| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dro
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3880
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| E-boy wrote: | Wow, it's the tool use hypothesis resurrected all over again....
|
Speaking of resurrections... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10758
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| E-boy wrote: | Wow, it's the tool use hypothesis resurrected all over again....
Here's the thing, you can't discount tech as biological. Humans have never become independent of the biosphere. In a very real sense all our tech is every bit as natural as a termite mound. Has technology changed us? Well, behaviors involving use of non-biological implements have certainly kept our ancestors alive. But as has been mentioned that's true of a great many animals...*snip* |
I think the most important and viable idea from the article requires the maintaining of a certain degree of abstraction and generalization when talking about how it applies: Our understanding and/or models of evolutionary processes are not as complete and accurate as we would like to believe them to be. If you start to get more specific than that you better start showing some data. It's no surprise though since a lot of the greatest discoveries stem from examining the causes and sources of inconsistencies, contradictions and other anomalies between the various theories.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WheelsOfConfusion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12459
Location: Unknown Kaddath
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All I know is I feel deficient without some fuckin' claws. Stupid tool use! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E-boy
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, it's no so much I disagree with the guy as I think he's overblowing it. A bit like Gould's "Revolutionary" Punctuated Equilibrium. Which was neither a new idea nor terribly revolutionary.
In any case, there are a great number of animals that use tools. Fellow primates, birds, Dolphins. It's a fair bet that behavior can and does influence evolution. In point of fact ANYTHING, that alters the environment in relatively stable ways will influence natural selection whether it be cultural factors like technology or natural phenomena.\
The influence of technology on human evolution is NOT a new or revolutionary concept. In fact, one of the first tasks of molecular anthropologists has been to comb through their growing data bases for signs of ongoing change. They are finding it, but not at the rates they were expecting. Cultural change is far more rapid than biological change and only certain aspects of human cultural change have been stable enough for long enough to influence our environment in a predictable enough way to leave a mark. Cooking and agriculture seem to have although the verdict is still out as they are looking for evidence of enzymes specific to cooking products in human digestion. They are looking for all sorts of things. The genes associated with human olfaction seem to be changing the fastest. So far they've given rise to one of our more unique abilities. The ability to smell food we are actively masticating which adds the sensation of flavor to taste.
In addition to the relatively long time periods required for biological change, you can add a pretty unique lack of genetic diversity in modern humans. This has been blamed on a "bottleneck" in which our species very nearly became extinct sometime between forty and eighty thousand years ago (A figure that makes a super volcano in asia that erupted about 70 thousand years ago a prime suspect). Diversity is the fuel natural selection runs on. This probably helps explain the lower than expected rate of ongoing change.
My point stands though that this is not a new or revolutionary idea and that the author is pushing a bit too hard. Kinda like many of the initial evolutionary psych research got way overhyped to the detriment of the field as a whole.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathan
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
We found an old brain!
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WheelsOfConfusion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12459
Location: Unknown Kaddath
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathan wrote: | | We found an old brain! |
I like that the leading bullet point reads "One of the world's best preserved prehistoric human brains... " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darkman
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 1454
Location: Someplace.... dark
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WheelsOfConfusion wrote: | | nathan wrote: | | We found an old brain! |
I like that the leading bullet point reads "One of the world's best preserved prehistoric human brains... " |
2000 years ago is prehistoric? I'm pretty sure there were some historians back then.
_________________
I couldnt think of anything smart to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willem
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
2,684 years. And depends on where he was decapitated, I guess. It wouldn't be history if it's in the UK. It'd be protohistory, not prehistory.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darkman
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 1454
Location: Someplace.... dark
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Willem wrote: | | 2,684 years. And depends on where he was decapitated, I guess. It wouldn't be history if it's in the UK. It'd be protohistory, not prehistory. |
Fair enough. Had to look up when Britain actually became part of the Roman Empire. Learn something new everyday. I tend to consider anything after the invention of writing history but then again I'm hardly authoritative on the subject.
_________________
I couldnt think of anything smart to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10777
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Prehistoric Human Brain Found Pickled in Bog |
Such an awesome headline.
Then again, it could just as easily be mine, after a gherkin filled night out on the moors |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willem
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darkman wrote: | | Willem wrote: | | 2,684 years. And depends on where he was decapitated, I guess. It wouldn't be history if it's in the UK. It'd be protohistory, not prehistory. |
Fair enough. Had to look up when Britain actually became part of the Roman Empire. Learn something new everyday. I tend to consider anything after the invention of writing history but then again I'm hardly authoritative on the subject. |
It'd be after the invention of writing in general, but even that's subject to geographical differences.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
welcome to the fest
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
