The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Amy Howard18 said:Okay, so maybe using Native Americans in the context of "descending from trees" isn't the best way to frame this... let me try to put it this way instead. Based on various DNA analyses, there were populations in many other parts of the world—take Asia, for example—who developed independently from the original African ancestor, and this evolutionary path happened during almost the exact same timeframe. Later on, those lineages, which had evolved autonomously in Asia, eventually migrated to Australia, and it was from those groups that the aforementioned Native Americans descended.

Sure thing, here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

That being said, I'm not entirely sure how much clarity you'll get from a single entry; I have a feeling you might be starting from scratch here. That isn't a bad thing, though. You can find plenty of great books on the subject at any local library, and honestly, even I find myself flipping through high school biology textbooks when I need to brush up on the basics. I’d suggest some light reading if you want to dive deeper. It's a fascinating subject—you won't find it boring.

If you're interested in how the discovery of fire and cooking fundamentally shaped us as a species, I highly recommend "Catching Fire" by Steven Pinker:https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Human-Evolution/dp/037427112X

Sam Martinez9 said:Sure thing, here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

That being said, I'm not entirely sure how much clarity you'll get from a single entry; I have a feeling you might be starting from scratch here. That isn't a bad thing, though. You can find plenty of great books on the subject at any local library, and honestly, even I find myself flipping through high school biology textbooks when I need to brush up on the basics. I’d suggest some light reading if you want to dive deeper. It's a fascinating subject—you won't find it boring.

If you're interested in how the discovery of fire and cooking fundamentally shaped us as a species, I highly recommend "Catching Fire" by Steven Pinker:https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Human-Evolution/dp/037427112X

I didn't get a chance to give you a proper answer earlier, so please go back and look at my previous post... that should clarify what I actually meant regarding the development of Native Americans.

Amy Howard18 said:I didn't get a chance to give you a proper answer earlier, so please go back and look at my previous post... that should clarify what I actually meant regarding the development of Native Americans.

Yes, I did.

Amy Howard18 said:Okay, so maybe using Native Americans in the context of "descending from trees" isn't the best way to frame this... let me try to put it this way instead. Based on various DNA analyses, there were populations in many other parts of the world—take Asia, for example—who developed independently from the original African ancestor, and this evolutionary path happened during almost the exact same timeframe. Later on, those lineages, which had evolved autonomously in Asia, eventually migrated to Australia, and it was from those groups that the aforementioned Native Americans descended.

The nuances of how Homo sapiens evolved and their subsequent migration across the world's continents are subjects best left to the actual experts in the field, given the sheer depth of knowledge required. For us laypeople, who have merely picked up bits and pieces here and there, we run the risk of spreading nothing but misinformation. Don't get me wrong—and I am absolutely including myself in this critique—but that is the reality.

Furthermore, one needs a profound understanding of paleoarchaeology and various excavation sites. Fossil remains are incredibly scarce; more often than not, researchers are working with mere fragments... and based on such limited evidence, one can only construct theories, and there are plenty of conflicting ones to choose from.

That said, as far as my own limited understanding goes, human ancestors descended from trees in Africa and then spread out from there to populate the globe. If memory serves, there is also a theory suggesting multiple waves of migration rather than just one single movement.

That is all I can offer; I lack the expertise to go further, and the subject is quite intricate. I still maintain my advice: stick to the books. Books are the ultimate authority.

Amy Howard18 said:But there has never been a period of truly uniform global climate change that hit every single continent identically—at least none that we have records of—and humans seem to have been present across all parts of the planet (obviously not in equal numbers) since the beginning.
The flaw in your logic becomes pretty obvious when I ask this:
How did one Native American ancestor "just know" to migrate at almost the exact same time as his colleague in Africa? You can't claim it happened because the climate conditions in Australia and Africa were identical, because the geological and climate records for those two continents don't support that at all.

In the event of a nuclear holocaust—which is really the only realistic scenario if we ever face another major global conflict—nobody survives. Or rather, any survival on an evolutionary level would likely be reduced to a primitive state, perhaps even down to the very beginnings of life itself... from which a being called *Homo sapiens* might not necessarily re-evolve through a similar process.

Maybe it's because the ancestors of Native Americans lived in Africa.

Amy Howard18 said:But there has never been a period of truly uniform global climate change that hit every single continent identically—at least none that we have records of—and humans seem to have been present across all parts of the planet (obviously not in equal numbers) since the beginning.
The flaw in your logic becomes pretty obvious when I ask this:
How did one Native American ancestor "just know" to migrate at almost the exact same time as his colleague in Africa? You can't claim it happened because the climate conditions in Australia and Africa were identical, because the geological and climate records for those two continents don't support that at all.

In the event of a nuclear holocaust—which is really the only realistic scenario if we ever face another major global conflict—nobody survives. Or rather, any survival on an evolutionary level would likely be reduced to a primitive state, perhaps even down to the very beginnings of life itself... from which a being called *Homo sapiens* might not necessarily re-evolve through a similar process.

