Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Wickramasinghe

Not Chandra Wickramasinghe?

He's been pushing panspermia since I was a sperm - him and Fred Hoyle have published myriad books on the topic together since the 70s. He even put forward the idea that SARS, the devastating, virulent planet-killing disease (800 deaths worldwide) was extraterrestrial in origin...


(that's not to say he's wrong on any of it, but to put into perspective his field of research, before anyone says I'm pissing on anyone)

 

[Touring Mars]

Not Chandra Wickramasinghe?

Aye, that's him. I'm not saying that they are overstating the case wildly, but one does get the impression that this paper is a case of "maybe if we say it more loudly, people will believe us now" as opposed to a genuine advance of the science. Given that their support for the hypothesis was already pretty strong even without much corroborating evidence, it doesn't come as a big surprise that they interpret new evidence with some bias. Here's an example of atleast one statement that could be interpreted differently...

We tested a range of possibilities for the organic composition
of dust and eventually felt justified to conclude that the
best fit to all the spectroscopic data is achieved if one is able
to entertain a seemingly outrageous idea: most interstellar
organic dust starts off as biological (bacterial) cells, just as
nearly all organic molecules on Earth start off as biology. In a
single stroke we then had a solution to the problem of the
origin of life on planets on the one hand and the composition
of interstellar dust on the other. However, this still left open
the question of how, when and where the first life in the
Galaxy (or in the Universe) arose.

While the presence of biotic components in space does suggest one possible solution to the problem of the origin of life on planets, it is by no means proof that this must be the source of life on planets. Indeed, it also suggests the reverse - that molecules that formed on planets as a result of life can ultimately end up in space...

 

[Dotini]

I'm no boffin in this subject like you guys, but aren't there some pretty major implications to evolutionary theory if the panspermia story is even partly right?

For instance, doesn't Darwin's theory of evolution call for small steps due to copying errors over long periods of time, while the other theory allows for major, sudden steps as are often observed in the fossil record?

In continence,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm no boffin in this subject like you guys, but aren't there some pretty major implications to evolutionary theory if the panspermia story is even partly right?

Not really... in terms of evolution, the idea that the first cellular lifeforms came to Earth ready-made and then evolved isn't radically different from the idea that the first cellular lifeforms formed on Earth and then evolved. Indeed, Wickramasinghe doesn't dispute evolutionary theory in this paper, going as far as to suggest that "Life-carrying planetary debris that is expelled from one planetary system can become incorporated in new planetary systems elsewhere, thus providing a process of lateral gene transfers and Darwinian evolution on a cosmic scale." The Panspermia hypothesis doesn't conflict with evolution theory, but it does contradict the hypothesis that life on Earth originated here.

For instance, doesn't Darwin's theory of evolution call for small steps due to copying errors over long periods of time, while the other theory allows for major, sudden steps as are often observed in the fossil record?

The fossil record, while an incredibly valuable source of physical evidence itself, is not the best method to demonstrate or assess the minute details of evolutionary change over short periods of time. Rather, the fossil record provides snapshots across much longer timescales than genetic evidence can provide. To use an analogy of a growing child, it is almost impossible to see the difference between a 136 day old child and a 137 day old child, but changes are happening nevertheless. Only when you look at photos across a longer timescale (say one picture every 6 months) do the changes become apparent. The fossil record is a bit like a set of pictures taken over vast periods of time where large scale changes are clearly visible but incremental changes are not. Genetic evidence is the opposite - changes across vast periods of time are not directly observable, but incremental changes are. The fossil record provides evidence that change occurs over vast periods of time, whereas genetics shows us that these grand-scale changes are the result of the accumulation of myriad small changes that would otherwise be imperceptible.

 

[niky]

He's suggesting that microbes can transfer between worlds... not full-grown organisms.

The one issue with the hypothesis... is if microbes are thrown out of a system due to some cosmic catastrophe... there's a question as to whether they can survive said catastrophe and survive the trip between solar systems. At the very least, cosmic radiation outside the protective envelope provided by solar winds should break down and degenerate their DNA (or DNA equivalent) in the centuries, millenia or megayears they spend between stars.

"Sudden steps" are often caused by environmental stresses that push a species or a subpopulation of such to the brink of extinction. This shrinks a population down to a size where mutations are more easily generalized.

