Aspect of Human Evolution

[foodchain]

Looking at the various forms of homeostasis, such as not directly internally but more on an ecological point of view I would like to propose an idea or question really about human evolution. IN many ecosystems or most that I learn about you find a general balance of nature overall. In this it seems that niches of course come to be occupied over time by organism and populations of such adapted to such via natural selection. Now not to speak in an homologous tone in regards to migration over life in general here, just that in the course of human evolution did our species/genus ever spend a great deal of time in any particular ecosystem?

 

It seems to me that our species and ancestors of such were gradually becoming more and more migratory. Now not to get into reasons directly for this, or even if this is exactly true. Its more or less of a question as to the environmental destruction our species has on the planet at large. Now it may be nothing more then a product of survival coupled with the biology of our species, but its the question of how much of an impact did being a heavily migratory specie have on the course of our evolution and subsequent biology.

 

TO what impact would you attribute being migratory to the evolution of modern humans?

 

Also do you feel this has any impact overall as to our impact environmentally speaking?

[Wormwood]

Well, I'm not sure if this is related, but I have always found it odd that humans are the only creatures I can think of that don't have all of the needed food sources in one place. If you look at a list of daily requirements, I can't think of many places on earth, if any, that have them all. We need elements of tropical fruits, grain that is only grown on inland farms, and and animal protiens and fatty acids among many other things. This could be due to migration early in the development of protohumans.

[SkepticLance]

I would not particularly call our species migratory. We are not caribou, to cross a thousand kilometers of land to seek grazing. Human migrations have covered the world, but only over an enormous amount of time. The 'out of Africa' theory suggests that the last wave of human migration began 55,000 years ago. It 'ended' only 800 years ago. That is a very slow rate of dispersal.

 

Wormwood said :

 

I have always found it odd that humans are the only creatures I can think of that don't have all of the needed food sources in one place.

 

Humans have spent most of our history getting all of our food from one place. It is only very recently that trade permits a wider range of food types to be shared.

[foodchain]

I would not particularly call our species migratory. We are not caribou, to cross a thousand kilometers of land to seek grazing. Human migrations have covered the world, but only over an enormous amount of time. The 'out of Africa' theory suggests that the last wave of human migration began 55,000 years ago. It 'ended' only 800 years ago. That is a very slow rate of dispersal.

 

Wormwood said :

 

I have always found it odd that humans are the only creatures I can think of that don't have all of the needed food sources in one place.

 

Humans have spent most of our history getting all of our food from one place. It is only very recently that trade permits a wider range of food types to be shared.

 

Ok, let me try to refine then for the sake of argument. Many species of organisms seem to contract themselves into ecological cycles which is in my opinion may be a product of what leads to ecological homeostasis, or a balance of nature. Not that we are not tied into the ecology, such as what the U.S would have to pay for in terms of money if all the bees happened to disappear for instance. The point I am trying to get after is maybe our evolution for instance is what has lead to our ability to cause so much destruction in terms of the environment. Many migratory species easily become an invasive specie, simply put the local ecosystem or the environment around an organism then changes from the introduction of such.

 

Our specie seems not to be "hardwired" via natural selection to be solely dependent on any one particular environment. Even our ancestors did not seem to be so needing of say a particular ecosystem in order to sustain. On that note though, if we were not specialized overall for one particular ecosystem, say a desert for instance, why not, and how did we reach such a evolutionary position? My question to add to this is maybe because we are not specialized per say for a certain ecosystem combined with other traits our biology can express, say tool building, is what allows easily for the environmental destruction our species can bring.

 

I fully realize that other species migrate. Its just that you don’t find panda bears all over the world. In this situation, well before the human race even formed cultures such as ancient Greece or ancient Egypt, humans had spread to a very diverse amount of ecosystems and managed to survive in ways that I don’t know if many other species could do really.

[SkepticLance]

It sounds to me that you are getting at the human characteristic of generalisation. That is : the lack of specialisation, and the adaptability that comes with that. Let me know if that is correct.

 

Humans are not, of course, the only animal that has caused dramatic ecological change. The African elephant, for example, has created an entirely different ecology. The tendency, in tropical environments, is for forest to take over most terrestrial areas. However, in Africa, when trees grow above a certain height, elephants come along and push them over to get at the top leaves. This maintains enormous areas of grasslands, without forest. The grasslands have permitted the evolution of an entire and massive ecosystem, including many species of grazers, predators etc. All of this would not happen without elephants.

 

Humans are the latest, and perhaps greatest, of these ecology changers. If you ask why, I can answer. Is this your question? No guarantees as to the truth of my answer.

[Elessarina]

In response to Wormwood, without our modern means though living a far simpler existence.. as we did 50,000 years ago etc can you seriously believe that humans will have got all the nutritional elements that are now deemed "necessary". Are we not just looking at it from a modern perspective? (p.s. I'm not a scientist so go easy..)

[Realitycheck]

Usually, climate change happens slowly. People who notice that the grass is greener over there live. People who don't die. Mathematically, predators kill off their food faster than it can survive, not even counting droughts, etc. That's why we now grow our own. Balance.

[foodchain]

Usually, climate change happens slowly. People who notice that the grass is greener over there live. People who don't die. Mathematically, predators kill off their food faster than it can survive, not even counting droughts, etc. That's why we now grow our own. Balance.

 

Predation does not always lead to that, or else I would say a majority of life that survives by being a predator first of all would be dead, point being lions for instance. Sometimes predators also simply starve to death, or don’t get enough to eat. This can happen to snakes, wolves, insects, heck even plants. Maybe reptiles or some species of such were ectotherms because adaptation had not lead to a regular source of food yet or it simply might be simply what they evolved from(I think that’s it actually if memory serves), but the reality is one that many predators occupy the savannah in Africa for instance feeding on populations of herbivores for instance, and in sense a balance in struck via such. Its not a perfect balance, but it does not drive many species into extinction from predation. However due to increased land lose, the cheetah for instance which is specialized in many ways is suffering greatly and is getting close to extinction. This is from human activity more then anything else though. Populations of elephants with naturally occurring shorter tusks are also becoming more and more common, from interaction with humans, I have not put much anytime into verifying this though.

 

As far as math goes, well last night one of my cats jumped up on the bed, and started to get affectionate, a little to much, so I put him on the floor, then he jumped back up and sleep down by my feet. I don’t know everything that would go into making that into a math equation, let alone when variation in behavior comes, and then trying to put that down on even a molecular scale perfectly such as cell signaling, its not that I don’t trust math, its just well, math is not a natural science is all.

[Realitycheck]

Duly noted, though I was referring to the human predator, as they would be most apt to migrate when all of the deer disappeared.

 

When you take into account how many deer it takes to feed a family every year, you start to see where the people catch up with the deer ... sooner or later. That's just where I got my math from. Of course, back then, people were really lousy at catching deer, but when everybody fishes from the same pond, it still works out the same. Geez, did they even know how to fish back then? Squirrels, yeah, squirrels are pretty easy to catch. They eat up all the squirrels, real fast, then they go back to eating berries. What, no trees with berries? How about tree bark? Bugs? Yeah, lots of bugs. You have to be on a really good diet to catch deer. Maybe we'll just eat this tree bark, with all of the bugs in it.

[foodchain]

Duly noted, though I was referring to the human predator, as they would be most apt to migrate when all of the deer disappeared.

 

When you take into account how many deer it takes to feed a family every year, you start to see where the people catch up with the deer ... sooner or later. That's just where I got my math from. Of course, back then, people were really lousy at catching deer, but when everybody fishes from the same pond, it still works out the same. Geez, did they even know how to fish back then? Squirrels, yeah, squirrels are pretty easy to catch. They eat up all the squirrels, real fast, then they go back to eating berries. What, no trees with berries? How about tree bark? Bugs? Yeah, lots of bugs. You have to be on a really good diet to catch deer. Maybe we'll just eat this tree bark, with all of the bugs in it.

 

I think the Blackfoot in Montana(?) when forced to migrate survived at first for a while of things like pine needles and bark, its mostly cellulose though I think. Other aspects you have to consider is say breeding cycles, such as imago for instance in insect populations, when this occurs and how rapidly they reproduce. This of course would apply to life in general. In terms of trophs, from plant to herbivore I think it nearly a 90% energy lose from various reasons, I don’t really look at it as a lose though. Most food chains or energy webs never escape having I think six trophs though. The reality as for math is not a bad thing, its just you have to know all the variables that exist in a natural system, for simply put I think cell signaling would matter for behavior of an animal per say, and if you miss one or two, well, then you have to go onto the reality of say like with string theory, were it seems easier to get carried away with the math then reality, though I don’t know if that’s fully the case with string theory. Also if you remember shows like wild kingdom, I don’t think math can assist at this point nearly as much is it can in say physics, I mean just look at the social sciences. I think math can work of course in biological systems, I just worry is all.

----------------------------------------

I don’t know if there is a word for it, or even if what I am talking about is anything close to correct, this is why I asked. It just seems to me that humans among other species of life does not seem particular dependent on a certain type of ecosystem or even a collection of, but of course it would have been natural selection and evolution that lead to this one way or another through the various aspects of a living system. I think this plays a large role on the amount of damage we can inflict is all, but I posted such to discuss of course because its merely nothing more then an ideation. Its more or less a question I guess then of ecology?

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain

 

Humans are known as generalists. They can survive on a wide variety of foods, gathered in a wide variety of environments, gathered in a wide variety of ways, and prepared in a wide variety of ways.

 

The key to our success as generalists is technology. No other species has been able to come within a fraction of our abilities with technology. Whether the technology is chipping a stone to get a sharp edge, making bows and arrows, or flying to the moon, humans are the masters.

 

Because of the extreme success that comes from the ability to be superb generalists, humans have more impact on the ecologies they exist with than any other animal.

[JHAQ]

Just think of the migrations which might be attempted IF the direst predictions of climate changes actually become manifest .

[Paralith]

to agentchange:

 

I think you may be focusing a little too much on the appetites of modern humans in industrialized nations. We eat WAY more food than we need to survive, and plus we have all the technology (and the resources to produce that technology) to reap all that we can. A hunter-gatherer family could probably live off one fat deer for a solid week, maybe more. And they would, because hunting deer isn't that easy if you don't have camo gear and lures and rifles with laser sites and enough spare time to sit in a tree all weekend for that one good shot, even with all the technology. Hunter-gatherer cultures also can't sustain the same amount of people as an industrialized group can. Agriculture itself is what allowed humans to develop large, stable, year round populations that might have been able to strip the local area of most natural resources.

 

To foodchain:

 

Being a migratory generalist does not necessarily lead you to being highly destructive. Look at mice. Mice are all over the world, in varying species perhaps, but all in all extremely similar to each other. Mice are generalists, they are able to eat many different types of food - but they're not particularly destructive. I think SkepticLance has struck on the key, that being human technology. It's our technology that has made us so destructive - our technology, like agriculture, that allowed us to grow to huge numbers, to require such huge amounts of resources, our technology that has spoiled us, in a manner of speaking, so that many of us desire and think we need much more than we actually do - our technology that allows us to act out these desires.

[CDarwin]

Looking at the various forms of homeostasis, such as not directly internally but more on an ecological point of view I would like to propose an idea or question really about human evolution. IN many ecosystems or most that I learn about you find a general balance of nature overall. In this it seems that niches of course come to be occupied over time by organism and populations of such adapted to such via natural selection. Now not to speak in an homologous tone in regards to migration over life in general here, just that in the course of human evolution did our species/genus ever spend a great deal of time in any particular ecosystem?

 

It seems to me that our species and ancestors of such were gradually becoming more and more migratory. Now not to get into reasons directly for this, or even if this is exactly true. Its more or less of a question as to the environmental destruction our species has on the planet at large. Now it may be nothing more then a product of survival coupled with the biology of our species, but its the question of how much of an impact did being a heavily migratory specie have on the course of our evolution and subsequent biology.

 

TO what impact would you attribute being migratory to the evolution of modern humans?

 

Also do you feel this has any impact overall as to our impact environmentally speaking?

 

All species have more or less "migratory" members. That's nothing specifically human. What makes the difference between two species as that in some species the naturally wander-lusting members wander off and die, and in others those same individuals are adaptable enough to found new populations.

 

That's the story with humans. Macaques are like that too. We're just really adaptable so we can survive all sorts of climates, which allowed us to spread all over the world. Any species that could would, it's just common evolutionary sense. Any given environment can support only so many organisms; the left-overs are benefited if they can move away as opposed to starving.

