So Just How Did Humans Become Human?

[joeymags]

This is an interesting question and discussion.

As humans were not always the superior species on earth that they are today, does that mean a species could develop or evolve to the point of overtaking humans?

It would be ironic that humans have evolved so rapidly compared to other species that they could never be overtaken by an existing species....but enabled by human advancement, a 'species' is newly created that would reign far superior to humans, I.e. some type of hybrid or robot species.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by joeymags

This is an interesting question and discussion.

As humans were not always the superior species on earth that they are today, does that mean a species could develop or evolve to the point of overtaking humans?

It would be ironic that humans have evolved so rapidly compared to other species that they could never be overtaken by an existing species....but enabled by human advancement, a 'species' is newly created that would reign far superior to humans, I.e. some type of hybrid or robot species.

Well, "superior" is a pretty loaded term. But there will undoubtedly be species that are the dominant species on this planet. Probably not at the same time as Homo sapiens sapiens though. That isn't surprising since we'll likely just be here for a geological blip of time.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Six Foot Three

Thanks for posting JimRom ... and yeap i was pondering about if a diet change might had ''sparked'' the molecular dynamics that kicked evolution of humans into motion.

The cooking of food (meat) was one of these major changes that occurred that transformed us physically. Though that probably fueled the prehistoric humans to modern human change as it was 150k years or so ago, if I recall correctly about what the current thinking is.

[sandman249]

Originally Posted by Six Foot Three

That being said i admit that i'm perplexed as to why any other intelligent mammal (other primates, elephants, dolphins, canines, felines etc.) didn't evolve into a ''human'' during the Pleistocene Epoch (2,588,000 BCE - 11,700 BCE) or at least into the intelligence that we humans have displayed over the thousands of years going back to when we were Australopithecus hominids?

I am not sure why this question is perplexing? Maybe you are visualizing it incorrectly. Think evolutionary tree and common ancestors.



Sure, humans and elephants had a common ancestor, but their evolutionary paths were very differently. And it is important to understand that only a FEW genetic mutations resulted in HUGE physical changes. We probably are 80% similar to elephants and about 98% similar to chimpanzees (genes). So, even small genetic variation(s) during the lengthy evolutionary process: elephants vs humans created fairly significant physical differences.

Now, what where the environmental or genetic factors that caused these changes? That's a whole different story.

[Neuling]

There was some news today saying that it seems there only was one human species, not several one as previously thought. Seems most of those pseudo-species were made up by anthropologists based on wrong assumptions and interpretations regarding the connection between the genes and looks of the few partial skeletons found.

[North Beach Person]

1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution

Something else to ponder.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by Neuling

There was some news today saying that it seems there only was one human species, not several one as previously thought. Seems most of those pseudo-species were made up by anthropologists based on wrong assumptions and interpretations regarding the connection between the genes and looks of the few individuals partial skeletons found.

So, what does this mean?

"some news"?

A link would have been nice.

[googles only one human species - selects article dated today]

Is that what you're talking about?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/17/skull-sheds-light-human-species/2994613/

The 1.8 million-year-old fossil, known as Skull 5, is like nothing seen before. It has a small brain case and a heavy, jutting jaw, as did some of humanity's older, more ape-like ancestors. But other bones linked to Skull 5 show its owner had relatively short arms and long legs, as does our own species, Homo sapiens. Those who've studied Skull 5 say it also provides support for the provocative idea that, 1.8 million years ago, only one kind of early human held sway, rather than the throng of different species listed in today's textbooks.

So, let's read on.

"We're not against the idea that there might have been more than one species at some point about 2 million years ago," Christoph Zollikofer of the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Switzerland, who helped analyze the new fossil, said at a news conference Wednesday. "But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."

That's a controversial claim, but no one is disputing that Skull 5, discovered in pieces in 2000 and 2005 at the village of Dmanisi in the nation of Georgia, is a treasure. Never before have researchers found an adult skull of the early Homo family that was so exquisitely preserved. Scientists have dug up a few other skulls similar in age and condition to Skull 5, but all belonged to individuals who were either too old or too young to be very useful representatives of their species. Skull 5, on the other hand, is a mature adult — exactly what's needed.

Other scientists disagree. Paleoanthropologist Susan Antón of New York University, while praising the new analysis, says the Dmanisi team didn't compare fossil features, such as the anatomy around the front teeth, that differ most starkly between two different species of early humans. So the Dmanisi team's hypothesis that there was only one lineage is not totally convincing, she says.

So, it fact, it does not 'seem' as you state. Rather, there is scientific disagreement in the details of an aspect of paleontology. Nothing new - there are few details in paleontology that don't have some sort of minority opinion.

The problem with reactions to articles such as this - as illustrated by your reaction - is that cursory scans of an article written by whatever passes for USA Today's science department (or, worse, watching the 20-second cable news channel distillation of the story) leads to people saying, "Gee, science just admitted it was wrong!", as if there is some Department Of Scientific Understanding which sets forth an official stance of science.

What we have here is one group of scientists who is claiming that there is an absence of evidence for multiple human species 2 million years ago before the present. We also have a lot of other paleontologists who disagree. Nothing about 'pseudo-species'. And, also, nothing about any other times frames, whereas your wording of 'only one' makes it sound like Homo sapiens is the only human (ie, Homo) species that has ever existed, when the article makes no such claim.

Inevitably, if the rigorous process of peer-review ultimately leads the paleontological community to reject the hypothesis put for by this group, there will be numerous people who haev read articles like the one above who will make claims like "Ha! Last year science said there was only one human species! Now they admit that wasn't true! Why can't science make up its mind!?".

[Neuling]

Yes, something like that, the news was not in English and I missed a part of it.
Unlike you obviously, I don't care either way, though. Just found the idea funny that many or even all of those species with those funny Latin names might have been mere inventions by some ambitious anthropologists

[Six Foot Three]

Originally Posted by timberline742

The cooking of food (meat) was one of these major changes that occurred that transformed us physically. Though that probably fueled the prehistoric humans to modern human change as it was 150k years or so ago, if I recall correctly about what the current thinking is.

Yeah I know this however when I started this thread I was thinking much farther back along the phylogenetic tree to what paleoanthropologists believe was the ''proto humans'' known as the Australopithecines first radiating some 4 million years ago as ''something'' (climate change, super nova blast etc.?) started the epigenetic changes that made them start to ''think'' as well as stand (anterior foramen magnum) as that is the part that's always had me puzzled.

[mainebrokerman]

i think its a combination of things,,,,the first feel good vegans quickly starved to death...no longer a threat

humans cooked meat as one poster said, we hunted and fought in packs with bow and arrows, and use poisons,
wolves were domesticated by humans-partly because of human trash piles... we trained wolves to not only protect humans, but how to attack others- this was a great advantage

humans used their minds to attack and kill- the stronger competition