+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Extinct Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-extinct-animals)
+--- Thread: The Evolution of Man (/topic-the-evolution-of-man)
RE: The Evolution of Man - Polar - 11-14-2016
They had to adapt to the African plains instead of dwelling up on trees or forested environments (also the reason for less body hair). For a primate, walking on all fours within an infinitely-lengthy environment such as a desert would be quite energy-consuming, thus bipedalism (my theory, not proven).
Total body strength, as a result of this change, became extremely devalued unlike that of the great apes. Simply look at a very strong skeleton of a modern human compared to a Homo Erectus skeleton. Similarly, look at a Homo Erectus skeleton compared to a gorilla skeleton: huge differences in bone density, cortical bone thickness, and total bone diameter.
The point is, even the most strongest of our species is quite gracile in bone structure compared to a smallish Neanderthal, so that tells quite a bit about our evolution (regarding strength).
RE: The Evolution of Man - Polar - 11-14-2016
However, regarding endurance (both muscular and cardiovascular), modern humans slightly take the trophy.
The problem is, both a gorilla and a Neanderthal have significantly larger lung volumes than humans do, and a human's lung size does not increase much proportionally to muscle or body mass.
On the other hand, though, modern humans (excluding power athletes) have a much higher propensity of slow-twitch type Ia muscle fibers for endurance than the two aforementioned species, thus greater muscular endurance. Cardiovascular endurance can only go so far, yet muscular endurance can last for hours on end, even with a smaller lung size.
This is why one can see some exclusive Native American and African tribes running down quick prey for hours straight, without tiring. We are either number one or two in the animal kingdom when it comes to endurance, assuming good-pacing, of course.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Pckts - 11-14-2016
(11-14-2016, 07:53 PM)Polar Wrote: They had to adapt to the African plains instead of dwelling up on trees or forested environments (also the reason for less body hair). For a primate, walking on all fours within an infinitely-lengthy environment such as a desert would be quite energy-consuming, thus bipedalism (my theory, not proven).
Total body strength, as a result of this change, became extremely devalued unlike that of the great apes. Simply look at a very strong skeleton of a modern human compared to a Homo Erectus skeleton. Similarly, look at a Homo Erectus skeleton compared to a gorilla skeleton: huge differences in bone density, cortical bone thickness, and total bone diameter.
The point is, even the most strongest of our species is quite gracile in bone structure compared to a smallish Neanderthal, so that tells quite a bit about our evolution (regarding strength).
I think it has to do with the evolution of brain size.
We learned how to use tools and team work to ease the strain of life in the wild and thus the slow loss of physical strength compared to the quick growth of mental strength. The survival of our species seem to depend on the growth of brain power then physical power.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Spalea - 11-15-2016
@Polar:
About #45: I confirm what you said. Even with small lungs members of african tribes are able to run for several hours. A memory which always amazes me: when I traveled in Kenya, each time we came by car in an african village, we always saw some kids running close to the car without being tired at all, bare feet onto a ruggedized laterite ground...
No wonder the african runners are always winning the the long-distance race in the olympic games and so on !
RE: The Evolution of Man - parvez - 11-15-2016
Man found his physical strength is of no use as animals around are much stronger pound for pound and as polar said humans have slow twitching muscle fibres are no match to fast twitching muscle fibre of predators through which they quickly catch hold of us in short times and man is absolutely clueless. He seemed to be in constant alert and it must have demanded much work from brain.Hence heart must have evolved to pump more blood to brain. In this way brain must have grown in size as its function has more demand.
RE: The Evolution of Man - parvez - 11-16-2016
There are some chances of mutations that may have occured during the evolution of ancient man to modern one. Otherwise it is really hard to have achieved that much intelligence in only around 100000 years or so.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Pckts - 11-17-2016
Carriers of human mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M colonized India from southeastern Asia
Background
From a mtDNA dominant perspective, the exit from Africa of modern humans to colonize Eurasia occurred once, around 60 kya, following a southern coastal route across Arabia and India to reach Australia short after. These pioneers carried with them the currently dominant Eurasian lineages M and N. Based also on mtDNA phylogenetic and phylogeographic grounds, some authors have proposed the coeval existence of a northern route across the Levant that brought mtDNA macrohaplogroup N to Australia. To contrast both hypothesis, here we reanalyzed the phylogeography and respective ages of mtDNA haplogroups belonging to macrohaplogroup M in different regions of Eurasia and Australasia.
Results
The macrohaplogroup M has a historical implantation in West Eurasia, including the Arabian Peninsula. Founder ages of M lineages in India are significantly younger than those in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Near Oceania. Moreover, there is a significant positive correlation between the age of the M haplogroups and its longitudinal geographical distribution. These results point to a colonization of the Indian subcontinent by modern humans carrying M lineages from the east instead the west side.
Conclusions
The existence of a northern route, previously proposed for the mtDNA macrohaplogroup N, is confirmed here for the macrohaplogroup M. Both mtDNA macrolineages seem to have differentiated in South East Asia from ancestral L3 lineages. Taking this genetic evidence and those reported by other disciplines we have constructed a new and more conciliatory model to explain the history of modern humans out of Africa.