[lucaspa]

The point I am trying to get after is maybe our evolution for instance is what has lead to our ability to cause so much destruction in terms of the environment.

 

DUH! Our technology gives us the ability to destroy ecosystems.

 

Our specie seems not to be "hardwired" via natural selection to be solely dependent on any one particular environment.

 

That is due to our intelligence and tool-making, which gives rise to our technology. We are actually adapted to living in a warm climate. We can't survive without technology in most of the places humans live today.

 

Our chronospecies evolved in a geographical area of east Africa. That is, if you go back to the species that are the direct ancestors of H. sapiens (H. erectus and then H. habilis), all the evolutionary changes happened in east Africa. Population pressure then forced tribes of the species to leave the area and settle elsewhere.

 

However, within the east Africa ecosystem, the species Homo were generalists. They were omnivores and never specialized in teeth or other morphology for a particular food source. Think of rats today; they are also generalist omnivores. And rats get along in many different ecologies because of this.

 

There was a branch -- the genus Paranthropus -- that were herbivores and perhaps specialized herbivores. When the climate of east Africa changed they went extinct.

 

On that note though, if we were not specialized overall for one particular ecosystem, say a desert for instance, why not, and how did we reach such a evolutionary position?

 

Without technology, we are specialized for a warmer climate. Not much fur to keep us warm in if the temperature drops. We are also not adapted to deserts; we lose way too much moisture by sweating. So, again without technology, we are evolved for a warm climate where water is plentiful.

 

humans had spread to a very diverse amount of ecosystems and managed to survive in ways that I don’t know if many other species could do really.

 

of course most other species could not! We survived because of our technology. Species of Homo are the only ones that have reached that level of technology.

[foodchain]

So its maybe a product of taxis in an evolutionary sense then compared over the ecology of our evolutionary history? For me to think that a genotype or even phenotypes of a specific population would only begin to migrate if stress(-form or maybe why altruism exists in one angle) asked for such, or if migration is natural for populations of certain types, which then brings in the question of boundaries to me. So radiation then I guess is what it boils down to, or to what degree does life in general radiate out and how dependent such is species to species, or really populations of individuals in action. I mean does this generalization or specialization have an impact on say linkage so of course many other questions, or the relationship from the organism down to a cell and of course more.

 

That’s my question in general, if in fact we can really just look at our biology in general for understanding of what we are and of course what we do, and of course via evolution is what I am trying to find the answer with.

 

So its easy to say that humans are just generalists, which makes sense I guess. So the issue then is not only that we happen to migrate, its the combination with other aspects of our biology in general that allows for us to cause as much destruction as we can. See to me, you cant just pick up a population of a specie and toss it into some new ecology and expect no change or impact, and of course adaptations for survival in a particular ecology happen to be prevalent. Maybe as an immune response is why we lost so much body hair? I mean from an organismal point of view, if our population is highly specialized to be generalists, then I think it would be paramount for understanding of this in regards to the environment, simply put we still have to use the earth to survive and other biota in it.

 

I do think diet plays an important role in evolution, I mean energy is traversed via solar to organic molecules, whatever is eating such would of at least then need to be able to work with such on a chemical level, the food source that is. I don’t know if food needs where a driver of human evolution, though we did at some point become omnivores, then again where is the cause and effect to that, if not such being random of course...

[Paralith]

I don’t know if food needs where a driver of human evolution, though we did at some point become omnivores, then again where is the cause and effect to that, if not such being random of course...

 

It's not always "food needs" as much as it is being able to take advantage of a new kind of food source, in a way that overall gives you more energy than the food you used to eat. By adapting to eat meat, humans were able to use a food source that is much richer in nutrients and calories per pound than most any plant. This gave those individuals who were able to eat meat an advantage over those who ate plants - providing, of course, that we had a way of getting meat that wasn't so incredibly difficult or rare that it was hardly worth the effort. And developing the ability to use tools to hunt could have been that way. There's still a lot of debate over the exact sequence and timing that these things developed, of course, but regardless, somewhere along the way we were able to take advantage of a food source (or sources) that gave us an edge over our competitors. As already stated, intelligence and technology were most likely key components of this change.

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain.

 

Diet and evolution.

 

It may interest you to know that humans have the smallest gut as a percentage of their total body weight, of any primate. And this difference is quite massive. Humans cannot quite be called gutless, but we are well on the way.

 

If you do not believe me, take a photo of a bikini clad teenage model (because they have the least body fat to distort the picture) and compare it to a photo of a chimp. Where the young lass goes in, the chimp goes out. The reason is that, in the absense of lots of fat, the alimentary canal occupies most of the abdomen, and the human has not got a lot of it, while the chimp has lots of gut.

 

Why have humans evolved such a minimal gut? Answer : cooking.

 

There is evidence that Homo erectus had and used fire. This means cooking. Cooked food is much easier to digest. Being able to dispense with gut means the body has less mass to carry, and less tissue to feed. Hence, if cooking is part of everyday life, the gut can be reduced through evolution, leaving a lighter weight, more energy efficient individual who can hunt better.

[foodchain]

To foodchain.

 

Diet and evolution.

 

It may interest you to know that humans have the smallest gut as a percentage of their total body weight, of any primate. And this difference is quite massive. Humans cannot quite be called gutless, but we are well on the way.

 

If you do not believe me, take a photo of a bikini clad teenage model (because they have the least body fat to distort the picture) and compare it to a photo of a chimp. Where the young lass goes in, the chimp goes out. The reason is that, in the absense of lots of fat, the alimentary canal occupies most of the abdomen, and the human has not got a lot of it, while the chimp has lots of gut.

 

Why have humans evolved such a minimal gut? Answer : cooking.

 

There is evidence that Homo erectus had and used fire. This means cooking. Cooked food is much easier to digest. Being able to dispense with gut means the body has less mass to carry, and less tissue to feed. Hence, if cooking is part of everyday life, the gut can be reduced through evolution, leaving a lighter weight, more energy efficient individual who can hunt better.

 

Its just hard to find, you know the cultural primitive does not exist past looking at an infant with a blank slate really. The question I know from a debate board cant reach some empirical level, past maybe if people have done such studies before, I don’t know of any really, not in conjunction with the question I posed, its more or less for discussion purpose.

 

I mean the pattern of a family, its not something purely akin to say humans, to many other facets, so its more or less a question really of our nature and nurture facets viewed via evolution really.

 

I don’t think every human social set conducts itself like many industrialized nations happen to do in regards to the environment though, but looking at that is social science. I am looking more for the idea that humans specialized possibly at being generalists.

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain

 

As lucaspa pointed out, very correctly, to you, the reason humans are such successful generalists is technology. If you wish to understand human evolutionary success, you need to focus on that aspect on human evolution and way of life.

 

Humans are masters of technology. The question is how we evolved that characteristic.

 

I believe that technology and evolved human characteristics are intertwined. Our pre-human ancestors learned to use basic technology a long, long time ago. Once it became a big part of human life, our ancestors began a process of evolution to make them better at using technology, since the best tool makers and users were the ones most likely to survive. At the same time, technology freed our ancestors from certain needs, and our bodies evolved in response.

 

For example : Why are we functionally hairless? That is a unique quality. There is not even one other mammalian species, living on land, in our size range that is hairless. I have heard theories about hairlessness meaning better cooling during exercise, and hairlessness permitting better ectoparasite control. If these are true (and they probably are) then why have other species not lost hair to obtain these advantages?

 

The simple answer is that the disadvantages of functional hairlessness prevented that evolutionary trend in other species. The big one is loss of thermal insulation. Even on the equator, there are mornings when it gets damn cold. Without hair, mammals either die of hypothermia, or become vulnerable to hairier predators. Humans could lose hair, though, without facing this disadvantage, because technology can provide an alternative means of thermal insulation. Sitting round a fire, or some kind of primitive clothing.

 

This principle applies to a number of other unique human characteristics also.

[foodchain]

To foodchain

 

As lucaspa pointed out, very correctly, to you, the reason humans are such successful generalists is technology. If you wish to understand human evolutionary success, you need to focus on that aspect on human evolution and way of life.

 

Humans are masters of technology. The question is how we evolved that characteristic.

 

I believe that technology and evolved human characteristics are intertwined. Our pre-human ancestors learned to use basic technology a long, long time ago. Once it became a big part of human life, our ancestors began a process of evolution to make them better at using technology, since the best tool makers and users were the ones most likely to survive. At the same time, technology freed our ancestors from certain needs, and our bodies evolved in response.

 

For example : Why are we functionally hairless? That is a unique quality. There is not even one other mammalian species, living on land, in our size range that is hairless. I have heard theories about hairlessness meaning better cooling during exercise, and hairlessness permitting better ectoparasite control. If these are true (and they probably are) then why have other species not lost hair to obtain these advantages?

 

The simple answer is that the disadvantages of functional hairlessness prevented that evolutionary trend in other species. The big one is loss of thermal insulation. Even on the equator, there are mornings when it gets damn cold. Without hair, mammals either die of hypothermia, or become vulnerable to hairier predators. Humans could lose hair, though, without facing this disadvantage, because technology can provide an alternative means of thermal insulation. Sitting round a fire, or some kind of primitive clothing.

 

This principle applies to a number of other unique human characteristics also.

 

Well, I understand the technology bit, and tool use of course I would think is paramount but its just one facet of it all. Its like the constant obsessions with genes, a single gene, I don’t even think nano bacteria has only one gene, so its lots of genes, but how does it all equate, well see you have these genes just floating around in the air by themselves, and all they do is use tools to make fire so they can lose hair, sorry I am truly joking at this point to maybe lighten things up a bit.

 

The reason people lost hair was cavemen were catching themselves on fire to often, so over time the hairless gene became selected for. Nothing else, reality all that point in time was all about the hairless gene, and how does that equate into the organism itself, wait, there is no organism, its just naked genes floating in the air, hairy ones catching themselves on fire!

 

If it were just genes the concept of a phenotype would have little to no bearing, if it were just selfish genes why did we ever evolve or for that matter why did evolution ever take place, bacteria alone has a far better survival rate overall then anything else on the planet, but that’s right, genes don’t know anything, unless of course ~50 nm bacteria has some master plan. Heck DNA cant even operate by itself and most likely came later after life emerged in my opinion. Looking at just genes basically subtracts not only there purpose but the whole organism from view, looking at just the genes of a tiger for instance, or how about a lion? What’s the difference with saying its just chromosomes.

 

Its the same thing with humans and placing everything on the crutch of technology. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years with little to no technology past very primitive versions compared to today’s standards, that’s not covering ancestors of course. To say that human evolution was solely surrounded by fire, spears, and say cutting rock with rock for instance, well, I don’t think that quite covers the whole issue.

[SkepticLance]

foodchain said :

 

Its the same thing with humans and placing everything on the crutch of technology. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years with little to no technology past very primitive versions compared to today’s standards, that’s not covering ancestors of course. To say that human evolution was solely surrounded by fire, spears, and say cutting rock with rock for instance, well, I don’t think that quite covers the whole issue.

 

I have often thought that our ancestors were smarter than we normally give them credit for. Even chimpanzees use crude tools. Homo habilis which lived nearly 2 million years ago, has fossils that are found associated with chipped stone, which makes it pretty much certain that they actually made stone tools. I suspect that tool use, though not fabricated stone tools, preceded Homo habilis by quite a long time.

 

The problem is that most tools are not fossilised. Thus, if our early ancestors made use of wooden clubs or spears, or formed some kind of string or weaving, we would not have any way of proving it, since those items are not preserved as fossils. However, if chimps can use tools, it is very likely that our ancestors well before Homo habilis also did.

 

It seems to me quite obvious that human evolution must have been strongly influenced by the use of technology.

[Paralith]

Its the same thing with humans and placing everything on the crutch of technology. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years with little to no technology past very primitive versions compared to today’s standards, that’s not covering ancestors of course. To say that human evolution was solely surrounded by fire, spears, and say cutting rock with rock for instance, well, I don’t think that quite covers the whole issue.(emphasis mine - paralith)

 

We never said technology was the WHOLE issue - a major driving force to be sure, but obviously within the overall picture of human evolution, which involves just as many physiological and ecological factors as the evolution of other animals. We tend to talk about the technological aspect a lot because no other animal has been as influenced by their technology as much as we have.

 

Foodchain, I notice that you often say things like the sentence I bolded in the quote above - saying that you don't think one certain theory or subject can be enough to completely explain the things we see in the natural world. And you're right - you can't isolate one factor in living organisms and use it to explain everything. Genes can't tell you everything - you have to consider environmental effects as well. Technology won't give you all the answers to why humans are the way they are - you have to look at their evolutionary history, at the environmental context in which they evolved, at the genetic mechanisms of change and adaptation, etc. Everything has to be taken in context, and all in all the picture of life is a hugely complex one. We discuss it in bits and pieces because we have to - there's no way to address every single influencing factor at once.

[foodchain]

First of all, I am not claiming anything empirical in my threads unless I am stating common fact, such as the semiconductor is vital in regards to computing technology, I just want to settle that, this thread is purely hypothetical if even that.

 

The reason I made the comment about the lose of hair in regards to an immunity response is two fold. First the immune system is something direct to our biology, tools are not. The parts of our brains that utilize tools or concepts or thought related to such happens to be, but so is the use of language, would our specie have made it without such. Other species used tools but in the end they did not make it, they went extinct overall. Plus if migratory the reality is a whole new ecosystem many times over of simply anything from prions, to bacteria to virus, and so on. Not to mention this would become even worse being we are social, which could have an equal footing if not more then tools, not to mention state of mind, who knows how much fear ruled our ancestors thoughts, just look how much it rules today’s. Organisms are composites of behaviors that for the instance of the phenotype do not even have to survive overall naturally in strict accordance with the genotype overall. Plus on that note you cannot segregate life into units like that, its a system in which parts all happen to be required. DNA may be a step away from RNA for also a composite of reasons, who is to say, a great deal of past evolution points towards a giant symbiosis. Life in terms of its reality though evolution has slipped away it seems from something studied by for example wildlife biologists. Pretty soon life and human terms to understand it will be little more then products of calculus and a computer as life is slowly pushed in general to mass extinction for the placement of wall marts.

 

I mean we are so separated from life its not funny. Biology in many ways has been reduced to a lab, which of course has its own role, but life is so large overall that its rather insulting to hear someone say its just genes, that’s simply not true overall. I know firsthand and I have experience events in life that tend to contradict with interpretations like such.

 

Lastly the topic or case is still open as the empirical truth of such is not fully known yet. TO add to this class or so on can have over a 120,000 species in it easily. Evolution against occums razor, the razor fails. Life is vastly complex, and no simple generalization is going to fix this.

 

Also, my thread was a question posed as to why we are able to conduct such widespread change to the environment in general, or the earth. Nothing more or less, and its a hypothetical question.

[Paralith]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you resist the idea that one day all the complexities of life and human experience might be explainable by science - that perhaps one day, when we completely understand the workings of genes, the effect of the environment, the mechanisms of our bodies, etc - that one day it can all be explained with these concepts.

 

I know that life is monstrously complex. I know that the evolution of life must be even more so. I would say that today we are only a small fraction of the way towards explaining it all, but I still think it is possible. The natural world does follow basic rules, beginning at the atomic level and building up from there. Like I said, we are very far away from this goal yet, but even though many people may not like the idea that we can be explainable, it's most likely true. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, in my view. I don't think it's insulting, I think it's amazing. Atoms that once were bouncing around inside a star have come together over billions of years to create beings as complicated as we are. And I think life is complex enough that once it is all explained, it's not going to somehow negate the truth and value of human experience and individuality. It will just show us how it happens.

 

As for the question posed in your thread - that's the very reason why we keep talking about technology so much. Technology is the main way that humans are able "to conduct such widespread change to the environment in general." During our evolution something in our biology changed that enabled us to create and use tools, and something in our environment changed that made the use of tools advantageous, and then our biology began to change more in response to this advantage, in response to tool use, and both the biology and the technology influenced each other. No, not every animal that ever picked up a stick and used it as a club became like we did - because something in their evolutionary path was not the same as ours, be it the biology or the environment. And once we had the tools, we were able to change the environment itself to suit the needs of our biology.

 

I'm sure that if elephants were able to use chainsaws to knock down even the biggest trees and have access to the delicious leaves at their tops, they probably would. But they don't. Big as they are, they can still only knock down trees of a certain size. Thus they create a plains ecology, but don't have the ability to convert large-treed forests into plains. If they had the tools they would probably be more destructive than they are. They don't, we do. We have the chainsaws and the bulldozers, we can make fire to raze a forest and turn it into plains on which we grow our crops or our livestock. It's not so much a question of why we do it, it's the fact that we can, so we do.