User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 37

Thread: Chimps make weapons to hunt

  1. #25
    Chicxulub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I crash at the K-Pg
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JustLikeAPill View Post
    hmmm.... I don't see how an animal can be dumb... dumb doesn't really exist, now does it? dumb is an abstract idea that we created to compare intelligence. I'm dumber than you, someone else is dumber than me, the dog is dumb because it's not a person ; how can we compare lesser genera to us? Even to compare extinct species of humans to ourselves and call them "dumb" is kind of dumb in it's self isn't it? "Dumb" animals are "dumb" because they don't need to be at the same level of intelligence as we are. If they did, they would have evolved, if they couldn't get there and needed to they would have died out. Look at dogs.. can't be that dumb considering we take care of them.

    I wonder why we had to evolve to such a great extent.. why did we struggle and have to evolve while the other animals that were around the same time (the ones that are still alive today) didn't?

    Did anyone get any of that or is it just a rant that only makes sense to me?
    Makes sense to me.

    The key reason that we're around and there's nothing else is simple.... competition. There were at times many, many human species at the same time.

    Take for example the Neanderthals, aka Homo neanderthalensis. These intelligent homonids dominated Europe for a very, very long time, untill competition by the MORE intelligent Cro-Magnons (Homo sapiens) drove them to extinction.

    We're not the only batch of upright intelligent beings to have evolved, we're just the most sucessful.
    Chicxulub on Facebook || Chicxulub on Instagram

    Fisheries Manager || Biologist || Certified Master Naturalist

    Never trust a catfish...

  2. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by quadcam View Post
    Makes sense to me.

    The key reason that we're around and there's nothing else is simple.... competition. There were at times many, many human species at the same time.

    Take for example the Neanderthals, aka Homo neanderthalensis. These intelligent homonids dominated Europe for a very, very long time, untill competition by the MORE intelligent Cro-Magnons (Homo sapiens) drove them to extinction.

    We're not the only batch of upright intelligent beings to have evolved, we're just the most sucessful.
    Sorry I just couldnt let this go. I have to present some of the alturnative theories to what you have stated.

    First to imply that Neanderthals are a seperate species from humans is an opinion not a fact and something many biological anthropologists would argue with on. Many (including myself) believe that Neanderthals more than likely interbred with homo sapiens as some skeletal hybrids have been found (most notably in spain) and the evidence for making them a seperate species is cercumstantial. As for which was more intellegent, well thats hard to say. Neanderthals actully had larger crainial capacity by ~100cc which could mean a larger brain or could be a result of their more rubust bodies. Their biggest disadvantages seem to be a lack of a hyiod bone that would allow speach, though this is highly debated, and also a technological gap. Their spears appear to be more of a thrusting weapon than a projectile while archaic homo sapiens had spears and atl atl's at contact which would have given them a technological advantage.

    Also to the chimp post, the reason for developing bipedal locomotion is very very very controverisal. Some say it was to see better, other say it was to cover larger areas with less energy expenditure, others claim it was to carry simple tools (though unlikely). what is clear is that bipedalism developed before a larger brain. Interestingly we dont know when hunting comes into play. Male chimps hunt on a regular basis without any tools and other chimps create tools for uses mentioned in earlier posts. It is completely plausible, especially with this new evidence, that Australopithicus afarensis like "Lucy" could have used simple wooden tools as these would not have preserved like the stone tools that show up later. Granted Australopithicus afarensis was not taking down large game like zebra but could have hunted small creatures much like the modern chimps. This would have allowed an expansion of brain size with the increaded protein along with scavenging. Scavenging has its issues too like the fact that any medium or large preditor could easily scare off or kill Australopithicus afarensis due to their size and speed advantages. With out tools it would have been hard for Australopithicus afarensis to gain much nutrition from scavenging as they would only get whats left over or a few quick bites before something with much meaner teeth arived. I am not trying to argue that they only hunted, only that they would have likely utilized a similar strategy.


    sorry for the length of this post, its the biological anthropologist in me showing through. I also am not trying to start an argument here but merely posting some alturnitive theories.
    Last edited by ktulu; 02-23-2007 at 09:03 PM. Reason: I am an idiot
    "We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." - Kurt Vonnegut

  3. #27
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I too have heard of those purported "hybrids" and several published studies have specifically debunked the assumption that they are true hybrids. The Separate species status is widely accepted and little disputed: recent genetic and skeletal research show that the Neanderthals were most likely indeed distinct species. It is pointed out that even if true hybrids existed, that hybridization is not proof that they were indeed the same species. Many Distinct species in nature can interbreed and produce hybrids, even when their species status is not disputed. Most Biologists now allow fore a more flexible interpretation of a species, knowing that separate species can and frequently do intebreed. Therefore, the argument that they could have inbread is not a valid one against species status


    I sold also note that the CONSENSUS is widely that they were distinct species. "Circumstantial" It is certainaly not
    that makes no logic

  4. #28
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...anderthal.html

    BERKELEY, CA —The veil of mystery surrounding our extinct hominid cousins, the Neanderthals, has been at least partially lifted to reveal surprising results. Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) have sequenced genomic DNA from fossilized Neanderthal bones. Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Based on these early results, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis last shared a common ancestor approximately 700,000 years ago

    In a paper published in the November 17, 2006 issue of the journal Science, a team of researchers led by Edward Rubin, director of both JGI and Berkeley Lab’s Genomics Division, reports the development of a “Neanderthal metagenomic library,” which they used to characterize more than 65,000 DNA base pairs of Neanderthal origin. Their results not only provide new information about Neanderthals, but also point the way to a new strategy for studying aspects of Neanderthal biology that would never be evident from archaeological artifacts and fossils.
    The evedence presented by this study alone is not Circumstantial by any stretch of the word. If such a large portion or the Anthropological community can be truly mislead by “circumstantial” evidence, that means one of tow things. Either it has some merit, or it speaks volumes of the legitimacy of a large segment of the much-vaulted Anthropological community.
    that makes no logic

