Live data from Hacker News

Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

news.asu.edu

271–274 of 274 posts

Re: Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fire is rad but I don’t see how it explains modern civilization. If most animals are operating on a calorie deficit and fixing this can lead to larger brains then why haven’t domesticated animals evolved towards our level of intelligence?

Probably because our interference with their breeding selects for non-smart qualities.

What interference? The animal world was free to evolve for the majority of the history of the earth. Literally millions of years and nothing came of it. Until we came along.

Re: Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because our interference with their breeding selects for non-smart qualities.

What interference? The animal world was free to evolve for the majority of the history of the earth. Literally millions of years and nothing came of it. Until we came along.

Domestication, the process we put animals in to make them peaceful enough to provide a calorie surplus without stomping the early humans to death because they got scared by a branch

Re: Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

#273
post #258
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to 23andme I am 2 to 4% neanderthal, and I think of myself as human...

While funny, I don't think this has much bearing on the topic at hand: we share a lot of DNA with chimps as well (or rather, the last common ancestor between chimps and humans). But that doesn't mean we should call chimps human. So the shared genes alone can't be used as a reason to call Neanderthals human.

True, but while all humans have chimp dna, many humans have 0 percent neanderthal dna - are they more human than me?

Re: Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

#274
post #273
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While funny, I don't think this has much bearing on the topic at hand: we share a lot of DNA with chimps as well (or rather, the last common ancestor between chimps and humans). But that doesn't mean we should call chimps human. So the shared genes alone can't be used as a reason to call Neanderthals human.

True, but while all humans have chimp dna, many humans have 0 percent neanderthal dna - are they more human than me?

No human had a chimp ancestor. But humans share a fairly recent common ancestor with chimps.

Some human had Neanderthal ancestors, some did not, as you rightly suggest. However, all humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestor that's much more recent than our last common ancestor with chimps.

Ie we only have 'chimp DNA' in the sense that we share a lot of DNA with them, and that we haven't changed too much since our last common ancestor. Exactly the same is true of us and Neanderthals.

Post reply on HN