Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh yes, differences in geological conditions. Every country has something that can be used as explosives. America had a lot of forests around that time, but natives on the coasts never thought to make large sailing ships? They never thought about sailing the sea to see what they could see see see?

If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

halonachos wrote:

If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

Or were we geneticaly modified????

Hush with you aliens sir!

Surely it's as feasable as a monotheistic creation fable?

Actually, I will agree with you about aliens. I think they exist, but god made them too.

halonachos wrote:Actually, I will agree with you about aliens. I think they exist, but god made them too.

But what is God then, An anthropomorphic personifaction( of ouselves)so we can fit It into our tiny minds and relate to it?,
or a Universal Energy that is the source of all things, 'The Source'
I think the first statement is the way it has been taught by simple humans to simple humans, sort of like calling sub zero temperatures "Jack Frost" or the like.
If this is true, then all thoeries fit into a more universal description of God, evolution, religions,experimental sciences, Quantum theories, Everything, as the INFINITE contains and pervades everything.

Maybe your source is just your representation of god from simple to humans to other simple humans. Perhaps your idea of the source is the same as my idea of god. Its just that god has somewhat of an image while you don't want an image so just have a concept of what god is like.

halonachos wrote:Maybe your source is just your representation of god from simple to humans to other simple humans. Perhaps your idea of the source is the same as my idea of god. Its just that god has somewhat of an image while you don't want an image so just have a concept of what god is like.

Exactly, I don't wish to attach a Humnistic image on a metaphysical concept, I could be wrong, but it feels right to me. like I said, if It/He, whatever you want to call it is omniscient, then it fits into all things, all descriptions, all interpretations. My only question is just how a particular conceptualization may help or limit a persons experience/understanding of their connection to The Source, and I suspect that this will no doubt be different to each individual.
But really, how can I have an Image of something I have never seen with my eyes?

Good, like the romans thought that there were multiple gods that had power over different things. My god is an amalgamation of all of the roman gods. My god has all of the powers the roman gods. Whos correct, I don't know. So all religions could be worshipping the same person/persons/concepts but calling them different names.

halonachos wrote:Good, like the romans thought that there were multiple gods that had power over different things. My god is an amalgamation of all of the roman gods. My god has all of the powers the roman gods. Whos correct, I don't know. So all religions could be worshipping the same person/persons/concepts but calling them different names.

"A rose by anyother name is still a rose"

Woot! Agreement!

halonachos wrote:Oh yes, differences in geological conditions. Every country has something that can be used as explosives.

It isn't a matter of presence, but ease of access and detonation. There's a reason that simple explosives were first invented in China: the minerals necessary for their creation were located in near-surface deposits throughout the Western deserts.

halonachos wrote:
America had a lot of forests around that time, but natives on the coasts never thought to make large sailing ships? They never thought about sailing the sea to see what they could see see see?

Why would they? Unlike every other civilization on the planet Native Americans never had contact with a fully alien culture. They also had a temporal disadvantage due to being the last cultural group to 'settle' following the migration from Africa.

halonachos wrote:
If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

Neanderthals can be classified as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (proper name Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis), or as an independent species (proper name Homo Neanderthalensis). In either case we were never Neanderthals in the sense you're thinking; our species was concurrent with theirs.

If you say that, then why didn't the african tribes make sailing vessels? They had contact with alien cultures and even had the large supplies of wood that america had. African tribes were also the first to settle down.

halonachos wrote:If you say that, then why didn't the african tribes make sailing vessels? They had contact with alien cultures and even had the large supplies of wood that america had. African tribes were also the first to settle down.

The Africans from places with timber and a coast line did make sailing vessels. Remember Carthage? By the time there was an empire to connect the timber producing regions with the coast there was also a direct land route between Asia and Europe that didn't have to include Africa, as Africa had little worth trading for at the time (oil was virtually useless, precious metals and stones hadn't been discovered yet).

That only covers Northern Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa has a whole other set of problems. Theoretically it should have been a great deal like Europe with internal land barriers pushing the population to search for alternative means of expansion. However, the absence of key resources (especially metallurgical ones) prevented the production of complex technological adaptations in the area of warfare. As such, tribes in the heart of the continent (where there was wood, but no water) tended to dominate tribes on the coast, but this did not lead to the acquisition of territory due to the relatively poor resource base there.

