Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > [b]Savannah theory fading[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The idea that savannahs drove our evolution is shown as being much too simplistic. Not surprising as new research challenges old ideas. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Thank you for this fascinating article. I wonder what new research in say a thousand years' time might challenge old ideas about mysteries such as the Cambrian. Who knows? Meanwhile, however, I must say, I AM surprised by this discovery, but it all makes perfect sense.
> 
> Why surprised? Rethinking Darwin theories today is common.
> >  
> > QUOTE: [i][b]Although open environments played a major role in early human evolution[/b], tropical forests and forest patches still provided a significant backdrop for our first hominin ancestors as they emerged in the tropics of Africa. They likely took their first tentative steps as bipedal mammals in tropical forests, or at least mixed forest habitats[.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The first sentence is crucial. The implication seems to be that our intelligent ancestors learned to take full advantage of whatever conditions they found themselves in. They were therefore not forced into change by the loss of their original forest habitat, but instead exploited BOTH environments.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The evidence in this article shows we evolved to take advantage of new environments not as the result of new environments.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Sorry, but I don’t see any difference. New environments require new skills, so we could hardly develop the new skills until the new environments were there. The implication is that like all other cell communities that speciated, ours had the (perhaps God-given) intelligence and the plasticity to TAKE ADVANTAGE of new conditions (in my posts I often use the word “exploit”) in order to innovate and not just to adapt. However, the article doesn’t talk expressly of new environments. The last sentence of the quote leaves it open: the forests were definitely still there, but if open environments played a “major role”, then we certainly can’t discount “mixed” habitats.
> 
> The point still is, and you haven't changed it, we evolved to use all sorts of environments in a warm jungle area (AFRICA) and then migrated all over to every climate on the Earth to easily adapt. The jungle origin did not provide that degree of adaptability for future use. The new big brain did just that and appeared in advance of migrations as the article shows.