Source Link: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0816-8
http://on.natgeo.com/2ghqw9v
RE: The Evolution of Man - parvez - 11-17-2016
An interesting article,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-has-human-brain-evolved/
RE: The Evolution of Man - Vinay - 11-17-2016
How Monkeys and Apes are survived from predators??
Simple answer: They are pack animals and can climb trees easily (build to climb)
Then,How and Why one Ape(homo-sapiens) poor in climbing,no claws and canines not only survived from predators but also conquered the whole world ??
Run - We cant out run the wild cats/dogs.
Or We are survived because we were in OFFENSIVE mode not in defensive modes like climbing trees or run.
What are the first offensive actions which deter predators and gave more proteins to enhance our mind capacity further.
A) STONE THROWING:
1. By this we can kill the prey from long distances.
2. Deter predators to leave a kill.
3. No predator/s can attack us on day time.
*This image is copyright of its original author
B) Control the fire:
4.The day homo-sapiens started control the fire then our species hunted by night time was also decreased gradually and we roasted food for better taste.
===============================
If you observe kids at zoo's in old days, they love to throw stones on animals.Even grown up men love to throw stones at stray dogs.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Pckts - 11-17-2016
The control of fire will always be our greatest accomplishment imo.
RE: The Evolution of Man - GrizzlyClaws - 11-17-2016
(11-16-2016, 06:14 PM)parvez Wrote: There are some chances of mutations that may have occured during the evolution of ancient man to modern one. Otherwise it is really hard to have achieved that much intelligence in only around 100000 years or so.
Africans = pure Homo sapiens
Eurasians = Homo sapiens with slight mixture from Neanderthals and Denisovans
The Eurasian Homo sapiens got mutated thanked to the mixture from other non-sapiens humans even it was minimal.
RE: The Evolution of Man - parvez - 11-17-2016
(11-10-2016, 06:58 PM)Vinay Wrote:(11-10-2016, 06:38 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Neanderthals are muscular but not fat or hairy.Blue eyes is just one mutation (like white tiger) and may be their hair is red.
How would you explain that no bone sewing needles have ever been discovered among Neanderthal relics, but numerous among Cro-magnon? If not physically adapted to freezing temperatures, just how did the Neanderthal people survive?
Small correction .. U are correct, Neanderthals must be like Siberian Tigers 1 inch FAT or like Himalayan langurs- heavily body hair to survive in cold areas.
So, i vote 1-inch FAT for Neanderthals.
sewing needles/settlements is CIVILIZATION,that is entirely different topic.
(11-17-2016, 09:45 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:Thanks grizzly claws is it your assumption or scientifically proved? If so can you please show sources. Thanks(11-16-2016, 06:14 PM)parvez Wrote: There are some chances of mutations that may have occured during the evolution of ancient man to modern one. Otherwise it is really hard to have achieved that much intelligence in only around 100000 years or so.
Africans = pure Homo sapiens
Eurasians = Homo sapiens with slight mixture from Neanderthals and Denisovans
The Eurasian Homo sapiens got mutated thanked to the mixture from other non-sapiens humans even it was minimal.
RE: The Evolution of Man - GrizzlyClaws - 11-17-2016
The non-sapiens human admixture in the modern Eurasian humans is not news anymore.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133514.htm
The Homo sapiens was originally an African species, so its original appearance would undoubtedly be closer to the modern African humans. The ancestor of those non-African Homo sapiens left Africa approximately the same timeline as the modern Asiatic lions. But why the outer appearance of the Asiatic lions didn't mutate as much as the non-African modern humans? The only explanation is the interspecific admixture to trigger this mutation. Because the Asiatic lions remain genetically 100% African lion, so they didn't mutate like the modern Eurasian humans.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Pckts - 11-17-2016
(11-17-2016, 10:11 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The non-sapiens human admixture in the modern Eurasian humans is not news anymore.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133514.htm
The Homo sapiens was originally an African species, so its original appearance would undoubtedly be closer to the modern African humans. The ancestor of those non-African Homo sapiens left Africa approximately the same timeline as the modern Asiatic lions. But why the outer appearance of the Asiatic lions didn't mutate as much as the non-African modern humans? The only explanation is the interspecific admixture to trigger this mutation. Because the Asiatic lions remain genetically 100% African lion, so they didn't mutate like the modern Eurasian humans.
I don't think Lions are as adaptable as homo Sapiens, being able to use fire for warmth allowed us to maintain civilization in much colder climates than what is preferred for a lion, we also don't rely as much on the migration of prey as we can survive off a wider variety of food.
My 2 cents.
RE: The Evolution of Man - Vinay - 11-17-2016
Don't think Neanderthals used fire.In cold areas wood wont burned easily without fuels (chemicals).
Neanderthals
Lives in: Caves, No-fire
Food: Hunting
Body : White,Fat and large bodies.