According to most anthropologists, modern man, or homo sapiens, first appeared between 150.000 and 200.000 years ago. However, the first stone structures and evidence of permanent habitation appeared less than 10.000 years ago.
What the fuck was humanity up to those 140.000-190.000 years before that? Did we really spend all those years as hunters and gatherers, in tribes? 150.000 years is an incredible amount of time. Is there no chance there have been primitive or even advanced civilizations more than 10.000 years ago? Time could have wiped out all traces, or perhaps we haven't found anything yet. If not, why not?
>>968538
Do you want Finno-Korean hyper war threads? This is how you get them.
Because until about 10.000 years ago the climate unsuitable for us to start investing in anything like agriculture. When the climate began to change too more stable seasons we began to settle down and become able to build larger monuments of stone.
Humans made nests till then
>>968538
Pretty solid evidence the 150,000 to 200,000 year hypothesis is incorrect.
>>968597
Really?
People were most likely on the move constantly and living in temporary shelters like the native Americans.
The earth is only 6000 years old
And its flat
>>968632
I'm pretty sure it's 4000 years old senpai.
>>968538
Humans build wooden houses to this very day. All that will be left of most modern homes after thousands of years is some crumbling concrete foundations if that.
Well if people built settlements out of wood 100 000 years ago nothing would be preserved to present day.
>>968632
No biblical support for "flat".
>>968599
Yes, of course.
If you take any positive population rate whatsoever, at 150,000 years, there are infinite human beings.
As opposed to taking known population rates, with three breeding couples 4600 years ago, and calculating a little over 7 million people on earth today.
>>968688
*billion
With a growth rate of .00455
>>968688
Does those calculations include that humans tend to generally start dying form illnesses, starvation, violence et cetera when the population becomes too feed itself of the local nature or farming?
Is this a real argument?
Do Creationists really use this when arguing with people about why the world should only be 4.600 years old?
Wait so the first surviving Hominini settlements are only 10,000 years old?
>>968538
For one thing, you would rarely gather more than a few dozen people in the same spot until (proto-)farming started in the Neolithic. You don't have the need, desire or luxury to build lasting stone structures for such a small community, you'd rather just paint on cave walls or craft some trinkets you can carry when you move.
For most of human prehistory, people basically moved out in every direction, reproducing and filling up empty space (or dying in the attempt.)
And as some people said, any complex society back then would have likely worked with wood. Look at what survived from European prehistory: a couple of big stones they pulled upright, a few dirt mounds. And that was well into the Neolithic era.
There's also the fact that "behavioral modernity" only becomes apparent some 50,000 years ago. No one's quite sure why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Theories_and_Models
>>968688
>If you take any positive population rate whatsoever, at 150,000 years, there are infinite human beings.
That's literally made up.
>>968707
Do population growth rates take *factors* into consideration?
Is that your question?
>>968709
No one's quite sure why because they are starting with false assumptions. Men were using tools to cut stone within hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
>>968714
It's literally math.
>>968715
Yeah, you do claim that Humans should be at an infinitive number now if Humanity is older than 150.000 years.
How would a bunch of hunter-gathers be able to create a population consisting of hundreds of millions of people?
>>968722
How on earth would you know how they lived?
Can creationists please fuck off to /x/?
>>968718
Then post the calculation and your reasons/sources for your variables.
>>968735
I googled a human population calculator.
Why can't you?
http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php
>>968727
Well, how else would they have lived?
And how would they be able to live at such a level of technology that allows billions of people to live and feed off this world, without dying of various diseases?
>>968741
Okay.
And that's being charitable because the growth rate has been a lot higher than 0.5% lately.
Compound interest works for bankers, not so much in real life.
>>968753
They did not exist. Wondering how they did things is kind of pointless.
Maybe start with recorded history. You know, about 6000 years ago.
>>968769
I think I was at .00455
>>968770
Can't tell if meming or not.
>>968773
Prove it.
>>968769
.0037 for Adam and Eve to now.
And there is absolutely a geometric spike in human growth populations; we're experiencing it now.
>>968770
May you give me any link too any creationist site that actually push the idea that hummanity isn't older than 4700 years because then we would be at an infinitive number?
