The real story of human evolution

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Saturday, March 25, 2006 22:05
VIEWED: 3424
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:44 PM

Now that veers to the more general topic of 'human nature' and why evolution is such a hot topic in the US. People have beliefs about human nature in order to support their view of society, and then look for evidence to support those beliefs.

"catching of sea life for nourishment need such vast brain power? In particular our capacity for entering the mind of our prey and anticipating its actions"

That is not uniquely human. In fact it's not unique to hunters, as prey anticipate their hunters as well.

Putting that aside for now (but keeping it open for later), I'm curious why you assume hunting was the dominant driver in evolution. With the exception of tundra dwellers, peoples that hunt primarily live off what they gather and/or scavenge. Roughly 80% of nutrition comes from gathering. So why would hunting be so central to human survival that it would drive evolution?

The other assumption in your argument is that the only advantage of brain power is for hunting. Remembering good food v bad food, good areas v bad areas, and all the different way to gather/hunt shore food (seaweed, crabs, clams, mussels, urchins, small fish, birds, eggs), to store and carry water, in other words, to generalize food sources and tool use, would be an advantage.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FLETCH2

Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:32 PM

I personally like the aquatic ape theory but in support of Haze's argument, we are VERY good at throwing things instinctively. One of our neighbours had concreted over most of their back yard and would "encourage" their pet rabbits to go through the fence and graze on our garden. I came back once after walking the dog to find a rabbit on the lawn. The dog started off and fearing for the rabbit (which hadn't seen the dog yet) I picked up a rock and threw it instinctively in the rabbit's direction, actually hitting the thing on the head and stunning it. The dog grabbed it but fortunately the rabbit got away. I wasn't consciously aiming to hit the rabbit, just make a noise nearby so it would start to run before the dog reached it. However, I realise now that I was looking straight at it when I let my subconscious aim the rock. It was an absolutely perfect hit, had the rock been even slightly larger we'd have had rabbit stew... (and irrate neighbours...)

HAZE

Monday, March 20, 2006 2:40 PM

What I meant is our capacity to enter the mind of our prey, to think from there perspective, to stand in the middle of field with no physical evidence of where that deer went and still predict/intuit its movements. This IS a unique human trait that no other animal is capable of, to look at anther being and think from ITS point of view. That’s one heck of a hunting tool.

I will admit I might be a bit biased towards the evolutionary “facts” I was thought in school, but the sea ape theory still has some way to go before if convinces me.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, March 20, 2006 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
I will admit I might be a bit biased towards the evolutionary “facts” I was thought in school, but the sea ape theory still has some way to go before if convinces me.

Yeah, the “sea ape theory” is a little hard to swallow, but it grows on you after a little while. It does seem to fit the story. I’m leery of all of it, personally. It’s all very speculative, even the “sea ape theory” is probably better referred to as a “sea ape hypothesis,” but it does seem to fit quite nicely in place.

As far as hunting is concerned, I think it makes sense that hunting could have spurred human intellect. Apes that were simply interested in foraging and staying away from snow leopards and saber-toothed tigers would remain in the trees or perhaps grow very large on the ground, but apes who were interested in actually competing with these animals for food would find themselves at a horrible disadvantage as the leopards can outrun, out-track and out-kill prey. So it makes since to think that humans began using their only two advantages, speech and tool-use, which at the time may not have been much of an advantage, but over time speech developed into language and complex communication of multifaceted plans and tool-use became complex compound weapons.

I think it is possibly that both the sea ape and the savannah theory are correct. If for instance a strand of ape evolved physiologically in a wet environment, only to have that wet environment dry up and leave behind a dry dangerous world were humans then need to compete for food, where intellectual evolution took place. There’s no reason physical and intellectual evolution need necessarily occur concurrently?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Monday, March 20, 2006 3:36 PM

I suspect that the transition went something like this: Tool use was perfected while cracking lobsters, mussels and other shellfish, and possibly bringing down sea-birds. The same tools could easily be used to crack bones for marrow- giving humans an ecological niche only shared by hyenas, and also giving humans a rich source of some of the fats and vitamins they needed for survival. (There is evidence of active human bone-scavenging in Africa in the form of bones showing tool-fractures and marrow extraction.) Given this unique and unassailable toe-hold on dry land, humans could then have progressed to hunting. I don't think the process was concurrent as much as successive.

But RUE- you said something that you didn't support afterwards. I get the evidence for ocean/ seaside evolution, but why an ISLAND?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But RUE- you said something that you didn't support afterwards. I get the evidence for ocean/ seaside evolution, but why an ISLAND?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

If I might hazard a guess? Evolutionary theory seems to need an isolated population that develops such that once that isolation is ended that population can no longer interbreed with the original species. The Aquatic Ape hypothesis would be best served if a group of homolids became seperated from the more common tree dwelling kind and forced to exploit the sea shore for survival. An island would more likely serve for genetic isolation than a shoreline.

PIRATEJENNY

Monday, March 20, 2006 6:50 PM

Quote:
But there are many holes in the story of human evolution. No fossils show the transition from quadraped to biped. The process of HOW humans transitioned from hairy, tree-dwelling vegetarians to hairless, savannah-dwelling bipedal scavengers/ gatherer/ hunter ("Man the Hunter") hasn't been satisfactorily explained in common literature.

have you ever read any of Zecharia Stichens books, it isn't common literature, but it does have an explantion that I think could shed somelight on the explanation.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
And where is the evolutionary advantage to alcohol?

Alcohol is free of contaminants that cause disease (Alcohol is of course a poison but it effects bacteria and viruses more than it does us). Evolution in action:
White Europeans have a much higher tolerance to Alcohol where the primary means for water purification was distilling in comparison to Oriental Asians, where boiling was the primary means.

One other thing. High intelligence in the animal kingdom is AFAIK only ever found with highly cooperative groups. Specifically the larger and more cooperative the group the more intelligent the animal. It's true this is usually evidenced in hunters since pack behaviours are very useful to predators as it allows the animals to attack prey much larger than themselves, but isn't a necessity.

Point is in the Animal kingdom you can get dumb hunters, but you don’t get dumb cooperative groups.

Edit:

Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
What I meant is our capacity to enter the mind of our prey, to think from there perspective, to stand in the middle of field with no physical evidence of where that deer went and still predict/intuit its movements. This IS a unique human trait that no other animal is capable of, to look at anther being and think from ITS point of view. That’s one heck of a hunting tool.

Actually no it isn't. Dolphins and even Chimpanzees have shown this to varying degrees, in fact dolphins especially. But again it's not specifically a hunting tool at all.

It's something that we can do largely because of mirror neurons which reside in Broca's area and the inferior parietal cortex in Human brains and the inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule in Monkey brains.

Mirror neurons seem to primarily be concerned with group behaviours, like understanding another individuals motives and learning through imitation. The ability to put yourself in the mind of another creature is more likely to be an adaptation of these latent abilities.

Lone hunters tend too not hunt in a predictive way, they're usually more opportunistic.

Editing the edit:
As a final thought Dolphins are wildly regarded as the second most intelligent animal on the planet, and they live in the sea...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

MATTCOZ

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:45 PM

Found this site that goes into a lot of detail about the failings of the aquatic ape theory.

http://www.aquaticape.org

DUG

Monday, March 20, 2006 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
And where is the evolutionary advantage to alcohol?

Alcohol is free of contaminants that cause disease (Alcohol is of course a poison but it effects bacteria and viruses more than it does us). .......

One other point about tolerance to alcohol: vegetable matter ferments in your gut. The human body produces its own hooch; this tolerance may simply be a way of dealing with our vegetable intake. And before you ask, yes. Cows and other herbivores do sometimes like to get drunk. I've seen some birds that would get so smashed on fermented grapes they couldn't fly and would fall off of the fence they landed on.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE