6 ms·

Fascinating article. "Many paleontologists angrily reject the DNA findings, arguing there must be something wrong with the molecular clocks the geneticists use

Fascinating article. "Many paleontologists angrily reject the DNA findings, arguing there must be something wrong with the molecular clocks the geneticists use to date their findings. The geneticists counter that paleontologists just haven't found the right fossils yet." And that should make clear it is not that clear cut as I (with ZERO background knowledge in either area) thought it was.

brightball 4y ago
I think there are certain things that we're simply never going to be able to know with certainty, but it sure it fun to talk about. That Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix is really interesting along those lines.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Hm; I thought that Ancient Apocalypse had been debunked here, as a collection of old myths that had been thoroughly discredited, but now presented as current issues. Just an invented-content money grab kind of thing?
  - rhodorhoades 4y ago
    Well… the whole ‘ancient apocalypse theory’ might be discredited, but the sites they visit date back extremely far into our ancient history. It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. One thing is for sure, the human story is far from a ladder, with periods of around 1000 years of advancements and then everything collapses for a couple generations. I think it goes back to the OP’s original point… there are some things we cannot ever know for sure but they are fun to learn and talk about.
    - ummonk 4y ago
      You're making it sound like everything advanced and then receded at the same time across the world. This hasn't been the case since the end of the last glacial period. There have been recedings of local civilizations scattered throughout history, as well as some large scale regional disruptions (e.g. late bronze age collapse, decline of the roman empire), but nothing like periods where everything collapses globally.
      - nomel 4y ago
        With "pockets of", I read this > It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. as "individual pockets, all around the world, advanced and receded."
        ummonk 4y ago
        Oh, you're right. My objection was based on my own misinterpretation of "pockets" as referring to time periods and/or specific architectural knowledge rather than to particular locations.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        > but nothing like periods where everything collapses globally. What else but a population bottleneck could explain the lack of any genetic diversity to speak of in humans? No human alive today is more distantly related to you than 37th cousin. Any two random individuals are 99.9% identical. That's weird. For this to have occurred, something must have happened everywhere all at once.[1] [1] https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theor...
        svnt 4y ago
        Not necessarily — it could just as easily have been a founder population event, combined with “weird” sexual selection.
        Maursault 4y ago
        I like this idea. A long time ago, there was one amazingly attractive, irresistibly seductive, incredibly promiscuous and astoundingly prolific breeding individual and sexual athlete: the legendary Don Juan of the late Pleistocene.
        ummonk 4y ago
        Yeah I don't disagree, which was why I caveated it by saying "since the end of the last glacial period". Before that, all bets are off, and I personally do consider the Toba catastrophe a possible explanation for the ridiculously low level of genetic diversity in modern humans outside sub-Saharan Africa.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      > It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. That just means that this level of architectural capability is easily discovered from scratch when circumstances happen to be somewhat right, but then not enough of a gamechanger to endure when when they are not.
  - CommitSyn 4y ago
    Graham Hancock says that it hasn't been truly debunked, but that 'establishment archeologists' are programmed to dispute it, or something. 'Establishment archeologists' say it's a bunch of BS. Mr. Hancock studied sociology for a while before switching gears to journalism. It's fun to think about, but as far as him being the modern day Galileo, I'm not personally buying it.
    - over_bridge 4y ago
      You can always tell a conspiracy theory when it relies on some nebulous group of villains to prop it up. "They don't want you to know what I'm telling you". Tell me clearly who 'they' refers to. Big archeology? Could we get some names? Maybe an interview with some of them? No, just imagine them like the illuminati but dirtier and poorer, and extremely tribal for some reason. People just aren't as good at organising as the theories demand they are. They would 100% break ranks if there was a chance to make a major discovery and be famous for it, group loyalty be damned.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        I have seen exactly what he complains about, many times. Most recently, the very first reaction was to label him racist. Then he was "dangerous" to The Children. The fact is, he is wrong in his interpretations, but they are based on evidence. Instead of calling him "dangerous", why not engage with the evidence? Among few places I have seen that done is the "Scientists Against Myths" YT channel, https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos. It is rather off-putting: they forget they are addressing the audience, not the promoters of bad interpretations. You have to endure that to get to the end, each time. On the other side, we have Ancient Architecture, with a relentlessly empirical bent: https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos Shows like Graham Hancock's evoke wonder that seems beyond scientists to match. That feeling of wonder is where the next generation of scientists comes from. It is critically important that scientists say when they don't know something. They should seek out opportunities to mention them, instead of trying to cover them up. Hancock has been right, and historical consensus dead wrong, too many times. He was an early promoter of humans in the Americas before 15kya, and of the comet strike in North America, near (maybe after) the start of the Younger Dryas cold spell, that wiped out mammoths, mastodons, horses, camels, dire wolves, cheetahs, giant beavers, giant sloths, and the Clovis culture; and about megalithic construction dating that far back. There are lessons here on science's ability, and often failure, to self-correct. All of these had evidence "scientists" rejected outright, not because of anything about the evidence, but just because. There is plenty of evidence that stone bowls were "turned" to grind them into shape, but the first depictions of it we know of show up thousands of years later. What is the history of "turning"? Somebody might make progress on the question someday, but only if they know there is much unknown.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  > That Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix I started to watch it, then figured out that I didn't really want to.
- mkehrt 4y ago
  Uh, that show is horrific pseudoscience nonsense; you know that, right?
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Apparently even on HN some people fall for History Channel type nonsense.
    - beaned 4y ago
      Don't understand why you guys characterize these things this way. The person who brought it up would probably just say that it stimulates thought and make you think. In your response, you assume one who shares the show has "fallen for" it - like definitely believes it, without doubt. Never heard this type of pushback about Ancient Aliens, which is even more ridiculous. I feel like the replies are going to be "but nobody took that seriously anyway." Firstly, I dunno about that. Secondly, not sure anyone's taking Ancient Apocalypse more seriously. The show presents a theory, it's not claiming a fact. It's so bizarre that out of all the media out there that walks the line between history, science, and outlandish ideas, this one very specific show, for some reason, gets all this hateful focus. Very weird.
      - ummonk 4y ago
        If someone posted about Ancient Aliens or any other pseudoscience show on here and said it's "really interesting" in a discussion about history (rather than, say, fantasy or entertainment), we'd characterize it the same way. I don't know why you think Ancient Apocalypse is being singled out when I explicitly said "History Channel type nonsense".
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        > Never heard this type of pushback about Ancient Aliens, which is even more ridiculous. That's odd, because "this type of pushback" is the only context in which I've heard of "ancient aliens".
  - labster 4y ago
- ordu 4y ago
  > Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix is really interesting along those lines. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-pseudoscience/ https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-pseud...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I watched with some interest. I was amused by their claim that lining up a structure with the sun was some sort of advanced cosmology or evidence that they had advanced science, or any science at all. The megastructures, while large, showed no evidence of sophisticated engineering.
olddustytrail 4y ago
> Many paleontologists angrily reject Just this quote immediately put me off the article. Weasel word "many" to start with (how many? Four or five? Half of them?) and followed up with emotive language (how angry were they? Perhaps they were just bored with shoddy justifications?)