Look, we don't actually possess enough nuclear firepower to cause more devastation than, say, a ten-kilometer asteroid or a massive supervolcano... and life has survived those before. Some species went extinct, others made it.
Who knows? Maybe something even more successful than Homo sapiens evolves next—something like a "Homo nucleus," or whatever.

Amy Howard18 said:Okay, so maybe using Native Americans in the context of "descending from trees" isn't the best way to frame this... let me try to put it this way instead. Based on various DNA analyses, there were populations in many other parts of the world—take Asia, for example—who developed independently from the original African ancestor, and this evolutionary path happened during almost the exact same timeframe. Later on, those lineages, which had evolved autonomously in Asia, eventually migrated to Australia, and it was from those groups that the aforementioned Native Americans descended.

Wait, where are you even getting that from?

While it’s true that Aborigines are Homo sapiens who migrated from Asia into Australia, I don't think they actually evolved independently within Asia; rather, they originally made their way into Asia from Africa.

"Man is rational because he has hands." (Anaxagoras)

Doesn't that hit pretty close to Engels's argument—that labor is what actually made us human? (The role of labor in turning apes into people). Engels even breaks down how speech evolved right alongside work:

"If this explanation—that speech emerged from and alongside labor—is the only correct one, then comparing us to animals proves the point. The tiny bit of communication even the most advanced animals manage to pull off doesn't require articulated speech. In the wild, no animal feels like they're missing out just because they can't talk or understand human language. It’s a totally different story once humans domesticate them. A dog or a horse gets so used to interacting with people that they develop an ear for articulated speech, easily picking up any language within their scope of understanding. On top of that, they develop emotions like loyalty or gratitude that were foreign to them before. Anyone who spends enough time with these animals will tell you it's hard not to feel like they actually sense their inability to speak as a genuine limitation now."

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, where are you even getting that from?

While it’s true that Aborigines are Homo sapiens who migrated from Asia into Australia, I don't think they actually evolved independently within Asia; rather, they originally made their way into Asia from Africa.

I shouldn't say Aboriginals specifically, but rather their ancestors... I used the term a bit loosely in my previous comparison. It's not even fully settled yet that every single human being descends from one solitary African pair. There's actually evidence suggesting that certain groups of hominids might have evolved independently in various regions, which explains why we see so many different (and now extinct) subspecies of primates in the fossil record.

Harold Doyle3 said:Maybe it's because the ancestors of Native Americans lived in Africa.

Look, we don't actually possess enough nuclear firepower to cause more devastation than, say, a ten-kilometer asteroid or a massive supervolcano... and life has survived those before. Some species went extinct, others made it.
Who knows? Maybe something even more successful than Homo sapiens evolves next—something like a "Homo nucleus," or whatever.

Sure, we don't have an arsenal large enough to destroy the Earth itself (the planet is much stronger and older than we are), but we absolutely have enough to wipe out all life or at least knock it back to a primitive state.
The issue isn't that a nuclear cataclysm would cause instant extinction; rather, it’s the inevitable aftermath of a nuclear war. In a post-nuclear world, because the entire ecosystem would be shattered, complex life would practically cease to exist for a period of time (whether that's short or long, who knows?).

Amy Howard18 said:I shouldn't say Aboriginals specifically, but rather their ancestors... I used the term a bit loosely in my previous comparison. It's not even fully settled yet that every single human being descends from one solitary African pair. There's actually evidence suggesting that certain groups of hominids might have evolved independently in various regions, which explains why we see so many different (and now extinct) subspecies of primates in the fossil record.

This brings up a pretty interesting question—can we even talk about a "first" human pair, whether you're looking at the big picture or just a local population? Or was there always this massive "gray zone"—maybe spanning countless generations—where the line between what counts as human and what doesn't is just too blurry to call?

Amy Howard18 said:I shouldn't say Aboriginals specifically, but rather their ancestors... I used the term a bit loosely in my previous comparison. It's not even fully settled yet that every single human being descends from one solitary African pair. There's actually evidence suggesting that certain groups of hominids might have evolved independently in various regions, which explains why we see so many different (and now extinct) subspecies of primates in the fossil record.

In my view, they are all descendants of Homo erectus, who also hails from Africa, though he and his offspring actually spread across the globe much earlier than Homo sapiens did. 🤔

I suppose if you're discussing the general origins of primates, there is still a bit of ambiguity regarding whether they originated in Africa or Asia, as there seem to be conflicting pieces of evidence out there.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:In my view, they are all descendants of Homo erectus, who also hails from Africa, though he and his offspring actually spread across the globe much earlier than Homo sapiens did. 🤔

I suppose if you're discussing the general origins of primates, there is still a bit of ambiguity regarding whether they originated in Africa or Asia, as there seem to be conflicting pieces of evidence out there.

I'm specifically referring to the origin of hominid primates, acting as the evolutionary precursors to those specific Homo species you mentioned.

Amy Howard18 said:I'm specifically referring to the origin of hominid primates, acting as the evolutionary precursors to those specific Homo species you mentioned.

Well, yes, though I guess it’s worth noting that all the other great apes are still very much living up in the trees! 😁

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, yes, though I guess it’s worth noting that all the other great apes are still very much living up in the trees! 😁

Well, sure, regarding those currently living—but that doesn't necessarily apply to the fossils of those transitional hominid species we've uncovered from back when they actually roamed the earth.

There isn't really a specific date or a particular pair of ancient ancestors that marks the start of Homo sapiens. Evolution is such a continuous process, so I guess what we call "species" is mostly just a human invention used for classification.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 on Reddit

Jessica Gonzalez said:There isn't really a specific date or a particular pair of ancient ancestors that marks the start of Homo sapiens. Evolution is such a continuous process, so I guess what we call "species" is mostly just a human invention used for classification.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 on Reddit

Well, I'm not so sure about that! From what I understand, a species is actually defined as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Jessica Gonzalez said:There isn't really a specific date or a particular pair of ancient ancestors that marks the start of Homo sapiens. Evolution is such a continuous process, so I guess what we call "species" is mostly just a human invention used for classification.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 on Reddit

I'm with you on the first sentence, but the second one? Not so much. Sure, evolution is a continuous process, but calling it *only* that is a stretch. And I don't buy the idea that species aren't objectively real or that they're just something humans made up. Look, humans didn't invent elephants or giraffes. They exist.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I'm not so sure about that! From what I understand, a species is actually defined as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Still, it doesn't make sense to me—at least not logically—how one species could ever emerge from another if a species is defined as a group? If it's a closed loop of animals breeding within themselves to produce more of that same group, how does the "human group" even get started?

I think Engels hit the nail on the head. Labor is what actually made us.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I'm not so sure about that! From what I understand, a species is actually defined as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

That makes sense, but you don't really have a parent and child belonging to two different species. It's more like, from a certain point onward, two species split apart. I suppose it’s an accumulation of genetic changes that eventually means those two groups can't easily produce fertile offspring anymore. Over time, because successful breeding becomes rarer, those two groups—which started as one—keep drifting apart genetically. But honestly, how do we even study this for species that lived hundreds of thousands of years ago? We probably just classify them based on what their fossils look like.

I think physical isolation is probably the biggest driver for species splitting. Like, if an island separates from the mainland, those two groups start to diverge even if they were the same species at first. But I guess that doesn't mean they became two distinct species overnight, or that a definitive genetic split happens after, say, exactly a thousand years.

ruggedraven36 said:I'm with you on the first sentence, but the second one? Not so much. Sure, evolution is a continuous process, but calling it *only* that is a stretch. And I don't buy the idea that species aren't objectively real or that they're just something humans made up. Look, humans didn't invent elephants or giraffes. They exist.

Still, it doesn't make sense to me—at least not logically—how one species could ever emerge from another if a species is defined as a group? If it's a closed loop of animals breeding within themselves to produce more of that same group, how does the "human group" even get started?

I think Engels hit the nail on the head. Labor is what actually made us.

I'm with you on that.

ruggedraven36 As requested:


It remains utterly baffling to me—if I’m being honest—how one species could possibly emerge from another if we are truly defining what a species actually is. It’s a bit of a collective effort, really.What constitutes a biological species? Essentially, it’s a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring that also belong to that same group. As for how the human lineage actually came to be—that's a much deeper question involving millions of years of evolutionary history.

I find myself leaning toward the idea that Engels hit the nail on the head. It’s a compelling thought—that labor is actually what shaped us into human beings.

I believe the process unfolds like this: we start with a specific species, let's call it type X. Over vast stretches of time, individual members of that species undergo gradual changes. Each successive generation becomes slightly more distinct from its parent, continuing this pattern until the descendants have drifted far enough apart to be classified as an entirely new species.

Generally speaking, this process kicks in when a single species splits into different groups—say, two distinct populations—that become geographically isolated from one another. As they settle into their separate territories, each generation begins to inherit specific traits that differ from those in the other group (or even third or fourth groups, if you follow the logic). This continues until those genetic differences accumulate to such an extent that they eventually coalesce into entirely new species.

It might be most effective to use species that share a clear lineage but have diverged significantly as our primary example. For instance, if we look at the feline family, we could trace their evolutionary trajectory from a single common ancestor to see how they branched out into the distinct varieties we recognize today.

I’m speaking from a position of total amateurism here, so I think it would be much wiser to head straight to the professional literature for some actual expertise.

Amy Howard18 said:Well, sure, regarding those currently living—but that doesn't necessarily apply to the fossils of those transitional hominid species we've uncovered from back when they actually roamed the earth.

The common ancestor for all humans can be traced back to Australopithecus afarensis. From that lineage, we see the emergence of Australopithecus africanus, which is widely regarded as the direct precursor to the Homo genus—specifically leading to Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, and ultimately Homo sapiens sapiens.

Sam Martinez9 said:The common ancestor for all humans can be traced back to Australopithecus afarensis. From that lineage, we see the emergence of Australopithecus africanus, which is widely regarded as the direct precursor to the Homo genus—specifically leading to Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, and ultimately Homo sapiens sapiens.

Honestly? To me, they all just sound like the same word.