Replies

Modern Behavior of Early Humans Found Half-Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

Well, where to start with this nonsensical headline?

First, let's look at the meaning of "modern." I'm sure I don't have to go copy and paste source code from some online dictionary, here. The meaning is clear. And clearly, behaviors deemed modern have been rendered no longer modern by this discovery, should it withstand scrutiny, if and when such scrutiny might ever be applied.

Now, on to assumptions of time. It seems these folks really have a problem estimating age and any related timeline. So much so, that age and timelines are constantly being revised. Constantly. One would think, given the nature of honest intellectual inquiry, that such revisions might on occasion fall in a direction that does not favor the status quo. It's quite odd, rather like flipping a coin and coming up nothing but heads, for going on 150 years now.

Peculiar, isn't it? Dealing strictly with the misuse of the language and that alone, you might get the impression that somebody is trying to sell us something.

One would think, given the nature of honest intellectual inquiry, that such revisions might on occasion fall in a direction that does not favor the status quo. It's quite odd, rather like flipping a coin and coming up nothing but heads, for going on 150 years now.

1. How does lengthening the timeline by a factor of three "favor the status quo"?

2. You sound like you think new discoveries should shorten the timeline sometimes. But think about it: say the estimate is that something's been around for 250,000 years. So someone discovers 100,000-year-old evidence of that something: is that a surprise? Does it change anything? No, we already knew that. You only hear about the discoveries that change our knowledge, not all the ones that just confirm it.