Not a question of attack but curiosity - I was curious about the extinct ancestors of humans. Why do they become extinct, while apes and monkeys still thrive? Also, how does the process work? I learned that Lamarck had a theory on acquired characteristics and this was rejected. Is this true?
-
We're still making new discoveries concerning the origins of humans. Not so long ago it was generally thought that humans had a single line of ancestry culminating in modern humans (homo sapiens), but that idea is well and truly out the window now as more hominid skeletons have been discovered, many existing on Earth at the same time. Literally dozens of 'proto-human' remains have been found, some as old as 8-15 million years. Exactly which of these species was the direct ancestor of modern humans is impossible to say.
It is now known that several human-like species have existed in relatively recent prehistory, certainly in the last 2-3 million years but even up until possibly 13,000 years ago, human species like Homo Florensis (popularly known as 'the hobbit'). We can be cerain that around 35,000 years ago, between the recent ice ages, Neanderthals were around at the same time as our own ancestors, Homo Sapiens. Some 75,000 years ago, Home Sapiens and Homo Erectus both occupied India
So the branches of human evolution are much more tree-like than was previously thought, with several hominid species competing for the same evolutionary niche which ultimately, due to brain capacity, giving us advanced tool use, social skills and a capacity for articulate speech led to the dominance of Homo Sapiens over the other hominids. Both Homo Erectus and Neanderthals had power and strength, but they lacked the brain capacity of Homo Sapiens. Just to give one example, not a single spearhead has been found among remains of Homo Erectus, but they are not uncommon among Homo Sapien remains. Home Erectus did know how to make flintaxeheadss however. From this we can deduce that Homo Erectus and his smaller brain hadn't realised the potential of the spear as a weapon. This immediately gives Homo Sapiens a unique advantage over Homo Erectus, as they can kill prey from a distance using a spear. Homo Erectus has to get in close, putting himself at far greater risk.
It is now known that several human-like species have existed in relatively recent prehistory, certainly in the last 2-3 million years but even up until possibly 13,000 years ago, human species like Homo Florensis (popularly known as 'the hobbit'). We can be cerain that around 35,000 years ago, between the recent ice ages, Neanderthals were around at the same time as our own ancestors, Homo Sapiens. Some 75,000 years ago, Home Sapiens and Homo Erectus both occupied India
So the branches of human evolution are much more tree-like than was previously thought, with several hominid species competing for the same evolutionary niche which ultimately, due to brain capacity, giving us advanced tool use, social skills and a capacity for articulate speech led to the dominance of Homo Sapiens over the other hominids. Both Homo Erectus and Neanderthals had power and strength, but they lacked the brain capacity of Homo Sapiens. Just to give one example, not a single spearhead has been found among remains of Homo Erectus, but they are not uncommon among Homo Sapien remains. Home Erectus did know how to make flintaxeheadss however. From this we can deduce that Homo Erectus and his smaller brain hadn't realised the potential of the spear as a weapon. This immediately gives Homo Sapiens a unique advantage over Homo Erectus, as they can kill prey from a distance using a spear. Homo Erectus has to get in close, putting himself at far greater risk.
keywords: Evolutionists,elaborate,upon,human,evolution,Evolutionists, elaborate upon human evolution