I thought it well grounded that mammals had evolved on Gondwana (the southern part of Pangea) during the process of it splitting away from Laurasia, and had settled Laurasia from Gondwana
Gondwana was composed of now South America, Africa, India, and Australia.
"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.
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?)
That Ancient Apocalypse show in Netflix is really interesting along those lines.
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-pseud...
For me, it’s fodder for modern TTRPG campaigns and a Sailor Moon prequel fanfic, as well as letting me know of the existence of ancient sites I never knew about.
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.
That's odd, because "this type of pushback" is the only context in which I've heard of "ancient aliens".
'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.
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.
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. 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
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.
And then he leaves.
What?! This is your whole life's work and reputation on the line and you aren't digging 10m to check? It might take a few days but that's nothing. If it's illegal, will he risk nothing for his conviction? He makes the speculation, seeds doubt and then follows through with nothing again and again.
It's the same as those tv psychics. The whole episode we watch as they get closer to a burial site and then right when they are staring out the car window at some woods with dramatic music, the credits roll. Nothing found again!
The first 80% of the episode is fascinating as he shows us these amazing sites. Then inevitably comes the wild speculation disconnected from anything actually shown. Such a frustrating end to every episode. Wake me up when you find something.
I wish someone would take him aside and explain that Earth's rotational precession has nothing to do with solar system orbital dynamics.
Because it's not factual? If you aren't constrained by evidence you can evoke whatever wonder you feel like.
He may try to stay consistent with the evidence as he understands it in which case it becomes clear he doesn't understand it.
So no, I don't find it inspirational or evocative, any more than I have found talks by psychics, ufologists or homeopaths evocative. They all imagine their beliefs are evidenced...
Our expectations for Netflix shows is low. Our expectations for behavior of historians should be higher. Making this be about Hancock would be a mistake.
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.
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_theor...
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.
> 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."
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.
I started to watch it, then figured out that I didn't really want to.
The megastructures, while large, showed no evidence of sophisticated engineering.
How do we know Gondwana was in the Southern Hemisphere? How do we know that we didn't get the Hemispheres mixed up in the first place?[1]
[1] https://images.theconversation.com/files/162021/original/ima...