Thread: I know how the human race started

Hello, I think I know how the human race started.

Before I begin I want to say that I want serious responses and a interesting discussion.

We all know how life on earth started. One cell divided and the took different paths. What we don't know for sure is how the species Homo Sapiens began.

We know that the jungle disappeared in Africa a long time ago and that made the chimpanzee not capable of living in dense jungle, the chimpanzee had to get from tree to tree using their legs, considering the jungle was disappearing faster and faster the chimp had to start walking upright. This triggered a social change in the chimpanzee and a new species evolved, the Homo race.

We believe it was the Homo Habilis that evolved into humans. The Homo Habilis were a opportunistic scavenger using simple rocks for breaking up bones to get bone marrow from carcasses. During that period they avoided other crude Homo species to avoid combat, what they gained from eating protein were brain matter. Through hard work they evolved into the much successful Homo Erectus. They managed to gain their strength from living in small groups using the will of the strongest. The downside with using the will of the strongest is that they can not live like trolls eating up the planet forever. Later they evolved into Cro Magnon.

This triggered a response in the female thinking they were the next to gain leadership in the clan. But they will unfortunately not be right.

What happened was that they started to love each other and this triggered upper and lower classes in society. What happened next is incredible, one female had two female twins in her stomach and two females together is not a good match. What happened in the stomach is that one were stronger that the other so it got greedy with the other female and lost. The greedy one became a psychopath and the winner became a dwarf.

The clan had a few options with the dwarf. Do we mate her or do we let her die? Sooner or later she had to mate with one of the smaller clan members.

What came out were a little leader with leaderblood and it were a boy. This made the Cro Magnons willing to look up to a mentally strong leader. They took him out exploring the world and saw that the future is in this man. So the woman were set aside even more when a new golden age was born. The will of the weakest.

And that made the kids more important than the elderly. Now the woman were in even more trouble because now it was the will of physique and brain. The future had no option but to accept that the female will not have a chance in future now that the men found a new leader ideology, slavery for a mentally strong leader. You must remember that the age of the strongest were times when the leader ruled by sympathy and that do not work when the clan have a mentally strong leader. The age of the strongest were over and it were time to realize that fighting each other were avoidable, crushing the womens hope of a existence in the future. That started the race of the modern humans.

tbh, i think that the survival of the elderly into the third generation was a big survival factor for H.sapiens, and changed how society could function
prior to storage of knowledge in other media, knowing how to deal with that once-a-century calamity was the preserve of the elderly
why else do you think that the elderly were revered, if from any other point of view they were a burden on society ?

Yea, you are right. The elderly were extremely important because they were weak.

Yea, they did their job for the leader. Sitting there small and pathetic.

Originally Posted by Meatoz

Hello, I think I know how the human race started.

Before I begin I want to say that I want serious responses and a interesting discussion.

Tremendous news! Can't wait to find out.
Hard to believe your first post ended up in the trash can. Did your mother tell you you had a sense of humour?

The people of Abri de Crô-Magnon were anatomically modern humans.

For a more complete education on the real questions to ask about human evolution, I'd recommend Human Career by Richard Klein. There are a number of hypotheses on the taxonomy of hominid species leading to Homo sapiens, but most these days don't include H. habilis as a direct ancestor to H. sapiens. Some (i.e. Wolpoff) actually see no difference between H. erectus/ergaster and H. sapiens. Others (i.e. Stringer) see this as a distinctly different species, the latter fully replacing the former.

Still others insert species like H. heidelbergensis in the mix. And, though far fewer this year than last, believe there is a genetic connection between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.

Most of these hypotheses are variously supported or critiqued based on anatomic morphology, chronology, and technology (i.e. Achuelian, Mousterian, Lavallois, etc.).

Originally Posted by Meatoz

Yea, you are right. The elderly were extremely important because they were weak.

Yea, they did their job for the leader. Sitting there small and pathetic.

*shrug* - you seem to confuse physical strength with actual usefulness to the tribe

have a look at what Jared Diamond has to say on the subject :

http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/...ng-150571.aspx

Yet the fact remains, Diamond said, that many societies treat their elderly better than Americans do. In some cultures, he said, children are so devoted that when their aging parents lose their teeth the children will pre-chew their food. A closer look at how traditional societies value (or don’t value) their old people might teach us what to emulate and what to avoid.

The elderly’s usefulness in a society plays a big part in determining their fate, Diamond said. While old people in traditional societies can no longer spear game or battle enemies, they can still gather food to care for children. They are also often expert at making tools, weapons, baskets and clothes. In many societies they serve as “tribal elders” in medicine, religion and politics.

Perhaps most important, in cultures lacking written records of history, song and other forms of culture, older people are invaluable sources of information.

“The repositories of knowledge are the memories of old people,” Diamond said. “If you don’t have old people to remember what happened 50 years ago, you’ve lost a lot of experience for that society,” from communal history to advice on how to survive a cyclone or other natural disaster.

Yea, I can accept that older people are clever. But what they should do is exercise.

i think you misunderstand - older people aren't more clever, they just have more experience (at least some of them do)

as for needing more exercise, do you really think that elderly people in pre-western societies don't get it in their everyday activities ? ever seen old women carrying large quantities of wood ?

I agree that the remembrance/transfer/accumulation of knowledge passed on to younger generations is a key driving force in the development of mankind that history experts grossly underestimate. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana. This nugget of wisdom especially refers to the intergenerational transfer of knowledge.

IMO, anyone who could be called homo sapiens who lived any number of millennia ago (such as Ötzi the 5,300-year-old Iceman) were just like us (ie, same mental capacity/IQ and not cartoonish knuckle-draggers), except that their knowledge base was so small. It wasn't so much that certain individuals learned and progressed, but that societies did ... and had to ... everyone together. People didn't change so much as their knowledge did. Knowledge -- all sorts of knowledge -- had to be found/tested/learned/etc so societies could advance. A society could not become great without the accumulation of the right kinds of knowledge, the ability to coordinate, an effective justice system to minimize infighting, etc. All of it knowledge.

Members of today's poor nations aren't less mentally capable than us (unless it's caused by malnutrition), it's just that their knowledge base is so mindnumbingly small. Take Afghanis for example. According to news stories, 92% of Afghanis never heard of the 9/11 attacks or why there's a war in their own country. Early in the war, I remember a news report stating that most rural Afghanis have never seen a depiction of anything (eg, a photograph, TV, etc). It's not that they're mentally incapable, they're just horrifically ignorant.