# from cavemen to this



## innate (May 29, 2012)

It is amazing how much humanity has grown in a short period of time. The best is yet to come. However, I will probably not be alive for it.


----------



## Dave (May 29, 2012)

Biologically, physiologically, genetically, evolutionarily, we are no different from those cavemen. All we have is our superior technology and our systems of education. If for some reason we were to cataclysmic-ally lose that technology, and subsequently, our children could not enjoy that same education, then we would be cavemen once again. History is filled with human civilisations that have risen and fallen. The change often occurred practically overnight. When the Roman Empire fell, the infrastructure they had left behind very quickly fell with it. I don't think people realise that our civilisation is so fragile; a house of cards that could be blown down by a breeze. Some things would survive even us though; our genetically modified grasses, vegetables and animals would live on even when our buildings had turned to dust - wheat, maize, barley, dogs, cows, horses.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 29, 2012)

In many ways we are a species that is going backwards, particularly over the last century or so. 

IF the lights went out tomorrow. the vast majority would struggle to light a fire without the aid of matches/lighter/similar.


----------



## Bowler1 (May 31, 2012)

Behave, PM, I've seen how to light a fire with sticks on TV!


----------



## Ursa major (May 31, 2012)

Did it involve beating a person in possession of a lighter with those  sticks...?


----------



## Bowler1 (May 31, 2012)

No, but I’d imagine that would be the survival of the fittest thing everyone goes on about when civilisation ends!


----------



## Dave (Jun 1, 2012)




----------



## Gary Compton (Jun 1, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> Did it involve beating a person in possession of a lighter with those  sticks...?



I thought you rubbed 2 firelighters together


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 1, 2012)

Dave that is brilliant and scarily pertinent.


----------



## Bowler1 (Jun 1, 2012)

I've been planning ahead and preparing. I've got Ray Mears set to record on my Sky Box so I'm good to go!


----------



## Gary Compton (Jun 1, 2012)

Dave said:


>



Yes that third picture is definitely thought provoking, as smoking is very bad for your health


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 1, 2012)

Haven't there been times in history when obesity was a clear sign of wealth and therefore beauty?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 1, 2012)

hopewrites said:


> Haven't there been times in history when obesity was a clear sign of wealth and therefore beauty?


 

Yes. There was a time when people blackened their teeth to show that they were rich enough to afford to eat lots of sugar.

The fact is that in the past man had to eat to live; now he lives to eat.


----------



## Christopher Lee (Jun 5, 2012)

Dave said:


>



Haha, This was really funny.


----------



## Metryq (Jun 5, 2012)

Dave said:


> Biologically, physiologically, genetically, evolutionarily, we are no different from those cavemen.



"Cavemen" is non-specific, although there have certainly been changes since the last ice age. *Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade*

If you'll pardon the pun, nothing is set in stone about pre-historic peoples, but the "new" science of genetic archaeology shows changes in the few thousands of years since the beginning of the Holocene. We think differently than those ancient ancestors, for one thing, even though we may look the same. That is why researchers use terms like "_anatomically_ modern humans" and "_behaviorally_ modern humans."

Evolution may be slow, but it is continuous. It didn't suddenly stop when we arrived.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 5, 2012)

MKS said:
			
		

> It didn't suddenly stop when we arrived.



I beg to differ. The conventional model of evolution, 'survival of the fittest', involves elimination of the unfit from the breeding population (quite often by direct competition with the selected few). Since the development of agriculture this pressure has only existed in certain small, isolated communities, and never long enough that they became incapable of breeding back into the base population. 

A K strategy species with expanding population has no need for evolution; it is successful, what more does it require?

More, civilisation shows a tendency to breeding away from the characteristic specialisations which define mankind. In feudalism there was selection for 'nobility', as children of nobles had a higher survival rate than those of peasants (and wives of nobles, in general, survived more childbirths) In a welfare state, with overpopulation, we're in a 'marching morons' scenario; the intelligent tend to smaller families, while the less educated (hmm, I can't really claim that as true evolution there, can I? Education is not equivalent to inborn ability) are paid to tend towards R strategy 'fill all available niches' behaviour. 

