Interbreeding in early hominins

[manticle]

If technology = interaction = population pressure
(As inferred from above)
Then an evolutionarily successful species would have good genetics to procreate and also good communication capability (interaction). Which, if you compare species must be better than the other species because they have outlasted them. So, more technology indirectly points to better genetic pre-disposition.

Except that species/cultures that have actual longevity ( human and non human) don't necessarily show signs of posessing advanced technologies. Organisms last eons by becoming an integral part of their ecosystem rather than trying to control it.

 

[Greg.L]

It is a tricky one Greg, it comes down to where you draw the line between people and not quite people. Neanderthal were not human, but were they people? Clearly they were much more like us than any of the current apes

This is my point, really, neanderthals were people. On appearance it would be impossible to tell them apart, given the enormous variation between modern humans. Paleontologists use anatomical features. The first humans evolved around 4 million years ago.

The fact that Aborigines didn't develop agriculture isn't really important IMO. There weren't the resources of domesticatable plants and animals here. Aborigines developed very impressive art and culture.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Apart from yam farming, fire-stick farming, eel farming

 

[goomboogo]

So how much chimp does our wingnut leader have?

98%.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

That is another interesting point using the word 'leader' time was when Ogg the Horrible a testosterone laden beast of a being would have been the leader and been doing all of the rooting making sure of natures first law, survival of the fittest.
When did the balance of power change among our ancestors from the brawn being overtaken by the brain.
Another thing is nature encouraged evolution but was the evolution of our brain a mistake, were we meant to have the longevity we are now having, the damage to the environment we have caused, though I do tend to agree with the scientists who say we are still coming out of the last ice age but are speeding it up with global warming.
Are we masterminding our own demise.

 

[pk.sax]

Except that species/cultures that have actual longevity ( human and non human) don't necessarily show signs of posessing advanced technologies. Organisms last eons by becoming an integral part of their ecosystem rather than trying to control it.

Interesting point there tickles. Illustrate? I can't think of examples.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

The fact that Aborigines didn't develop agriculture isn't really important IMO. There weren't the resources of domesticatable plants and animals here. Aborigines developed very impressive art and culture.

The Aboriginies are alot more resourcefull and advanced than what most think. They had a far better understanding of the environment and surrounds than we will ever hope to. In a land like here you had to be smart and resourcefull, otherwise you died. Which most white settlers where very bad at. And still are.

Is a race advanced because they knew how to make guns and go around dominating other races and destroying the soroundings...or are the smart ones those who lived in harmony with there suroundings and gained maximum potential from the land without destroying it in the process....

 

[wereprawn]

That is another interesting point using the word 'leader' time was when Ogg the Horrible a testosterone laden beast of a being would have been the leader and been doing all of the rooting making sure of natures first law, survival of the fittest.
When did the balance of power change among our ancestors from the brawn being overtaken by the brain.
Another thing is nature encouraged evolution but was the evolution of our brain a mistake, were we meant to have the longevity we are now having, the damage to the environment we have caused, though I do tend to agree with the scientists who say we are still coming out of the last ice age but are speeding it up with global warming.
Are we masterminding our own demise.

Well the answer to the bit about our longevity appears to be that if we did not get eaten or die of disease ect our ancestors lived to a comparable age to modern humans and it was that longevity that allowed knowledge to be passed down to younger generations.( As many animals die when they are past breeding age ). So intelligence and lifespan seem to go hand in hand in our case.

 

[wereprawn]

The Aboriginies are alot more resourcefull and advanced than what most think. They had a far better understanding of the environment and surrounds than we will ever hope to. In a land like here you had to be smart and resourcefull, otherwise you died. Which most white settlers where very bad at. And still are.

Is a race advanced because they knew how to make guns and go around dominating other races and destroying the soroundings...or are the smart ones those who lived in harmony with there suroundings and gained maximum potential from the land without destroying it in the process....

Maybe. There are some who claim fire stick farming was the most destructive practice of any ancient culture and in fact changed the climate of the entire Australian continent.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Took them 40-60,000 years to do what has taken us only 100 yrs

 

[surly]

Yes but why is evidence of technology evidence of evolutionary superiority?

Something that people often get very wrong when thinking about evolution is the belief that humans are the "peak". That we are "more evolved". These concepts are ridiculous.
An organisms objective is the continuation of it's genetic heritage. To be considered biologically successful, an individual must produce viable offspring.
Thinking along these lines, it is hard to ignore something like cyanobacteria as one of the most "superior" organisms.

I understand your point though. My argument about communication and population densities being a major factor in technological development seems to be counter to the argument that a greater level of intelligence is the factor.
The reality is that both are probably relevant.
Something else I can vaguely recall hearing is that there was a suggestion that neanderthals had less ability with spoken language. Spoken language is considered to be important as it allows the communication of very complex ideas while still being able to walk/work/use hands etc.

I am not personally suggesting that neanderthals were less intelligent than us. The reality is that they had a larger brain and made and used tools. However, we are here, they are not. I think we have been in existence for longer than them as well. So we are more "successful".

 

[wereprawn]

Took them 40-60,000 years to do what has taken us only 100 yrs

Yep. Though my point was more to do with the fantasy that non technological societies lived in perfect harmony with their environment. We have been capable of , and have practiced, widespread destruction of our environment and climate for a very long time. The only difference is we destroy things faster these days and are aware of the consequences.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

True..but the environment and climate are constantly changing anyway.....so is it better to work with changes and implement our own changes gradually or just go Here is a D10 and a lovely forest...."

 

[manticle]

Interesting point there tickles. Illustrate? I can't think of examples.

AU indigenous, insects and arachnids are human and non human examples. Like I said - adapting to the environment rather than trying to control it.

 

[Greg.L]

It is interesting that up until 20 000 years ago there was always a variety of human species, but now there is only us, presumably we're the cause of the other species going extinct. I think it's likely there were other humans living here when the aborigines arrived, though that is speculation. If eliminating competitors is a measure of success we are certainly at the top. However we have only been around a very short time, geologically speaking. Dinosaurs ruled the world for 100 million years, that's pretty impressive. If we can hang around for a few million years without buggering things up we can claim to be successful.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

AU indigenous, insects and arachnids are human and non human examples. Like I said - adapting to the environment rather than trying to control it.

As are crocodiles and varies species of marine animals...

 

[wide eyed and legless]

How do we define 'success' emptying the oceans of fish, polluting the oceans and environment, saving the whales but we will start consuming the krill which the whales rely on,slash and burning the rain forests for palm oil.
I doubt very much we will beat the dinosaurs record or come any where near it.

 

[surly]

How do we define 'success' emptying the oceans of fish, polluting the oceans and environment, saving the whales but we will start consuming the krill which the whales rely on,slash and burning the rain forests for palm oil.
I doubt very much we will beat the dinosaurs record or come any where near it.

Keep in mind "the dinosaurs" are not a single species. It is like saying "the mammals".

Agree that we are making things difficult for ourselves as a species by making it easier for us as individual, fat, rich people.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Tuesday night 8.30 ABC documentary

.http://abccommercial.com/contentsales/program/enigma-man-stone-age-mystery

 

[Dave70]

The Aboriginies are alot more resourcefull and advanced than what most think. They had a far better understanding of the environment and surrounds than we will ever hope to. In a land like here you had to be smart and resourcefull, otherwise you died. Which most white settlers where very bad at. And still are.

Is a race advanced because they knew how to make guns and go around dominating other races and destroying the soroundings...or are the smart ones those who lived in harmony with there suroundings and gained maximum potential from the land without destroying it in the process....

I'd say yes. Certainly in terms of propagating their genes. With regard to living in harmony with the land, fair to say plenty of our ancestors died in gut wrenching agony whilst the onlookers resolved never to eat 'those' berries, and passed that information on. There was no revealed wisdom available to them that couldn't be learnt by a modern human.
And for most, there was simply no plan b if you ****** up. Poisoned your water? Hunted all the food for sport? Congratulations, you just handed in your Darwin card.

Imperialism and colonialism may have much to answer for, but it's reflected throughout the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees are bastards for expanding their territories through brutal violence, we'll be killing you now, living in your trees, mating with your females and eating your food, no beg your pardons. We are just animals, is it any wonder we are the way we are?

I doubt a species with some kind of gene mutation heavily weighted toward altruism would have made much of a dent in the natural world. Except perhaps, bees.