Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Evolution - past pr present?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Does evolution still take place or was it just a phase in our development that we have grown out of?
-
Message 2
Posted by maraudingsaxon (U3567176) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus so who knows what will evolve from us. Evolution is an going process. Do you know we only use 10% of our brain's power. Perhaps thats the next step a more intelligent homo sapien.
-
Message 3
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 31st March 2006
maraudingsaxon, I am afraid that this idea that we only use 10% of our brain capacity is an urban myth, with no scientific evidence to back it.
As regards evolution, the theory is that new genotypes are weeded out by natural selection. With advances in medical science, many people who would be non-viable in the natural situation are being kept alive and presumably are breeding, so their genes are being passed on. However this is still only a small minority, so, by and large, non-viable genotypes are continuing to be selected out. -
Message 4
Posted by maraudingsaxon (U3567176) on Friday, 31st March 2006
The ten per cent usage of the brain may or may not be an urban legend fascinating. But the development of the brain lies at the heart of human evolution. Our earliest ancestors like Homo habilis had brains some 40-60% the cubic capacity of Homo sapiens. It has only been through the protien derived from meat eating. And particulary Homo sapien's new forms of social interaction in the last 250,000 years that our brains are the size they are. Who knows our brains may continue to grow.
-
Message 5
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Our earliest ancestors like Homo habilis had brains some 40-60% the cubic capacity of Homo sapiens. It has only been through the protien derived from meat eating. And particulary Homo sapien's new forms of social interaction in the last 250,000 years that our brains are the size they are. Who knows our brains may continue to grow.
听
Ive heard this theory before but I dont really understand it. Granted that some apes increased their brain capacity by eating meat, how did they pass this capacity on to future generations? Meat eating is a social/behavioural thing surely, not part of our DNA?? -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
The problem with evolution is that, althoughit is going on all the time, its effects, by definition, take generations to become evident, so it appears not to be happening. Tis is one of the arguments creationists often use, that things don't evolve, they decay. This is, of course true of individual organisms, but not necessarily of a species.
-
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
Gaiseric, eating meat and of course fish (either cooked or raw it gives plenty of proteins) aids in the development of the brain, especially during infancy. It is scientifically proven that children that have a low intake of proteins they present a mental development with an inferior rate - oh yes, and soya is no replacement, not to mention it increases a lot female hormons if eaten in large quantities. Even adults that change to to complete vegetarianism (thus no cheese, no milk) may have some side effects. I am not saying that meat at adult ages should be eaten everyday or something, it is just an undeniable part of the human nutrition otherwise we would have teeth of different styles though I am firmly saying that denying a child the necessary quantities of meat (a sad minimum of 2 times per week) it is a crime of the worst kind.
Now, the choice of adding substantial quantities of meat (unlike the chimps that eat occasionally) was a huge cornerstone in the human evolution - it is not accidental that those human spieces that remained vegetarian were left in more 'backward' levels. The above was obvious for the first anthropologists. Later there came a few other scientists who claimed that it was not meat but acually the start of boiling plants (to make them softer thus more easily edible) which aided the development of the human brain cos boiling liberates certain substances that aid in the development of the brain (well, what are these I do not know, I thought boiling takes away more than half the vegetables' vitamins!). Of course that theory never found many supporters cos it was not solidly founded and probably it was more the wish of some neo-hippy vegetarianist or so...
Today almost all palaiontologists believe that eating meat played an important role (watch out: not that it was the one and only) in the development of the human brain in many ways. Eating habits are in anyway known to provoke mutations and its nowhere near like the stupid example of the mouse with the cut tail some repeat like a chewing gum - just look the example of the poisonous frog and the snake that eats it (how this battle provoked several successive mutations in the lapse of time). Now meat eating played an even more crucial role from social perspective: humans had to go out and hunt: an animal spiece that traditionally would be more hunted than hunting, thus not rightly equiped to hunt, somehow developed this urge to kill and eat meat. Quite ironic for an animal that was not even capable of killing members of the same spiece easily (just watch out how chimps kill each other in their clan-wars, it takes 5-6 of them beating 1 for hours and the animal dies many hours later from bleeding or even days from not being able to move and eat, it is just pathetic). Thus humans in order to continue to eat meat and survive they had to think: their nails could not work thus they had to make artificial weapons, one of them could not kill even a small animal thus they had to come together and make out a strategy. The later was mostly critical - it took human communication into a superior level. People who communicated effectively became better hunters and that is how it worked: the better hunter had more chances of survival. It was a spiral effect, as communication increased continuously the human brain capacity (not to be related directly to volume, though there is a certain relation). -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
Now to continue from my previous message...
Do not forget also that among primitive clans the meat eaters had considerable advantage over plant eaters: they were considerably taller, much stronger, had an increased fighting spirit and were less fearfull, were more proud, had better coordination, had better reactions and possibly had a bit more developed brain. Thus it was bound that meat eating would succeed as a superior way of living.
Now someone will ask: "why humans did not become solely carnivore then?". Well, of course most humans would prefer to survive both ways just to ensure a certain future cos animals are not around everyday so one has to "play in many fields" but then those who maneged to have a higher intake of meat must had in general - and always in general - some sort of advantage. Complete vegetarians (like those vegetarian homo spieces in africa and asia) were outdated and vanished.
However meat eating before the domestication of animals had a severe disadvantage: even if the clan moved around (and humans moved all over the world!) it could not ensure the existence of edible animals near it, thus in case of few numbers, the clan's numbers also were reducing - thus hunter societies could only reach the numbers of a very small village (300-500 and these are too much). Not to mention that neighbouring clans would be most often in war (due to their increased mobility) while plant eaters would be less often in war (well war is another way of increasing intelligence). Now at the point where the first agricultural societies started the rules of the game changes considerably. Human brain had developed sufficiently to understand how the plants are growing (by the seeds they were throughing down) thus they went on planting the seeds themselves and finally figured out that if things go well, a field of substantial size could feed the family for much longer than even 1-2 elephants (whose meat lasted a few days only). Moreover, they could cultivate different plants and exchange them (something which did not happen of course in the beggining cos first agricultural societies cultivated only a poor variety). Due to the poor variety farmers that did not eat a lot of meat became shorter: hunters had an average of near 1,80m (like our modern one) while farmers had a 1,60 (huge difference). Poor variety meant more prone to illnesses which were provoked also by their higher numbers and their reduced mobility (thus if a foreigner came to visit them they died like natives in America), also their lives became more miserable since for the first time human parasites like... leadership came into the plan! In hunter societies, the chief would normally be the best hunter or an old man that had been an excellent hunter - in any case the chief would be the hardest working person. Imagine a non-hunter trying to impose to hunters to feed him just to be their chief... they would kill him and make him a souvlaki with their spears. However, in farming societies you would not expect the chief to be the hardest working farmer would you? Of course he would be the best fighter or the most intelligent fighter who would ensure protection to farmers in exchange of being their chief that taxed them - in any case, very often that was a parasitic relationship - since the chief could come along with his warriors from another clan and sit on their heads! In any case, 1,50, ill and miserable the farmers had one main advantage over hunters: they had increased numbers, had a leadership whose interest usually would be the expansion to neighbouring fields, and above all gave the oportunity to humans to create more specialisations (cultivation needs tools, better tools means more food etc.) - i.e. skilled work force etc. Greater numbers and specialisation meant that slowly but steadily farming societies would win over hunting ones and that happened everywhere in the world from Africa to the north Pole - hunters survived only in isolated corners of the earth
I included all the above details in order to get the whole picture and to spot the role of meat eating - the ups and the downs and how certain details can be an advantage in one era and a disadvantage in another. On the one hand meat provoked an increase in the human brain capacity while on the other this was used to get back to a diet based more on vegetables but then cultivated ones that despite certain disadvantages it could create more powerful societies that could prevail over the others in exactly the same way for example that patriarchical societies prevailed over matriarchical all over the world (matriarchical societies like hunting societies only survived in isolated places). -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
And please no reference to creationists here, we do not care what idiotic people want to believe, we prefer to use our own logic that stupid books written by distorted minds only 2000-3000 years ago which is virtually 2 minutes ago compared to the history of human spieces.
