Personal Study Of Everything

Just project posts of what I'm reading/studying

[thewriterkb]

The reverse progression of Modern Humans to simple life forms. 

[personalstudyofeverything]

A very good book on this is The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins.

[great-adventures-blog1]

[zarekthelordofthefries]

Not to critique evolution, but I would think orange and black stripes wouldn’t be as good for camouflage in a forest as, say, green and black would.

[acceptableduraz]

It turns out a lot of animals can’t see the difference between orange and green!  Elephants, for instance, have dichromatic vision (two types of cones, rather than three like most humans.) 

Check out this diagram from ResearchGate.  It deals with the color vision of horses, who are also generally dichromatic.  (I think, though I’m not sure, that zebras would have the same color vision as horses.)  See how orange and green look to them?

[zarekthelordofthefries]

Not to critique evolution but I think prey animals should be better at telling when their predator is dressed like a traffic cone.

[squeeful]

It doesn’t matter what zebras see, because tigers are not native to Africa and do not naturally hunt zebra.  Tigers are Asian and mostly hunt animals like deer, elk, and buffalo.  These aren’t animals with great color vision.  They don’t need to have it because they don’t eat fruit and so don’t need to know when the berry is ripe vs when it’s not.  Good color vision is too expensive to have if you don’t need it.  Deer put their vision stats in a wide field of vision that is sensitive to motion, low light capabilities, and possibly seeing UV light.  They don’t have great color and lack a lot of acuity, but have a great sense of smell and good hearing.  That’s way more useful if you’re prey.  Deer see well in the blue end of the color spectrum and less well in the red.  This makes sense because deer are most active in the dawn and dusk periods, when there is more blue in the light.  Tigers are taking advantage of deer eyesight by being orange.

We see tigers are being obviously colored because tigers are fruit colored to our tree ape brains.

[thelibrarina]

I don’t know what the best part of this is: implying that deer chose their attributes on a character sheet, or the fact that we get to see tiger colors because they look like a snack.

[authoratmidnight]

Ok but like, I think you underestimate just how well they blend in when actually in the environment. Like, just using tigers as an example.

or how about a leopard?

It’s called ‘disruptive colouration’ because the markings help to break up the animal’s outline against the grasses or rocks. And the rosettes on leopards and jaguars? Sun spots shining through the trees and leaves on the ground.

And this is how hard it is to spot them WITH colour vision. Now imagine the above images but with the limited coloured mentioned above?

[hecate-hollow]

I’m sorry but there is not an animal in that first leopard picture

[authoratmidnight]

Are you, sure about that?

[thecheshirecass-deactivated2018]

“Tigers are fruit colored” is my new favorite phrase.

[bigredm38]

Motherfucker! That first jag picture!

[unclebeanbag]

Disruptive pattern and counter shading are amazing camo

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of HumanKind by Richard Leakey

Maybe a bit dated, but a decent read, especially about the art and language of early humans. I’d recommend it or something like it that’s more contemporary.

[personalstudyofeverything]

What is Consciousness?

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 8: The Origin of Mind

Many religions, myths and spiritual characters have their own version of what consciousness is. Biologists, psychologists, and philosophers have struggled with it for half a century. There’s no way to definitively measure it. We can’t even know for sure if what we are experiencing is similar to what our nearest human neighbor is. Sure we all know “blue” and “green,” but the exact shade could vary from person to person. There are people who don’t find out they are partially color-blind until teen years. So how do we grapple with defining consciousness, especially in a scientific way?

The closest thing to a scientific definition and experiment of consciousness is this. The awareness of ones self. Not just automatonuous eat/sleep/reproduce, but think. Think about yourself, think about death, think about the future... Predict the future: consciousness gives us the ability to extrapolate events in the future based on past and present experiences. That cannot be possible without awareness of ones self. 

