Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2023 5:53:42 GMT
Well as soon as you go into temperate zones you're having to do winters. Winter fruits have bugger all calories, but I guess you could go on that. Most veggies and roots will be very hard going without cooking. And generally low on calories for the amount of effort you put into gathering and eating. Eating raw meat, you'd probably have to just swallow it mostly without expecting to chew it all the way down. As long as it gets in the gut. I guess I can see humans persisting for a while like this on raw meat, but long-term thriving like we did? Dunno. Maybe. It's an interesting question for me. We did not thrive at all though on such a diet IMO. You wouldn't think so. But thriving is reflected in the healthy continuing population numbers of the homo line. When a species doesn't get their nice diet for long enough, I thought they end up dying. So you're saying that before fire, which was say pre-700,000 years ago for arguments sake, those early hominins were already out of tropical jungle for hundreds of thousands of years being healthy enough to continue the species for millenias (which I'd call thriving) on raw meat and stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2023 7:45:08 GMT
We did not thrive at all though on such a diet IMO. You wouldn't think so. But thriving is reflected in the healthy continuing population numbers of the homo line. When a species doesn't get their nice diet for long enough, I thought they end up dying. So you're saying that before fire, which was say pre-700,000 years ago for arguments sake, those early hominins were already out of tropical jungle for hundreds of thousands of years being healthy enough to continue the species for millenias (which I'd call thriving) on raw meat and stuff. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that we ate carrion and bird eggs. Maybe even our own dogs (at first). Probably hunted old/young/sick/injured game like most predators. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 8, 2023 12:49:04 GMT
This may be a bit of an unpopular inquiry, but what is your opinion of theories that are outside the Out of Africa Theory? Like multiregional theory? "Multi regional" is definitely wrong. Humans started in one place for sure, like every other species. We wouldn't just all come from africa, we'd come from one specific little valley in one specific little district in one specific little country of africa. When something speciates it is initially a tiny little population affected. That species then MAYBE grows and succeeds and spreads out and conquers other areas, displacing competitors. I've run into quite a few chinese weirdos who try to argue they literally evolved from a different homo erectus in china, like they just want to believe they have always been chinese going back to the primordial ooze because they are that brainwashed and patriotic. It's laughable and embarrassing for them, it would mean they are a totally different species to all other humans, a rather distant species. This is clearly not true and they are clearly wrong. Now there is something that contradicts this KIND OF and that is how different races have different small percentages of different hominids in their DNA from prehistoric admixture. I guess that little part of them descends from a different region. But the bulk of them is homo sapien and all homo sapiens descend from one little place. Different populations can't have different origins and then magically turn into the same species as eachother. Same species means common origin. "Convergent evolution" only refers to things superficially looking similar to one another, not actually becoming one another. That's not possible. All humans share an origin and a fairly recent origin which has left us all still fairly closely related. More so than most species. Like you and a bushmen of the kalahari are actually far closer related to one another than an indian leopard and an african leopard, even though the leopards really look identical and you and the bushmen don't. In fact you are closer related to a chinese guy than a leopard from Namibia is to a leopard from Malawi, just a few countries over still in Africa. Those leopards are more distantly related than you and any person. They are separated by more time and more generations and have more distant DNA from one another. We moved around fairly quickly with a purpose, and we also did change a lot in appearance and culture and behaviour and etc, this was in response to lifestyle changes, leopards kept the same energy and lived the same life no matter where they went, so they stayed the same. Their genes don't necessarily think they are the same though, they demonstrate a big separation because those "cousins" are "long lost" from one another, but neither changed from the common ancestor. With humans we have (mostly) all changed a lot from the common ancestor and look and act different. An alternative origin to out of africa? Where yes we all still descend from one little place but maybe it wasn't Africa? I definitely think the evidence for Africa is very strong, BUT I have no fundamental problem with exploring that idea. It's not fundamentally definitely wrong like "multi-regional", it's just almost certainly probably wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 7:36:46 GMT
I think fire, weaponry, and clothing were the key to success as well as a heightened cognitive ability. Seems like without fire (and farming, which came much later) there wasn't the ability to start ranging outside tropical rainforests. Without fire and farming we're pretty much reduced to getting enough calories from fruit like chimps, supplemented with leaves (very low calories) and bits and pieces of limited protein like slugs and bugs. Without farming and being in tropical rainforests we kind of need to be able to eat/cook meat, don't you think? We could kill the animals, but humans we don't generally go on meat very well uncooked. What you have listed is shit. This whole argument is shit. To be domesticated we would have to be domesticated by something. Guess what, we are not domesticated. Also, the reason why we don’t eat uncooked meat is because we evolved that way. Listing shit and uneducated reasons I generally let slide but you are listing differences between us and chimps to make an argument. You know what separates us from chimps? Nothing. They are our sister clade in the Hominidae tree. Humans just had to make adaptations to their huge populations and ways of gathering, but even this is seen in tribes. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Feb 5, 2023 8:07:46 GMT
Seems like without fire (and farming, which came much later) there wasn't the ability to start ranging outside tropical rainforests. Without fire and farming we're pretty much reduced to getting enough calories from fruit like chimps, supplemented with leaves (very low calories) and bits and pieces of limited protein like slugs and bugs. Without farming and being in tropical rainforests we kind of need to be able to eat/cook meat, don't you think? We could kill the animals, but humans we don't generally go on meat very well uncooked. What you have listed is shit. This whole argument is shit. To be domesticated we would have to be domesticated by something. Guess what, we are not domesticated. Also, the reason why we don’t eat uncooked meat is because we evolved that way. Listing shit and uneducated reasons I generally let slide but you are listing differences between us and chimps to make an argument. You know what separates us from chimps? Nothing. They are our sister clade in the Hominidae tree. Humans just had to make adaptations to their huge populations and ways of gathering, but even this is seen in tribes. I notice you often go off half-cocked with vigour when you don't know what you're talking about. Interesting trait. The confidence is admirable but hopefully one day you grow into it, intellectually. At the moment you kind of step in piles of shit constantly. So humans actually are domesticated. Humans looked like this for 300 000 years without significant alteration-  In fact this wasn't even a big stretch from how their ancestral species, homo erectus, had looked for millions of years prior.  And that's because even as they speciated, their lifestyle didn't change that much, so they didn't change that much phenotypically. Then between 30 000 and 15 000 years ago dogs sidled up to them and gradually became their ally, by 12 000 years ago goats and sheep and cattle and pigs joined the party. Cats and chickens shortly after. With ample food we sat around dreaming up things like crops, and they began for the first time around this period as well. This altered our hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and then some of us started to look like this-  and this-  and this-  and this-  And this -  And this -  And this-  And this-  And this-  This diversity was sudden and dramatic and is directly linked to a symbiotic relationship with other animals altering our lifestyle, into many different lifestyles, and then each lineage of person adapting to their new niche lifestyle. This is actually exactly what domestication is. We are no longer the natural independent wild animal version of the homo sapien. Well some people are, but not any of us here. We are all domesticated variants of homo sapien who evolved with other domestic animals and crops and etc being a factor that was always there and we are adapted to live relying upon those things, to be a "cog" in the machine of a complex multi-species social system, rather than independent nomadic hunter gatherers like our wild ancestors. That makes us domestic animals quite unmistakably. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 8:13:32 GMT
What you have listed is shit. This whole argument is shit. To be domesticated we would have to be domesticated by something. Guess what, we are not domesticated. Also, the reason why we don’t eat uncooked meat is because we evolved that way. Listing shit and uneducated reasons I generally let slide but you are listing differences between us and chimps to make an argument. You know what separates us from chimps? Nothing. They are our sister clade in the Hominidae tree. Humans just had to make adaptations to their huge populations and ways of gathering, but even this is seen in tribes. I notice you often go off half-cocked with vigour when you don't know what you're talking about. Interesting trait. The confidence is admirable but hopefully one day you grow into it, intellectually. At the moment you kind of step in piles of shit constantly. So humans actually are domesticated. Humans looked like this for 300 000 years without significant alteration- In fact this wasn't even a big stretch from how their ancestral species, homo erectus, had looked for millions of years prior. And that's because even as they speciated, their lifestyle didn't change that much, so they didn't change that much phenotypically. Then between 30 000 and 15 000 years ago dogs sidled up to them and gradually became their ally, by 12 000 years ago goats and sheep and cattle and pigs joined the party. Cats and chickens shortly after. With ample food we sat around dreaming up things like crops, and they began for the first time around this period as well. This altered our hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and then some of us started to look like this- and this- and this- and this- And this - And this - And this- And this- And this- This diversity was sudden and dramatic and is directly linked to a symbiotic relationship with other animals altering our lifestyle, into many different lifestyles, and then each lineage of person adapting to their new niche lifestyle. This is actually exactly what domestication is. We are no longer the natural independent wild animal version of the homo sapien. Well some people are, but not any of us here. We are all domesticated variants of homo sapien who evolved with other domestic animals and crops and etc being a factor that was always there and we are adapted to live relying upon those things, to be a "cog" in the machine of a complex multi-species social system, rather than independent nomadic hunter gatherers like our wild ancestors. That makes us domestic animals quite unmistakably. Yes, but this appearance was not caused by some guy choosing who fucks who. We chose who we fucked. Selective breeding is when we choose what a non-human animals breeding. It happens in most domesticated species. Also, the only thing that has changed at all about our hunting style is the well, type of predation. Our ancestors are well known in scientific studies and literature as pursuit predators, running after and following, even tracking other animals to the point of exhaustion or when they can get the bow inside the prey. Now, humans are mainly ambushers, we disguise and camouflage ourself and make as little noise as possible. With the exceptions of certain tribes. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Feb 5, 2023 8:23:16 GMT
Actually that only came into play very recently in domestic animals. Still today it's very difficult to control which animals fucks which animal, and those without the proper resources and expertise fail, historically in ancient and rustic societies they didn't even bother trying. The earlier waves of diversity of domestic animals came about through evolution, adapting to a new specialised role that emerged with your "tribes" new lifestyle. Even in roman times dogs weren't described as breeds but as dogs from this tribe or that tribe. Each tribe only had one type of dog and they bred freely amongst themselves with no interference by human hand, the tasks expected of them to remain part of the tribe guided their evolution. This is where "scenthounds" comes from, for example. A scenthound tribe that only had scenthounds. Ditto for everything. Empires brought about the combining of tribes, and with it the combining of different types of dogs. This began only about 5000 years ago, and even still artificial selection wasn't the dominant factor. Organic performance breeding still ruled and did so until the rise of kennel clubs and dog shows under 200 years ago. So being "selectively bred" by the decisions of other people is really not a defining characteristic of domestic animals. It's been only a recent blip in their history. Most of their history was not governed by such practices and still for many it is not. You don't need that to qualify as a domestic animal, and so humans definitely do from every angle.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Feb 5, 2023 9:27:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Feb 5, 2023 9:33:19 GMT
Homo sapien. Out of Africa isn't really up for debate as far as I'm concerned but it's also actually totally beside the point. Hunter gatherers from the stone Age all LOOKED black whether they lived in Africa or not. "Black guy" is the wild form of homo sapien. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 17:59:48 GMT
Now zat ve have arrived und are in ze control, ve must never allow ourselves to be replaced by ze untermenschen. Seig heil! Seig heil! Seig heil! Ve vill not be replaced!
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Feb 5, 2023 18:47:02 GMT
Homo sapien. Out of Africa isn't really up for debate as far as I'm concerned but it's also actually totally beside the point. Hunter gatherers from the stone Age all LOOKED black whether they lived in Africa or not. "Black guy" is the wild form of homo sapien. What I mean is that I thought there would be a common ancestor for all the races. Today Africans, Asians, and Europeans have different DNA and bone structure, so they must have had a common ancestor then developed each in their own people. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Feb 5, 2023 19:53:16 GMT
No. The skulls from the stone Age found in china are black people skulls. The skulls in Europe from the stone Age are black people skulls. Every homo sapien from before 15 000 years ago looked like a black person. The other races are new, and they evolved in response to new lifestyles which they adapted to. Like for example "having clothes", that's an aspect of a changed lifestyle. Over time the resulting evolutionary adaptation is lighter skin with reduced melanin. One small example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 20:34:46 GMT
Were you all aware that 5% of all Europeans have Neanderthal DNA? The Neanderthals were largely non verbal and had the I.Q. of an 8 year old. This must mean that sex was largely non consensual. I believe that Neanderthals did not go extinct, but were sexed out of existence and disappeared through forced breeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Feb 5, 2023 21:45:18 GMT
It's all humans outside of sub-saharan africa, and they have about 2-4% neanderthal DNA. Also neanderthals had larger brains than us and more advanced tools and equipment than we had at that time. Still it's entirely possible (even likely) the sex was non-consensual. The humans who encountered neanderthals were also small, essentially "pygmies", and neanderthals likely gobbled them up like kobayashi beef.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 22:14:05 GMT
It's all humans outside of sub-saharan africa, and they have about 2-4% neanderthal DNA. ^^^Not true. And there were Neanderthals as recently as 35,000 years ago and we were up to 5'5' tall then. |
|