Even without environmental stresses and catastrophes, population isolation can cause a species to deviate from the base stock. Note the "Ostrich foot" tribe... the mutation that causes their deformed feet has become generalized within their village within a relatively short span of time... a few dozen generations.

Or various island species (which is where Darwin began his research). Or the aforementioned mosquitos... where isolation has caused them to mutate enough to become distinct from their surface cousins.

Sudden change should be the norm. Since if a species is not exposed to a life-threating change in environment, there's no reason for them to change... which is why some species which are well adapted to their environs, such as sharks, crocodiles and etcetera... have hardly changed for over a hundred million years.

 

[Famine]

There are, of course, complex organisms that can actually survive the cold, radiation and vacuum of space. My favourite phylum of all time has been shown to survive ridiculous extremes - -273 degrees (Celsius), +151 degrees (Celsius), a decade in a zero moisture environment, more than 10,000 sieverts of radiation and 10 days completely exposed to space. There's even evidence they're resistant to severe chemical toxins.

Plus they have a cute name - waterbear (or mosspiglet). Though they're really called "tardigrades".

 

[Dotini]

There are, of course, complex organisms that can actually survive the cold, radiation and vacuum of space. My favourite phylum of all time has been shown to survive ridiculous extremes - -273 degrees (Celsius), +151 degrees (Celsius), a decade in a zero moisture environment, more than 10,000 sieverts of radiation and 10 days completely exposed to space. There's even evidence they're resistant to severe chemical toxins.

Plus they have a cute name - waterbear (or mosspiglet). Though they're really called "tardigrades".

What on Earth could explain the existence of these waterbears, mosspiglets or tardigrades? Isn't this prima facie evidence for a critter adapted to life off planet?

Lately, NASA has been talking louder and louder about their meteorites from Mars showing evidence of microbes or whatever. Valles Marinaris not withstanding, there is no sign of an impact on Mars that could send chunks across the solar system. So how could it get here?

Curiouser and curiouser,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

What on Earth could explain the existence of these waterbears, mosspiglets or tardigrades? Isn't this prima facie evidence for a critter adapted to life off planet?

Not really, no. In fact this attribute is far more of an argument in favour of complex life arising from simpler organisms - there are many species of archaeabacteria with extreme resistance to heat, cold, light, radiation, acidity, alkalinity, toxins, pressure and water deprivation, many more hardy even than the tardigrade. That a complex organism has startling properties it shares in common with simpler ones is a pointer that there's a familial relationship there.

Many of the tardigrades' resistances are down to the fact it's a xenophile - an organism tolerant of very low water activity. Since it can persist without water for a very long time, it doesn't suffer from low/high temperature extremes (freezing and boiling), acidity and alkalinity (both require water), radiation (water is very good at absorbing it) and so on and so forth.

Lately, NASA has been talking louder and louder about their meteorites from Mars showing evidence of microbes or whatever. Valles Marinaris not withstanding, there is no sign of an impact on Mars that could send chunks across the solar system. So how could it get here?

Mars used to have volcanic activity and a motile surface, as Earth does now. In fact it may well have done up to just a couple of hundred million years ago.

Meteorites like the Allan Hills one are in the order of 2-4 billion years old - easily long enough for the crust to sidle over and cover it up. After all, there's little evidence on Earth of the impact crater that the currently favoured theory says caused the Moon's formation, and that's about the same age as Allan Hills (4.3 to 4.1 billion years).

 

[Touring Mars]

Not really, no. In fact this attribute is far more of an argument in favour of complex life arising from simpler organisms - there are many species of archaeabacteria with extreme resistance to heat, cold, light, radiation, acidity, alkalinity, toxins, pressure and water deprivation, many more hardy even than the tardigrade. That a complex organism has startling properties it shares in common with simpler ones is a pointer that there's a familial relationship there.

Add to this that organisms with such extreme properties share genetic relatedness/common ancestry with organisms that don't possess anything like such extreme properties, then you can also rule out the possibility that tardigrade 'space survival' properties were an inevitable result of inheritance (which would have suggested that tardigrade ancestors may have evolved in space). In other words, being able to survive in space is not prima facie evidence of extraterrestrial origin - it just means that that particular lineage has evolved particular toughness, even though other lines from the same ancestral origins have not.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Define "like kind". And, for that matter "mosquitos".

