If
you are not familiar with the show, [NOVA] is one of the regular programs on
[PBS]. The focus is mostly (if not
entirely) on scientific topics, and they recently had a rebroadcast of their
three-part series on human evolution from 2009, which I missed the first time
around.
Be
assured that my ears really picked-up while listening to the introduction. Humans,
without a doubt the smartest animal on earth.
Yet, we are unmistakably tied to our ape origins. Millions of years ago, we were apes, living
ape lives in Africa. So, how did we get
from that to this? What happened? What set us on the path to humanity? The questions are huge, but at last, there
are answers. More than six million years
ago, we took that first step to separate from the apes. “We see the launching of the career that
ultimately led to Homo Sapiens.” And
three million years ago, we see the roots of our big brain begin to take hold
in a tiny creature, more like a chimp than a human. “The frontier of human evolution is really
being brought to this razor-sharp edge.”
And we now know that for millions of years, many different human-like
species lived together on the planet. Until
one day, there was only us. Homo
Sapiens, the most complex, adaptable animal on earth. So, how did we get this way, and why? A radical new theory reveals how episodes of
cataclysmic change forced our ancestors to adapt, or die. “I think we should actually look to our proud
ancestry, and how we evolved in east Africa, and say, ‘That’s how we survived
that, we can survive the future.’” So
get ready for a ride through millions of years of our history. It’s the story of becoming human. Our story, right now on Nova.
To
be more specific, it was the, The
questions are huge, but at last, there are answers, that brought my ears
to full attention. For that is rather
bold statement for those who openly claim to only accept empirical evidence as
proof of anything.
Alas,
maybe I did not get the memo on how the rules for empirical evidence had
changed to include mere speculation? For
all of the answers presented had no basis in fact, according to the rules of
empirical evidence that I knew of.
Yes,
there was mention of theory in the
introduction, but weren’t we being led towards acceptance of fact
beforehand? Please let me know if you
believe that I am just being asinine.
