|
Human Species Evolution
Contents Select from the right to skip to the sections that interest you. |
|
In an earlier chapter (The Human Evolution Hypothesis) ConserveLiberty articulated a hypothetical model proposing the development of human primates evolving under selective competitive pressures for traits enabling high cunning, intelligence, and technological development over a broad spectrum of areas. These advancements are far greater than observed in any other non-human species on Earth. Indeed, they clearly are NOT required simply for survival within any of the environments we find ourselves in.
Evidence that survival on Earth does not in any way require or select for these advanced traits is ubiquitous and all around us. That evidence?
→ All the other living species that thrive over, under, and within the Earth's land, waters, and air. ←
And yet, humans did evolve with capabilities in intelligence, adaptation, and technical advancement that are stunning compared to any other life form on earth.
As an aside, it is generally assumed that these extraordinary traits are usually what many mean by the term "intelligent life". While ConserveLiberty does not consider the term "intelligent life" in that way, it is usually understood that way within the general public.What might those selection pressures have been that drove our species to select for traits having such advanced levels of cunning, intelligence, adaptation, and technical development? From where or what did they come from?
Yet, evolution driving living species to acquire an ensemble of traits elevating them to the status of "intelligent life" has clearly not been required by the non-human aspects of the environment for survival. The billions of years life has existed on Earth represents a widely varied and extreme range of environments! And, although the environments could be quite different on other planets that might harbor life, even those environments might not require the evolution of "intelligent life" in order to survive on them.
So while we may someday find "life" on other objects than the Earth, it may also be true that we may NOT find what many consider to be "intelligent life" on them unless something similar occurred on those objects that occurred on Earth - resulting eventually in the evolution of species with the ensemble of traits that have rendered humans to consider themselves "intelligent life."
It is possible that these variants arose among primates in multiple different areas, and that each of these went on to become the human species known today. And that their emergence from differing geologically isolated areas resulted in the multiple races we have today.
However, ConserveLiberty does not propose that humans arose independently in multiple different areas. Rather, ConserveLiberty suggests that a single violent variant emerged from which all humans on the planet are derived. If that is so, then what drove the generation of multiple races, and multiple geologically defined ethnic groups that do differ from each other in identifiably genetic ways?
The Big Picture
In this chapter, we will continue describing a hypothesis consistent with the generation of genetically distinct races and ethnic groups within a species that usually does not isolate itself reproductively from each other long enough for these to naturally occur. Of course, carefully acquired and analyzed anthropological artifacts and data are required to prove or disprove such a hypothesis, and we currently have not acquired enough of that data. But ahead of such acquisition and analysis, indeed to promote such truth oriented research and discovery, ConserveLiberty offers what follows.
What created the opportunity for genetically variant races to develop such that within each race there is a high degree of homogeneously that is shared, independent of the minor variations they all have between each other as individuals?
Separation.What drove the separation when the species itself is known to be socially curious and generally promiscuous?
Migration and War. More specifically, extermination oriented war.What drove the compulsion to migration and/or war between groups that would eventually separate from or exterminate the other?
Non-compatible instincts.Why would non-compatible instincts lead to war and either separation or extermination?
Because the instinctual urges, behaviors, and perceptions (filters) have become so different between the opposing groups that they find they can no longer communicate and negotiate successfully between each other.
Individuals always differ among themselves, and they are usually able to work out tolerances and agreements among themselves. When the ensemble of filters result in behaviors and perceptions that are sufficiently different between individuals or groups, they are no longer able to reach an understanding of each other such that tolerable cooperation can be achieved. In fact environments that are instinctively intolerable for a group or groups can be the result. Once it becomes clear that non-violent negotiation cannot achieve an environment where individuals or groups have the liberty to follow behaviors that are instinctively agreeable to them, then a reliance on force is chosen by those with enough of a significantly expressing Violence Spectrum Personality Filter to allow it. Alternatively, they may relocate in an attempt to create a permanent separation without exception. The goal becomes to establish or re-establish a maintainable environment that allows the liberty to be who they instinctually are. In other words, extermination and separation can become the final means by which certain filter driven instincts can survive.
Instinct Survival becomes the driver that leads either to separation from or extermination of the other, or both. Either the effective separation without exception, or a sufficient level of extermination, creates a genetic bottleneck that over time can lead to an altered genetic specialization (creation of a race, diversity) between groups of a species that have become separated from one another. That is interesting, because we usually think of competitive selection as being compelled by an individual driven to survive, or a species driven to survive.
In this case, in this hypothesis proposed by ConserveLiberty, it is the proposed genetic (and thus biologically derived) instinct to conserve the liberty to be what they are that is driving the competitive selection.
How might this work?
Somewhere within the "Ensemble Organization within Creation" we get to the assembly of components that work together in a way that defines a lineage. At one particular moment, that lineage can be seen as being part of a specific species. However, over long periods of time, we will see this lineage flowing through differing species as it works its way along its particular evolutionary path.
The Human Types:
A - Species
B - Races
C - Ethnic
D - Philosophies
While not becoming a different species, variations within the offspring of the lineage can occur such that it is split into differing subgroups. At one level of organization, these subgroups might be differing races. At a lesser level of difference, a particular race might find itself divided into different ethnic subgroups. And so on.
In this chapter, we propose one of several ways that a lineage may experience itself divided from one race into two or more. Similarly, rather than an increase in diversity, two groups having common lineage ancestry might experience a reduction among one of them, leading to a decrease in diversity. Either the increase or decrease in diversity will be the result in our example of survival competition and selection such that the instinctual liberty to be what they are is conserved. It is not important which competing trait or ensemble of traits is being conserved via this selection mechanism. Rather, what is important is the competition and selection process itself. ConserveLiberty takes no sides, other than that it advocates for the conservation of liberty to be what we are. All of nature unfolds just as it is.
As an illustrative example, lets assume Group A and Group B are opposed to each other. Their instinct and perception filters have become so different that they no longer communicate well nor truthfully understand each other. Assume that what is instinctually agreeable to Group A is not instinctually agreeable to Group B. But, of course, Group A thinks it should be, and can see no reason why it ought not to be. This is because Group A's world views and preferences are filter driven, they are "Group A Filter" driven.
A similar situation may or may not exist in the reverse direction. For simplicity, we will simply consider the situation where Group A is imposing its preferences on Group B, and Group B now comes to realize Group A will not allow Group B to be what is most instinctually agreeable to people who see themselves as Group B people.
If it is important and Group B believes that to be what it is made to be, what it feels most right being, will not be allowed by Group A, then eventually a negotiation-oriented attempt at a solution will be abandoned. That usually takes a while to get to, because other compatibility oriented filter instincts are also at play. But eventually, it is realized by Group B that Group A is actually a very real threat to its liberty to be what they are. They come to believe that Group A is aligned against them intentionally (only) and that Group A has zero interest in reaching a mutually tolerant arrangement for the coexistence of the two. Thus, because Group B is driven by an instinct to survive at liberty to be who and what they are, Group B comes to the decision that the only way forward is to eliminate the influence of Group A.
Since they can't agree to live together, and they have now become convinced that all the attempts at negotiation are in actuality futile, and in actuality have been used purposely by Group A to further erode Group B's ability to be who they are, then there are only three options left. Extermination of Group A, Permanent Separation, or what is essentially the Extermination of Group B.
Either of these choices (and from a practical perspective, one does get made) will result in the genetic bottleneck. And the bottleneck will result in either the establishment of two races where before there had been just one, or the reduction to one Group where before there had been two.
A rationalization event (i.e. separation either by extermination or migration or both) is something that is expected to occur multiple times throughout the history of a lineage, whether it includes the human element within it or not. The reason for this is that while we might assume that a species starts off well in harmony with the members of its group, Variation is a Fundamental Rule that is a part of All That Is. Variation occurs. Put another way, change is inevitable. In fact change, variability, in essence is Creation's way of enabling all of the different ways that All That Is unfolds. Thus, while a Group may start off organically well tuned and compatible, over generations variability happens. Some of that will be advantageous, and some disadvantageous. Eventually, to reestablish a Group that is well tuned and compatible, which is also advantageous for its ongoing survival, rationalization events will again occur.