If you mean "species", then no. There are 3,000 species of mosquito and they cannot interbreed.

OKay SuperCobraJet, I ask you this. SInce you say, "everything reproduces after it's own kind", I'd like you to define "kind" for me. Please, I'm looking forward to it.

Like kind is: Mosquitos reproduce mosquitos, Frogs reproduce frogs, dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, so on and so forth.

That is completely consistant with the factual evidence in that, always has and always will.

BTW, Famine when mosquitos do breed, what do they breed with and what is the result?

And please stop dodging the questions.

Forgive me, but ignoring the facts as well as the questions, appears to be the norm around here. Maybe I'm becoming unconsciously influenced by it.

 

[Touring Mars]

Forgive me, but ignoring the facts as well as the questions, appears to be the norm around here.

You have quite a nerve saying that. You have been asked repeatedly to show us some positive evidence that refutes evolution theory/supports intelligent design, and this is the best you can come up with? Lame.

That "Kind begets kind" seems to be the only "evidence" you have, and while it appears true, it only remains true if you consider a short enough timeframe to make it so. That offspring are genetically distinct from their parents and sexual reproduction (as well as other processes) produces sufficient genetic variation between generations upon which natural selection can act, really is true, independently of whatever timeframe(s) you choose to look at (or ignore). That humans only give birth to humans is self-evidently true - but crucially, it is only "99.999999% true", and not 100%. That all humans today had human parents is true, but due to the fact that each generation is slightly different from the one before, the logic that "humans only beget humans" does infact break down once you go back far enough in time - that all humans have a long history of human ancestry is obviously true, but it is also true that all humans today also have non-human ancestry that preceded their human ancestry. Ironically, the same evidence that supports the first part of that last sentence also supports the latter.

 

[Famine]

Like kind is: Mosquitos reproduce mosquitos, Frogs reproduce frogs, dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, so on and so forth.

That list includes two species (dog, cat), one family (mosquito: 3000 species) and one order (frog: 33 families, 5000 species).

So long as you can't understand your own answers, there's little helping you.

 

[Duke]

Forgive me, but ignoring the facts as well as the questions, appears to be the norm around here. Maybe I'm becoming unconsciously influenced by it.

You seem to have confused "facts" with "assertions" if you believe we are ignoring facts.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Like kind is: Mosquitos reproduce mosquitos, Frogs reproduce frogs, dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, so on and so forth.

That is completely consistant with the factual evidence in that, always has and always will.

BTW, Famine when mosquitos do breed, what do they breed with and what is the result?



Forgive me, but ignoring the facts as well as the questions, appears to be the norm around here. Maybe I'm becoming unconsciously influenced by it.

No one here is ignoring facts. You, however, are ignoring the neccessity of unifying facts into ideas.

Short of someone spending a good week or so explaining to you how the tree of life works, is there any way for us to help you understand that your idea of "factual evidence" ignores the concepts of time, change, and context entirely?

Facts do not exist in a vacuum.

Yes, if you look at an isolated singular instance of breeding, a dog and a dog produce a dog. Even in this limited context though, one MUST consider the breeds of dogs in question to be able to make any reasonable prediction as to exactly WHAT dog will be the outcome. More importantly than that though, looking at reality this way blinds you to the incredible, almost incomprehensible span of existence, a span of time which allows for more change than you or I could hope to imagine. In that light, this is what your view says:

You see two dogs go at it. A couple of months later, you have four tiny new dogs. You take this knowledge, and combine that with what you know of the staggering scope of time, and come to the conclusion that every species on the planet that has ever been, is, or will ever be exists as it always has and always will, immutable and invincible to the march of time, because an "influence" we can't see, know, or experience made it that way.

Even ignoring the science, this worldview seems narrow, evasive, deliberately ignorant, and frankly sad.

 

[Small_Fryz]

how different are we from humans say.. 1000 yrs ago?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

how different are we from humans say.. 1000 yrs ago?

Surprisingly, there are notable differences.

Compare the character of our complex immunities to those of humans circa 1010 CE, and you'd see very different pictures. We also have remarkably lower average cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels than our millenial ancestors, and the practical reproductive period within a human lifespan is significantly longer.

This may not seem earth-shaking, but a thousand years is a molecule in a drop in the bucket.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.1/1787

 

[Small_Fryz]

my point exactly....
if in 1,000 years we can see a half decent change then multiply that by another 100,000,000 and we can start to understand evolution....

 

[Dotini]

how different are we from humans say.. 1000 yrs ago?

When I was a lad the scientists usually said that modern man appeared about 30,000 years ago. Today I believe the figure has been pushed back to well more than 100,000 years ago when a specimen of our species would appear anatomically identical to men today.

Over all known geologic time there have been periodic extinctions. Maybe four of them took away 50% or more of all species on Earth at one fell swoop. At this very day, according to some, we are in the midst of another such extinction event when 50% or more of all known species, including primates, are perishing. Yet there is no macro level event such as a comet or caldera super volcano to explain it. Anyone ready, willing and able to take a whack at this one?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[DK]

how different are we from humans say.. 1000 yrs ago?

We questioned religion, they didn't. They were crapping themselves over what the Catholic Church would've done to them if they went public with any theories that contradicted the Church's teachings.

 

[Joey D]

We questioned religion, they didn't. They were crapping themselves over what the Catholic Church would've done to them if they went public with any theories that contradicted the Church's teachings.

People questioned religion 1,000 years ago, they were just often killed for doing so.

 

[Duke]

People questioned religion 1,000 years ago, they were just often killed for doing so.

They still are, depending on which religion they question...

 

[Joey D]

They still are, depending on which religion they question...

Touché.

 

[niky]

Like kind is: Mosquitos reproduce mosquitos, Frogs reproduce frogs, dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, so on and so forth.

Dogs reproduce with wolves, foxes, etcetera... Who's ignoring what?

That is completely consistant with the factual evidence in that, always has and always will.

Nope. It isn't.

BTW, Famine when mosquitos do breed, what do they breed with and what is the result?

Which of the 3,000+ species of mosquitos are we talking about?

Forgive me, but ignoring the facts as well as the questions, appears to be the norm around here. Maybe I'm becoming unconsciously influenced by it.

Ignoring? That's the pot calling the chalk black.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You have quite a nerve saying that.

My apologies. Perhaps I should not have used such a broad brush.
Although it was not necessarily intended to implicate everyone.

You have been asked repeatedly to show us some positive evidence that refutes evolution theory/supports intelligent design, and this is the best you can come up with? Lame.

Maybe you are missing my point.
There is nothing to refute, as far as it being a "possibility". Anything is possible.
Evolutional theory, only exsists in the abstract of possibilities.
It is not establishable, or by practically any standard of factual evidence even a probability. Being in and of that category, it is already refuted as a serious contenter.

As far as posiitive evidence, to the contrary as I've pointed out repeatedly, the factual evidence does support the statement that all life forms "reproduce after their own kind".
This statement clearly indicates reproductive boundaries and is part of the Creationism account found in the "old book" as it has been referred to. I didn't write it and likewise have no influence over it's compatability potential with the factual evidence. Therefore it is independent of what I believe or don't believe. However as part of considering "what to believe", I must conclude it is supported by the factual evidence and consequently more relevant than Evolutional theory.

Evolutional theory on the other hand, clearly claims that there are, no reproductive boundaries, not to mention primordial soups, common ancestor, and other unsupported speculations, which are in direct opposition to the factual evidence. The only way this 'theory" can even begin to skirt the relevant mountain of factual evidence and be asserted as possible is in the abstractness of unmeasurable and unobservable time periods of millions (pick a number as long as its beyond relevance) or billions of years.

That "Kind begets kind" seems to be the only "evidence" you have, and while it appears true, it only remains true if you consider a short enough timeframe to make it so.

Its not the only thing I consider evidence, however as already stated to prevent confusion and sporadic jumping all over the place, I am trying to stay on one thing at a time. Currently the scrutiny of evolutionary claims.

It "appears true" because in keeping with factual evidence it is true.
If in the establishable time frame A is the consistent result. Then in the extended time frame the probabilty is still A, not B. To claim B is to totally ignore the factual evidence of the establishable.

That offspring are genetically distinct from their parents and sexual reproduction (as well as other processes) produces sufficient genetic variation between generations upon which natural selection can act, really is true, independently of whatever timeframe(s) you choose to look at (or ignore).

The changes are limited and within the diversificational "like kind boundaries" on the establishable time frame. Again that is A. In comparison, predictability of probability on the extended time frame is still A. not B.

That humans only give birth to humans is self-evidently true - but crucially, it is only "99.999999% true", and not 100%. That all humans today had human parents is true, but due to the fact that each generation is slightly different from the one before, the logic that "humans only beget humans" does infact break down once you go back far enough in time - that all humans have a long history of human ancestry is obviously true, but it is also true that all humans today also have non-human ancestry that preceded their human ancestry. Ironically, the same evidence that supports the first part of that last sentence also supports the latter.

"Non-human ancestry" is only possible if you assume past the facts of evidence, which is similarity and commonality of make up. It likewise only breaksdown under the same assumption. Here as you have said, this is in scientific terms the most robust explanation. To use your term, it is in fact "lame". You just pointed out why. Because It is more inconsistent with, than supportive of, the establishable. In that case, since universally the further back you try to go, the more incompleteness the evidence is subject to, and the more difficult the analysis and correctness of any conclusions are likely to be, the establishable has to be considered the weightier of the two.

The fact is the evidences for evolutionary claims are wholely and substantially incomplete and inconclusive.
Assumption cannot substitute for the absense of substantive collaborating evidence.
At best it is a possibility in the abstract.

 

[Exorcet]

The only way this 'theory" can even begin to skirt the relevant mountain of factual evidence and be asserted as possible is in the abstractness of unmeasurable and unobservable time periods of millions (pick a number as long as its beyond relevance) or billions of years.

We've observed the past (ie this huge time periods) through fossils and rock layers, and even given examples that occurred in very human time scales.

The problem here is as stated before, you can't seem to believe things (or perhaps, only evolution) without seeing them.

I have to ask what your opinion is on sub atomic particles, the interior of stars, the inner workings of a jet engine, an electric wire, and other such things. By dismissing evolution in this manner, you've pretty much signaled that the evidence supporting all the above is not sufficient.

Evidence is not about seeing, it's about eliminating possibilities. The 'kind' argument is null instantly in the face of the fossil record and the lack of any kind of reproductive boundaries that you claim exist (where is this protein or ribosome that vigilantly guards the DNA of all organisms, preventing them from changing too much? And why doesn't it stop mutations?).

Even limiting myself to your twisted standards of evidence, I can still destroy your misguided concepts. I can see trends in genetic information that people have discovered, and I can see creatures adapting to new surroundings. I also see fossils that appear only a certain times in Earth's history, yet I do not see creatures popping out of the sky. Where did these new fossils come from? Evolution describes things nicely.

You won't be able to understand the science at hand until you realize that we've left the need to see every little thing far behind.

 

[niky]

Maybe you are missing my point.
There is nothing to refute, as far as it being a "possibility". Anything is possible.
Evolutional theory, only exsists in the abstract of possibilities.
It is not establishable, or by practically any standard of factual evidence even a probability. Being in and of that category, it is already refuted as a serious contenter.

As a serious contender to.. what? If you have shards of a piece of pottery that has fallen on a floor, and assembled, they form 90% of a teapot. You're suggesting that those shards of pottery have always been just that, shards of pottery.

As far as posiitive evidence, to the contrary as I've pointed out repeatedly, the factual evidence does support the statement that all life forms "reproduce after their own kind".

And as I've repeatedly pointed out... no they don't.

This statement clearly indicates reproductive boundaries and is part of the Creationism account found in the "old book" as it has been referred to. I didn't write it and likewise have no influence over it's compatability potential with the factual evidence. Therefore it is independent of what I believe or don't believe. However as part of considering "what to believe", I must conclude it is supported by the factual evidence and consequently more relevant than Evolutional theory.

No it isn't.

Evolutional theory on the other hand, clearly claims that there are, no reproductive boundaries,

No it doesn't.

not to mention primordial soups,

I suppose you're more a sandwich person?

common ancestor,

Yes.

and other unsupported speculations,

LIke what?

which are in direct opposition to the factual evidence.

The factual evidence you choose to see... as opposed to the actual evidence available.