>>968777
From 6 starting people, at .00455, about 4600 years ago, according to the linked population calculator.......QED
>>968781
Why don't you believe in math? It's a mathematical problem, not a creationist position that I'm aware of. You do know the world's population is exploding right now, yes? We're adding the next billion people far faster than ever before?
Or do you think creationists can't into math?
>>968786
No, I'm telling you to prove that the population growth rate was 0.0455 for most of that period. Actually, it needs to be a lot less than that because our current growth rate has been two-three times that in the modern era, and any rate increase near the end means you're multiplying the order of magnitude
>>968792
Actually, that population increase do disprove your theory quite a bit as it is occurring because the material standards have improved and that a population can go on with a rather big birthrate for quite a long time without increasing much since there simply isn't enough food to sustain the increasement.
>>968792
>right now
If the Roman empire had our current rate of growth they would have finished colonizing Alpha Centauri by now, or turned to cannibalism about 1800 years ago.
>>968797
I'm saying that a reasonable population growth number gets us from what the bible says to now.
I'm also saying that no positive number gets us from 150,000 years ago to now.
That's it.
>>968803
Not really, since it's happening, and people are still starving. Poor people who are starving have the highest birth rates on the planet. Nigeria is up to almost 10.
>>968810
I am not saying you got to be rich, that you need to have enough food.
If we would turn Nigeria back to the food production they had say 1000 years ago their entire population would crash down into the abyss.
>>968807
Why do you think the population growth rate can't be negative?
At 0.25% (0.0025) constant growth, the 50 million Roman subjects from 25 BC should have had 8.8 billion descendants by 2000. That's half your rate, and again ignores the fact that we've had a >1% growth rate for decades.
>>968688
>What is a bottleneck
>>968807
E.Coli reproduces once every 20 minutes doubling its numbers.
Why is the population of E.Coli not infinite?
I'm just saying.
Simple mathematics.
>>968538
It has been around 7000 years since creation of Adam, what did you expect?
>>968688
>People actually use this as an argument
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
>>968538
There is a misconception going in the mind of many people, that humanity is on some sort of linear quest for technical evolution. That isn't the case.
New things are motivated by need, not because they simply can be done.
In a world where walking around in small bands and where feeding yourself only requires about 4-8 hours of work per week, no one would seriously consider settling down in some sort of stone structure.
Many archaelogists think hunters gatherers knew about agriculture much earlier than the neolithic revolution around -10000, but it wasn't worth it, so no one gave it serious dedication.
That dedication to agriculture and sedentarity only appeared when, in some regions like the Middle-East, the population density became too high, too high for a hunter-gathering lifestyle to be sustainable. Eat everything in one place, look for a new spot, and realize another band was already there in the spring. At some point it became more profitable to settle down and grow your shit than walk around every year.
>>968841
The Flood, which is also accounted for herein.
>>968967
This.
Videogames like Civilization contribute to that conception, too.
>>968856
Good article. Thanks!
>Thread about early humanity
>Derail into creationism
>>968967
You have a point, but it's still hard to fathom that absolutely no need to technologically improve occurred somewhere in those hundred thousand years before agriculture. 100.000 years is a fucking long time.
>>969078
>No new posts
I suppose that ice age we had may have done something to make agriculture harder to invent, fucking up the stability of the seasons or something.
>>969078
The concept of "technologically improve" only makes sense in sedentary groups. There are only so many tools and ideas you can take with you on the road and successfully pass through the generations.
>>969229
Also not just more sedentary groups, more populous also.
>>968741
You are literally retarded. You use a stable growth rate over 150.000 years.
How dense can one single person be.
>>968538
Dont open this thread, its full of retarded people thinking that technological inventions just pop up when there are enough people and that we our momentary growth rate is applyable for hundreds of millenia
>>969266
Who is this for, a reminder for you? A warning to the other senior citizen that doesn't use the catalog? Get with the times gramps.
>>969229
A different point: was the climate really so stable for those tens of thousands of years that humanity was barely forced to adapt?
>>969273
Probably a reminder for me and a timesaver for others, this thread is worse than the daily religion meme thread
>>969078
>implying there was no technological improvement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool#Evolutionary_development_of_technocomplexes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaîne_opératoire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_prehistoric_technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prismatic_blade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_William_stone_axe_quarry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdale_axe_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_clothing_and_textiles#Prehistoric_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stone_Age_art
http://www.academia.edu/1120118/Pelagic_Fishing_at_42_000_Years_Before_the_Present_and_the_Maritime_Skills_of_Modern_Humans
http://www.ekathimerini.com/144782/article/ekathimerini/life/wall-discovered-in-central-greece-could-be-worlds-oldest
>>968587
Just in case you didn't know, there are people living outside of Europe an America, places where climate was relatively stable before 10,000 years ago.
>>969266
>its full of retarded people thinking that technological inventions just pop up when there are enough people
Some of us are saying a certain population is *required*, not a *guarantee*.
>>969239
You can't. Which is my point. You can't use any positive population growth rate over that period of time.
Are you familiar with geometric equations, in general, and just not this one?
>>969266
Necessity is the mother of invention. It's been true for thousands of years.
>>969325
Impossible on a 6000 year old earth. Just impossible.
>OP baits for a Finno-Korean meme thread
>it turns into a creationism shitshow
>>969348
wonderfull isnt it
why is there no strategy game based around dinosaur rearing humans fighting nefilim and their sujugated hosts
>>969369
Sounds like you want to play Dominions.
if creationists are right you and i and all and ewerithing is as fake as a turbofolk bimbo
literaly a fabrication
something made up
and to them its a good thing and they believe it literaly
>>969348
OP here, I genuinely don't care for that unfunny Finno-Korean bullshit. I was inspired by someone's post in another thread about the pyramids, who claimed that there was evidence for pre-Ice Age civilizations (he didn't present any). I just think it's a fascinating subject.
>>968538
Some say agriculture was the move of desperate people rather than inventive people.
>>969444
>OH FUCK JUST THROW IT AT THE GROUND
>>969464
I laughed way too hard at this
>>968538
Mud and stick huts aren't durable.
>>969464
lelz
>>968597
Become a namefag already.
I suggest "his's pet creationist".
>>969325
most of north america was covered in ice, snow, and tundra 10,000 to 200,000 years ago.
climates were all drier because more water locked up in snow and ice.
>>968538
>according to most anthropologists
>in uni
>"eeey man do you want to get good grades? read these shit and copy paste it in the exams ok."
>"yeah man, it's science you know lol, they know what they are doing anyway"
>>968681
Not true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
>>968709
>European prehistory
pic related
>>969336
>tfw carrying capacity
>>968538
We were just stone age primitives. This is what pisses me off when people bitch about abbos or blacks being tribal primitives. So was everyone for 150,000 years and yet they dare claim superiority because they developed civilisation 3000 years sooner?
>>968688
This is really stupid. Population didnt grow or decrease, it stayed at a pretty constant number for the entire time until agriculture and medical improvements. In short, as many died as were born.
>>970786
oh my god this place is pure cancer
can't you just accept that civilization is much better than a shithole in some jungle in vietnam?
do you actually use some kind of ladder where you can put things higher than others? or you are a full relativist?
>>969078
Well studies show primitive nomadic peoples, who were our ancestors for that period, are generally quite happy and content and also fairly healthy, so they probably didn't feel the need to invent the wheel or start farming.
I can't accept that nomadic pastoralism didn't occur though, there's no way that in over 100,000 years some people didn't capture a load of animals and kill the slowly rather than hunting.
I also believe they probably did at least some primitive agriculture, if only moving a load of berry bushes together to make some giant berry bush field they can visit every so often. Its not agriculture so much as super common sense.
>>970803
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said civilisation isn't better, of course its better, but it doesnt make you racially superior just because you developed it 3000 years earlier than some others out of a period of 200,000 years.
>>968681
>300,000 year old wooden spears
>>970828
What did they send a time machine back and solicit their opinions on day to day life?
>>970849
In terms of Evolution it does.
>>970966
so then Iraqis are more advanced evolution-wise than whites
>>968967
Thanks. Nice to see someone who actually knows their shit.
>>968688
>population growth is constant
Who knew ? Who fucking knew ? This is the missing link ! CHECKMATE ATHEISTS
