The title is tongue in cheek, some researchers now are suggesting that speciation may be proportional to a particular energetic value. R.A. Fisher wanted an "ideal gas law" for evolutionary genetics, but this is ridiculous! In any case, one issue that many of us who are interested in paleoanthropology will have noted is that Africa seems to have been the repeated mother of hominid species. That is, "erectus" left around 2 million years ago, only to be swept aside by moderns around 50,000 years ago. Why Africa twice? This might be part of the answer, and is a flip to WIlliam H. Calvin's Ice Age driven hypothesis in A Brain for all Seasons.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At 1 p.m. today I listened by phone to a press conference in Washington where scientists presented the first good look inside a Hobbit's head. The view is fascinating. While it may help clear up some mysteries, it seems to throw others wide open.
Last October, a team of Australian scientists…
Get to know that little skull. Scientists are going to be talking about it for centuries.
As researchers report in tomorrow's issue of Nature, the skull--and along with other parts of a skeleton--turned up in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. Several different dating methods gave the same…
Contempt is never wise in biology. The creature that you look down on as lowly, degenerate, or disgusting may actually turn out to be sophisticated, successful, and--in some cases--waiting to tell you a lot about yourself. That's certainly the case for lice.
The human body louse, Pediculus humanus…
In 1970, the natural history illustrator Rudolph Zallinger painted a picture of human evolution called "The March of Progress" in which a parade of hominids walked along from left to right, evolving from knuckle-walking ape to tall, spear-carrying Cro-Magnon. The picture is etched in our collective…
"In any case, one issue that paleoanthropology will have noted is that Africa seems to have been the repeated mother of hominid species. That is, "erectus" left around 2 million years ago, only to be swept aside by moderns around 50,000 years ago. Why Africa twice?"
It is interesting to note that Africa seems to be the bonebed for hominoid fossil. But how do we know that "erectus" did not become us -- i.e., evolved into anatomically modern humans in the myriad niches it inhabited. I know this might sound a little like the Multi-Regional Hypothesis, which, as far as I'm aware, isn't mainstream anymore, if it ever was. *Why Africa twice* is an interesting question. But based on the "Africa twice" premise, wouldn't "anatomically modern humans" not have evolved from extra-African "erectus"(unless it re-entered africa early on)? Is extra-African erectus an ancestor of Neanderthals, or of any ancient lineage for which we have fossil evidence? I know that this 50,000 KYA exodus from Africa is supposedly the origin of all modern humans, spreading from east Africa through Asia, from central Asia to Europe & into the Indian-subcontinent; from Asia, to the Americans, Australia, & so on. Personally, alot of this seems a little bit more like story than like solid science. How many *holes*, or rash assumptions are there in this theory that I am not aware of is a question worth asking, IMO. Is some of the theory based on the coalescence of Haplogroups giving a divergence of no more than 50,000KYA -- 60,000KYA for all modern global populations, along with some evidence of an exodus of gracile, large-brained hominids from Africa in that timeframe? Should I just take it from the experts, because i don't have the qualifications to ask questions? My only concern is how much of this rests on shaky ground? Am I unreasonably dubious?
As far as Global Warming = Future Biodiversity, hmmm.
An interesting excerpt from the article above, examining the single celled animal, "foramina plankton":
"It takes more energy than all the fossil fuel people burn on the planet in a year to form one new species of plankton" -- and also -- "In the end, it is individual metabolic rate - how fast an organism burns food relative to its body weight - that primarily determines evolutionary rate. And higher environmental temperatures help increase metabolism. Diversity is the hallmark of the living"
Interesting findings for their model, but I'm not clear on it. Is this finding implying that it isn't surprising that equatorial, or hot, humid, niches are the most rich in lifeforms, or simply that life thrives & flourishes in humid heat, or none of the the above? ?:-(puzzled)-:?
I'd like to read either A Brain for All Seasons or A Brief History of the Mind. The descriptions I've seen make them seem very similar and they were published two years apart. Can anyone compare and contrast them for me?
a brain for all seasons is more thorough. the other one is more just like half a book that seemed published in a hurry.
Thanks.
It's always worth remembering that global warming, whether anthropogenic or not, probably doesn't mean the extinction of life on earth. Life's pretty adaptable, and will probably go along just fine.
Of course, that's not to say that we'll be there to see it. Global warming very well could wipe out our species along with many others. It could even more easily destroy our cultures and civilizations. So the fact that other critters will adapt and move on is cold comfort to us.