Evolving Humans on the Menu

Ant writes "BBC News is reporting that a popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way could be incorrect. This was according to researchers who told a major United States (U.S.) science conference. They argued that early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts. From the article: 'This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory. Despite humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence, we/humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.'"

Ancestors of Homo Sapiens Hunted by Birds

[biocute]

As previously discussed [slashdot.org]

Re:So we only get along in confrontation?

[forgotten_my_nick]

Actually I was referring to the watchmen [wikipedia.org]. :p

Re:Pretty Obvious

[tmossman]

Further, it's not clear how valuable hunting was. Contemporary hunter-gatherers get more calories, more regularly, from gathering than from hunting. Raising the question, were the first weapons primarily defensive?

I don't have an answer for you regarding the weapons, but hunting is considered rather instrumental in our evolution as a species. Access to greater amounts of animal fats in our diet allowed us to deveolp the much larger cranial capacities than those from whom we evolved, helping put the 'sapiens' in homo sapiens, so to speak. From this paper: [uark.edu]

More animal fat in the diet meant not only additional energy, but also a source of ready-formed long chain PUFAs, including AA, DTA(docosatetraenoic acid (DTA, C22:4, w-3), and DHA. These three fatty acids together make up over 90% of the long chain PUFA (i.e. the structurally significant and biochemically active fat) found in the brain gray matter of all mammalian species. (Sinclair, 1975)

Re:Not suprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

People miss another obvious answer to the question of dragon stories...for example, here in China, dinosaur fossils CONTINUE to be used as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine, and they are unambiguously called "dragon bones".

old news...

[acroyear]

The making of on the DVD Walking with [Prehistoric] Beasts for the BBC showed the evidence that Austrolopithacines were hunted by dinofelis and other cats (sabretooth and not) 3.4 million years ago. The markings on the human skulls, when put next to the cat skulls, are unmistakably teeth.

Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction

[TapeCutter]

It is very likely that climate change played a major role in that particular episode, however there are many episodes of mass extinctions unrelated to climate.

Re:War and violence

[TapeCutter]

"Animals hunt in herds and packs too. Are they a society too?"

Yes, and I'm sure if a species of bass cooperated sufficiently to develop laser technology they would strap them to their own heads and use them against predators and rival schools of Bass.

Re:Pretty Obvious

[jc42]

The only branch of humanity that was any good at all at hunting was the much-maligned Neanderthal.

It should be emphasized that this maligning was primarily the "popular" culture. Paleontologists have long viewed the Neanderthals as a subspecies that was superbly adapted to their niche, a major hunter in the difficult environment of ice-age Europe. The "cave man" image basically came from a European culture that really wanted to view itself as the most advanced and civilized on the planet. 18th- and 19th-century Europeans routinely represented all humans except themselves as brutes with little intelligence or culture. The popular image of Neanderthals was not very different from the popular images of other groups of people.

The general scientific image is more along the lines of the comment that if you were transport a typical Neanderthal to today, give him a shave and a haircut, dress him in modern clothes, and drop him off anywhere in Europe, nobody would give him a second glance. He would be somewhat taller, wider, and paler than the average European, but well within the modern norm. He'd look a lot like a modern Scot or Swede. And his diet would be only slightly more carnivorous than theirs.

An interesting aspect to the idea that early humans mostly killed small prey is that the studies of wild chimpanzees have turned up pretty much the same story. It seems that chimps typically get 5% to 20% of their protein from insects, small birds, and small mammals. Hunting of such small game is more of a "great ape" characteristic, and almost certainly pre-dates the hominid line. Simple tool use has been reported in chimps to help catch their prey, so we can't even count that as a "uniquely human" development. We're better at it, but we didn't invent the first hunting tools.

Of course, popular beliefs are often at odds with the scientific evidence.

Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction

[angel'o'sphere]

The last ice age melted off, in less than 2000 years, around 10,000 years ago. The planet has been in a warming phase since that time.

That is the primary reason I think "global warming" is a totally natural change.


Newspeak?

The global warming you refer to was about 10,000 years ago. And was of course not man amde, if you mean that with natural.

Since then the over all climate only changed marginaly which includes having two minor cold periods.

The usual usage of the term "global warming" however reffers to the actual period of reapidly increasing of average temperatures in conjunction with the extreme increasing of greenhouse gases.

The period of "global warming" you mention was several thousand years ago and took place very slowly, over several thousand years. The actual "global warming" is now (which makes it slightly more interesting) and is much much much faster ... over only 30 years .

angel'o'sphere