-
Message 10
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
Our earliest ancestors like Homo habilis had brains some 40-60% the cubic capacity of Homo sapiens. It has only been through the protien derived from meat eating. And particulary Homo sapien's new forms of social interaction in the last 250,000 years that our brains are the size they are. Who knows our brains may continue to grow.
听
Ive heard this theory before but I dont really understand it. Granted that some apes increased their brain capacity by eating meat, how did they pass this capacity on to future generations? Meat eating is a social/behavioural thing surely, not part of our DNA??听
Brain size isn't the only criterion that determines intellectual capability. Naturally, we'll never know what Homo neanderthalensis's mental abilities were, but we do know that their brains were larger than ours. We assume from the topography of their brains that they were not as creative as H. sapiens, but that could easily be incorrect. We'll probably never know why we succeeded and they failed.
I'm not sure where that old urban myth originated (the 10% of our brains issue), but there is certainly no scientific evidence to support it. However, it's possible it sprang from the micro-anatomical observation made a century or so ago that most of the cells in our brains are not neurons (which were -- and still are -- believed to be the functional units of the brain).
The concept that neurons are the brain's functional units is a sacred cow which few have challenged. They may yet prove to be the units of thought, but there is increasing evidence that the glial cells, which outnumber the neurons by several orders of magnitude, play a major role in learning and memory. There are several different kinds of glial cells, and we have managed to ascertain the specific function of only a few of them, and our knowledge of those is probably incomplete.
There is so much about the brain and it's functions that we don't know....and the more we discover, the more we realize we do not know.
T'was ever thus in science. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 1st April 2006
I totally agree with Eriks above views and also find the 10% exploitation of our brains somehow generic or irrelevant as a statement.
I have read that from scientists specialists but then it could be also my guess as a complete ignorant on the issue: 10% might be the volume occupied by our neurons that directly participate in our 'reasoning' but then the rest capacity is not resting useless - it is just that it makes operations that are absolutely necessary for the brain to function (e.g. to make it funny, say they make something like defragmentation and restructuring of the brain), thus keeping the whole brain functioning. It is just that still we have a long way to fully comprehend the functioning of our brains (as well as those of other animals).
Now the size of human brains was advertised in the late 19th early 20th century by anthropologists and doctors, especially those on the racist side of science (not popular only in... Germany but elsewhere also!!!). They had measured (not so accurately) that Africans for example have a bit (a bit.. some 0,5% on average) smaller brain so they said that Africans are genetically incapable of reaching the same reasoning levels as others, ...but then forgot to mention that it is certain Polynesians that have 0,5% bigger brain of all races does that makes Polynesians the most superior race on earth? If so then we should preserve some of them in a glass bottle to keep them for the difficult times when we will need a saviour with near-god intelligence to bring a solution for our poor wrecked planet.
Of course things do not work that way since brain volume is not directly relevant to reasoning capacity and other abilities and the Homo Sapiens - Neaderdal difference is characteristic. Yes, Sapiens had a bigger brain compared to other previous hominoids with an average of 1350cc (supposedly that is why he was smarter), but then as Erik correctly said Neaderdal has an even bigger with an average of 1550cc but he did not show the same capacity of reasoning.
I had also read that Neaderdal's skull architecture shows that his brain architecture was more simple thus his increased volume did not bring him advantage over the Homo Sapiens - but then that implies that there is no absolute proof that Homo Sapiens was more smart because he increased his brain from 300cc to 1350cc. In other words like in cars and motorbikes, a larger engine does not guarantee always an increased performance to the car - it depends on many structures.
Personally I believe that Neaderdal was not that brute idiot some think he was. Yes indeed he showed little development but then so did homosapiens until a point in his history (around 70,000-60,000) when his reasoning capacities seemed to logarithmically increase (personally I prefer to relate that to language). To be just to Neaderdals there are few proofs and a lot of suspicion that Neaderdals who came in contact with Homo Sapiens, obviously most often as enemies, understood that the latter were more advanced and tried to catch up with them making a bit better tools etc. - something which shows logical reasoning, then you do not know if poor Neaderdal was really really intelligent but if at the same time he had hands and fingers that did not permit yet elaborate work.
