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?

  • Annoyed_🦀
    link
    fedilink
    69
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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 :/

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      66
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

      • @CheeseNoodle
        link
        English
        34 months ago

        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.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          6
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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

    • @Wogi
      link
      254 months ago

      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.

      • @AngryCommieKender
        link
        24 months ago

        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.

        • @Wogi
          link
          24 months ago

          Fire.

          Control of fire and cooking food predates humans. It’s part of the reason we developed such large brains.

    • sp3ctr4l
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        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…

    • azuth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 months ago

      I think some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is 4000 years old only.

      Garbage in garbage out.

    • Optional
      link
      64 months ago

      Not if you believe the whole of earth history was 6,000 years ago.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      334 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Based on the username, I don’t think they use the Bible for their arguments.

        You’ve ventured into the Hindu science denial echochambers.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          84 months ago

          Good point. I just looked up ‘sattology’ and it’s some Hindu pseudohistory thing. So I have no idea what this could be about.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            64 months ago

            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?

            • @Arbiter
              link
              54 months ago

              Generally people arguing against evolution don’t have a clear understanding of the topic.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    28
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

      • @AngryCommieKender
        link
        64 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          The dog is a wolf-like canid.[7][8][9] The genetic divergence between the dog’s ancestor and modern wolves occurred between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago, just before or during the Last Glacial Maximum[2][1] (20,000–27,000 years ago). This timespan represents the upper time-limit for the commencement of domestication because it is the time of divergence but not the time of domestication, which occurred later.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog

          We domesticated them roughly twice as far back as we domesticated cats (12,000y). Cats became domesticated alongside the use of agriculture. Cats started spending time around humans because agriculture brought prey for them (rodents, etc) to places where humans resided.

  • @Fedizen
    link
    274 months ago

    If this isn’t a shit post then this person has a perfectly smooth brain.

    • @BleatingZombie
      link
      14 months ago

      I don’t know for sure, but I think the “satt” in their name is short for sattire

      • @arbitrary_sarcasm
        link
        9
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I doubt that. The second part of the name is the exact same word written in Hindi. And satt is a root word that means truth in hindi

  • @iAvicenna
    link
    254 months ago

    4000 years ago people were already trying to make machines with gears and stuff, what the fuck are you on about?

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      94 months ago

      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.

      • @iAvicenna
        link
        44 months ago

        well gears were used I think 1000 BC in China so almost 4000 years ago?

          • @iAvicenna
            link
            34 months ago

            considering Neanderthals existed more than 200000 years ago not much of a difference between 3000 and 4000.

            • @AngryCommieKender
              link
              2
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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…

              • @iAvicenna
                link
                14 months ago

                King arthur had air planes if we are wondering whether or not Neanderthals had airplanes

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          34 months ago

          Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking toothed gears.

  • Diplomjodler
    link
    154 months ago

    It’s the theory that a dude named Charles Darwin wrote a book back in the nineteenth century.

      • @ChicoSuave
        link
        94 months ago

        If you know so much about him, name 10 of his books!

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          334 months ago

          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

      • @Klear
        link
        44 months ago

        19 books in the first century. Easy mistake to make.

  • @chowdertailz
    link
    124 months ago

    Pretty sure the people who think evolution is a crock just don’t understand biology, whether to shit teachers or defunct critical thinking.

    • Enkrod
      link
      fedilink
      44 months ago

      ^ This. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

  • @Glytch
    link
    64 months ago

    Sattology? More like scatology

  • @UncleGrandPa
    link
    54 months ago

    Ok… I think their point is that they think it is a fossil only 4000 years old. So it proves young earth?

    • @Bytemeister
      link
      Ελληνικά
      14 months ago

      Mud impression is not fossil.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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)

    • @edgemaster72
      link
      English
      24 months ago

      But if we build a pyramid from this foot/cock brick, can it provide free energy?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        I mean, theoretically yes, sure, but how would you counter the electromagnetic fields to even get close enough to harness it?

        (Also if a foot/cock mud brick actually displays a foot-cock then it’s bricked, you need to manually restart it, recharge it, and leave it to sundry. A footcock is an ancient predecessor of dickbutt, now sadly an extinct, lost, and long forgotten meme from dead civilisations.)

  • @ChicoSuave
    link
    34 months ago

    I wish I could ask them how do you think it would take for one species to evolve into two separate ones?