2 million years ago.
What was Earth like 2 million years ago?
Recognizable humans emerged at most 2 million years ago, a vanishingly small period on the geological scale. The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era, after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon.
Originally posted by Wonder Man2 million years ago.
What was Earth like 2 million years ago?
Recognizable humans emerged at most 2 million years ago, a vanishingly small period on the geological scale. The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era, after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon.
Undisputed?
I think Halton Arp and more than a few people involved with work on the following channel will disagree with you ...
I'm not sure I quite understand you in context of what we've exchanged.
Sounds like you are saying we overcame ... the blindness of religion? Over the course of a great deal of time and with much effort?
For what you've said, is often said as the beginning of an argument by atheists and agnostics in favor of the "lessons" of evolution and (very late in human history in this view), rationality and reason, and scientific experimentation.
Often using the literal case of blindness to illustrate.
(Scales over the eyes usually causing blindness via a disease like leprosy in books like the Bible, for instance.)
Religion bad, religion incapable of dealing with actual disease-caused blindness, religion dismissing blindness as the Will of God, religion preventing research into science and medicine that could cure natural blindness, and doing so because people have been metaphorically "blinded" by what their primitive, fairy-tale, "sham" religions have taught them to think, etc, etcetera. Yes? No?
As for "thinking backwards in time is worth it", I agree with you to some extent, but think that people fail to keep in mind that they are usually imposing the existing conditions and dynamics that are at work today on the world of however many yesteryears ago, and seldom realize they are doing so.
And that's a mistake that shouldn't be disregarded just because you think the people on the other side are usually religious or making a case for religion.
The makers of the clip I last gave are actually primarily atheists and agnostics themselves.
A good interview with a senator named Ben Sasse by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution. Middle portion, especially, I thought well worth listening to:
Above: Screenshots of a game I unfortunately failed to record.
Unfortunate because I found myself down probably at least 4 to 6 points, having lost a queen for a rook, and doubtless made other bad exchanges, but was still able, due to unique positioning, and things that probably would have been interesting to study, able to threaten mate to the extent my opponent was forced to trade and lose all their point gains. 1st image was the turning point; opponent looking at mate to his king via "Rook roll" without his queen's sacrifice. Ironically enough this was permitted because of the position of my bishop.
Interesting, unusual, satisfying game, at least as far as chess matches go.
Reminds me of the following*, which I remember from a book my uncle once owned (the dates given at the end reflected times roughly 20 years prior then, of course, textbooks regularly update as future editions are printed or the books are translated into blogs, etcetera) ...
Alfred Korzybski, the founder of General Semantics, used an interesting illustration (of static evaluation) in this connection: In a tank there is a large fish and many small fish that are its natural food source. Given freedom in the tank, the large fish will eat the small fish. After some time, the tank is partitioned, with the large fish on one side and the small fish on the other, divided only by glass. For a time, the large fish will try to eat the small fish but will fail; each time it tries, it will knock into the glass partition. After some time it will learn that trying to eat the small fish means difficulty, and it will no longer go after them. Now, however, the partition is removed, and the small fish swim all around the big fish. But the big fish does not eat them and in fact will die of starvation while its natural food swims all around. The large fish has learned a pattern of behavior, and even though the actual territory has changed, the map remains static.
While you would probably agree that everything is in a constant state of flux, the relevant question is whether you act as if you know this. Do you act in accordance with the notion of change, instead of just accepting it intellectually? Do you treat your little sister as if she were 10 years old, or do you treat her like the 20-year-old woman she has become? Your evaluations of yourself and others need to keep pace with the rapidly changing real world. Otherwise you’ll be left with attitudes and beliefs—static evaluations—about a world that no longer exists.
To guard against static evaluation, use an extensional device called the date: Mentally date your statements and especially your evaluations. Remember that Gerry Smith2002 is not Gerry Smith2011; academic abilities2006 are not academic abilities2011. T. S. Eliot, in The Cocktail Party, said that “what we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then . . . at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.”
The asterisk (*) in my previous post, was because I seem to remember in that same book reading that we all speak a slightly different language. I suppose a parody of that would be Humpty Dumpty saying, paraphrased (?),
"When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean, no more no less."
The role of any truly great communicator involves superlative skill in translating.