Another example of the fact that volume does not matter is the Homo Floresiensis, the little Hominiod that was found in Indonesia in the island of Flores which lived from 80,000 up to as recently as 10,000 in an island that had always been an island (i.e. this little hominoid swam or went by boat). He had 300cc -
Message 12
Posted by Crackers (U2387404) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Does evolution still take place or was it just a phase in our development that we have grown out of? 听
No one disputes 鈥榚volution鈥 as defined as change over time. What is disputed is that this change is responsible for our origins, as propogated by Darwin. -
Message 13
Posted by maraudingsaxon (U3567176) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Homo sapiens are descended from Homo erectus, Homo habilis and before that Austrolapithecus(apologies for the spelling)afarensis. We did not pop into existence some wet Sunday afternoon six thousand years ago that is nothing more than creationist nonsense. Evolution has given us up right walking ability, taste for meat and many other characteristics.
-
Message 14
Posted by Crackers (U2387404) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
The premise is that
鈥淗omo sapiens are descended from Homo erectus, Homo habilis and before that Austrolapithecus afarensis.鈥
Then the conclusion jumps to
鈥淲e did not pop into existence some wet Sunday afternoon six thousand years ago that is nothing more than creationist nonsense.鈥
Firstly, saying something is nonsense is no argument and proves nothing.
Secondly, let鈥檚 deal with the phrase 鈥淲e did not pop into existence鈥. Even 鈥榚volutionist鈥 believes that something did pop into existence to start the process of Darwinian evolutionary theory off, whether it was a Big Bang effect, an 鈥榚lectrical鈥 spark within a chemical soup, etc.
Thirdly, let鈥檚 tackle the phrase of creation. It is perfectly logical and rational to believe in the creative process. As stated earlier, evolution as defined by change over time is not disputed. But by no means does it prove our origins.
Fourthly, stating 鈥淓volution has given us up right walking ability, taste for meat and many other characteristics鈥 doesn鈥檛 make it a valid statement. Humans have always walked on two feet. I haven鈥檛 seen any facts that shows that all humans walked on all fours.
I鈥檝e always wanted to find out from an evolutionist how women evolved and who came first, the man or woman? I鈥檓 sure you can furnish an explanation for me. -
Message 15
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
first we as human beings have stopped evolveing,and we have also stopped all the other anamils from evolveing as well and there are no new species now or in the future,the evelution process has stalled for now and we will not see any more until the human race wipe each other out and the anamails will take over the planet.
-
Message 16
Posted by simonsshot (U3392321) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Crackers draw a breath, relax okay ?
You want cold hard facts.
1 Our species has a genetic structure that is 98.2% similar to a chimpanzee. At some point around 6 million years ago an unknown species from the monkey/chimpanzee family stood up on the ground. All of our ancestors in the Homo /Australopithecus family are mainly bipedal( meaning they stood upright and walked on two feet. Although early species in the Homo/Australop
-ithecus family displayed quadrapedal traits (they could move around on all four feet). Homo sapiens are descended from creatures that where quadrapedal.
2. Everybody can have their own views. I think that Human evolution is the most exciting and interesting part of archaeology. The whole story of how we arrived is not yet known, there is still much to learn. Science like life doesn't have all the answers. This is the problem I have with creation/intelligent design. As I understand it humans were designed by a higher power and came into existence around six thousand years ago. But life isn't neat like that, for me there are too many inconsistencies. Earth has been dated to five billion years, that does not appear to fit with the creationist/intelligent design theory.
3. As to who came first man or woman who knows ?
I'm sorry I just think that the creationist /intelligent design argument is weak at best, at worst seriously under developed. -
Message 17
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Even 鈥榚volutionist鈥 believes that something did pop into existence to start the process of Darwinian evolutionary theory off, whether it was a Big Bang effect, an 鈥榚lectrical鈥 spark within a chemical soup, etc.
听
You are hardly comparing like with like. There is a big difference between (a) a theory that states that the earliest single celled life form appeared because of a chemical reaction millions of years ago and (b) a theory that states that human beings and all other complex life forms were created from nothing 6000 years ago
Thirdly, let鈥檚 tackle the phrase of creation. It is perfectly logical and rational to believe in the creative process. As stated earlier, evolution as defined by change over time is not disputed. But by no means does it prove our origins.
听
But if you accept the principle of evolution how can you justify making an exception for one particular species, ie homo sapiens?
Fourthly, stating 鈥淓volution has given us up right walking ability, taste for meat and many other characteristics鈥 doesn鈥檛 make it a valid statement. Humans have always walked on two feet. I haven鈥檛 seen any facts that shows that all humans walked on all fours.
听
Nobody says they did - it's our ancestors who were quadruped
I鈥檝e always wanted to find out from an evolutionist how women evolved and who came first, the man or woman? I鈥檓 sure you can furnish an explanation for me.
听
Unfortunately the Bible won't help you either because - as is well known - the Book of Genesis has two contradictory accounts of the matter, one in which Man comes first (Gen 18:22) and another in which they appear simultaneously (Gen 1:27) -
Message 18
Posted by Crackers (U2387404) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
simonsshot,
Nobody disputes facts and evidence, what is in dispute is the interpretation of the facts and evidence.
1. You state facts but then you interpret the facts erroneously. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications. DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 鈥榬ead鈥 by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it鈥攊magine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).
Also, were you there to 鈥榦bserve鈥 this monkey/chimpanzee link while it happened? Isn鈥檛 that part of the scientific requirement?
2. Really it鈥檚 everyone has their own interpretation of the facts and evidence. You feel happier interpretting the life around you as a series of evolutionary steps. Personally, I don鈥檛 see any inconsistencies with life being created or designed. Incidentally, you don鈥檛 have to believe in the 鈥渟ix thousand years鈥 to come to a creation conclusion. I see the process of creation everywhere around me. If I decide to write a novel I certainly don鈥檛 place a pen and paper on the desk and wait for evolution to produce the writing and ideas on the paper. I use my mind and thoughts to create the ideas and put them down on paper. Similarly, if I鈥檓 a scientist I don鈥檛 wait for an idea to evolve so that I can scientifically test it. It is my mind that comes up with the theory and ideas and then I use my creative abilities to produce the end result.
3. You must, at least, have a theory about the evolution of woman. See my further explanation in answer to the post below.
Personally, when I rationalise it and think logically, it鈥檚 the theory of evolution that is very weak. Why? Because evolution states that it is part of science, yet the fundamental definition of science it fails in. For example, observational, testing, etc. You may say creation fails as well, but creation as part of the supernatural is excluded from the current definition as proclaimed by Darwinist evolutionists. -
Message 19
Posted by Crackers (U2387404) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Gaiseric
1. The poster insinuated that they didn鈥檛 believe that something can pop into existence and nothing you have said has altered my repudiation of the posters statement.
2. I accept the principle of evolution as defined as change over time. I don鈥檛 accept the proposition that it is the cause of life. Change happens when there is life and when there isn鈥檛 life.
3. It is the original poster who stated the link between walking on all fours with evolution
4. Lastly, I鈥檓 disappointed that instead of answering the question concerning the evolution of woman and who came first, you deviate into a popular erroneous interpretation of a bible quote. Please answer the question with regards to the evolution of woman. -
Message 20
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Does evolution still take place or was it just a phase in our development that we have grown out of? 听
Does global travel and the access to a wider gene pool have any impact on evolution? People can now travel to countries their forefathers could never have travelled to (or in some cases not even known about) meet the locals and make babies with them. Would this access to a wider gene pool increase the possibility of variations in DNA?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 21
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 13th April 2006
-
Message 22
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 13th April 2006
Personally, when I rationalise it and think logically, it鈥檚 the theory of evolution that is very weak.