The alternatives – eugenics or some drastic type of fertility control, reversible sterilisation until usefulness to society demonstrated – have their own disadvantages. The only factors that have caused massive population reductions in the last thousand years or so have been plagues; I'm sure our immune system's been evolving. Until, at least, the medical profession reduced its importance.

I'd say the only hope for evolution in a global, cross cultural world is synthetic; the selection first against certain genetic weaknesses, then, just possibly, for certain strengths. Dangerous, certainly. Just maybe an isolated population, in space perhaps, could select against vertigo and claustrophobia, without laboratory aid, but I can't see any terrestrial group giving up their diversity, their contacts – or at least, not without a major (more than 80%) cull.


----------



## Dave (Jun 5, 2012)

Metryq said:


> "Cavemen" is non-specific, although there have certainly been changes since the last ice age...
> Evolution may be slow, but it is continuous. It didn't suddenly stop when we arrived.


I have an interest in genetic genealogy. There have certainly been changes in our genetic make-up otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate haplotypes, but the changes are insignificant - we haven't grown extra fingers or a tail - more importantly, we are not more intelligent, just more educated - that was my point. I agree that Evolution does not stop, but it does need populations to be isolated for them to not to interbreed. It is a long time since the genes for red hair or blue eyes came about. Human populations were beginning to be isolated on different continents, but today, there is more interbreeding of populations and more genetic diversity in the world population than ever before. Even so, we still share about 95% of our genes with Chimpanzees. Also, there is evidence that European haplotypes of Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals (before wiping them out.) If a species fits a niche perfectly then it will stop evolving, so your statements of fact are a little more blurred around the edges.


----------



## Metryq (Jun 6, 2012)

The fact that intelligence allows us to adapt faster than inherited traits does not mean that our bodies are not responding to environmental pressures. Researchers are now chasing "epigenetic" changes that occur very quickly and can last generations.

Someone of exceptional athletic ability may not be best suited to a manmade environment. (The "troublemaker" might stand out.) Or perhaps the "weirdos" will survive a great dying event that kills the homogenous majority.

Maybe genetic drift will force the few mutations to be more extreme (X-Men, anyone?), like the sudden break from in-breeding producing an exceptional genius.

Evolution is not a philosophical question. There is abundant evidence for it—even in recent history. (See Wade's book referenced above.) Every theory has a realm of applicability. Darwin's evolution may not answer the origin of life question, but it is evident after that.


----------



## Dave (Jun 6, 2012)

I think we may start arguing semantics and definitions, which I don't want to begin. I don't disagree with anything that you have said, but I'd say genetic drift was natural selection and not evolution, and you would reply that it is the same thing. I'd give the example of the Peppered Moth which turned black to hide on smoke blackened tree bark, but has now reversed the change to hide on trees in clean air. Someone would then give an example of a fish that has evolved into different species within five generations. You see, we've had this discussion before. 

I agree that evolution does not stop, but nor is there some end goal. I agree that change could happen on some more extreme level. That would have to be some powerful advantage though - something that makes all other individuals inferior and less fit to survive. (X-Men indeed.)

My whole point is about he general misconception that we are already in some way better, more intelligent, and "fitter" (in natural selection terms) than our very recent (in evolutionary terms) ancestors were. That was alluded to if not expressly said in the opening post.


innate said:


> The best is yet to come. However, I will probably not be alive for it.


It is really the time scales involved I'm taking issue with. They are much longer and the process is much slower than most people can comprehend.

The fish I mentioned is unusual


----------



## Gordian Knot (Jun 24, 2012)

I agree. Evolution is a slow process that is ongoing. However I see little evidence that we (I.E. Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are in any significant way different from our recent pre-human (I.E. Homo Sapiens) ancestors in body or mind.

Not saying there are no genetic differences. There would be. But in broad strokes, if one cleaned up a man from Homo Sapiens species, gave him an education and social skills, I do not believe anyone would be able to tell by appearance oractions that he was any different from any one of us living today.

Modern culture and civilization are a thin veneer.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 24, 2012)

I dissagree. There was a time when certain social standards were held in importance above life. As more and more people adhered to this philosophy, they contributed less and less often to social or physical gene pools if you will. Today life is held above living or even survival.

Physically we strive for stangnancy, hence the demand that we feel we are not physically any different from early humans or even humans a handful of generations back. Modern medicine strives to keep the human body in a state of functionality dictated decades back with no room for physical advancement or change. Gene mutations are immediately labled cancer with no forethought to what these changes might portend or come to fruition as.
The rise in asthma and allergies is attributed to lifestyle and climate change, rather than a distancing of humanity from her origins.



Its never been survival of the fittest. Only survival of the survivalist.


----------



## Dozmonic (Jun 25, 2012)

It was survival of the fittest until communication and altruism came to the fore and we started to be guided by morals we deemed to be given to us by higher beings. I think I read somewhere that humanity has several thousand genetic based diseases, far more than any other creature and that the reason for this was because we look after our sick and they get to procreate. It certainly scares me that some people on TV live off the hard work of others and pump out a baby every 9 months


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 25, 2012)

There is a strong argument that altruism benefits the gene (read the paradoxically titled Selfish Gene). It has been shown that altruism whilst apparently giving no benefit to the individual does benefit the gene and is therefore a perfectly valid survival evolutionary trait.


----------



## Dave (Jun 25, 2012)

I never meant to claim that modern humans are 100% genetically identical to our ancestors. That would make us all identical twins. I'm merely saying that the differences are negligible, and Gordian Knot said it more eloquently than I did:


Gordian Knot said:


> In broad strokes, if one cleaned up a man from Homo Sapiens species, gave him an education and social skills, I do not believe anyone would be able to tell by appearance or actions that he was any different from any one of us living today.


I'm not disputing that the gene pool today is larger and more diverse. The genes for blue eyes, pale skin, green eyes, fair hair, red hair - these are all relatively recent mutations. However, there is also evidence that Europeans also have older Neanderthal genes due to inter-breeding. 

Incidentally, for a few dollars you can take 'cocktail table' or 'factoid' genetic tests for the following - Alcohol Flush Reaction, Avoidance of Errors, Back Pain, Bitter Taste perception, Caffeine metabolism, Earwax Type, Freckling, Longevity, Male Pattern Baldness, Muscle Performance, Nicotine dependence, and Monoamine Oxidase A (Warrior Gene). The tests are based on scientific studies - some of which may be controversial - offered exclusively for curiosity purposes. 

Populations differ due to the varying proportions of a small number of genes that are really unimportant. Different nationalities or ethnic groups are simply blends of genes with no more than one DNA base in a hundred that separates any one of them from a common ancestor.


----------



## Nik (Jun 26, 2012)

A major theme in my 'P for Pleistocene' was the way the small UK group were woefully ill-equipped for their situation. Mike, a trained Archaeologist, puts it bluntly, 'Now we're a hunter-gatherer band', 'A dozen would be so different', 'We must run like crazy to do even the simplest things...'

Improvising, adapting and employing their limited resources to the full, they manage to survive. A big problem lay ahead-- Natural birthing. A bigger problem lay beyond-- Educating the grand-children. I've left those issues for as-yet unwritten sequels...

My family used to joke that I had enough books to re-boot civilisation. That wasn't true; I lacked a wall full of old encyclopaedias...

There's one possible 'gotcha': You can fit a lot of free books into a Kindle or its ilk. Combine that with a solar panel and you have an enduring educational tool...


----------



## J-WO (Jun 26, 2012)

Well, according to Stephen Pinker's Better Angels of our nature, whatever we are doing we want to keep it up. Seems that, if you measure humanity's history for violence by percentage of genocide to world population rather than sheer bulk you get a very interesting picture. 

The second world war is in the top ten but far from No1, the first world war doesn't get in at all. The statistics appear to show that violence has been on a downward slope since the last 300 years with an even bigger drop in the last 60. Violence's height was somewhere between the 11th-13th centuries.

Now I guess that's not evolution itself, but it's the fruits of the reasoning capacity evolution has gifted us with.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 26, 2012)

Nik said:


> There's one possible 'gotcha': You can fit a lot of free books into a Kindle or its ilk. Combine that with a solar panel and you have an enduring educational tool...


 
errmmm, until you get a bit of equipment failure then you've lost everything. Until you can replicate a silicon electronic industry.  

(even those darn nice flash memory hard-drives will start to fail after so many readings. Who knows, 20 years maximum? I doubt most of the other components on the kindle would even get close to that. Books on the other hand could, with care last hundreds and hundreds of years)


----------

