Human evolution

VixR

Veritas
warning: rant ahead
I think chimps are a bad example, as much as the widely cited but wildly inaccurate “99% the same” statistic of our relation to chimps is loudly touted they bear very little resemblance to humans. But back to prehistoric mankind, I don’t think they’re ugly at all, if anything I think we’ve become increasingly dysgenic with our increasing sociality & shift in food sources. You should look up the Russian fox experiments and see what I mean exactly. They took beautiful Red Foxes and selectively bred them for the purpose of domestication. This experiment all but confirmed the existence of the so-called “domestication syndrome” which describes a series of phenotypic changes associated with domestication. The same happened to humans as we auto domesticated for less aggressive, less mature and less territorial humans under the span the past several thousand years. Prison/executions is a good example of how we’re still doing that. The pace was picked up by sessile agriculture, animal domestication and now industrial society. The end result of the experiment resulted in foxes that behaved like dogs, became smaller, their coat changed color, their brain became smaller, they became more social and less aggressive and so on. All of this came from breeding only for one trait—tameness. Personally, I think this fox is objectively uglier.
View attachment 75353

Think of dogs as juvenile wolves that never escape their immature state. Wolves as pups are playful, attentive, obedient and basically have all the traits we associate with mature dogs. But as they grow up they shed all these traits that are actually meant for learning survival skills from the parent and become mature wolves. This maturity entails a physical but also a mental change as to better survive in the wild. The early human skull from South Africa that I posted earlier for example had a brain capacity a fifth or fourth greater than humans today which is a trait almost all early human skulls share such as Jebel Irhoud, Herto man, Florisbad and Skhul/Qafzeh etc. A prominent change in domestication syndrome is a reduction is brain size, among other things.
View attachment 75355
View attachment 75354
View attachment 75363

You might think this trajectory is a good one if it brought us modern society, which in a way it has, but I don’t believe it to be necessary for high civilization... but that’s another conversation. Try to look ahead into the future, since we are noticing this trend speed up tremendously in recent years; that men have almost half the testosterone compared to two generations ago, generalized decreasing bone mass, fluid IQ is going down, et cetera.

Meanwhile women are subtly being selected for juvenile neotenous traits due to human over socialization, which by the way, tangentially is likely where the whole shaving thing comes from subconsciously. I recommend you read this entire Wikipedia article for more about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans#Physical_attractiveness

The future of the human race as it stands now is a big eyed alien-looking scrawny mass of consumer slaves probably ruled by or dominated by an upper class that retained our more archaic traits. Men are becoming increasingly feminized while women are becoming more juvenilized and more feminized. Women are reaching menarche faster than ever while men are becoming increasingly less sexually dimorphic.

Our “primitive” ancestors had a GPS of their territory in their brains, had stronger and bigger skeletons & skeletal muscle, had a compendium of edible plants and species stored in their heads, wrestled animals twice their size for food and so on. As a group we know more about our world today, and from a materialistic perspective live “better” lives but as individuals we are worse measured up against the ancients.

It is getting to the point where we are so reliant on others that we won’t be physically or mentally capable of surviving in wild without civilization. What’s terrifying then is the knowledge that civilization has a end-date, a point where if we don’t reach the stars and beyond, we exhaust Earth of the things we need to prolong our societies or else find ourselves in something that we would not call civilization. Things like rare earth metals and crude oil and probably a million other things we are surely depleting.

In wanting to make things easier and better we have become worse off. Your body sheds what it doesn’t need; every normative comfort a future sacrifice. These are the intellectual reasons I find prehistoric humans more of a marvel, but weirdly enough, instinctively from just looking at their skulls I think them our betters.
View attachment 75357
View attachment 75362
View attachment 75360
View attachment 75358
We’re not evolving right now seems to be the consensus due to the lack of pressure and fragmentation. Prehistoric humans used to roam vast distances in small groups, but we’ve since taken on sedentary lifestyles where we settle and grow large populations that are less pressurized into evolutionary changes due to the shifts over a vast period of time. This has been the case for a long time, since humans discovered agriculture.

Incremental generational differences aren’t a marker for the change in that family’s facial shape. The most likely scenario is that the father, or his spouse, possessed the genes for that facial shape and it won out in dominance against his grandfathers’ more refined features.

My appreciation remains for the modern human, not only because I see it as a superior in body, even despite the strength differences (even if prehistorics are stronger than us, we’re more generalized, meaning we have less limitations than they - we can do more physically). Beyond that, we’re far more intelligent, which makes all the difference in the world.

We traded the bigger muscles, for a bigger brain, which requires constant sustenance/glucose and a significant percentage of the 02 from your every breath. It’s a high energy cost. And it’s unlikely for both happen to the point there’s no biological example of a high energy cost intelligent brainy specimen whom also possesses the high animal strength most beasts do.

I think you’re romanticizing our primitive forbears. They have little to show for themselves.
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
We’re not evolving right now seems to be the consensus due to the lack of pressure and fragmentation. Prehistoric humans used to roam vast distances in small groups, but we’ve since taken on sedentary lifestyles where we settle and grow large populations that are less pressurized into evolutionary changes due to the shifts over a vast period of time. This has been the case for a long time, since humans discovered agriculture.

Incremental generational differences aren’t a marker for the change in that family’s facial shape. The most likely scenario is that the father, or his spouse, possessed the genes for that facial shape and it won out in dominance against his grandfathers’ more refined features.

My appreciation remains for the modern human, not only because I see it as a superior in body, even despite the strength differences (even if prehistorics are stronger than us, we’re more generalized, meaning we have less limitations than they - we can do more physically). Beyond that, we’re far more intelligent, which makes all the difference in the world. We traded the bigger muscles, for a bigger brain, which requires constant sustenance/glucose and a significant percentage of the 02 from your every breath. It’s a high energy cost. And it’s unlikely for both happen to the point there’s no biological example of a high energy cost intelligent brainy specimen whom also possess the high animal strength most beasts do.

I think you’re romanticizing our primitive forbears. They have little to show for themselves.
We are always evolving, selection pressure isn’t the only factor to adaptation. Personally I’d call it devolution, but that’s not strictly correct, rather let’s go with dysgenic. Epigenetics is a fledgling field but it expounds into this topic, where exposure to different environments/behaviors can influence how we express genes we already possess, regardless of selection. I do agree that we have become more r-selected through shifts in food strategy though, since pre-agricultural humans could not support as large populations.

Your facial shape, especially when it pertains to men, is largely determined by your exposure to pre-natal hormones in the womb. That family is a case study of a more overarching problem. Also, if we are to compare modern humans to prehistoric humans not only are our brains much smaller we are by all accounts less dexterous. Simple logical reasoning would’ve got you to that second one since their very lives depended on hunting with their bodies. I think our forebears are very impressive since they dominated almost every ecological niche they found themselves in save the ones that can not support megafauna like active volcanos, lol.
 

VixR

Veritas
We are always evolving, selection pressure isn’t the only factor to adaptation. Personally I’d call it devolution, but that’s not strictly correct, rather let’s go with dysgenic. Epigenetics is a fledgling field but in expounds into this topic, where exposure to different environments/behaviors can influence how we express genes we already possess, regardless of selection. I do agree that we have become more r-selected through shifts in food strategy though, since pre-agricultural humans could not support as large populations.

Your facial shape, especially when it pertains to men, is largely determined by your exposure to pre-natal hormones in the womb. That family is a case study of a more overarching problem. Also, if we are to compare modern humans to prehistoric humans not only are our brains much smaller we are by all accounts less dexterous. Simple logical reasoning would’ve got you to that second one since their very lives depended on hunting with their bodies. I think our forebears are very impressive since they dominated almost every ecological niche they found themselves in save the ones that can not support megafauna like active volcanos, lol.
I know about epigenetics, but that’s gene expression. It’s not the type of high level evolution I meant. I was talking large evolutionary changes, I mean just look at the 20 something prehistorics we know, whom we’re incredibly distinct, and we’re even more so.

I believe you’re wrong. We’re more dexterous due to the shape and size of our hands. And I think we have larger brains than most of our forebears iirc.
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
I know about epigenetics, but that’s gene expression. It’s not the type of high level evolution I meant. I was talking large evolutionary changes, I mean just look at the 20 something prehistorics we know, whom we’re incredibly distinct, and we’re even more so.

I believe you’re wrong. We’re more dexterous due to the shape and size of our hands. And I think we have larger brains than most of our forebears iirc.
When you say “large evolutionary changes” do you mean phenotypic changes that are being observed when you observe the entirety of the population? There are plenty of those, I think I’ve mentioned a few actually. Epigenetic changes are heritable by the way, so it is a sort of evolution if that’s what you care to call it.

Look up the brain size of the pre-modern sapiens I have already mentioned, all of them have a bigger brain than the modern human maxima, or close to it. I could also count the Cro-magnids in this account, but that’s probably cheating a bit since that includes their Neanderthal introgression, so strictly African skulls like Florisbad, Jebel Irhoud & Herto man and Levantine like Skhul/Qafzeh hominins.(the Levantine ones are highly suspect for Neanderthal introgression though)
 
Last edited:

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
I know about epigenetics, but that’s gene expression. It’s not the type of high level evolution I meant. I was talking large evolutionary changes, I mean just look at the 20 something prehistorics we know, whom we’re incredibly distinct, and we’re even more so.

I believe you’re wrong. We’re more dexterous due to the shape and size of our hands. And I think we have larger brains than most of our forebears iirc.
Also, there’s is absolutely zero proof that pre historic man was less dextrous... If you have any I’d like to know. Recent evidence actually suggests the opposite, that human hands are actually more archaic than the rest of the extant Great Apes, and that the Chimp hand is then actually “more evolved” to its needs, away from the basal form moreso than humans. Needless to say, there hasn’t been any revolution in human hands compared to early anatomically modern humans. If anything there’s been a degradation in our form.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614723/#!po=0.555556
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/372
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/humans-have-more-primitive-hands-chimpanzees
 
Last edited:

VixR

Veritas
Also, there’s is absolutely zero proof that pre historic man was less dextrous... If you have any I’d like to know. Recent evidence actually suggests the opposite, that human hands are actually more archaic than the rest of the extant Great Apes, and that the Chimp hand is then actually “more evolved” to it’s needs, away from the basal form moreso than humans. Needless to say, there hasn’t been any revolution in human hands compared to early anatomically modern humans. If anything there’s been a degradation in our form.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614723/#!po=0.555556
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/372
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/humans-have-more-primitive-hands-chimpanzees
Their tool making abilities and uses tell us a lot about their less refined dexterity, etc.

There’s a timeline, you can look it up.

You’re romanticizing our inferiors. Some of them are straight up like great apes.
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
Their tool making abilities and uses tell us a lot about their less refined dexterity, etc.

There’s a timeline, you can look it up.
Again, that’s incorrect. There’s is no evidence for less dexterity in pre-historic man. There has been some speculation in Neanderthal intelligence you might be referring to, as their lithic industry stayed the same for hundreds of thousands of years before contact with humans in the Paleolithic. Or you might be referring to that fact humans had a sort of technological revolution in lithic industry and some other things dating ~50000 years ago, but this had nothing to do with morphology. But even then the Aterian and Mousterian techno-complexes showed paradigm shifts not associated with morphological evolution and more like trans-cultural diffusion.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it. It’s ok to just admit you’re wrong, you know.
:bell:
 

VixR

Veritas
Again, that’s incorrect. There’s is no evidence for less dexterity in pre-historic man. There has been some speculation in Neanderthal intelligence you might be referring to, as their lithic industry stayed the same for hundreds of thousands of years before contact with humans in the Paleolithic. Or you might be referring to that fact humans had a sort of technological revolution in lithic industry and some other things dating ~50000 years ago, but this had nothing to do with morphology. But even then the Aterian and Mousterian techno-complexes showed paradigm shifts not associated with morphological evolution and more like trans-cultural diffusion.

Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it. It’s ok to just admit you’re wrong, you know.
:bell:
The article you linked claims there’s primitive elements to the modern human hand, but it’s still more dexterous than chimp and prehistoric humans. That’s not in conflict with my claim. It’s certainly not the opposite, as if our hands are more devolved, like you’re attempting to stipulate.
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
The article you linked claims there’s primitive elements to the modern human hand, but it’s still more dexterous than chimp and prehistoric humans. That’s not in conflict with my claim. It’s certainly not the opposite, as if our hands are more devolved, like you’re attempting to stipulate.
Can you quote the relevant section of the article since I have no idea which of the three you’re referring to? Also, I never said the chimps are more dexterous but that they lost their dexterity by adaption to arboreal life and not that humans did the opposite. It’s relevant what you mean when you said “prehistoric humans”, since I hope you’re not talking about the Australopithecus.

Also, here’s an article that directly disproves what you said about brains if you didn’t care to look up the cranial capacity of the hominins I mentioned earlier.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

Excerpt:
“Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.

“That was true for 2 million years of our evolution,” Hawks says. “But there has been a reversal.”

He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. Possibly owing to said shrinkage, it takes me a while to catch on. “Are you saying we’re getting dumber?” I ask.
 

VixR

Veritas
Can you quote the relevant section of the article since I have no idea which of the three you’re referring to? Also, I never said the chimps are more dexterous but that they lost their dexterity by adaption to arboreal life and not that humans did the opposite. It’s relevant what you mean when you said “prehistoric humans”, since I hope you’re not talking about the Australopithecus.

Also, here’s an article that directly disproves what you said about brains if you didn’t care to look up the cranial capacity of the hominins I mentioned earlier.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

Excerpt:
“Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.

“That was true for 2 million years of our evolution,” Hawks says. “But there has been a reversal.”

He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. Possibly owing to said shrinkage, it takes me a while to catch on. “Are you saying we’re getting dumber?” I ask.
The last 20000 is the modern human.

Your claim was that the prehistoric brains were larger than ours, and they were more dexterous. Mine is the opposite: our brains are larger than all of their brains if memory serves, though there may have been an exception, and we’re more dexterous. There was no point of contention on my part regarding whether or not modern human brains are shrinking. That’s an entirely different argument.

I don’t think the correlation to being dumber for the shrink is an established one. There could be so many variables.
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
The last 20000 is the modern human.

Your claim was that the prehistoric brains were larger than ours, and they were more dexterous. Mine is the opposite: our brains are larger than all of their brains if memory serves, though there may have been an exception, and we’re more dexterous. There was no point of contention on my part regarding or not modern human brains are shrinking. That’s an entirely different argument.
Well, here’s skulls much, much, older than 20 000 years that have cranial capacities much greater than the average today. These are actually the oldest samples of H. Sapiens we have. Again, where are you reading about them being less dexterous? You have to source your claims, you’re killing me.

56962092-3BDC-4B27-A0B0-67E1C6482570.jpeg

1CC28913-6CF3-4D3D-AF04-5454BEBBBA3E.jpeg

B3958EB9-3734-4A8E-B0AB-BD32C47C4B8A.jpeg

D3B27E3A-4C91-4B83-9D73-BDD9C6C0816C.jpeg

FA9D9EC9-DFF6-4333-A8F4-A0872CD88F86.jpeg

C68D11A1-3D0E-4304-B055-91F81E48BA3E.jpeg
 
Last edited:

VixR

Veritas
Well, here’s skulls much, much, older than 20 000 years that have cranial capacities much greater than the average today. These are actually the oldest samples of H. Sapiens we have. Again, where are you reading about them being less dexterous? You have to source your claims, you’re killing me.

View attachment 75366
View attachment 75367
View attachment 75368
View attachment 75369
View attachment 75370
Regardless, its still a Homo Sapien. You’re moving the goalpost lol. I’m not arguing about the shrinking brain, but talking comparison. Most of the prehistoric human measurement don’t even remotely approach 1000cm3, and are pitiful.

Which specimen were you calling gracile exactly?
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
Regardless, its still a Homo Sapien. You’re moving the goalpost lol. I’m not arguing about the shrinking brain, but talking comparison. Most of the prehistoric human measurement don’t even remotely approach 1000cm3, and are pitiful.

Which specimen were you calling gracile exactly?
This entire time I’ve been talking about early Homo Sapiens (and a little bit of Neanderthal comparisons, but hey, they’re sometimes considered Sapiens) vs modern humans. We are gracile compared to prehistoric Homo sapiens... Did you think I was arguing for the supposed superiority of literal chimps? How many Joe Rogan episodes have you been watching recently?
:damedamn:
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
I’m looking through my posts and I don’t even know how you got it confused. I said pre-modern Sapiens and mentioned something related to early Sapiens almost every time I invoked “prehistoric man”. I think maybe you’re just ducking a losing argument through Jewish tricks.
:patrice:
 

VixR

Veritas
This entire time I’ve been talking about early Homo Sapiens (and a little bit of Neanderthal comparisons, but hey, they’re sometimes considered Sapiens) vs modern humans. We are gracile compared to prehistoric Homo sapiens... Did you think I was arguing for the supposed superiority of literal chimps? How many Joe Rogan episodes have you been watching recently?
:damedamn:
Fair enough. That makes a lot more sense. You used literal chimps in your example for dexterity, so I was thrown off and thought you were also arguing they’ve larger brains as well as being more dexterous, which I was fighting on both counts.

Regarding dexterity, I don’t buy that some hand structures being prehistoric or humanlike = as dexterous as we are, and the fact that they weren’t utilizing it seems to indicate that from your article.

“But recently some researchers have begun to challenge the idea that the human hand fundamentally changed its proportions after the evolutionary split with chimps. The earliest humanmade stone tools are thought to date back 3.3 million years, but new evidence has emerged that some of the earliest members of the human line—such as the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus (“Ardi”)—had hands that resembled those of modern humans rather than chimps, even though it did not make tools. And back in 2010, a team led by paleoanthropologist Sergio Almécija, now at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., began arguing that even earlier human relatives, dating to 6 million years ago—very soon after the human-chimp evolutionary split—already had humanlike hands as well. This even included the ability to press the thumb against the fingers with considerable force, a key aspect of precision gripping.

To get a grasp on what early hands really looked like, Almécija and his colleagues analyzed the thumb and finger proportions of a large number of living apes and monkeys, including modern humans. They then compared these to the hands of several extinct species of apes and early humans, including Ardi, the Neandertals, and the 2-million-year-old Australopithecus sediba from South Africa, which its discoverers controversially think might be a direct ancestor of humans. The sample also included the 25-million-year-old fossil ape known as Proconsul.”
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
Fair enough. That makes a lot more sense. You used literal chimps in your example for dexterity, so I was thrown off and thought you were also arguing they’ve more larger brains and are more dexterous, which I know for a fact isn’t true.

Regarding dexterity, I don’t buy that some hand structures being prehistoric or humanlike = as dexterous as we are, and the fact that they weren’t utilizing it seems to indicate that from your article.

“But recently some researchers have begun to challenge the idea that the human hand fundamentally changed its proportions after the evolutionary split with chimps. The earliest humanmade stone tools are thought to date back 3.3 million years, but new evidence has emerged that some of the earliest members of the human line—such as the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus (“Ardi”)—had hands that resembled those of modern humans rather than chimps, even though it did not make tools. And back in 2010, a team led by paleoanthropologist Sergio Almécija, now at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., began arguing that even earlier human relatives, dating to 6 million years ago—very soon after the human-chimp evolutionary split—already had humanlike hands as well. This even included the ability to press the thumb against the fingers with considerable force, a key aspect of precision gripping.

To get a grasp on what early hands really looked like, Almécija and his colleagues analyzed the thumb and finger proportions of a large number of living apes and monkeys, including modern humans. They then compared these to the hands of several extinct species of apes and early humans, including Ardi, the Neandertals, and the 2-million-year-old Australopithecus sediba from South Africa, which its discoverers controversially think might be a direct ancestor of humans. The sample also included the 25-million-year-old fossil ape known as Proconsul.”
I thought you were arguing that pre-historic Sapiens didn’t have modern hands and that it was a very recent adaption in human history, dexterity namely. I am honestly still confused about if you’re still arguing that from your post. I posted those articles to underline the ancient nature of the shape of human hands.

But what the article is saying that the shape of our hands or something very proximal to it is very ancient adaption in the hominid family, with advanced tool-use being largely a change in the brain. There isn’t much morphological difference between the fine details of a Neanderthal and human skeleton even, much less a early Sapiens modern Sapiens except size and robustness.
55ECE7FF-4064-43F1-8F89-6E9CCB678A7B.jpeg
 

VixR

Veritas
I thought you were arguing that pre-historic Sapiens didn’t have modern hands and that it was a very recent adaption in human history, dexterity namely. I am honestly still confused about if you’re still arguing that from your post. I posted those articles to underline the ancient nature of the shape of human hands.

But what the article is saying that the shape of our hands or something very proximal to it is very ancient adaption in the hominid family, with advanced tool-use being largely a change in the brain. There isn’t much morphological difference between the fine details of a Neanderthal and human skeleton even, much less a early Sapiens modern Sapiens except size and robustness.
View attachment 75374
Wow that’s crazy lol. I’m laughing at your perception in the first sentence. Yeah, we should stop here. We were never on the same page :icon lol:

I was comparing modern humans and sapiens to more prehistoric versions (we were using prehistoric in our first post, I think that’s where it all went awry) You were comparing ancient homosapiens to modern humans and occasionally bridging to more prehistoric forms.
 
Last edited:

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
Wow that’s crazy lol. I’m laughing at your perception in the first sentence. Yeah, we should stop here. We were never on the same page :icon lol:
Sure, we’ve wasted enough time already, but with all this time wasted I need an answer this one question I THOUGHT we were discussing: Do you agree we measure up poorly as individuals vs pre-historic man[SAPIENS]?
:ivers:
 

VixR

Veritas
Sure, we’ve wasted enough time already, but with all this time wasted I need an answer this one question I THOUGHT we were discussing: Do you agree we measure up poorly as individuals vs pre-historic man[SAPIENS]?
:ivers:
I’m not sure of that. I’m still hesitant to say they were better than modern humans. We’re still better performing. Do you at least agree to that?
 

MI

Ted Kaczynski respecter
I’m not sure of that. I’m still hesitant to say they were better than modern humans. We’re still better performing. Do you at least agree to that?
In a strictly material sense, who could argue? But I have way too many deeper disagreements contained within what exactly performing as a human entails to say that I agree.
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top