The biggest problem I have with the idea that man has existed in essentially his present form for hundreds of thousands of years is that, if so, we should have developed our civilized society long ago.
Look how far we advanced in the couple thousands years of modern recorded history, and the signs of great societies even before that time. The idea that mankind could exist with intelligence for a hundred thousand years without developing language, culture, and technology seems add odds with what we observe of man today.
The idea that mankind could exist with intelligence for a hundred thousand years without developing language, culture, and technology seems add odds with what we observe of man today.That assumes no bumps in the road -- besides intraspecies violence, there are impacts, eruptions, earthquakes, and intraspecies violence brought on by those.
Excellent point.
Geological changes might have wiped out traces of earlier cultures. Just look at what two thousand years has done to Caesara Phillipi, present-day Banias in Israel. That’s from neglect, war, vandalism, and climatic wear-and tear. How much would remain of a Pompei-size city that was buried by volcanic ash 150,000 years ago? How much would remain of cities covered by the most recent ice-sheets? So I am open to a long pre-history of man.
Gee, and I thought there was no dissent among evolutionists about the ToE.
So who gets blacklisted now? The 10,000 yearers, or the 400,000 yearers? Young and old human evos?
So should we now classify man as a living fossil? Wouldn't that throw a monkey wrench in their theory?
Exactly! Somebody should be funding you, we'd get more common sense for our tax dollars.
Remember this is homo erectus, though. Not QUITE homo sapiens sapiens, thus it’s quite possible homo erectus’ expected timeline of technological and cultural advancement was a lot longer (slower) while sapiens sapiens is quite short.
Not to mention the lack of bodies since mankind buries its dead.
It makes sense that man could have lived in small settlements where there was a constant food source like supplied by the sea or a large lake. As to why development did not go faster, we have to consider the periodic ice ages that occurred around every 100,000 years. We know that Long Valley and Yellowstone blew up around 700 and 600 thousand years ago, what about other more recent world wide catastrophes. Toba blew about 74,000 years ago and scientists now feel the subsequent 6 or so year long nuclear winter seriously reduced the world hominid population. If we go back into another ice age will we end up with nuclear warfare fighting over the reduced area of useable, growable land? What will our “civilization” look like then? The “Dark Ages?”
Subsistence level societies don’t have much time to develop “extras” like technology and civilization. Look at modern semi-stone age societies. When life is a constant hunt for food and shelter, when any change in the weather could result in death of the whole group, the guy who wants to sit down and design a system of laws, or fiddle with these 2 sticks until they make something cool is going to be an outcast. It’s a really slow trudge up until the point people have time to kill, then the rubber band starts moving.