Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:22 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:I don't think I made an unsupportable statement, but point taken.
The blanket statements are unsupportable. I took issue with both Matthew's and yours - since poking holes is what Matthew thinks he's doing.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:28 pm

The evidence is strong that use of mind altering substances has been part of the human evolution. How far back that goes is debatable.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:02 pm

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/drugsmushrooms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Psilocybin causes hallucinations.

I can just imagine our 'stoned ape' under the influence, not able to tell what is a hallucination and what is a predator.
He is really more likely to survive, isn't he?

This whole idea is an absolute load of codswallop, and I am disillusioned that any of my fellow skeptics could waste 30 seconds considering what is clearly so much bullsh!t.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:09 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/drugsmushrooms

Psilocybin causes hallucinations.

I can just imagine our 'stoned ape' under the influence, not able to tell what is a hallucination and what is a predator.
He is really more likely to survive, isn't he?

This whole idea is an absolute load of codswallop, and I am disillusioned that any of my fellow skeptics could waste 30 seconds considering what is clearly so much bullsh!t.
Was increased ability to differentiate predators while hallucinating, part of the claim?

I thought it rested more on group coherence and formation of new ideas - essentially exerting a "de-baboonizing" influence.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:01 pm

Sweet pea

That is just one example of the detrement to mental abilities conferred by psilocybin. Now you can argue that it can be used in therapy. Sure. You can argue that it makes for an altered personality (possibly for the better??????). But the theory (speculation, actually) is that being stoned drove evolution. To do that, it must confer an advantage in terms of genetic survival. It is very clear it does the opposite. A pre-human that got stoned would be more likely to die, not less.

In other words, this way-out speculation is total, 100% bulldust.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:38 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sweet pea

That is just one example of the detrement to mental abilities conferred by psilocybin. Now you can argue that it can be used in therapy. Sure. You can argue that it makes for an altered personality (possibly for the better??????). But the theory (speculation, actually) is that being stoned drove evolution. To do that, it must confer an advantage in terms of genetic survival. It is very clear it does the opposite. A pre-human that got stoned would be more likely to die, not less.

In other words, this way-out speculation is total, 100% bulldust.
Lance, you have some ideas about evolution that miss the mark. One of them seems to be that anything which at times could pose a risk to an individual, must confer a disadvantage to the species. Another is that it's easy to tell what is an "evolutionary advantage" and what is an "evolutionary disadvantage". Another is that detrimental changes cannot have benefits that outweigh the detriment. Another is that disadvantages cannot piggyback ride.
And that very very negative sounding things cannot drive evolution.
A new enemy can drive evolution.
Lance, evolution is simply change. It doesn't have to be brought on by changes that make things ever more cozy.

Following along with these too overly simplistic ideas got you guys focusing on army and individual survival, and forgetting hypothesis.

e.g. Getting stoned and perhaps being more open to mating with a specimen from a different species, could drive evolution.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:01 am

Sweet pea.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Psilocybin does not confer any advantage to the species, and it reduces odds of survival for individuals. Like other psychoactive drugs, it is basically a neurotoxin. It harms the brain by interfering with its workings. It is common for people who are keen on such drugs to mistake their actions for "enlightenment" or some such. But that is plain wrong. Not enlightenment, but delusion. And delusion is counter-survival, for individual and species alike.

As far as not being open to mating, well......
I do not think our species has ever had that particular problem.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sweet pea.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Psilocybin does not confer any advantage to the species, and it reduces odds of survival for individuals.
That has not been shown, and even if it had been shown, it's too simplistic to say a detriment ends in extinction.
Like other psychoactive drugs, it is basically a neurotoxin. It harms the brain by interfering with its workings. It is common for people who are keen on such drugs to mistake their actions for "enlightenment" or some such. But that is plain wrong. Not enlightenment, but delusion.
While it's true that people can and do mistake one for the other, it still doesn't help your ideas. Neither does it say that there was no enlightenment.
You have only to pay attention to an argument between two intelligent and knowledgeable people to be swayed back and forth, from seeing enlightenment in one and then dismissing the argument after hearing the other. That also does not say that you were not enlightened by listening to both.

