Understanding that most timelines are guessing is a great place to start and don't get me started on radio carbon dating

Typically not understanding that many dates in ancient timeliness are not set in stone and speculative is a good place to start

Please read up on the "Indus valley script"

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-we-still-cant-read-the-writing-of-the-ancient-indus-civilization

https://www.harappa.com/answers/why-has-language-harappa-not-been-deciphered#:~:text=So%20far%2C%20the%20Indus%20writing,of%20the%20same%20general%20period.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280527911_Debunking_post-publication_peer_review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Peer review isn't really reliable but it's still used so why would I refer back to a flawed method?

I don't know but this is the same problem with the script of the Vinca culture which predates Mesopotamia.Some scholars say it's a script and other's say it's not

Scholarship used to say cuneiform is about 300 years older than hieroglyphics supposedly but I fail to see how they came to these dates and timelines

There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics why do you all keep parroting outdated scholarship??Yeah that's my whole point both consensus and evidence are now saying both scripts developed independently this is obvious

You're going to parrot peer review yet more than a few scientific studies and papers have exposed the flaws in it and argue it's ineffective nature.

Do you want those studies or papers too?

What?If your going to discuss an academic level YouTube channel then we have nothing further to discuss and peer review means absolutely nothing

Absolutely and we still don't know how to read the Indus script but it doesn't help that some scholars argue that the Indus script isn't a script at all which opens a can of worms in that debate

I'm not a scholar in these fields but I do try to keep up with the latest developments in this debate

All of that is based on old dating and I don't know how it's evidence anymore than it is guessing.

How is what?Are you going to be obtuse and refuse to watch the video?

As I've said above watch the video but to give you a bit of context the idea that cuneiform came first or influenced hieroglyphics isn't widely accepted among all scholarship like it was decades ago.The most likely scenario is that the two evolved independently as they're very different and even if cuneiform evolved first it definitely didn't influence hieroglyphics much at all.Even the kingship in Mesopotamia was very different from the Pharaoh's of Egypt for a few reasons. Lastly if I'm not mistaken Egyptian civilization sprang up fully formed first while Mesopotamia was still in warring city states

History with Cy goes into some detail on cuneiform vs hieroglyphics

https://youtu.be/xcuSaYWZ-xk

Also another error is attributing writing to Mesopotamia first

Many scholars actually argue for simultaneous evolution of both Egypt and Mesopotamia and no Mesopotamia had contemporaries so they weren't the first at all to have a religion which is absolutely absurd to say.But there is evidence for a divergent evolution especially when it comes to writing between Mesopotamia and Egypt. I keep bringing up Egypt because it's the oldest contemporary civilization to Mesopotamia