  5. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
    I too have heard of those purported "hybrids" and several published studies have specifically debunked the assumption that they are true hybrids. The Separate species status is widely accepted and little disputed: recent genetic and skeletal research show that the Neanderthals were most likely indeed distinct species. It is pointed out that even if true hybrids existed, that hybridization is not proof that they were indeed the same species. Many Distinct species in nature can interbreed and produce hybrids, even when their species status is not disputed. Most Biologists now allow fore a more flexible interpretation of a species, knowing that separate species can and frequently do intebreed. Therefore, the argument that they could have inbread is not a valid one against species status


    I sold also note that the CONSENSUS is widely that they were distinct species. "Circumstantial" It is certainaly not
    Ok first off, the genetic evidence is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which has its own problems as it doesnt undergo recombination in meosis and is only passed from mother to child which allows the problem of loss of mtDNA due to only sons being born. Secondly the variation found in the mtDNA actully falls with in the range of human variation at one end. As I recall, though I could be wrong on the exact numbers, the average number of base pair difference in modern human populations was 9 and Neanderthals had 26. However the human range of variation was along the lines of 4 to 28 putting Neaderthals within the range of natural variation even if it is at one extreme. Arguing based on this that they are seperate species is like argueing that a man who is 7ft 9in tall is not a human because he is too far away from the average of 5ft 9in. Lastly the total number of individuals used for Neaderthals was 3, way too small of a number to establish a good average or be statistically significant.

    Also species assignments are somewhat greyish, for lack of a better term, when working with exstinct animals. I would be willing to accept the designation of subspecies as they had some disticint features, but to call them a completely differnt species is a difficult sell in my opinion. Also the actual definition of what a species is, is not actully set and universally accepted and well defined so this also makes it difficult. again I dont want to argue, but if you feel they were seperate species you have the right to believe that but I just wanted to present the fact that a good number of anthropologists do not accept they were seperate species.

    Also the interbreeding point was also to show that they have have merely breed into the ancestors of modern humans and they may not have been done in by superior competition.
    "We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." - Kurt Vonnegut

  6. #30
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can understand that, and i defer to your knowledge of the subject. I only wish to say again that if many Anthropologists can be mislead by cirumstantal evidence in this regard if truely they are not species, i shudder to think of the implications for other aspects of the feild.

    The study i posted claims to use "DNA base pairs". The study above states
    However, these studies were based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), genetic material that lies outside the nucleus of the cell. Although mtDNA tends to remain preserved longer than nuclear DNA, it provides limited biological information. The vast majority of the genome is comprised of nuclear DNA, which contains almost all of the genes.
    Nuclear DNA is where all the biology is,” said Noonan, a post-doctoral fellow in Rubin’s research group who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab and JGI. “If you want to understand how traits like language and cognition are encoded, you have to study nuclear DNA.”



    Studying ancient genomes from fossilized material by directly sequencing the DNA, as has been done for the genomes of humans and other contemporary organisms, represents a major challenge. As a fossil ages, its DNA is degraded by chemical processes. It also becomes contaminated with DNA from the microbes that colonize both the fossil and its immediate environment, and by other organisms, including the humans who handle the fossil.

    While a group led by co-author Pääbo is attempting to directly sequence the Neanderthal genome, Rubin, Noonan and their colleagues are meeting the fossilized DNA challenge with a unique solution that’s been described as a “targeted approach.” Essentially, they “immortalize” all of the DNA in a fossil sample into metagenomic libraries where individual fragments of the ancient DNA are propagated in microbes. The DNA propagated in the microbes can either be sequenced or specific sequences can in a targeted manner be specifically fished out of the library and studied.

    Seeing as that study consisted of nuclear DNA, and not mtDNA *shrugs* i feel it has a good grasp on the issue
    that makes no logic

  7. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...anderthal.html


    The evedence presented by this study alone is not Circumstantial by any stretch of the word. If such a large portion or the Anthropological community can be truly mislead by “circumstantial” evidence, that means one of tow things. Either it has some merit, or it speaks volumes of the legitimacy of a large segment of the much-vaulted Anthropological community.
    That was an interesting article and a study that I was not aware of. I am interested to see any follow up responses as the mtDNA was hailed as the magic bullet that turned out to have some serious flaws when studied further. Although this is good evidence the question is how will it pan out. Also I would like a larger sample size than just one individual which I am sure they will do as thats just good science. Also the fact that the DNA came from bacteria (if im reading the article correctly) makes me question it to some degree. If they directly pattern the DNA i would feel much more confident in what they are saying.

    Also I maybe misinterpreting what you have written and if so I appologize but it appears that you are taking a shot at anthropologists and also me since I am one. This is completely unnecessary. You produced one study, which is not enough evidence to build a case on, and are now insult a large segment of the anthropological field, or so it seems.
    Last edited by ktulu; 02-23-2007 at 09:59 PM. Reason: forgot something
    "We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." - Kurt Vonnegut

  8. #32
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    *flushes* oh thats not what i mean - to insult. Especially not you. Furthermore, i was not aware you were a true anthropologist. I was just confused why a large segment of the scientific community would believe truly unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. It just... wise to err on the sde of caution when you have circumstantial evidence and not jump to conclusions, what you seemed to have been indicating that they were jumping to unreasoned conclusions. I thought you were insulting the community by indicating that.
    Last edited by Finch; 02-23-2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason: added my reasonings
    that makes no logic

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •