How Best to Run

[Conley]

We were once the greatest endurance runners on earth. We didn’t have fangs, claws, strength or speed, but the springiness of our legs and our unrivaled ability to cool our bodies by sweating rather than panting enabled humans to chase prey until it dropped from heat exhaustion. Some speculate that collaboration on such hunts led to language, then shared technology. Running arguably made us the masters of the world.

This is a cool article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/running-christopher-mcdougall.html

[Mister D]

We were once the greatest endurance runners on earth. We didn’t have fangs, claws, strength or speed, but the springiness of our legs and our unrivaled ability to cool our bodies by sweating rather than panting enabled humans to chase prey until it dropped from heat exhaustion. Some speculate that collaboration on such hunts led to language, then shared technology. Running arguably made us the masters of the world.

This is a cool article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/running-christopher-mcdougall.html


Our intelligence seems a more likely culprit as far as mastering the world is concerned.

Interesting. I'll check this out tomorrow.

[Conley]

We were once the greatest endurance runners on earth. We didn’t have fangs, claws, strength or speed, but the springiness of our legs and our unrivaled ability to cool our bodies by sweating rather than panting enabled humans to chase prey until it dropped from heat exhaustion. Some speculate that collaboration on such hunts led to language, then shared technology. Running arguably made us the masters of the world.

This is a cool article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/running-christopher-mcdougall.html


Our intelligence seems a more likely culprit as far as mastering the world is concerned.

Interesting. I'll check this out tomorrow.


Well we couldn't have gotten so smart without being good hunters. But the article is mostly about barefoot running, not evolution.

[Captain Obvious]

Wow - this could be a fascinating discussion.

"Our intellect"? Here's my theory to kick this off, for discussion purposes but I suspect that our intellect is limited only by convenience and security. To take that a step further, our civility only evolved (and I'm not discounting our ability to evolve) to the extent that we have experienced security.

To state it another way, take security away and we become survivalists again. And damn civility. Furthermore, that basic instinct is still present to some degree.

[Conley]

I'm not sure I fully understand, but here goes.

If we accept that early humans were pack hunters, then it made sense for 'civility' to evolve as well. The group had to work together to achieve a common goal, and a human on his own did not have nearly as good a chance of survival. Also it wouldn't just be the case for hunting...you would also have a better chance against predators if you were in a group of humans.

[Mister D]

We were once the greatest endurance runners on earth. We didn’t have fangs, claws, strength or speed, but the springiness of our legs and our unrivaled ability to cool our bodies by sweating rather than panting enabled humans to chase prey until it dropped from heat exhaustion. Some speculate that collaboration on such hunts led to language, then shared technology. Running arguably made us the masters of the world.

This is a cool article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/running-christopher-mcdougall.html


Our intelligence seems a more likely culprit as far as mastering the world is concerned.

Interesting. I'll check this out tomorrow.


Well we couldn't have gotten so smart without being good hunters. But the article is mostly about barefoot running, not evolution.


We may have been good hunters but we were also on the menu. ;)

I'll read it at lunch tomorrow. I like this kind of stuff. Shoes, BTW, are a relatively recent development.

[Conley]

I'm of the opinion most running shoes suck. The padding does more harm than good. I have a pair of KSwiss that I run that I've had for at least five years. They barely hold together but the padding is all gone. I don't get injured like I used to.

[Mister D]

When I say intellect I am referring to basic biological intelligence. Sophisticated hunting techniques and the development of hunting tools (a man is not wrestling a wildebeest to the ground), for example, are the result of high intelligence.

I think you both make a good point. CO rightly notes that civilization is skin deep. We are not naturally "civilized". Conley is right to note that we are social beings by nature.

[Mister D]

I'm of the opinion most running shoes suck. The padding does more harm than good. I have a pair of KSwiss that I run that I've had for at least five years. They barely hold together but the padding is all gone. I don't get injured like I used to.


I've worn shoes down to the nub, so to speak. My feet would start to take a beating after a while though. Ironically, the first week in my new shoes would be the worst. I almost always get blisters when I change my shoes.

[Captain Obvious]

When I say intellect I am referring to basic biological intelligence. Sophisticated hunting techniques and the development of hunting tools (a man is not wrestling a wildebeest to the ground), for example, are the result of high intelligence.

I think you both make a good point. CO rightly notes that civilization is skin deep. We are not naturally "civilized". Conley is right to note that we are social beings by nature.


What other species are social? A couple that come to mind are dolphins and monkeys. How secure are they? How intelligent are they also?

[Mister D]

When I say intellect I am referring to basic biological intelligence. Sophisticated hunting techniques and the development of hunting tools (a man is not wrestling a wildebeest to the ground), for example, are the result of high intelligence.

I think you both make a good point. CO rightly notes that civilization is skin deep. We are not naturally "civilized". Conley is right to note that we are social beings by nature.


What other species are social? A couple that come to mind are dolphins and monkeys. How secure are they? How intelligent are they also?


I'm not sure how one quantifies security but I would say that humans, generally speaking, are far more secure than any species has ever been. Dolphins and monkeys are both social and both relatively intelligent. Of course they do not approach the level of homo sapiens.

[Conley]

When I say intellect I am referring to basic biological intelligence. Sophisticated hunting techniques and the development of hunting tools (a man is not wrestling a wildebeest to the ground), for example, are the result of high intelligence.

I think you both make a good point. CO rightly notes that civilization is skin deep. We are not naturally "civilized". Conley is right to note that we are social beings by nature.


What other species are social? A couple that come to mind are dolphins and monkeys. How secure are they? How intelligent are they also?


Too many to list...even insects like ants and bees have societies. I don't think it's related to intelligence or security.

By security do you mean having the basics like food and shelter provided for?

[Captain Obvious]

By security I mean - who eats them?

Monkeys? Dolphins?

Not many predators. Could that be the reason why monkeys and dolphins are so intelligent - relatively speaking?

[Mister D]

I think what CO is referring is the very general openness we have in a civilized society rather than our innate need for community. Those innate needs are satisfied with kin and tribe. People you have a close relationship with. We'd be a lot less accommodating to people we don't know if we were less secure.

[Mister D]

By security I mean - who eats them?

Monkeys? Dolphins?

Not many predators. Could that be the reason why monkeys and dolphins are so intelligent - relatively speaking?


I'm tentative about this but I would say that the fewer difficult circumstances a species encounters in its evolution the less intelligent it would be all else being equal.

[Conley]

By security I mean - who eats them?

Monkeys? Dolphins?

Not many predators. Could that be the reason why monkeys and dolphins are so intelligent - relatively speaking?


Ah, I see where you're going with this. Interesting...predators would naturally go for easier prey. Monkeys and dolphins do communicate with each other. Both are hunted by man, and at least certain species of monkeys are very close to extinction.

[Conley]

By security I mean - who eats them?

Monkeys? Dolphins?

Not many predators. Could that be the reason why monkeys and dolphins are so intelligent - relatively speaking?


I'm tentative about this but I would say that the fewer difficult circumstances a species encounters in its evolution the less intelligent it would be all else being equal.


I agree. The challenges would lead to natural selection for more advanced organisms, whether they be stronger, faster, more intelligent or something else. Without that selection pressure there would be no evolution.

[Captain Obvious]

I'm suggesting, and maybe it's already been theorized but evolved intelligence is IMO directly correlated to how high on the food chain you are.

Higherarchy (sp?) of needs thing. If few are trying to eat you, you are more free to be social, artistic, communicative, etc. If shit's chasing you up and down the jungle every time you step out for a bite or a drink, you're prime directive is a) don't get eaten, and b) eat (and c) fuck).

So when do humans begin to evolve? Around the time dinosaurs tanked.

Now I'm not an evolutionist per se, I believe in creation. I just look at both theories as synonymous.

[Conley]

I'm suggesting, and maybe it's already been theorized but evolved intelligence is IMO directly correlated to how high on the food chain you are.

Higherarchy (sp?) of needs thing. If few are trying to eat you, you are more free to be social, artistic, communicative, etc. If shit's chasing you up and down the jungle every time you step out for a bite or a drink, you're prime directive is a) don't get eaten, and b) eat (and c) fuck).

So when do humans begin to evolve? Around the time dinosaurs tanked.

Now I'm not an evolutionist per se, I believe in creation. I just look at both theories as synonymous.


What do you mean you believe in creation? What are your beliefs? Do you not believe in evolution?

I ask partly out of curiosity and partly because in this discussion I have just assumed (my bad) that we all accept the theory of evolution as the most likely explanation for life today as we know it.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't see creationism and evolutionism as two separate theories.

That whole Adam and Eve thing is all bullshit IMO, Bible stories. Evolution is creation as far as I'm concerned.

[Mister D]

I don't see creationism and evolutionism as two separate theories.

That whole Adam and Eve thing is all bullshit IMO, Bible stories. Evolution is creation as far as I'm concerned.


I don't think it's BS. It's metaphorical. It's myth. I agree that evolution and creation are compatible. I'm a little "c" creationist.

[Conley]

I don't see creationism and evolutionism as two separate theories.

That whole Adam and Eve thing is all bullshit IMO, Bible stories. Evolution is creation as far as I'm concerned.


OK, that helps clear things up.

It is true that if things aren't hunting you then you have more time to do things not directly related to your survival, which you may take as evidence of intelligence evolving. However, how can you say that it wasn't the intelligence that you got you there in the first place where you were ahead of your predators.

In other words, you may say we became smart because we weren't being hunted, but others would say we weren't being hunted because we were smart. For example, the primates evolving to sleep in trees where they could not be eaten by other animals.

[Mister D]

By security I mean - who eats them?

Monkeys? Dolphins?

Not many predators. Could that be the reason why monkeys and dolphins are so intelligent - relatively speaking?


I'm tentative about this but I would say that the fewer difficult circumstances a species encounters in its evolution the less intelligent it would be all else being equal.


I agree. The challenges would lead to natural selection for more advanced organisms, whether they be stronger, faster, more intelligent or something else. Without that selection pressure there would be no evolution.


Yeah, it seems to me that challenges, particularly lethal ones, would lead to selection for traits that kept the species going. Like you point out, it's not necessarily a matter of intelligence. It could just as easily be size or speed.

I think CO's argument applies more to human communities. I see what he is saying.

[Captain Obvious]

Myth - yeah, that's a good way to put it.

The Bible is chock full of stories created by men to help them cope with the concept of creationism.

But getting back to the issue, it's my hunch that humans evolved because they had the opportunity to evolve. Hierarchy thing (got the spelling right this time), no longer did monkeys need to look over their shoulders every time they ventured out, they were free to commune, think, develop, evolve.

If dinosaurs were still around longer chasing those little fuckers around the jungle, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, that's my thought.

[Conley]

Myth - yeah, that's a good way to put it.

The Bible is chock full of stories created by men to help them cope with the concept of creationism.

But getting back to the issue, it's my hunch that humans evolved because they had the opportunity to evolve. Hierarchy thing (got the spelling right this time), no longer did monkeys need to look over their shoulders every time they ventured out, they were free to commune, think, develop, evolve.

If dinosaurs were still around longer chasing those little fuckers around the jungle, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, that's my thought.


Definitely, if dinosaurs still ruled the planet I don't think humanity would have evolved the way it did. The extinction of the dinosaurs did more to open the door for our future evolution than did some inherent intelligence that we began with. However you also have to remember that both humans and other high primates have always killed each other as well. There were plenty of other natural predators as well, wolves, jungle cats, etc. You might laugh at this but hippos are actually very aggressive toward humans and kill many more than lions or tigers. Then you have the poisonous snakes, and poisons of other kinds like the surrounding flora. Primitive language no doubt played a part in tribes learning what they could and could not eat.

[Mister D]

Myth - yeah, that's a good way to put it.

The Bible is chock full of stories created by men to help them cope with the concept of creationism.

But getting back to the issue, it's my hunch that humans evolved because they had the opportunity to evolve. Hierarchy thing (got the spelling right this time), no longer did monkeys need to look over their shoulders every time they ventured out, they were free to commune, think, develop, evolve.

If dinosaurs were still around longer chasing those little fuckers around the jungle, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, that's my thought.


OK. I think I see where this is going. When they aren't running for their lives or scrounging for food people have time devote to reflection, arts etc. Yeah, I'd say that's a factor for sure. On the other hand, I don't think that's really an argument about biological evolution as opposed to cultural or social evolution.

[Mister D]

Myth - yeah, that's a good way to put it.

The Bible is chock full of stories created by men to help them cope with the concept of creationism.

But getting back to the issue, it's my hunch that humans evolved because they had the opportunity to evolve. Hierarchy thing (got the spelling right this time), no longer did monkeys need to look over their shoulders every time they ventured out, they were free to commune, think, develop, evolve.

If dinosaurs were still around longer chasing those little fuckers around the jungle, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, that's my thought.


