Topic: Human Evolution - page 2. (Read 3941 times)
Early manscaping led to too many infected abrasions. Man evolved the hair patterns he has to look good in leather. Women have less body hair because early waxing had too many bee stings.
Being virtually hairless would suggest that primates lived indoors before they lost their hair. If primates could sustain themselves indoors long enough such that they didn't need their hair to protect themselves from the elements, then the hair would lose its necessity. But, WTF? Why? It seems very implausible that a group of primates would travel to such cold environments, find and/or create shelter indoors, survive that way for so many generations and were able to sustain themselves for so long that generational intellect developed to the point where they could, for example, create fire and no longer need their hairy coats. And, if they didn't travel to such cold environments, then why would they lose their hair anyway? They'd be in warm enough environments where they didn't need to move indoors, didn't need to develop the intellect to make fire, etc.
Hairlessness is an adaptation which allows us to cool down more efficiently. This allowed early humans to catch prey by running them to exhaustion.Quote
Humans, he said, have several adaptations that help us dump the enormous amounts of heat generated by running. These adaptations include our hairlessness, our ability to sweat, and the fact that we breathe through our mouths when we run, which not only allows us to take bigger breaths, but also helps dump heat.
“We can run in conditions that no other animal can run in,” Lieberman said.
While animals get rid of excess heat by panting, they can’t pant when they gallop, Lieberman said. That means that to run a prey animal into the ground, ancient humans didn’t have to run further than the animal could trot and didn’t have to run faster than the animal could gallop. All they had to do is to run faster, for longer periods of time, than the slowest speed at which the animal started to gallop.
All together, Lieberman said, these adaptations allowed us to relentlessly pursue game in the hottest part of the day when most animals rest. Lieberman said humans likely practiced persistence hunting, chasing a game animal during the heat of the day, making it run faster than it could maintain, tracking and flushing it if it tried to rest, and repeating the process until the animal literally overheated and collapsed.
Most animals would develop hyperthermia — heat stroke in humans — after about 10 to 15 kilometers, he said.
By the end of the process, Lieberman said, even humans with their crude early weapons could have overcome stronger and more dangerous prey. Adding credence to the theory, Lieberman said, is the fact that some aboriginal humans still practice persistence hunting today, and it remains an effective technique. It requires very minimal technology, has a high success rate, and yields a lot of meat.
Lieberman said he envisions an evolutionary scenario where humans began eating meat as scavengers. Over time, evolution favored scavenging humans who could run faster to the site of a kill and eventually allowed us to evolve into persistence hunters. Evolution likely continued to favor better runners until projectile weapons made running less important relatively recently in our history.
“Endurance running is part of a suite of shifts that made Homo [the genus that includes modern people] human,” Lieberman said.
“We can run in conditions that no other animal can run in,” Lieberman said.
While animals get rid of excess heat by panting, they can’t pant when they gallop, Lieberman said. That means that to run a prey animal into the ground, ancient humans didn’t have to run further than the animal could trot and didn’t have to run faster than the animal could gallop. All they had to do is to run faster, for longer periods of time, than the slowest speed at which the animal started to gallop.
All together, Lieberman said, these adaptations allowed us to relentlessly pursue game in the hottest part of the day when most animals rest. Lieberman said humans likely practiced persistence hunting, chasing a game animal during the heat of the day, making it run faster than it could maintain, tracking and flushing it if it tried to rest, and repeating the process until the animal literally overheated and collapsed.
Most animals would develop hyperthermia — heat stroke in humans — after about 10 to 15 kilometers, he said.
By the end of the process, Lieberman said, even humans with their crude early weapons could have overcome stronger and more dangerous prey. Adding credence to the theory, Lieberman said, is the fact that some aboriginal humans still practice persistence hunting today, and it remains an effective technique. It requires very minimal technology, has a high success rate, and yields a lot of meat.
Lieberman said he envisions an evolutionary scenario where humans began eating meat as scavengers. Over time, evolution favored scavenging humans who could run faster to the site of a kill and eventually allowed us to evolve into persistence hunters. Evolution likely continued to favor better runners until projectile weapons made running less important relatively recently in our history.
“Endurance running is part of a suite of shifts that made Homo [the genus that includes modern people] human,” Lieberman said.
I think humans look like big insects to other mammals.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Lol huh? Haven't heard that one.
Not the best explanation, but it works.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Lol huh? Haven't heard that one.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
I made a comment about this in another thread and I'm somewhat shocked that nobody responded specifically to my post by calling me an idiot.
