[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 99 KB, 490x327, emperor_serious_fac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187918 No.2187918 [Reply] [Original]

What was evolutionary change in homo sapiens that lead the fundamental difference in success between humans and all other animal species?

>> No.2187931

dick jokes

>> No.2187933

masturbation

>> No.2187939

>>2187933
Nope all apes do masturbation.

>> No.2187934

Use of tools to compensate for traits we didn't have. No need to spend countless generations forming sharp claws or powerful fangs if we can just sharpen a stick into a useful weapon.

This might've come from walking upright and freeing up our forelimbs.

>> No.2187943

I believe it is a combination of things. For example, we developed the ability to think logically and in a problem-solving manner. We also developed the ability to communicate very effectively with our fellow humans. We also developed the ability to walk upright, giving us the freedom to use our hands. We also have fingers/thumbs which give us a greater ability to create.

I've thought of this before. What if another species developed to a similar level of people. For example, what if bears developed to our level, and were able to build their own cities and technology.

There are other species that have some of our attributes, but lack others which inhibited their ability to reach our level. For example, the octopus is able to think logically instead of just off of basic instincts, but it lacks the ability to communicate effectively. It also has a very short lifespan.

In short, we got lucky with a wide range of attributes that brought is where we are today.

>> No.2187945

They started eating bone marrow and vital organs.

>> No.2187952
File: 137 KB, 1024x837, How can people not know what beauty this is.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187952

Honestly? My opinion?

Agriculture.
Otherwise, we would have been much more resource limited and concentrating populations in cities would have been impossible. Before that, we may have been clever, but we weren't consuming 40% of terrestrial NPP.

http://dieoff.org/page83.htm

Language was also a big deal, perhaps more so than agriculture. Google FoxP2 for a piece of that puzzle. Brain size to body size ratio also plays a role here.

Other than that, we aren't particularly remarkable biologically compared to other animals.

>> No.2187962

>lead the fundamental difference in success between humans and all other animal species
>implying there is a key difference seperating us from animals
cool troll thread bro

>> No.2187976
File: 131 KB, 612x480, Food_Chain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187976

>>2187962
For example this one

>> No.2187992

>>2187952

Agriculture is only around 10,000 years old, whereas the our closest predecessor is over 150,000 years old.

So no.

>> No.2187995

Evolutionary Biologists have sort of come to the consensus that several factors lead to human dominance of the world.

1. Bi-pedal: This happened because of a series of adaptations due to living and trees while also travelling and doing things on the forest floor. The major events that happened during this phase was the shifting of where the spine attaches to the skull, moving from an anterior position toward the current position we have now, under the base of the skull. That along with a change in our hips allowed us to stand up right.

2. The advantageous of Bi-pedality: By standing upright we were then able to have 2 free limbs for holding objects while being able to move. This was a huge advantage when it came to surviving where individuals would have to bring resources back to their kin.

3. One more controversial idea is that during this time, we also began crafting stone tools and began to eat meat as well as fruit diets. Some argue that by consuming such highly energetic foods such as animal flesh aided development of their bodies and they specifically mention that consuming meat would have had serious advantages in allowing brains to grow larger.

>> No.2188022

>>2187992
I know, that's my point.
Humans, biologically, aren't special. We diverged from our last common ancestor with Chimpanzees a long time ago, but we weren't experiencing the meteoric growth we are now until our culture began to mature. Key to this was concentrating larger numbers of people. Key to this was agriculture.

Humans aren't biologically special; the key to our success is our culture.

>> No.2188049

Thumbs

>> No.2188057

>>2188022

hate to break it to you, but we were creating stone tools, painting on walls and pack hunting with primitive language and culture long before agriculture took root.

I'm not going to argue the main point though, sedentary lifestyles and safe means of food did help a lot and allowed the passing on of knowledge to happen much more fluidly.

Think of agriculture as a catalyst to it all, but it isn't necessary. There were many groups of people who didn't have agriculture and instead would use slash/burn horticulture and just forage but they still maintain villages and communities.

>> No.2188085

>>2187934
But several other species use tools.

>> No.2188102
File: 493 KB, 200x169, quick brown fox.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2188102

>>2188057
Yeah, I can agree with this.
Good point.

>> No.2188107

>>2188022
>We diverged from our last common ancestor with Chimpanzees a long time ago
Wat? We have had many species divergences since then. The only difference is that every other species has died.

>> No.2188108

>>2188022

Other animals live in the proximity of agriculture friendly areas, but we're the only ones using it.

Because.

Biology.

>> No.2188120

Big cerebral cortex = better problems solving and more intelligence.

Opposable thumbs = the ability to manipulate tools.

We are a social species = our ideas build on top of eachtother allowing us to become smarter as a whole.

>> No.2188122

>>2188057
>There were many groups of people who didn't have agriculture and instead would use slash/burn horticulture
Slash and Burn is an agricultural technique.

>> No.2188135

>>2188120
>big brain
That's a relative term. How big is big?

>opposable thumbs
Other animals have the ability to manipulate tools.

>social species
Many, MANY species are social species.

>> No.2188152

>>2187992
Ants do agriculture

>> No.2188158

>>2188135

Brain to body size ratio.

Other species can manipulate objects but we have yet to see one abstractly combine 2 different objects into one for a specific use.

Social species, not gunna argue this point. being a social species is just one point of complexity.

>> No.2188160

The cognitive functions and bodily motions required in order to utter meaningful sentences embodied by sound: language.

>> No.2188167

>>2188158
That ratio has long been disputed as a good indicator of anything.

>> No.2188171

>>2187952
http://www.cracked.com/article_18766_5-creepy-ways-animal-societies-are-organizing_p2.html

Ants could farm before humans

>> No.2188172

I think we gotta give it up to the penis and vagina on this one. I mean, either one of them is no superstar on its own. But, get those two together, whew, it's magical stuff
.

>> No.2188176

>>2188158
What about proto-humans? Why didn't they take over the world? Neandertal was around a lot longer than homo sapiens and they met all of your criteria.

>> No.2188219

>>2188172
They're not as magical as my dopamine injections! Ah that stuffs good.

>> No.2188242

>>2188176

Homo sapiens conquered the neanderthal. Seeing as they're a separate branch of hominids that lived at the same time as us, and not only a predecessor in that sense.

We expanded into their territory and fucked their shit up, compare North America.

>> No.2188260

>>2188176
>>2188242

Forgot to add: they probably didn't have high enough brain mass to body mass ratio to take that "next step". And evolution had to do a few more upgrades before it reached where we are today.

>> No.2188270

The Neanderthals passed Gods test and made it into heavens highest place way before us. We even speak of them envyingly. They had larger brains then us even.

>> No.2188273

Language.

A human is not that much smarter than a chimpanzee, really. But language allows us to pool our knowledge. No other species has that.

>> No.2188280

>>2188260
In other words you have no idea what the answer to the OP's question is, because you have no idea what allowed homo sapiens to progress to this point and not neandertals.

>> No.2188305

>>2188280

No, I don't.

>> No.2188485

Superior problem solving ability, language, bi pedalism, thumbs, etc

>> No.2188858

We won the space race. The dodo bird simply could not tech up fast enough while maintaining a strong enough defense in those very early days of global conquest. But I think we all know how that story goes.

>> No.2188862

>>2188858
>The dodo bird simply could not tech up fast enough while maintaining a strong enough defense

You've been playing too much Starcraft.

>> No.2188864

Religion, transcendentalism.

>> No.2188872

>>2188862

Uh, yeah. Humans brought cats to the island of the dodo bird. The cats ate them all. dodos did not have any natural predators, and therefore had no defenses against predators.