Slashdot Mirror
Human Origins Theory Tested By Recent Findings
annamadrigal writes "The BBC news is reporting on findings presented in Nature which suggest that Homo Erectus and H. Habilis were in fact sister species which co-existed. This challenges the view that the upright humans evolved from the tool users."
It talks about "their own distinct ecological niches". Given that we are omnivores, how different could their "ecological niche" have been and still support something that was almost human?
... that's dumb.
Humans and other primates have shared the same areas ever since there were humans. Yet we have only recently started wiping out other primates. And it isn't because we are competing with them for the food sources. We wipe out their environment, food sources and all.
So there thing about "Eventually, one would have out-competed the other." doesn't sound right. "Eventually", maybe. But to say that any conclusions can be derived simply because it had not happened in X years
Monogamous nature of human mating interaction is almost exclusively due to societal changes -- mostly control reasons (from what I can see). However, humans do tend to have a stronger attachment to those they mate with than some other species out there do. Perhaps more akin to the mate-for-life (or close to it) mentality -- whether or not this is supported by actions and/or society (divorce rate is high etc), but there is the definite attachment in many cases. I should stop posting, and where are my damn mod points to mod you funny for the title.
Information is not Knowledge.
Other great apes were evolved for primarily eating fruit (orangutang), veggies (gorillas), or a more mixed diet (chimps). I'd say that human ancestors didn't take to the flatlands all that great but were actually well adapted to rivers and for the style of fishing known as noodling. (Paddle-like foot shape, thinned out body hair, improved hand dexterity, downturned nose, these seem better adapted for mucking in water than walking around on some grassland.) Afterall, in comparison to the great apes we're related to, humans are the only ones that can swim worth a damn. Crocodiles as a competing apex preditor would be a lot more predictable for pre-tool hominid primates than any lion, jaguar, or hyena. (Easy enough to get out of the water when crocs are around, but good luck outrunning one of those large cats.) Also there's likely more protein to be had from fish than any small grassland type creature that could be caught until toolmaking became more mainstream.
Now if only an actual anthropologist would pick up on that idea...
This kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.
Ya lost me there AC.
Einstein predicted a certain bending of light in terms of the general "predicted theory of relativity and it was not proven to be absolutely spot on until the 1960's, I believe. So the science "predicted fact" is recognized as valid ("true") after the prediction is fulfilled.
But there are extant copies of things like Isaiah (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) that include nearly word for word what the Masoretic text used in the KJV holds, and some of the prophecies in Isaiah are fulfilled long after the DSS were placed in the caves. Or much of the book of Daniel -- which not only correctly foretells the decline of the Persion empire(s) but the rise later of the Greek, still later the Roman, and then a bunch of little kingdoms, some strong, some weak. (the feet of iron and clay), for example. Predates the rise of the little kingdoms...
So if the predictions in the OT are evaluated after the fact, --and the source document predates the fulfillment of the "prophecy", it's the same method as science is using and therefore equally valid as "truth".
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...