Definitely, if dinosaurs still ruled the planet I don't think humanity would have evolved the way it did. The extinction of the dinosaurs did more to open the door for our future evolution than did some inherent intelligence that we began with. However you also have to remember that both humans and other high primates have always killed each other as well. There were plenty of other natural predators as well, wolves, jungle cats, etc. You might laugh at this but hippos are actually very aggressive toward humans and kill many more than lions or tigers. Then you have the poisonous snakes, and poisons of other kinds like the surrounding flora. Primitive language no doubt played a part in tribes learning what they could and could not eat.


That's only because our remote non-human ancestors would not have survived among the dinosaurs. Few mammals did. The age of mammals came with the decline of the dinosaurs.

Hippos are f'n crazy. DO NOT piss off a hippo.

[Conley]

I might be wrong about this, but even before we learned language and had the huge gain in intelligence there was one physical attribute that set us apart, that being our long distance ability. We would never be the fastest, stronger, or have the sharpest teeth or claws but that ability to cover great distance over time allowed us the opportunity to evolve. It is not just man that used tools, but other primates as well. Other branches of the homo genus, like erectus (don't go there) and neanderthal had the physical abilities but not the mental it seems.

[Conley]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

[Conley]

Three possibilities for the extinction of the Neanderthals:

The Neanderthals disappear from the fossil record after about 25,000 years ago. The last traces of Mousterian culture (without human specimens) have been found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar, dated 30,000 to 24,500 years ago. Possible scenarios are:

1. Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (due to climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by H. sapiens moving into its habitat beginning around 80,000 years ago.[61] Competition from H. sapiens probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[62] Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement.[63]

2. Neanderthals were a contemporary subspecies that bred with Homo sapiens and disappeared through absorption (interbreeding theory).

3. A Campanian ignimbrite volcanic super-eruption around 40,000 years ago, followed by a second one a few thousand years later, has been hypothesised as having contributed to the demise of the Neanderthal, based on evidence from Mezmaiskaya cave in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia [64][65] Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of a specimen from Mezmaiskaya Cave is radiocarbon dated to be about 29,000 years BP and therefore from one of the latest living Neanderthal individuals. The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal4. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Extinction_hypotheses

[Mister D]

I might be wrong about this, but even before we learned language and had the huge gain in intelligence there was one physical attribute that set us apart, that being our long distance ability. We would never be the fastest, stronger, or have the sharpest teeth or claws but that ability to cover great distance over time allowed us the opportunity to evolve. It is not just man that used tools, but other primates as well. Other branches of the homo genus, like erectus (don't go there) and neanderthal had the physical abilities but not the mental it seems.


Eurasians have Neanderthal genes. There was interbreeding between the two.

You might be right about our ancestors. They were different species so it's not appropriate to say "us", IMHO. Anyway, I've heard or read that walking upright was an immense advantage for travel and enabled us to leave behind shrinking forests for grasslands and other environments.

[Mister D]

Three possibilities for the extinction of the Neanderthals:

The Neanderthals disappear from the fossil record after about 25,000 years ago. The last traces of Mousterian culture (without human specimens) have been found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar, dated 30,000 to 24,500 years ago. Possible scenarios are:

1. Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (due to climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by H. sapiens moving into its habitat beginning around 80,000 years ago.[61] Competition from H. sapiens probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[62] Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement.[63]

2. Neanderthals were a contemporary subspecies that bred with Homo sapiens and disappeared through absorption (interbreeding theory).

3. A Campanian ignimbrite volcanic super-eruption around 40,000 years ago, followed by a second one a few thousand years later, has been hypothesised as having contributed to the demise of the Neanderthal, based on evidence from Mezmaiskaya cave in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia [64][65] Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of a specimen from Mezmaiskaya Cave is radiocarbon dated to be about 29,000 years BP and therefore from one of the latest living Neanderthal individuals. The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal4. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Extinction_hypotheses


#2 has been corroborated by genetic evidence. Blacks do not have Neanderthal genes but ost of the rest of the world does. Something like up to 4%.

[Conley]

Yes...

It's fascinating stuff.

An alternative to extinction is that Neanderthals were absorbed into the Cro-Magnon population by interbreeding. This would be counter to strict versions of the Recent African Origin, since it would imply that at least part of the genome of Europeans would descend from Neanderthals.

The most vocal proponent of the hybridization hypothesis is Erik Trinkaus of Washington University.[74] Trinkaus claims various fossils as hybrid individuals, including the "child of Lagar Velho", a skeleton found at Lagar Velho in Portugal dated to about 24,000 years ago.[75] In a 2006 publication co-authored by Trinkaus, the fossils found in 1952 in the cave of Peștera Muierii, Romania, are likewise claimed as hybrids.[76]

An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (i.e. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Yoruba and San probands).[77] Genetic research now confirms that non-Africans are part Neanderthal,[78][79] due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of non-Africans in the Middle East.

In May 2010, the Neanderthal Genome Project presented preliminary genetic evidence that interbreeding did likely take place and that a small but significant portion of Neanderthal admixture is present in modern non-African populations. The interbreeding hypothesis is a controversially discussed scenario of Neanderthal extinction, the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory

[Conley]

That may have been part of their disappearance but I believe H. sapiens probably killed many of them. Even unintentionally the competition would have been for the same resources like food and water, and with sapiens apparent intellectual advantage (?) it is no surprise they died out.

[Mister D]

I was following those stories when they first appeared. I was making a racial point of course :D but it's truly fascinating.

[Conley]

I was following those stories when they first appeared. I was making a racial point of course :D but it's truly fascinating.


:D I was going to post a photo of Patrick Ewing in this thread and argue the point about Africans not having Neanderthal genes but I thought better of it.

It is really cool stuff.

[Mister D]

That may have been part of their disappearance but I believe H. sapiens probably killed many of them. Even unintentionally the competition would have been for the same resources like food and water, and with sapiens apparent intellectual advantage (?) it is no surprise they died out.


Indirectly I think that's probably true. Early humans were smarter (?) and had better tools and techniques for hunting. No doubt many Neanderthal clans were displaced. It also warmed up. Neanderthals were well built for the cold.

[Conley]

Yes, I was just reading that Sapiens had a much better shoulder socket when it came to throwing spears. The tools plus the ability to use them in addition to the factors you mentioned would all contribute.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720163729.htm

[Mister D]

I was following those stories when they first appeared. I was making a racial point of course :D but it's truly fascinating.


:D I was going to post a photo of Patrick Ewing in this thread and argue the point about Africans not having Neanderthal genes but I thought better of it.

It is really cool stuff.


He would make a good illustration for a theory that we've bred with chimpanzees. Sorry, Patrick. :D You were a good player but you don't look fully human.

I think they first announced this stuff in 2009. The theory that we've interbred is much older but the genetic evidence is pretty recent.

[Mister D]

Yes, I was just reading that Sapiens had a much better shoulder socket when it came to throwing spears. The tools plus the ability to use them in addition to the factors you mentioned would all contribute.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720163729.htm


It must have been hard to throw weapons when you're so stocky.

Sciencedaily is cool. I should read that more often

[Conley]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D

[Captain Obvious]

Myth - yeah, that's a good way to put it.

The Bible is chock full of stories created by men to help them cope with the concept of creationism.

But getting back to the issue, it's my hunch that humans evolved because they had the opportunity to evolve. Hierarchy thing (got the spelling right this time), no longer did monkeys need to look over their shoulders every time they ventured out, they were free to commune, think, develop, evolve.

If dinosaurs were still around longer chasing those little fuckers around the jungle, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, that's my thought.


Definitely, if dinosaurs still ruled the planet I don't think humanity would have evolved the way it did. The extinction of the dinosaurs did more to open the door for our future evolution than did some inherent intelligence that we began with. However you also have to remember that both humans and other high primates have always killed each other as well. There were plenty of other natural predators as well, wolves, jungle cats, etc. You might laugh at this but hippos are actually very aggressive toward humans and kill many more than lions or tigers. Then you have the poisonous snakes, and poisons of other kinds like the surrounding flora. Primitive language no doubt played a part in tribes learning what they could and could not eat.


That's only because our remote non-human ancestors would not have survived among the dinosaurs. Few mammals did. The age of mammals came with the decline of the dinosaurs.

Hippos are f'n crazy. DO NOT piss off a hippo.


I think they're both connected - biological and social.

The wild card is our ability to evolve. Dolphins evolved to a certain extent when the seas became somewhat free of predators however they can only evolve so far. Yes they're social, intelligent but they don't approach the level of intellect that humans do - but they're very smart for animals.

[Captain Obvious]

Whoops - replied to the wrong post, I meant to reply to D's comment on social/biological point.

[Mister D]

Whoops - replied to the wrong post, I meant to reply to D's comment on social/biological point.


Understood. Indeed, that culture and biology are related is something I've argued here and elsewhere back in our not nice to each other days. ;D I agree.

[Mister D]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D


It was a documentary on Discovery or History but it explored what a Neanderthal hunt was probably like. It was pretty physical. Broken bones and other injuries were a serious risk. It was face to face with a pissed off forest creature.

[Captain Obvious]

Whoops - replied to the wrong post, I meant to reply to D's comment on social/biological point.


Understood. Indeed, that culture and biology are related is something I've argued here and elsewhere back in our not nice to each other days. ;D I agree.


;D ;D ;D

[Conley]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D


It was a documentary on Discovery or History but it explored what a Neanderthal hunt was probably like. It was pretty physical. Broken bones and other injuries were a serious risk. It was face to face with a pissed off forest creature.


Wow. Fighting those animals without the benefit of range or missile weapons seems like it would have been a huge gamble.

[Mister D]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D


It was a documentary on Discovery or History but it explored what a Neanderthal hunt was probably like. It was pretty physical. Broken bones and other injuries were a serious risk. It was face to face with a pissed off forest creature.


Wow. Fighting those animals without the benefit of range or missile weapons seems like it would have been a huge gamble.


Neanderthals were built like a brick shithouse though. Thicker bones (skulls included) and stocky bodies made it less crazy than it would be for us.

[Conley]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D


It was a documentary on Discovery or History but it explored what a Neanderthal hunt was probably like. It was pretty physical. Broken bones and other injuries were a serious risk. It was face to face with a pissed off forest creature.


Wow. Fighting those animals without the benefit of range or missile weapons seems like it would have been a huge gamble.


Neanderthals were built like a brick shithouse though. Thicker bones (skulls included) and stocky bodies made it less crazy than it would be for us.


:D Definitely true but still...A hippo versus Ewing? Hippo wins ;D Not that they hunted hippos, I know I know...

[Mister D]

Right, we only had the genetic evidence to settle the argument in the last few years. Neanderthals had the spears but apparently not the ability to throw them accurately over distance.

On another note, did we drive everyone else away? :D


It was a documentary on Discovery or History but it explored what a Neanderthal hunt was probably like. It was pretty physical. Broken bones and other injuries were a serious risk. It was face to face with a pissed off forest creature.


Wow. Fighting those animals without the benefit of range or missile weapons seems like it would have been a huge gamble.


Neanderthals were built like a brick shithouse though. Thicker bones (skulls included) and stocky bodies made it less crazy than it would be for us.


:D Definitely true but still...A hippo versus Ewing? Hippo wins ;D Not that they hunted hippos, I know I know...


;D In temperate Europe and the Mideast I don't think there were any hippos.

[Captain Obvious]

They did exist along the Nile at one point in time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Hippo_distribution.gif

I want to say hippos were part of Egyptian cultural history but don't quote me on that.

[Mister D]

That's pretty extensive range. Yeah, as per your map they lived all the way to the Nile delta. Interesting. Thanks. I guess it's possible that Neanderthals encountered hippos. Egypt was right around the tip of the Neanderthas' range

[Conley]

Oh they were big in Egyptian culture.

The fertility god had a Hippo head...can't remember her name right now.

But yeah they would encounter them along the Nile.

[Conley]

Tawaret

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Taweret.svg/220px-Taweret.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taweret

The Egyptians learned don't mess with a Mama Hippo when the babies are around :D

[Mister D]

Tawaret

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Taweret.svg/220px-Taweret.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taweret

The Egyptians learned don't mess with a Mama Hippo when the babies are around :D


I'm sure ancient Egyptians would have encountered them. Besides, they originally came from the Sahara region into the Nile region when the Sahara began to dry up. I'm sure they were quite familiar with hippos. Not sure about Neanderthals though. This would have been at the very edge of their range.

Hippos kill more people in Africa than any other species

[Conley]

I only knew about Tawaret from the tv show Lost :D :D

That turned out to be a real crap show.

[Captain Obvious]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/2/14/9a1127e1-1953-41cd-a866-182ccb3cff7c.jpg

[Conley]

:rofl:

That would make eating difficult :(