brightball 4y ago

I think there are certain things that we're simply never going to be able to know with certainty, but it sure it fun to talk about. That Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix is really interesting along those lines.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Hm; I thought that Ancient Apocalypse had been debunked here, as a collection of old myths that had been thoroughly discredited, but now presented as current issues. Just an invented-content money grab kind of thing?
- rhodorhoades 4y ago
  Well… the whole ‘ancient apocalypse theory’ might be discredited, but the sites they visit date back extremely far into our ancient history. It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. One thing is for sure, the human story is far from a ladder, with periods of around 1000 years of advancements and then everything collapses for a couple generations. I think it goes back to the OP’s original point… there are some things we cannot ever know for sure but they are fun to learn and talk about.
  - ummonk 4y ago
    You're making it sound like everything advanced and then receded at the same time across the world. This hasn't been the case since the end of the last glacial period. There have been recedings of local civilizations scattered throughout history, as well as some large scale regional disruptions (e.g. late bronze age collapse, decline of the roman empire), but nothing like periods where everything collapses globally.
    - nomel 4y ago
      With "pockets of", I read this > It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. as "individual pockets, all around the world, advanced and receded."
      - ummonk 4y ago
        Oh, you're right. My objection was based on my own misinterpretation of "pockets" as referring to time periods and/or specific architectural knowledge rather than to particular locations.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > but nothing like periods where everything collapses globally. What else but a population bottleneck could explain the lack of any genetic diversity to speak of in humans? No human alive today is more distantly related to you than 37th cousin. Any two random individuals are 99.9% identical. That's weird. For this to have occurred, something must have happened everywhere all at once.[1] [1] https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theor...
      - svnt 4y ago
        Not necessarily — it could just as easily have been a founder population event, combined with “weird” sexual selection.
        Maursault 4y ago
        I like this idea. A long time ago, there was one amazingly attractive, irresistibly seductive, incredibly promiscuous and astoundingly prolific breeding individual and sexual athlete: the legendary Don Juan of the late Pleistocene.
      - ummonk 4y ago
        Yeah I don't disagree, which was why I caveated it by saying "since the end of the last glacial period". Before that, all bets are off, and I personally do consider the Toba catastrophe a possible explanation for the ridiculously low level of genetic diversity in modern humans outside sub-Saharan Africa.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    > It also shows that pockets of architectural knowledge rapidly advanced and then receded all across the known world. That just means that this level of architectural capability is easily discovered from scratch when circumstances happen to be somewhat right, but then not enough of a gamechanger to endure when when they are not.
- CommitSyn 4y ago
  Graham Hancock says that it hasn't been truly debunked, but that 'establishment archeologists' are programmed to dispute it, or something. 'Establishment archeologists' say it's a bunch of BS. Mr. Hancock studied sociology for a while before switching gears to journalism. It's fun to think about, but as far as him being the modern day Galileo, I'm not personally buying it.
  - over_bridge 4y ago
    You can always tell a conspiracy theory when it relies on some nebulous group of villains to prop it up. "They don't want you to know what I'm telling you". Tell me clearly who 'they' refers to. Big archeology? Could we get some names? Maybe an interview with some of them? No, just imagine them like the illuminati but dirtier and poorer, and extremely tribal for some reason. People just aren't as good at organising as the theories demand they are. They would 100% break ranks if there was a chance to make a major discovery and be famous for it, group loyalty be damned.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      I have seen exactly what he complains about, many times. Most recently, the very first reaction was to label him racist. Then he was "dangerous" to The Children. The fact is, he is wrong in his interpretations, but they are based on evidence. Instead of calling him "dangerous", why not engage with the evidence? Among few places I have seen that done is the "Scientists Against Myths" YT channel, https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos. It is rather off-putting: they forget they are addressing the audience, not the promoters of bad interpretations. You have to endure that to get to the end, each time. On the other side, we have Ancient Architecture, with a relentlessly empirical bent: https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos Shows like Graham Hancock's evoke wonder that seems beyond scientists to match. That feeling of wonder is where the next generation of scientists comes from. It is critically important that scientists say when they don't know something. They should seek out opportunities to mention them, instead of trying to cover them up. Hancock has been right, and historical consensus dead wrong, too many times. He was an early promoter of humans in the Americas before 15kya, and of the comet strike in North America, near (maybe after) the start of the Younger Dryas cold spell, that wiped out mammoths, mastodons, horses, camels, dire wolves, cheetahs, giant beavers, giant sloths, and the Clovis culture; and about megalithic construction dating that far back. There are lessons here on science's ability, and often failure, to self-correct. All of these had evidence "scientists" rejected outright, not because of anything about the evidence, but just because. There is plenty of evidence that stone bowls were "turned" to grind them into shape, but the first depictions of it we know of show up thousands of years later. What is the history of "turning"? Somebody might make progress on the question someday, but only if they know there is much unknown.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> That Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix I started to watch it, then figured out that I didn't really want to.
mkehrt 4y ago
Uh, that show is horrific pseudoscience nonsense; you know that, right?
- ummonk 4y ago
  Apparently even on HN some people fall for History Channel type nonsense.
  - beaned 4y ago
    Don't understand why you guys characterize these things this way. The person who brought it up would probably just say that it stimulates thought and make you think. In your response, you assume one who shares the show has "fallen for" it - like definitely believes it, without doubt. Never heard this type of pushback about Ancient Aliens, which is even more ridiculous. I feel like the replies are going to be "but nobody took that seriously anyway." Firstly, I dunno about that. Secondly, not sure anyone's taking Ancient Apocalypse more seriously. The show presents a theory, it's not claiming a fact. It's so bizarre that out of all the media out there that walks the line between history, science, and outlandish ideas, this one very specific show, for some reason, gets all this hateful focus. Very weird.
    - ummonk 4y ago
      If someone posted about Ancient Aliens or any other pseudoscience show on here and said it's "really interesting" in a discussion about history (rather than, say, fantasy or entertainment), we'd characterize it the same way. I don't know why you think Ancient Apocalypse is being singled out when I explicitly said "History Channel type nonsense".
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      > Never heard this type of pushback about Ancient Aliens, which is even more ridiculous. That's odd, because "this type of pushback" is the only context in which I've heard of "ancient aliens".
- labster 4y ago
ordu 4y ago
> Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix is really interesting along those lines. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-pseudoscience/ https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-pseud...
WalterBright 4y ago
I watched with some interest. I was amused by their claim that lining up a structure with the sun was some sort of advanced cosmology or evidence that they had advanced science, or any science at all. The megastructures, while large, showed no evidence of sophisticated engineering.

olddustytrail 4y ago

> Many paleontologists angrily reject Just this quote immediately put me off the article. Weasel word "many" to start with (how many? Four or five? Half of them?) and followed up with emotive language (how angry were they? Perhaps they were just bored with shoddy justifications?)