Another issue is one of life expectancy. The intense heat of the African continent is not particularly well suited to human life. People there still don't generally live beyond 40, and in the distant past its unlikely they made it past 30. The increased rate of generational expiry likely served to enhance the mythic component of daily life; driving people to believe in the ineffable nature of their existence.

Yes, but look at southern africa, north africa certainly had sailing vessels. Last time I checked, people in europe also had short life spans.

halonachos wrote:Yes, but look at southern africa, north africa certainly had sailing vessels.

As I said in the previous post, Southern Africa (Sub-Saharan Africa) did not have the proper resource distribution for the development of large sailing vessels.

halonachos wrote:
Last time I checked, people in europe also had short life spans.

The people in Northern Europe did, Southern Europe (the Mediterranean especially) was quite a different matter. The Northern Europeans received a technological jump-start from their Southern European neighbors. Something which was denied to the people of Southern Africa by the presence of the massive geographical barrier that is the Sahara Desert.

Since this thread is now discussing anthropolog, i was wondering (especial as someone here appears to have swallowed an encyclopedia)How did the supposed generic ancestors from africa, get to new zealandand and other pacific islands, did prehistoric man have boats or was that part of the super-continent at the timeof migration? Were they evovled homosapiens at the time of migration?

Uri Lee wrote:Since this thread is now discussing anthropolog, i was wondering (especial as someone here appears to have swallowed an encyclopedia)How did the supposed generic ancestors from africa, get to new zealandand and other pacific islands, did prehistoric man have boats or was that part of the super-continent at the timeof migration? Were they evovled homosapiens at the time of migration?

The specifics of how man got to Australia vary based upon what you accept as the date of first arrival: anywhere from 40-120,000 years ago. However, the general method stays relatively constant. During the indicated time period the sea level was much lower; meaning that most of South-East Asia was integrated into a single landmass known as Sunda. The theory is that the ancestors of the modern Aborigines walked out to the Wallace Line and made the 90km crossing to Australia by boat.

Here is a map of Sunda. The white areas were above water during the time of human migration.

dogma wrote:
The specifics of how man got to Australia vary based upon what you accept as the date of first arrival: anywhere from 40-120,000 years ago. However, the general method stays relatively constant. During the indicated time period the sea level was much lower; meaning that most of South-East Asia was integrated into a single landmass known as Sunda. The theory is that the ancestors of the modern Aborigines walked out to the Wallace Line and made the 90km crossing to Australia by boat.

Here is a map of Sunda. The white areas were above water during the time of human migration.

what about the polynesian islands? They seem a long way from anywhere? How evolved were homosapiens at this time? could they really have built decent seafaring boats? Or could life have evolved there indepandantly? (i'm only asking as I haven't a clue myself)

EDIT: actualy, forget it, I'll look on wikepedia myself. I thought this thread was about religion?!?!

I do believe that I have proof against evolution...gentlemen, I brring you the PLATYPUS!!!

Uri Lee wrote:

what about the polynesian islands? They seem a long way from anywhere? How evolved were homosapiens at this time? could they really have built decent seafaring boats? Or could life have evolved there indepandantly? (i'm only asking as I haven't a clue myself)

EDIT: actualy, forget it, I'll look on wikepedia myself. I thought this thread was about religion?!?!

Island civilizations have some of the most pressing reasons to expand, as islands can be exhausted pretty quickly. One of the current theories is that since the predominant wind in the pacific blows from east to west, the ancient Polynesians tacked into the wind looking for new Islands, knowing that they could simply turn around and haul ass back home using the trade winds. In short, they had a safety net in that it was easier to get back home than it was to keep going forward.

halonachos wrote:Oh yes, differences in geological conditions. Every country has something that can be used as explosives. America had a lot of forests around that time, but natives on the coasts never thought to make large sailing ships? They never thought about sailing the sea to see what they could see see see?

If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of natural selection in your question. Natural selection isn't really process of the strongest species surviving, it's the process by which the strongest individuals within a species survive to reproduce, therefore passing along their genes. The competition isn't just between one species and it's predators, prey, and niche; it's between members of that species.

Prehistoric humans continued to evolve because their niche changed, and the traits that helped survival to reproduction slowly shifted. Early homo sapiens, as well as neanderthals, had culture going back over 100,000 years, which seems to implicate that social traits would become valuable. While physical prowess and hardiness wouldn't really drop out as desirable traits, more intelligent early humans probably could mate more often, either by choice (attracting more mates) or by force (by leading raiding parties to steal/rape other tribes women). While physical prowess might have won in the short run, smarter tribes could spend less time finding food and more time doing other things, and could support more children. Those children expanded out, spreading their genes in other tribes.

The really interesting question is asking what ratio of our current civilization is the result of evolutionary forces, and what is the result of cultural indoctrination, memes, language, etc. Language was a huge advantage for early man, allowing more complicated plans to be formed. After you have language and basic sentience, cultural complexity will grow on it's own, regardless of DNA.

Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis. With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did. Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals. Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

So my question is HOW evolution has helped us strictly from a scientific basis. If evolution and science are the only answers, then we should technically still be evolving. We should also be a bunch of diseased and fetid people with the amount of negative genetic traits in the 1,000,000+.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

Speech is symbolic, and that takes a lot of intelligence to work through. Asking why more species don't develop intelligence is like asking why more species don't develop wings: it takes a few successful mutations followed by natural selection to spread the genes around, and if in the meantime the mutation stops being an advantage, it'll be lost.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis.

Evolution isn't random. Mutations are random, but only those mutations that are beneficial get passed on.

With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did.

So, you're saying that if the mutation theory were true, there would be genetic flaws in humanity, and over time, most children born wouldn't survive to reproduce? Isn't that pretty much what happened? I'm not being flip, most mutations are harmful, which is why a lot of zygotes never even survive to birth: they just die in utero. Look around society today: allergies, diabetes, vision problems, asthma, etc. are all the result of genetic influence. Nobody would argue those are good things. Other mutations start out helpful (like sickle cell fighting off malaria) but at a price that is too high in modern civilization.

Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals.

I'm not sure, but it seems like your confusing mutations (changes in the genetic code that are more or less random) for genetic flaws (expressed traits to hinder an individual). Pure breds are more likely to have rare negative traits, but also have rare positive traits. The rate of mutation is more or less constant, as that's simply the way DNA changes over time.

Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

Well, again your confusing mutations with defects, but I've addressed that above. First off, bottleneck populations are often smaller than people think. It's possible that the first Native Americans numbered in the hundreds, if not less. Speciation is a much more gradual process than people think. What most likely occurred is that a population of our shared ancestor with neanderthals (or more primitive hominids if you want to go back further) was geographically isolated. This population interbred predominantly amongst itself for many generations. As you pointed out, small populations are more likely to have disproportionate ratios of genes. Over time, certain genes may become more predominate in that population, leading to speech, tool making, etc. What about the bad genes, you ask? Well, those die out a lot, and eventually if the population reunites with other populations, their advantages will be shared with the other groups, while the disadvantages are continually washed out.

So my question is HOW evolution has helped us strictly from a scientific basis. If evolution and science are the only answers, then we should technically still be evolving. We should also be a bunch of diseased and fetid people with the amount of negative genetic traits in the 1,000,000+.

Well, evolution has enabled us to become the most succesful large animal in earth's history, in terms of population, range, and genetic diversity. As for evolution, we are actually evolving. As for the negative traits, you seem to really keep not getting how natural selection works. We keep them around in recessive form because they don't hurt us, but when realized, they tend to prevent the carrier from reproducing, making it less likely those genes are passed on. Look at a typical negative recessive trait, and assume two parents that are Nn and Nn. If they have four children, they will be NN, Nn, Nn, and nn on average. If the nn is a truly negative trait, he will have no children. Suddenly the breeding population goes from a 50/50 split between N's and n's to a 66/33 split. Successive generations will be increasingly likely to be NN, preventing the recessive trait from appearing. Now, if the recessive trait were advantageous (simplified out to say, doubling the number of children that reach adult hood), those some parents would still produce NN, Nn, Nn, and nn. Now, each will have children, but the new gene pool would look like this: NN, Nn, Nn, nn, nn (because nn's advantage doubles it's surviving children). Again, the gene pool shifts from 50/50 to 40/60. This was a crude example, but as long as genes confer any advantage or disadvantage, over time they will become more or less common.

As for current evolution, we are evolving. Many genetic disorders that were fatal before are not, and that is changing who survives. Infant cranial size, which was long limited to the size of a woman's hips, can now grow unfettered due to C-section births. Before, women that had the genes for larger infant heads (or who mated with men with that gene) tended to die in childbirth. Now, not so much.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis. With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did. Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals. Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

So my question is HOW evolution has helped us strictly from a scientific basis. If evolution and science are the only answers, then we should technically still be evolving. We should also be a bunch of diseased and fetid people with the amount of negative genetic traits in the 1,000,000+.

Actually, apes, canines, whales, dolphins all have different types of language.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis. With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did. Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals. Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

Wikipedia tells me that the age of the Universe is around 14 Billion years old.

I think we can safely assume that that is plenty, if not more than enough, time for evolution to get everything wrong, millions and millions of times -- but only once get it right.

sA

If evoltion is based off of beneficial mutations and mutations are random, then isn't evoltuion random as well. It could be random to a lesser degree, but random none the less.

As to the bottleneck populations, I am not talking about native americans, etc. I am talking about the first humans. The ancestors that started in africa and then spread out. If there were only a small number of them, then we should all be riddled with genetic defects. Tell me how this makes perfect sense and the story of Adam and Eve doesn't. This is in term of genetics(not anything else bible related). If two humans started out as the only humans and bred only with each other, then their children continued to do the same, not only do we see incest, but a whole lot of genetic defects coming on the rise. If a population suddenly appeared from cells in the ocean, then there is only a limited amount of breeding possible. This would increase the odds towards malignant genetic defects and not beneficial ones. So you're 66/33 should more likely be pointed at 66 would have genetiv defects and only 33 wouldn't. This is of course saving those fetuses so badly made with genetics that are aborted naturally.

Many of those with nn traits can reproduce, they have to do it early and it does not always lead to sterility. The basic facts of history is that people married young and had children young, so any nn trait could hide until after mating and seeing as though it is a small population, the other person more than likely has a Nn trait that puts the nn trait at more chance to pass on, not the Nn trait and the NN trait is impossible to obtain.

Perhaps the size of the infants' cranium is unrelated to hip size. A child's head is extremely flexible as the skull is made out of bone and cartilage, an adults skull as we know is purely bone.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

The reason apes haven't gained language, is because they didn't evolve along the same route as humanity. You can think of conscious thought of being that one mutation of humanitys that has allowed us to become the dominant species. Conscious thought is impossible without language. In order to think(as in the verb; to think), one requires a language to think in. Without language, its simply emotion, conceptualisations, and subconscious reflexes, reactions and instinct.
So whilst apes possess all of the latter attributes, without conscious thought they cannot gain language(or without language, conscious thought) As to which comes first, well, it's a bit like the chicken and the egg that argument at the moment. One cannot exist independently of the other.

As to the reason apes have not evolved to construct tools, is because making tools is a skill. I'll presume though, that what you meant is to ask why apes have not evolved to have the capacity to make tools. The answer to that is simple. In order to be able to recognize the future potential of combining two items to make a tool(say stone and wood to make a basic spear), you must be capable of discerning causes and effects outside of your own actions(if the spear hits the target, the target will die, so I can eat it), and have a perception of time(I'm creating this spear now for use in the future). These are features only conscious thought possesses. Without evolving conscious thought, apes will never possess the capacity to make tools. As things stand, some apes did develop conscious thought. If you want to see one, go and look in the mirror.

Well even darwin said that humans did not evolve from apes.

So, are you saying that evolution follows only certain paths? That these paths depend on the species of animal?

halonachos wrote:Well even darwin said that humans did not evolve from apes.

So, are you saying that evolution follows only certain paths? That these paths depend on the species of animal?

You seem to be misunderstanding people's points.

Evolution isn't random in the sense that any given set of traits could emerge as being the best. Natural selection says that the possiblities are randomly generated, but the best survive though non-random process (natural selection).

Humans didn't descend from apes. We both descend from a common ancestor.