The only way this 'theory" can even begin to skirt the relevant mountain of factual evidence and be asserted as possible is in the abstractness of unmeasurable and unobservable time periods of millions (pick a number as long as its beyond relevance) or billions of years.

Only as long as you choose to ignore the mountain of factual evidence and choose to instead to blindly follow evidence that exists only in your head.

Its not the only thing I consider evidence, however as already stated to prevent confusion and sporadic jumping all over the place, I am trying to stay on one thing at a time. Currently the scrutiny of evolutionary claims.

In other words, when someone comes up with evidence that is demonstrable, you choose to hide behind more semantics.

It "appears true" because in keeping with factual evidence it is true.
If in the establishable time frame A is the consistent result.

What is your "estabilishable time frame"? We've shown evidence of speciation within a single human generation.

Then in the extended time frame the probabilty is still A, not B. To claim B is to totally ignore the factual evidence of the establishable.

To claim B didn't happen in cases where it clearly did is to totally ignore factual evidence of the establisable. Of course, it would be if establishable were a word and not simply Creationist doubletalk.

The changes are limited and within the diversificational "like kind boundaries" on the establishable time frame. Again that is A. In comparison, predictability of probability on the extended time frame is still A. not B.

"like kind boundaries" meaning staying within a specific species? Which of course has been proven, irrefutably, to be completely untrue given certain species and groups of species within certain families of organisms?

If by "like kind boundaries", you mean species that can reproduce within themselves, no. If by "like kind boundaries", you mean that invertebrates haven't evolved into vertebrates within our lifetimes... d'oh.

Of course, we can only accept as hearsay the idea that giant redwoods were once saplings... because, you know, no one has ever seen one grow that large.

"Non-human ancestry" is only possible if you assume past the facts of evidence, which is similarity and commonality of make up. It likewise only breaksdown under the same assumption. Here as you have said, this is in scientific terms the most robust explanation. To use your term, it is in fact "lame". You just pointed out why. Because It is more inconsistent with, than supportive of, the establishable. In that case, since universally the further back you try to go, the more incompleteness the evidence is subject to, and the more difficult the analysis and correctness of any conclusions are likely to be, the establishable has to be considered the weightier of the two.

The fact is the evidences for evolutionary claims are wholely and substantially incomplete and inconclusive.
Assumption cannot substitute for the absense of substantive collaborating evidence.
At best it is a possibility in the abstract.

A wall of blather is still... wait... that's been said already...

 

[Sam48]

Does anyone know how long it took for the ants to turn into whales and then turn into monkeys etc? And if so, where did humans pop up?

I ask because humans are the "higher" form of intelligence when it comes to comparing humans to other species. What where humans somehow given that all the other species weren't. Things like a conscience, common sense, and a thought process far more advanced than the all other species.

 

[Sureboss]

Wow.

 

[homeforsummer]

Does anyone know how long it took for the ants to turn into whales and then turn into monkeys etc? And if so, where did humans pop up?

Err... yowzers. I seriously suggest you have a look at something even as general as the wikipedia page on evolution because you should really at least get a basic knowledge of the subject before you start furthering it with things like timeframes. Ants certainly didn't turn into whales and then into monkeys even with the huge timeframes involved...

 

[Dotini]

Does anyone know how long it took for the ants to turn into whales and then turn into monkeys etc? And if so, where did humans pop up?

Just to drive a few very crude sticks into the sand:

The Cambrian (540 m.y. ago +/- 40 m.y.) is the oldest system of rocks from which fossils can be used for dating and correlation. Below the Cambrian is an uncomformity. Here begins the "explosion" of life on Earth. Invertebrates, primarily trilobites become abundant.

After a massive extinction (90% of all species, plant and animal) about 280 m.y. ago, the dinosaurs arise in the fossil record, including whale-like creatures.

About 65 million years ago the dinosaurs are wiped out in another extinction and so begins the reign of mammals. Lorises and lemurs appear around this time.

Old world monkey show up around 35 million years ago.

Research is coming fast and furious these days, so it's hard to say when the first upright, tool using proto-human appeared. Maybe it was 2 million years ago, or maybe it was 6 or more, I don't know.

Impressive, tall, well adapted early humans had spread all over Europe, Africa and Asia by maybe 1 million years ago.

Humans indistinguishable from modern humans are around by more than 100,000 years ago, By how much, I don't know.