NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Perhaps there would have been if early humans hadn't killed them? I have heard before that there is evidence that early man (homo sapien sapien) was co-existent with Austrolopithicus. Perhaps the early man's use of tools and larger brain size led them to eradicate their competition?

However the primary adaptation of man is his use of tools: everything from flint for sharpened edges to fire for warmth and cooking. (Incidentally cooking kills a great many bacteria, perhaps that key difference could be why the competition wasn't successful.)

Perhaps it doesn't make sense. However humans have directed their own evolution through the years...the strongest and the brightest are the ones that procreated. The ones that were able to learn cultivation and master the techniques of hunting had the most supplies and thus ensured a stronger next generation. One must remember that early humans probably didn't destroy the environment to the same extent as the modern (last 2,000 years) have been and are doing.

I don't think there are walking, talking lizards. There are some very intelligent cetaceans, some very clever other animals. Tool use is being documented in many species. Play, long a hallmark of intelligence, is exhibited in many species as well.

The evolution of humans does present some large questions. But I don't believe that convergent evolution occurs everywhere. Selective adaptation occurs to fill a niche within the ecosystem- in general. But in specific other outside factors can influence it, especially selective breeding and success of subsequent generations.

On a related note, just checking out some of my regular sites I found this interesting piece:

The Top Ten Daily Consequences of Having Evolved | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

<blockquote data-quote="Xylo" data-source="post: 18392" data-attributes="member: 1435">Perhaps there would have been if early humans hadn&#039;t killed them?&nbsp; I have heard before that there is evidence that early man (homo sapien sapien) was co-existent with Austrolopithicus.&nbsp; Perhaps the early man&#039;s use of tools and larger brain size led them to eradicate their competition?However the primary adaptation of man is his use of tools: everything from flint for sharpened edges to fire for warmth and cooking.&nbsp; (Incidentally cooking kills a great many bacteria, perhaps that key difference could be why the competition wasn&#039;t successful.)Perhaps it doesn&#039;t make sense.&nbsp; However humans have directed their own evolution through the years...the strongest and the brightest are the ones that procreated.&nbsp; The ones that were able to learn cultivation and master the techniques of hunting had the most supplies and thus ensured a stronger next generation.&nbsp;&nbsp; One must remember that early humans probably didn&#039;t destroy the environment to the same extent as the modern (last 2,000 years) have been and are doing.I don&#039;t think there are walking, talking lizards.&nbsp; There are some very intelligent cetaceans, some very clever other animals.&nbsp; Tool use is being documented in many species.&nbsp; Play, long a hallmark of intelligence, is exhibited in many species as well.&nbsp; The evolution of humans does present some large questions.&nbsp; But I don&#039;t believe that convergent evolution occurs everywhere.&nbsp; Selective adaptation occurs to fill a niche within the ecosystem- in general.&nbsp; But in specific other outside factors can influence it, especially selective breeding and success of subsequent generations.On a related note, just checking out some of my regular sites I found this interesting piece:<a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Top-Ten-Daily-Consequences-of-Having-Evolved.html" target="_blank">The Top Ten Daily Consequences of Having Evolved | Science &amp; Nature | Smithsonian Magazine</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xylo, post: 18392, member: 1435"] Perhaps there would have been if early humans hadn't killed them? I have heard before that there is evidence that early man (homo sapien sapien) was co-existent with Austrolopithicus. Perhaps the early man's use of tools and larger brain size led them to eradicate their competition? However the primary adaptation of man is his use of tools: everything from flint for sharpened edges to fire for warmth and cooking. (Incidentally cooking kills a great many bacteria, perhaps that key difference could be why the competition wasn't successful.) Perhaps it doesn't make sense. However humans have directed their own evolution through the years...the strongest and the brightest are the ones that procreated. The ones that were able to learn cultivation and master the techniques of hunting had the most supplies and thus ensured a stronger next generation. One must remember that early humans probably didn't destroy the environment to the same extent as the modern (last 2,000 years) have been and are doing. I don't think there are walking, talking lizards. There are some very intelligent cetaceans, some very clever other animals. Tool use is being documented in many species. Play, long a hallmark of intelligence, is exhibited in many species as well. The evolution of humans does present some large questions. But I don't believe that convergent evolution occurs everywhere. Selective adaptation occurs to fill a niche within the ecosystem- in general. But in specific other outside factors can influence it, especially selective breeding and success of subsequent generations. On a related note, just checking out some of my regular sites I found this interesting piece: [url="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Top-Ten-Daily-Consequences-of-Having-Evolved.html"]The Top Ten Daily Consequences of Having Evolved | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification