| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Adaptability of man
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| aesthete8@hotmail.com |
 Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
Sir Robert S. Ball |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perplexed in Peoria |
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<aesthete8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqsprn$17c4$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
If the intent is to contrast man to all the other species in the
biosphere, I would say that it is not true. Many other species are
more finicky than we are. And when you take our technological
supports into account, no other species is as adaptable as we are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tim Tyler |
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
aesthete8@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
False, taking 'a few' to be four, and considering the
temperature to be the environmental temperature.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guy A Hoelzer |
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I would say the opposite is true of our species. I think we are
extraordinarily successful generalists, as evidenced by the diversity of
climates we have colonized and the diversity of diets we exhibit among
cultures. The statement below may be true of a human stripped naked and
thrown into the wilderness alone, but I consider our culture and social
organization to be as much a consequence of human evolution and adaptation
as naked thermal tolerance.
Guy
in article eqsprn$17c4$1@darwin.ediacara.org, aesthete8@hotmail.com at
aesthete8@hotmail.com wrote on 2/13/07 8:43 AM:
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
Sir Robert S. Ball
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 13, 11:43 am, "aesthe...@hotmail.com" <aesthe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
Sir Robert S. Ball
Wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Crowley |
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<aesthete8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqsprn$17c4$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
It is true -- even if the direct opposite is routinely
asserted by those who enjoy unthinking self-
praise. It is also very important from the point
of view of human evolution.
If you were naked, and had no blankets and no
shelter, where could you sleep at night? If you
had a wife, small children and a baby (naked and
without blankets and shelter) where could they
sleep at night?
The only reasonable answer is "in the tropics
within a few miles of the sea". And in the wet
season (with frequent heavy rain), you'd all need
something like a sandy beach. That is an extra-
ordinarily limited habitat. Once the hominids
could build shelters, make fabrics and exploit fire,
they could expand it substantially.
But -- until substantial technology arrived, the
statement above is true.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William Morse |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
Quote: aesthete8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqsprn$17c4$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
It is true -- even if the direct opposite is routinely
asserted by those who enjoy unthinking self-
praise. It is also very important from the point
of view of human evolution.
If you were naked, and had no blankets and no
shelter, where could you sleep at night? If you
had a wife, small children and a baby (naked and
without blankets and shelter) where could they
sleep at night?
The only reasonable answer is "in the tropics
within a few miles of the sea". And in the wet
season (with frequent heavy rain), you'd all need
something like a sandy beach. That is an extra-
ordinarily limited habitat. Once the hominids
could build shelters, make fabrics and exploit fire,
they could expand it substantially.
But -- until substantial technology arrived, the
statement above is true.
But substantial technology is the hallmark of our species. Take away
that, and we are bipedal chimps. Homo species have had substantial
technology for at least several hundreds of thousands of years, and have
occupied a huge range of niches for at least that long. So the above
is false, unless you are referring only to the early evolution of man
Yours,
Bill Morse |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perplexed in Peoria |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William Morse" <wdmorse@verizon.net> wrote in message news:er5aot$1qus$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: Paul Crowley wrote:
aesthete8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqsprn$17c4$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
It is true -- even if the direct opposite is routinely
asserted by those who enjoy unthinking self-
praise. It is also very important from the point
of view of human evolution.
If you were naked, and had no blankets and no
shelter, where could you sleep at night? If you
had a wife, small children and a baby (naked and
without blankets and shelter) where could they
sleep at night?
The only reasonable answer is "in the tropics
within a few miles of the sea". And in the wet
season (with frequent heavy rain), you'd all need
something like a sandy beach. That is an extra-
ordinarily limited habitat. Once the hominids
could build shelters, make fabrics and exploit fire,
they could expand it substantially.
But -- until substantial technology arrived, the
statement above is true.
But substantial technology is the hallmark of our species. Take away
that, and we are bipedal chimps. Homo species have had substantial
technology for at least several hundreds of thousands of years, and have
occupied a huge range of niches for at least that long. So the above
is false, unless you are referring only to the early evolution of man
Also, I would point out that most warm-blooded creatures - from birds, to
mice, to chimps - construct and use shelters, particularly when caring
for infants. Why should early man be any different? Also, it is not
clear which came first in the course of human evolution - loss of heavy
body hair or use of blankets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Crowley |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:er83di$2tde$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: "William Morse" <wdmorse@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:er5aot$1qus$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
But substantial technology is the hallmark of our species. Take away
that, and we are bipedal chimps. Homo species have had substantial
technology for at least several hundreds of thousands of years, and have
occupied a huge range of niches for at least that long. So the above
is false, unless you are referring only to the early evolution of man
Also, I would point out that most warm-blooded creatures - from birds, to
mice, to chimps - construct and use shelters
Chimps don't construct shelters. They
do make sleeping nests -- fresh ones
every night in trees.
Quote: particularly when caring
for infants. Why should early man be any different?
These activities are deeply instinctive --
including the nest-building of chimps.
There seems to be nothing of that nature
in humans. No pattern was noticeable
among the tens of thousands of populations
of stone-age humans identified within the
past 500+ years.
Large animals need large nests or shelters,
and they can't easily be in holes in the
ground nor in trees. Human (and hominid)
infants have a fearsomely long period of
development, which would imply fixed or
semi-permanent structures, capable of
standing up to gales and the like. They'd
leave a record -- yet there is none.
Quote: Also, it is not
clear which came first in the course of human evolution - loss of heavy
body hair or use of blankets.
There's no question there. Human
infants with body hair are genetic freaks
as rare as hens' teeth, and 'blankets' were
scarcely known among stone-age tropical
humans.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Crowley |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William Morse" <wdmorse@verizon.net> wrote in message news:er5aot$1qus$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: Is the following true?:
- Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
suitability of food, make all the differences between health and
sickness, between life and death.
without blankets and shelter) where could they
sleep at night?
The only reasonable answer is "in the tropics
within a few miles of the sea". And in the wet
season (with frequent heavy rain), you'd all need
something like a sandy beach. That is an extra-
ordinarily limited habitat. Once the hominids
could build shelters, make fabrics and exploit fire,
they could expand it substantially.
But -- until substantial technology arrived, the
statement above is true.
But substantial technology is the hallmark of our species. Take away
that, and we are bipedal chimps. Homo species have had substantial
technology for at least several hundreds of thousands of years, and have
occupied a huge range of niches for at least that long. So the above
is false, unless you are referring only to the early evolution of man
When the person quoted above wrote:
Quote: - Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are
very narrowly limited.
. . . he was hardly intending life 'with
substantial technology'. But, while I agree
that it is a confounding issue, there is still
little sign of agreement on the nature of the
habitat of early hominids
He continues:
Quote: very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a
slight variation in the composition of the air, the precise
These certainly IMO rule out any existence
on the savanna, where there is huge range in
temperatures (between midday and midnight)
-- quite apart from the problem of what such
hominids might have eaten.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:52 am
|
|