It is not known how frequently these tend to occur within the human lineage. But use your imagination and what factual knowledge of history, anthropology, and genetic evolution that you have. Don't assume outcomes that you believe might be desired, just consider outcomes as they appear to have happened. We have seen rationalizations happen even in recent human history, and within the hominid history that has led to ours. Some have been partial. Others have been near total.
We'll continue to have them.
Conserve Liberty
What do we believe we have uncovered so far regarding human evolution and migration?
- The primate lineage we derived from was bipedal (did not require its hands for locomotion) perhaps 6 million years ago, and was walking upright 4 million years ago.
- Perhaps 3.5 million years ago, humans and apes diverged from a common denominator. Around 2 million years ago, our ancestors left the trees for the savannah.
- Perhaps 2.5 million years ago, the strong jaw muscles that generally would restrict large skull growth disappeared with the appearance of Homo habilis. Brain size had doubled by 2 million years ago in Homo erectus.
- Our ancestors were using rock fragments as tools 3 million years ago, and whole rocks as axes 2 million years ago.
- Homo erectus spread from sub-Saharan Africa into east Asia 1.8 million years ago. Homo sapiens left Africa 120,000 years ago for the Levant but did not survive. Homo sapiens left Africa again 75-90,000 years ago, and did survive.
- One of the migrations out of Africa, approximately 1 million years ago, may be of the lineage that belongs to Homo denisova. The Denisovans are a third variant (the other two are Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens) of Homo erectus that existed at the same time and in some of the same locations as the Neanderthals and the modern humans.
- Homo heidelbergensis used language 600,000 years ago. They migrated out of Africa into Europe 600,000 years ago, and evolved to become Homo neanderthalensis. Back in Africa, Homo heidelbergensis evolved to become Homo sapiens. Homo heidelbergensis is thus the last common ancestor shared by the Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens).
- A Mitochondrial Eve, the woman from whom ALL modern humans alive today descended from, existed between 99-200,000 years ago. From her, 7 primary subclades of the L haplogroup exist, referred to as L0 - L6. All of these genetic haplotypes are present in Africa today. However, all of the non-Africans (e.g. Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, etc.) are only of haplotype L3.
- Homo sapiens began moving into territory occupied by Neanderthals approximately 80,000 years ago. The Neanderthals had entirely disappeared by 25,000 years ago. While there is evidence suggesting a very small amount of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) perhaps up until 50,000 years ago, that interpretation can also be disputed. Remember, Homo sapiens evolved from Homo heidelbergensis in Africa (see above).
- The reason for the out-competition and extinction of the Neanderthals, and their replacement by Homo sapiens is not understood. Both Neanderthals and modern humans had art and language at the time. Neanderthal cranial capacity was as large as modern humans, and they were also much stronger than modern humans. They were hunters, and also much better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens. There were large fluctuations in climate, with weather growing warmer, and the trend peaking 30,000 years ago. This would have caused various ecological changes in available plants and animal types. Apparently, Neanderthals were not as adaptable as Homo sapiens. Or, of course, Homo sapiens may have perceived them as a competitive threat for some reasons. Again, why the Neanderthals went extinct is not clear from the currently interpreted fossil record.
- Sculptures decorated with geometric etchings have been dated to 77,000 years ago. Cave paintings have been found dating 35,000 years ago.
A Helpful Resource Section
- A summary of some of the info in these links below are listed above. They are a good source of timelines and some of what has been inferred from the archeological and genetic data of the hominids on or near the lineage that has led to modern humans today:
- Denisovan
- Homo neanderthalensis
- More to come in a later revision.
Summary
We'll wrap it up here in a later revision.
Back to the Table of Contents
Last Update: Jun 17, 2016 11:00 PDT