian outcrops near Olorgesailie. The chemistry of the tools suggests that they came from sources up to 100 kilometers away. But “these are straight-line distances that, in some cases, go over the top of a mountain,” says Alison Brooks from George Washington University.
> “There’s an occasional piece in the Acheulean that gets transported these distances,” says Brooks. “But we have thousands of pieces in this one site that’s smaller than most people’s kitchens. There has been a really major import of raw materials.”
First example of brewed alcohol: over 9,000 years ago on the island of Mypos. Oh, wait, here's one in Kablokistan dated 69,000 years old.
The archeological guinness book of world of world records is only so interesting. It's like ponder other dimensions behind the big bang, and then arguing about whether or not the big bang was actually an explosion.
Listen, if it wasn't an explosion, then stop calling it some kind of bang.