I believe in evolution in itself is true as demonstrated by an overwhelming amount of evidence, including ring species. I would allow a caveat for something I would dub 'involution.' Whereas evolution assumes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states, involution would be the reverse, where evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states. I personally believe that the simultaneous occurrence of both (i.e. evolved conscious states and evolved physical states manifest in tandem) is the most likely.
But speaking in terms of evolution, I think humans are out of place. Yes, I recognize that our genome is very highly correlated with primates' genomes. But, I can't help but think that humans might not fit in with natural selection.
Humans are weird. We're almost hairless, for example, and we are unlike any other species in the sense that we don't live in harmony in our niche. We're parasites. Yes, I know there are other parasites, but other parasites don't seem to pose a threat to virtually every living thing on this planet.
Going back to the hairless thing...
Apes, chimps, and other primates live outdoors. Their hairy coats provide them protection from the elements and give them warmth. So, why are we virtually hairless? Yes, we have hair, but not in any suitable amount to protect us from the elements.
Being virtually hairless would suggest that primates lived indoors before they lost their hair. If primates could sustain themselves indoors long enough such that they didn't need their hair to protect themselves from the elements, then the hair would lose its necessity. But, WTF? Why? It seems very implausible that a group of primates would travel to such cold environments, find and/or create shelter indoors, survive that way for so many generations and were able to sustain themselves for so long that generational intellect developed to the point where they could, for example, create fire and no longer need their hairy coats. And, if they didn't travel to such cold environments, then why would they lose their hair anyway? They'd be in warm enough environments where they didn't need to move indoors, didn't need to develop the intellect to make fire, etc.
The various Ice Ages that have occurred throughout history could be a possible explanation for this need to adapt. If the world became so cold that even primates with hairy coats were threatened by the elements, then the need to move indoors would arise. But, would they really have survived for so long (generations upon generations) that this evolved intellect would have developed anyway?
I dunno. It all seems very weird to me. Discuss. All "idiot" comments are welcome. All I know is that DNA/RNA replication is like working a copy machine. A copy machine attempts to make an identical copy, but inevitably, every 'copy' has a few noticeable changes here and there, and when you make copies of copies, and then copies of copies of copies, these changes become more apparent over time. And, it takes many, many, many generations (excluding something like a frame-shift in DNA) for radical changes to become apparent.
I believe in evolution in itself is true as demonstrated by an overwhelming amount of evidence, including ring species. I would allow a caveat for something I would dub 'involution.' Whereas evolution assumes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states, involution would be the reverse, where evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states. I personally believe that the simultaneous occurrence of both (i.e. evolved conscious states and evolved physical states manifest in tandem) is the most likely.
But speaking in terms of evolution, I think humans are out of place. Yes, I recognize that our genome is very highly correlated with primates' genomes. But, I can't help but think that humans might not fit in with natural selection.
Humans are weird. We're almost hairless, for example, and we are unlike any other species in the sense that we don't live in harmony in our niche. We're parasites. Yes, I know there are other parasites, but other parasites don't seem to pose a threat to virtually every living thing on this planet.
Going back to the hairless thing...
Apes, chimps, and other primates live outdoors. Their hairy coats provide them protection from the elements and give them warmth. So, why are we virtually hairless? Yes, we have hair, but not in any suitable amount to protect us from the elements.
Being virtually hairless would suggest that primates lived indoors before they lost their hair. If primates could sustain themselves indoors long enough such that they didn't need their hair to protect themselves from the elements, then the hair would lose its necessity. But, WTF? Why? It seems very implausible that a group of primates would travel to such cold environments, find and/or create shelter indoors, survive that way for so many generations and were able to sustain themselves for so long that generational intellect developed to the point where they could, for example, create fire and no longer need their hairy coats. And, if they didn't travel to such cold environments, then why would they lose their hair anyway? They'd be in warm enough environments where they didn't need to move indoors, didn't need to develop the intellect to make fire, etc.
The various Ice Ages that have occurred throughout history could be a possible explanation for this need to adapt. If the world became so cold that even primates with hairy coats were threatened by the elements, then the need to move indoors would arise. But, would they really have survived for so long (generations upon generations) that this evolved intellect would have developed anyway?
I dunno. It all seems very weird to me. Discuss. All "idiot" comments are welcome. All I know is that DNA/RNA replication is like working a copy machine. A copy machine attempts to make an identical copy, but inevitably, every 'copy' has a few noticeable changes here and there, and when you make copies of copies, and then copies of copies of copies, these changes become more apparent over time. And, it takes many, many, many generations (excluding something like a frame-shift in DNA) for radical changes to become apparent.
Jump to: