# Was Primordial man conscious? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247 "2014-08-10T17:02:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/241 "2014-08-15T03:04:39Z")
Is there room for a hybrid hypothesis, akin to Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium?” My thought is that progress is slow and steady…except for certain milestone developments that change the game profoundly. Writing, smelting copper, brewing beer, quarrying stone, etc. Little advances that have big implications. (Also vaguely akin to the “Singularity” notion; one could argue that steam engines and electric power generation were “singularity” events that produced wholly chaotic changes in history.) But as for consciousness, as it is purely a Darwinian evolutionary development, I’d certainly have to vote for the “slow and steady” explanation. It came about over the course of tens of thousands of generations – and probably existed (and still exists) in several other mammalian species. Chimps and gorillas and orangutans are certainly “conscious” – cognitively self-aware – and I hold that our household cats and dogs are also.) ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/242 "2014-08-15T04:33:05Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > OK, guys, I’ll tackle the big giant elephant of stupid in the room: > > You say Primordial man never “did” any of these things that we have now. Yet they are our ancestors, so they DID do ALL of those things. And thus turned into us. > > Yes, I know. You’re going to say, completely without logic or evidence, that God came down and magicked them into us and divinely inspired all of these advances. > > I would point out that this is a completely circular argument, but that would be an insult to all perfectly good circles out there. There are no perfect circles out there! ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/243 "2014-08-15T04:39:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Is there room for a hybrid hypothesis, akin to Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium?” > > My thought is that progress is slow and steady…except for certain milestone developments that change the game profoundly. > > Writing, smelting copper, brewing beer, quarrying stone, etc. Little advances that have big implications. > > (Also vaguely akin to the “Singularity” notion; one could argue that steam engines and electric power generation were “singularity” events that produced wholly chaotic changes in history.) > > But as for consciousness, as it is purely a Darwinian evolutionary development, I’d certainly have to vote for the “slow and steady” explanation. It came about over the course of tens of thousands of generations – and probably existed (and still exists) in several other mammalian species. Chimps and gorillas and orangutans are certainly “conscious” – cognitively self-aware – and I hold that our household cats and dogs are also.) > **[Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Evolution and Origin of Species](http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html)** > > Darwin's Doubts and Why He Had Reason for Doubt About His Theory on Evolution and Origin of Species. Did Darwin himself question his theory? Explore evidence of his doubts and challenges faced by his theory today. Learn about ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/244 "2014-08-15T04:47:58Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > [Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Evolution and Origin of Species](http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html) That was not much better than the Answers in genesis website, what you have there is indeed pseudo-science, the makers of that site can only **pretend** that they are doing science. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/245 "2014-08-15T05:11:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was not much better than the Answers in genesis website, what you have there is indeed pseudo-science, the makers of that site can only **pretend** that they are doing science. Well see if you like this one, where Alfred Russell Wallace, the forgotten co founder of the theory of evolution, admitted he believed a higher power had something to do with the universe. > **[Don’t Mess with Alfred Russel Wallace | Evolution News](https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dont_mess_with/)** > > Why must Wallace suffer the insults of George Beccaloni? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/246 "2014-08-15T05:15:16Z")
So what? Isaac Newton worked with alchemy. I guess that means that universal gravitation is no longer a scientific principle. You’ve descended into the absurd realm of ad hominem science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/247 "2014-08-15T05:18:55Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > Well see if you like this one, where Alfred Russell Wallace, the forgotten co founder of the theory of evolution, admitted he believed a higher power had something to do with the universe. > > [Don’t Mess with Alfred Russel Wallace | Evolution News](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dont_mess_with061371.html) As **Trinopus** noticed, your point here is just creationist silliness, it is pseudoscience indeed. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/248 "2014-08-15T10:51:48Z")
But it’s not witnessing. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/249 "2014-08-15T11:25:38Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > Well see if you like this one, where Alfred Russell Wallace, the forgotten co founder of the theory of evolution, admitted he believed a higher power had something to do with the universe. And so what? He was wrong. And he’s woefully out of date. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/250 "2014-08-15T14:02:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So what? Isaac Newton worked with alchemy. I guess that means that universal gravitation is no longer a scientific principle. > > You’ve descended into the absurd realm of ad hominem science. If I wanted to, I could descend into the world of Issac Newton being a theologian and a believer in God, I guess that may make his work less valuable to you? ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/251 "2014-08-15T14:03:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And so what? He was wrong. And he’s woefully out of date. The stuff is piling on. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/252 "2014-08-15T14:06:48Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > If I wanted to, I could descend into the world of Issac Newton being a theologian and a believer in God, I guess that may make his work less valuable to you? No; that’s the whole point of science. A scientist’s personal religious views, or lack thereof, are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to their science. Science cares only about data and the logic applied to interpreting those data. Religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t enter into it in any way whatsoever. When I read a paper detailing the latest advance in my field, I am interested in the experiments that were done, the data from those experiments, and what those data mean. I couldn’t care less whether the authors are devout Christian, Muslim fanatics, Dawkins-level atheists, or dancing-naked-in-the-park-on-solstices Druids. IT DOESN’T MATTER. The religious opinions of scientists who lived and died centuries ago is, if possible, even less important to their work. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/253 "2014-08-15T14:11:02Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > If I wanted to, I could descend into the world of Issac Newton being a theologian and a believer in God, I guess that may make his work less valuable to you? Are you here to talk science, or are you here to talk religion? So far all you’ve done is grossly misused scientific terms in a _religious_ context. Spirit?–_religious_. God?–_religious_. Bible?–_religious_. Adam?–_religious_. Mickiel?–_religious_. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/254 "2014-08-15T14:20:46Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > No; that’s the whole point of science. A scientist’s personal religious views, or lack thereof, are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to their science. Science cares only about data and the logic applied to interpreting those data. Religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t enter into it in any way whatsoever. > > When I read a paper detailing the latest advance in my field, I am interested in the experiments that were done, the data from those experiments, and what those data mean. I couldn’t care less whether the authors are devout Christian, Muslim fanatics, Dawkins-level atheists, or dancing-naked-in-the-park-on-solstices Druids. IT DOESN’T MATTER. > > The religious opinions of scientists who lived and died centuries ago is, if possible, even less important to their work. I agree, which is why I disagree with the effort here by some to tarnish religion, as if if a person is interested in spiritual things, it eliminates his scientific views from being valid. If I have scientific views on Primordial man, and I have spiritual views on the same subject, they do not cancel each other out. They can coexist and dovetail; that is not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/255 "2014-08-15T14:27:38Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I agree, which is why I disagree with the effort here by some to tarnish religion, as if if a person is interested in spiritual things, it eliminates his scientific views from being valid. If I have scientific views on Primordial man, and I have spiritual views on the same subject, they do not cancel each other out. They can coexist and dovetail; that is not impossible. You have yet to show any scientific views. In fact, you have yet to show any scientific _knowledge_. edited to add: > [@Mickiel](#): > > I agree, which is why I disagree with the effort here by some to tarnish religion, wait a minute-I thought you weren’t religious, so why should you care? ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/256 "2014-08-15T14:34:11Z")
Now, the science tells us primordial man existed, the biblical does not appear to go into that. The science tells us that these humans lived simple lives and had little advancement in millions of years. Now, the biblical tells us that humanity began with Adam, who God " Breathed into the breath of life", and he BECAME a living being! Now it states elsewhere that Adam was created in God’s image, which means he was given a consciousness; that thinks, because God thinks; in that manner, he was " Like God." And only that manner. Now, if we combine the science and the biblical, in my theory, then its certainly possible and reasonable, that primordial humans did NOT have this " Image of God", or consciousness, given to them. Now all I can do is theorize this , I certainly don’t know for sure; but it adds up in many areas. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/257 "2014-08-15T14:40:15Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > Now, the science tells us primordial man existed… “The” science does? I don’t recall hearing that term in school, or in any non-woo lectures. What science book can I go to to learn about “primordial man”? ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/258 "2014-08-15T14:49:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You have yet to show any scientific views. In fact, you have yet to show any scientific _knowledge_. > > edited to add:wait a minute-I thought you weren’t religious, so why should you care? I don’t care, religion is already tarnished; dead, why beat a dead horse daily? The bible is a valuable historical resource, and because religion is tarnished, that does not tarnish these biblical historical finds in archaeology; > **[List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible)** > > The following is a list of inscribed artifacts, items made or given shape by humans, that are significant to biblical archaeology. > This table lists inscriptions which are of particular significance to the study of biblical chronology. References are from ANET and COS and link to editio princeps (EP), if known. And you can add the Nuzi and Ebla tablets to that. The archaeology, or the science, should not be tarnished. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/259 "2014-08-15T14:56:46Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t care, religion is already tarnished; dead, why beat a dead horse daily? The bible is a valuable historical resource, and because religion is tarnished, that does not tarnish these biblical historical finds in archaeology; > > [List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible) > > And you can add the Nuzi and Ebla tablets to that. The archaeology, or the science, should not be tarnished. Nope, you don’t get to rename religion “science” by stealing a few buzzwords. The only thing getting tarnished here is science, and the only one tarnishing it in this thread is you. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/260 "2014-08-15T14:57:38Z")
We accept scientific archaeology, the only way to know about primordial man, and yet we can’t accept biblical archaeology as another way to know about man? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247.md?page=14)