听
Crackers are you suggesting that we are not so much up from apes, but down from angels? -
Message 23
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 13th April 2006
-
Message 24
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 13th April 2006
I鈥檓 disappointed that instead of answering the question concerning the evolution of woman and who came first, you deviate into a popular erroneous interpretation of a bible quote. Please answer the question with regards to the evolution of woman.
听
I have no idea whether the first human was male or female - does anyone?
I am curious about why you think this is a big issue. Are you saying that if the theory can't answer this question then it can't be valid? -
Message 25
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 13th April 2006
Does evolution still take place or was it just a phase in our development that we have grown out of? 听
Does global travel and the access to a wider gene pool have any impact on evolution? People can now travel to countries their forefathers could never have travelled to (or in some cases not even known about) meet the locals and make babies with them. Would this access to a wider gene pool increase the possibility of variations in DNA?
Cheers,
RF
听
In a word - yes
Another big evolutionary effect of this increased travel is the way it helps the spread & mutation of diseases, which can threaten the survival of other species including humans. -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Gaiseric,
I think that Crackers (highly apt name for a Creationist) was hoping that someone was going to say that women were created from a rib. The use of the term "evolutionist" and the selection of copy and paste pseudo-scientific babble taken from the "Answers in Genesis" website kind of gave it away.
Going back to your original thread, I'd say that we're probably affecting human evolution through technological advances, particularly medical advances. For example, many people who would have died in infancy in previous decades/centuries are now surviving to reproductive age, and having children, which would have previously not been possible, so in a way we are changing the make up of the human gene pool (and therefore evolving).
Cheers -
Message 27
Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
This thread neatly ties in with a question I was just about to put up on the boards.
If someone were to bring a baby forward in time from ancient egyptian times and educated it in our time, would it have any difficulty in keeping up? If the answer is no then surely we have reached the pinnacle of at least, our intellectual evolutionary process.
If anyone thinks I'm hijacking this discussion let me know and I'll pose this as a seperate question. To be honest I'm not even this is the correct board to ask!!
Peebs -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
good question and makes some sense but the answer is quite easy: evolution really goes forward in occasional leaps and not in a continuous matter. Thus you may have from 100,000 up to 30,000 one value rising say from 4 to 5 then suddenly and due to a combination of factors this value jumps to 10 and then from 30,000 to today you may again have an increase of 10 to 11 (this goes to eleven!).
Personally I think this leap was done around 80,000 B.C. (scientists say around 60,000 but I have the bad habit of throwing them a bit back, do not know why).
I think that in your nice example if you took 1000 Egyptian kids of 3000 B.C. (of course as babies!) and brought them up in London and educated them there in schools then they would present the same average rate of development as other London kids. If you took babies from period earlier than 80,000 I think probably you would have some more visible discrepancies, now to what extend I do not know... -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
matter=manner
-
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Do not forget! Evolution works the opposite way? We may get dumber or lose some really cool capacities. Even serious palaiontologists have the suspicion that primitive man had some capacities really increased in comparison to modern man and we are not talking about increased vision and smelling and such but capacities touching the sphere of magic... like for example the 'sonar'. Of course we know that dolphins and whales and other mammals use the biological sonar just nice thus there is some suspicion that early humans had increased capacities in that sector. Of course, a human sonar - that goes in the sphere of magic today and thus such views can be easily ridiculed in the absence of proof (and how on earth do we find proof of that?) but then who knows???
A few go even more forward and suggest that the ancient samans actually could 'feel' or 'vision' say the presence of an advancing enemy army group several km away thus when they warned their fellow men their saying was translated by them as a 'prediction' or a see in the future. they say that this was one of the basis for the development of human spirituality and such.
Of course it is another thing to be able to foresee an enemy at 50km coming on you and another thing to be really able to fight against him!!!! Thus in the lapse of time, humans preferred more their linguistic tools (highly necessary for the formation of bigger, more complex societies) and their analytical capacities that permitted them to built better weapons and tools. Hence, language and analysis took the place of earlier capacities...
... honestly, the above theory is not at all irrational, simply a bit difficult to prove. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
forgot to mention the most well known example,
... that samans might had the capacity of animals to 'feel' the oncoming of an earthquake or a natural destruction quite some time before it happened (like those elephants before the tsunami or most other animals that hide hours before an earthquake).... but then of course what can you do about that? Stop smoking grass and see 'visions' and sit down to learn how to built houses that stand the earthquake and then you do not care much about it... ehehehe!!! -
Message 32
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Excellent question pb,
Personally I think that if they were brought forward early enough, they wouldn't have any problem fitting into our society. How well they progressed, and how easily they dealt with the more technical aspects of modern life would be more down to their individual IQ rather than being a few thousand years behind genetically.
I suppose that the same could be applied to almost all species, a lion in 3000BC would be slightly different genetically, but it's still a lion as we know one. Now, turning back the clock 100,000 years or so would be a different matter I think. A "human" back then would be genetically similar, but be very different. I'd think that they may have a smaller brain capacity, have a different appearance (but not drastically). An interesting example of physical and aesthetic difference would be the 麻豆约拍's recent "British Isles" series, where they took Alan Titchmarsh, used modern make-up techniques to convert him into a Neanderthal man, then put clothes on him and sent him wandering round the streets. No one even gave him a second glance, despite him looking somewhat weird! -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Actually Neaderdals had noticeably bigger brain volumes than our modern ones but then scientists argue that it must had been of a slightly more primitive overall structure thus not allowing him having a competitive advantage. That was translated in simpler tools and in more repetitive technologie over vast periods of prehistory while on the other hand they seem to have used a lot their teeth for doing jobs and possibly not being so flexible with their fingers. However newer finds add continuously information and some say that poor Neaderdal was not that brute idiot we might think since
1) The fact that he did not evolve much was due to the fact that he only lived in colder climates not moving around much having found his 'niche' there thus even his body structure was adapted to that, a fact that did not favour him a lot in the huge climatic changes that followed.
2) However, there is proof that as soon as he came in contact with Homo Sapiens he showed considerbale change (it must had been a shock to him) which shows certainly a considerable intelligence. He was in position to understand that he was challenged seriously and he was in difficult position and that he had to improve his ways (there was some improvement of tools etc.).
Hence one cannot tell with certainty whether it was more his intelligence that did not allow him to evolve or it was more the fact that he lived in a signle environmental 'niche'.... afterall the latter is the case for a really large number of human tribes from north to south. -
Message 34
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
i got told that were already considered homo-spiens-sapiens......dont know what it means, but its twice the sapiens anyway!
-
Message 35
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
DO like the idea of no one noticing Alan Titmarsh is a neanderthal! Ha ha.
I dimly remember that there is a 'standard' rate of genetic variation in any population that is called genetic drift - it's just the rate at which genes mutate, and it's fairly constant.
However, the forces SELECTING those steadily-mutating genes may differ enormously - eg, when dinosaurs bit the dust, the little old mammals, scrabbling around in dino-dung, suddenly had the world largely to themselves, and boy, did they take advantage of it - that's called radiation when species 'suddenly' (ie, in geo-evolutionary perspective)move into new econiches now available.
Evolution is pretty opportunist in that sense. I agree that speculating how Homo sapiens is evolving is great fun - I'd like to wonder what big new phylum (group of animals like Mammals, Reptiles etc) is emerging ....
I'd agree that 5 k years is probably too short a span for there to be any noticeable difference in the mental capability of humans, and that therefore an ancient egyptian baby could easily be raised as a modern human.
Social evolution - ie, through behaviour and language etc - is a huge accelerator, but the mechanism of inheritance is environmental, not genetic.
Genetic modification may/will also, of course, affect the rate of evolution.
Intersting question -
Eliza.
PS - Homo sapiens sapiens should, I think, indicate that we are a variety of the species Homo sapiens, which is a species in the genus Homo. Species can interbreed, that's the definition of them. If it's thought that Neanderthal man was a species in its own right, then we should not have been able to interbreed with them. -
Message 36
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Sorry - should have read 'species can intrabreed' ie, one species breeds amongst itself, not between several species.
-
Message 37
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
it could also be said that we dont have to evolve anymore, at least for the moment anyway
-
Message 38
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
sorry again - the earlier post about who evolved first, men or women, is immaterial, as in any 'new' species you do need both sexes to perpetuate it.
That's why I don't really like this Seven Daughters of Eve business - they must have had Seven Bridegrooms as well, you know! -
Message 39
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
i thought we where (from the mainstream religious view anyway) all the sons and daughters of eve?
-
Message 40
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
And 'adam' of course. Figuratively speaking. Though I suppose there was, logically, a Time T at which the 'first' human was born (ie, the first to have the Homo Sap Sap genome)
Eliza. -
Message 41
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
crackers-mankind, alias, humanity,homo sapiens evolved, not man or woman...without the one there could not be the other....were to halves of the whole
-
Message 42
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
thats regarding mssge 19 btw...
-
Message 43
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
And 'adam' of course. Figuratively speaking. Though I suppose there was, logically, a Time T at which the 'first' human was born (ie, the first to have the Homo Sap Sap genome)
Eliza.听
there are other sons of adam who arent sons of eve....according to certain texts anyway... -
Message 44
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Friday, 21st April 2006
To bring people forward in time & then measure their IQ would be a rather silly way to test intelligence since you'd have to define intelligence first & each culture has its own definition. Intelligence is a very sippery slope. How quickly the little Egyptians grasped our technology would not be an indicator. I can think of many many people of the generation over 60 that refuse to even consider using a calculator, believing instead that paper & pencil is the only way since you can see how the problem is resolved step-by-step. And let's not forget those that cannot imagine what a computer would be useful for. On the other hand, if we were to go back to Egypt, we would look like "dummies" for not knowing how to use much of their "technology". I can think of several archaeological finds that the experts are still dumbfounded as to what they were used for.
-
Message 45
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 21st April 2006
"I can think of several archaeological finds that the experts are still dumbfounded as to what they were used for."
Oh, they're just always 'religious artefacts' whenever archeologists haven't a clue!!!
Eliza -
Message 46
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
I have never considered it sound reasoning to assume that ancient man, say 5000 years ago, was less intelligient than moderns. It is not at all clear that civilization favors genes for intelligience. We tend to confuse social success, survival, and reproductive success--only the later having a direct impact on the changes in gene frequency in a population--which is evolution. Social success and survival only have impact insofar as they affect reproductive success.
Current dynamics in my society favors genes for poor impulse control rather than intelligience. Those with good self-control and whose behavior is guided by long-term goals and personal interest (traits usually associated with intelligience) are much less likely to have unplanned pregnancies. The more highly educated are having lower birth-rates. Statistics also show, in populations, a current inverse correlation between birth rate and longevity (illustrating the point that the only direct advantage of survival for genetic success is survival through reproductive years). One long-term study of children with attention deficit disorder, following them into their early twenties, noted as an incidental finding that nearly all of the ADD subjects had children by study termination but only one of the "normals". Those with ADD, drug abuse, poor impulse control, and emotional lability are less likely to remember the condom. The survival disadvantage for their offspring is then slight as society compasionately attempts to make sure the children do not die of neglect or starvation as a result of unfortunate parental "selection."
How long has this been the case? I do not know. Is it only a dynamic present under current conditions--to shift within a few generations with no major impact on the genetic structure of the population? Or is it an inevitable consequence of a civilized, free and compassionate society? Is modern civilization itself therefore self-limiting? Is the only society that can maintain a vigorous birthrate without upside down gene selection one which takes reproductive control away from women and provides no safety net for the poor? Is the future of man to be the mysogynist. violent and brutally darwinian cultures that we now consider backwards? -
Message 47
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
This is a sad but important point - (ie, post above). We are 'selecting for' those least likely to 'make it' were it not for the social security net etc.
How long will it last? Well, I'd guess until the numbers of the 'less fit' currently kept going on benefits become so disproportionate that the rest of the population (the intelligent slow breeders!) can't earn enough money to pay for them.
in an ideal world, ofcourse, the security network/benefits system would be used to educate those requiring it OUT of dependence and INTO more productive (and hopefully happier!) lives. But that's something we haven't quite got our heads around yet.
Eliza
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.