For a majority of the last century scientists and citizens have said that consciousness is reserved for the human, every other animal is an automaton. Recent studies and observations beg to differ. The easiest experiment would be to put an animal in front of the mirror. Surely self-awareness is present in the animal that doesn’t react to it’s own image as just another separate animal. I know you swear your dog knows, but most dogs do not. Chimps on the other hand seem to. Further increasing the complexity of the simple experiment, scientists place a red dot on the forehead of the chimpanzee before showing the mirror. If they see the red dot in reflection and immediately try to wipe it off of themselves, they are self-aware. Results show that they in fact behave this way. 

So there is a conclusion among researchers who study primates that there is a level of consciousness in primates. However, not nearly as high a level as in humans. What happened to us, and why did natural selection deem it advantageous to have a high level of consciousness? Obvious theories say that it is advantageous to think of ones self, to fear death in a less primal level, to think about the future. Individuals who did that in early human history reaped benefits of longer lives and reproductive rights, further refining consciousness through evolution. 

Art and language emerge either as cause or effect. But as art and language emerged, it seems, so did rituals, death burials, and mythology. Human was officially modern as a whole, pondering what they were doing there, how they got there, how the earth and universe was formed, etc. They came up with primitive answers from their observations, a very early (perhaps flawed, but give them a break) scientific method. 

Consciousness is one’s conversation with self about everything. Consciousness does not end there though. It is conversation with fellow humans through words, conversation between animals through actions, and conversation with the universe through cosmic rays and physical laws. Everything you interact with feeds your consciousness. I suggest you listen more intently.

[personalstudyofeverything]

Why Chimps Can’t Talk

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 7: The Art of Language

The biggest aspect that separates humans from chimpanzees and especially other animals is the variety of vocal sounds we are able to make. The reason for the variety is because of the positioning of the larynx. The image compares the larynx positioning of a chimpanzee and a human. The larynx in a human is in a relatively lower position in the throat. As a consequence the pharynx (the sound chamber) is a lot larger in humans than in chimpanzees. This allows for a larger variety of sounds which helps to kick start modern human language. The trade-off is that humans can’t breathe while eating/drinking at the same time, which chimps can actually do. So there is a higher choking hazard in humans than chimps. 

It is seen that human babies start off with their larynx higher, as they would need to breathe while being breast-fed. As they get older, the larynx descends lower, bringing on the higher vocabulary as well as the choking hazard. The larynx is said to be in the fully adult position at the age of 14.

In trying to figure out when modern spoken language emerged in humans, anthropologists have used a technique (since the pharynx and larynx are tissue and muscle and thus do not fossilize, they use a secondary clue in the skull fossils - a “flex” in the basicranium that is a result of the pharynx/larynx) in order to map the development of speech ability. They determined that the earliest case evidence of developed speech is 300,000-400,000 years ago, around the time of “archaic” homo sapiens (including neanderthals). Although complex language like our own is doubted. The earliest case of a change from a flat basicranium to a slightly flexed basicranium is from 2 million years ago, around the time of homo erectus. Scientists have calculated the position of the larynx in homo erectus to be similar to that of a 6-7 year old in modern humans. This isn’t a direct reflection of their intellect exactly. However, there is a direct correlation of brain size to language development that historians often interpret as language being a driving force for brain size.

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 6: The Language of Art Part 3

Magdalenian Culture

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 6: The Language of Art Part 3

Solutrean Period

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 6: The Language of Art Part 2

The Gravettian Culture

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 6: The Language of Art, Part 1

The Aurignacian Culture

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 5 - The Origin of Modern Humans

This chapter talked in detail of multiple pieces of evidence, most supporting the Out Of Africa theory over the Multi-regional theory of the emergence of modern human beings. The Neanderthals, who were only found in European regions were met by homo sapiens. Soon after, they “died out.” Although, the Neanderthal genome project shows that there was rare interbreeding between the two groups. There are traces of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), in most humans in the world. The traces are much larger in Eurasian regions than in Africa. And most studies have shown no trace of Neanderthal in the Yoruba or the San tribes. A personally interesting study for me to find because I myself am Yoruba.

[personalstudyofeverything]

-Turkana Boy, Facial reconstruction (bones dated 1.5 mya)

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 4: Man the Noble Hunter?

While there is no question of early hunting in humans, it is still debated weather or not the homo erectus (dated to emerge almost 2 mya) hunted or merely scavenged dead animals. Sites including one near Lake Turkana definitely show butchery as a practice, but that’s as far as one could go without assuming too much. I would believe they hunted weaker prey and scavenged. It has been suggested that they laid traps, but evidence would not survive the test of time. I doubt this too because trap laying seems, to me at least, to be almost as sophisticated as the discovery of agriculture. Not to take away from that innovation.

[ancientorigins]

White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists

The myriad of skin tones and eye colors that humans express around the world are interesting and wonderful in their variety. Now, a recent analysis by anthropologists suggests that the light skin color associated with ancient European genetics are relatively recent traits to the continent.

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 3: A Different Kind Of Human

[personalstudyofeverything]

Homo Habilis - “Handyman” the toolmaker

The Origin of Humankind, Chapter 2: A Crowded Family

[personalstudyofeverything]

-Art Credit to David A. Lurino

Australopithecus Afarensis - The dawn of bipedalism (standing on two feet instead of all fours) dates as far back as 5-7 million years ago.

The Origin of Human Kind, Chapter 1: The First Humans

[personalstudyofeverything]

The Theory of Evolvability

We all know have an idea of what evolution is - changes in DNA (in micro-scale) and in the physical (macro-scale) driven by selection. But is there a difference in evolvability (the ability to evolve) between animals? An even better question would be: has evolvability evolved? Have there been moments in the history of evolution where the ability to evolve has been hindered or boosted? I can think of a moment right off the bat for when it has been hindered:

Try evolving at a certain rate with thousands of these assholes running about. It was no wonder all there were to coexist with these guys were scurrying shrews, insects, etc. Of course what happened next could be classified as boost to evolution:

As cold as it may be to say this, mass extinction for over 90% of species living at the time included the large dinosaurs, making evolution more favorable for some. That increase in evolution is known as the mammalian explosion.

There are moments that boosted evolvability though. Richard Dawkins called them watershed events in The Ancestor’s Tale. Here are a few examples that he listed:

Replication: Without the ability for nucleotide replication, the sea would still remain a waste of molecules and minerals, and thus no evolution at all.

DNA: Without DNA, an extremely effective replicator, the number of nucleotide wouldn’t be as massive as it was. This increase in efficient production of even more replicators would help increase the statistical favor of evolution.

First Eukaryotic Cell: Eukaryotic cells are cells with a nucleus and thus DNA. With the efficient DNA now housed within cell walls, it is protected from the outside environment. Selection is beginning to truly work it’s “magic”.

Multicellularity: Not only is the DNA more protected, but able to multiply the homes, and therefore itself within multiple cells.

Sexual Reproduction: A “best of both worlds” method is added to the evolution model. 50% of two different banks of genomes are mixed into a new individual. The added diversity would increase evolvability as well as survival.

Segmentation: Segmentation is best explained by the illustration below. It is an animal having more sections. As geological time goes by, the evolution is more sophisticated. Segmentation gives evolution more intricate options. Segments weren’t always there, which must have been hard on ancient animals. Even snakes today are segmented.

Colonies, such as ant and termite: The organization of the species who refer to one colony as one “super-organism” is a testament to itself. It probably did not start off as organized as it is now when the first organism worked together with another of it’s kind. And there are plenty of other “social” mechanisms either within or between species that benefit all involved. This could be an argument in the altruism debate.

Human societies with language: The same arguements as the previous example apply here. Human civilization and language has increased survival and produced numbers enough to literally conquer the planet from habilis, to ergaster, to sapien. Would we even be here if we didn’t band together as hunter gatherers many thousands of years ago?

And what of Tools and Technology? Is the next watershed event unfolding with our technology explosion of these recent years/decades/century? Would merging with machine boost our ability to evolve, especially with A.I. Technology that can solve new problems that may arise. Or could this go a different route and be a hindrance to our evolution, as the dinosaurs were? And what of the atmosphere that we are changing? Surely dying off due to the climate change we could be causing would be a hindrance to us as humans, yet a boom for some scurrying animals and insects able to survive and evolve.