As far as not being open to mating, well......
I do not think our species has ever had that particular problem.
I was thinking of any species and evolution in general, as we were discussing. However, on the topic of human evolution, you do not believe that any other species, sub species,variant, etc., similar enough to cross-breed, existed?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:38 am

Sweet pea

You are, unintentionally I suspect, setting up several straw man arguments. I never said a detrement led to extinction, just to a reduction in the odds of survival for individuals with that detrement. Nor did I say there were no sub species close enough to interbreed with. Not that I see the point of that, anyway. We already know that some humans have Neanderthal genes and others have Denisovan genes. Neither set of genes appears to be significant to long term species survival. This is shown by the fact that Africans do not have the Neanderthal genes, and most human populations do not have the Denisovan genes.

But taking a neurotoxin that causes hallucinations is not a recipe for survival. Our pre-human ancestors needed their wits to survive, and anything that detracted from clear perception and clear thinking, would reduce survival chances. Those with a propensity to consume magic mushrooms would be selected against, and be removed from the gene pool.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sweet pea

You are, unintentionally I suspect, setting up several straw man arguments. I never said a detrement led to extinction, just to a reduction in the odds of survival for individuals with that detrement.
The obvious intent was to completely dismiss the possibility of it being an evolutionary driver due to some supposed detrimental effect, by talking about survivability reduction.
Nor did I say there were no sub species close enough to interbreed with.
You said "As far as not being open to mating, well......
I do not think our species has ever had that particular problem."
Not that I see the point of that, anyway. We already know that some humans have Neanderthal genes and others have Denisovan genes. Neither set of genes appears to be significant to long term species survival.
Lance, you keep getting stuck. Cross-breeding would drive an evolutionary change.

Remember that a change can be good at one time and yet disastrous or neutral at another time.

I'm pointing out that overly simplistic reasoning doesn't help.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:41 am

Sweet pea

I draw your attention to the skeptics saying that : "It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Acceptance of the idiotic 'stoned ape' idea is definitely in the latter category. Ingesting neurotoxins is not going to drive evolution towards more intelligence. Any trait encouraging such ingestion will, if it is genetically based, be weeded out by evolution. Why is that so hard to understand?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sweet pea

I draw your attention to the skeptics saying that : "It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Acceptance of the idiotic 'stoned ape' idea is definitely in the latter category. Ingesting neurotoxins is not going to drive evolution towards more intelligence.
Not a direct link to any genetic change, of course! (unless there is an epigenetic component). Not only that, but it's not necessary that increased intelligence is the direct factor to be considered - "de-baboonizing" does not imply increase of intelligence, rather it implies reduction of hostility.
Any trait encouraging such ingestion will, if it is genetically based, be weeded out by evolution. Why is that so hard to understand?
It's just wrong, Lance. All kinds of traits are not "weeded out" by evolution, as we see. Ever heard of alcoholism?

Besides, where is the claim that eating mushrooms is genetically based?
Last edited by SweetPea on Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10991
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Poodle » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:07 am

Alcoholics are probably the descendents of stoned apes. Or so it seems to me with zilch for evidence and a penchant for making {!#%@} up.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:09 am

Poodle wrote:Alcoholics are probably the descendents of stoned apes. Or so it seems to me with zilch for evidence and a penchant for making {!#%@} up.
And it doesn't require a genetic component for traits to exist. They can be learned behaviours. The traits then can be an evolutionary driver of change.

Lance's arguments fall to pieces if we consider high degrees of in-group aggression in baboons and other species. Is infanticide and murder necessarily a beneficial effect, or can it be simply a side-effect of intense sexual selection, rather than natural selection?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Those with a propensity to consume magic mushrooms would be selected against, and be removed from the gene pool.
Are we even talking about McKenna's claim anymore? McKenna claimed

What the mushrooms did according to McKenna
"The proto-hominids only ate tiny amounts of Psilocybe. If you and I ate this amount today we would not notice"

"that synesthesia (the blurring of boundaries between the senses) caused by psilocybin led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds."

"the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionary (it would result to more offspring)"

When did McKenna claim this happened
"hominids .... in the "last five million years" .

"a branch of our tree-dwelling primate ancestors left the branches and took up a life out in the open - following around herds of ungulates"

"new items in their diet were psilocybin-containing mushrooms growing in the dung of these ungulate herds."

"About 12,000 years ago, further climate changes removed the mushroom from the human diet , resulting in a new set of profound changes in our species as we reverted to pre-mushroomed and frankly brutal primate social structure"

"After this transformation took place, our species began moving out of Africa to populate the rest of the planet"

What are the existing facts according to science.
"there have been open savannas all the time for which we have hominid fossils in the environments where the fossils were found during the past 4.3 million years"
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/ju ... an-savanna" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"These findings indicate that laryngeal descent is not uniquely human and has evolved at least twice in independent lineages."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 9.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anatomically, features of bipedalism, which developed in australopithecines around 3.5 million years ago, would have brought changes to the skull, allowing for a more L-shaped vocal tract

So we know that the descent larynx dropped with the advent of bi-pedalism 4,000,000 years ago. This allowed the start of language in early hominid's, not eating magic mushrooms.

McKenna has never offered a time frame for his claim but says it is between 5,000,000 year ago and 12,000 years ago, when he claimed the mushrooms "disappeared". So that covers all know hominid species, which is ridiculous and he forgot Homo Erectus left Africa 1.8 million years ago with a modern larynx.

The use of LSD as an aphrodisiac is fine for some individuals, however, there is a decrease in sexual behavior for those who try them which is a direct rebuttal of McKenna's claim.

"Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is another drug which, although considered an aphrodisiac by some, has potentially untoward effects on sexual function and behavior. Again, any alteration of sexual performance produced by LSD is principally subjective, the effects of this drug being almost entirely on the central nervous system. Little response, if any, has been seen in other organ systems that can be attributed to a direct effect of LSD, and there is no biochemical or pharmacologic evidence to support the contention that LSD or similar drugs contain any sex-stimulating properties. On the other hand, the repeated use of LSD may produce serious psychologic problems, which could have an adverse overall effect on sexual interest or activity"

In addition, because McKenna knew there are no magic mushrooms in Africa he claimed the mushroom species in his theory (un-named) simply died out in the last ice age. However the same ungulates survived with no problems and are still pooing away in Africa! McKenna can't even say what species of magic mushroom he claimed died out.
.
Finally, how on earth is synesthesia an advantage when savanna animals are evolving camouflage and gatherers have to identify food at a distance and binocular vision is evolving to improve observational efficiency? We know that soldier's observational efficiency reduces with any dose of LSD.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:32 am

do you mean hominins, Matthew?
In addition, because McKenna knew there are no magic mushrooms in Africa
But I've already shown you that there are, according to your own source. In every country in question.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:36 am

Edited
The use of LSD as an aphrodisiac is fine for some individuals, however, there is a decrease in sexual behavior for those who try them which is a direct rebuttal of McKenna's claim.
How is it used "fine" as an aphrodisiac if they never tried it, Matthew?
I seem to have misread this. It's fine for use as an aphrodisiac for some individuals, but there is a decrease in sexual behaviour for those who try them ( it?).

Can you explain this a bit further for me, Matthew?
Last edited by SweetPea on Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:38 am

So we know that the descent larynx dropped with the advent of bi-pedalism 4,000,000 years ago. This allowed the start of language in early hominid's, not eating magic mushrooms.
Actually that bit is cloudy, Matthew.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:38 am

Matthew.

Good post. Nice to see there is one debater here who has a good brain, and can think rationally.

I wonder if those pushing this ridiculous theory are simply drug heads who want to make excuses for their weakness.

By the way, on alcoholism.
The degree to which humans are prone to this affliction is inversely proportional to the time their population has been drinking alcohol. Australian aboriginees lived 40,000 to 60,000 years in Oz with no alcohol, and now exposed to it are falling like flies. Europeans have been drinking the stuff for thousands of years, and our rate of alcoholism is way lower. Shows that exposure to a drug reduces its effect, through evolution. And yes, there are evolutionary adaptations to alcohol. They take the form of liver enzymes which denature the stuff.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by kennyc » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:....

I wonder if those pushing this ridiculous theory are simply drug heads who want to make excuses for their weakness.
.......

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew.

Good post. Nice to see there is one debater here who has a good brain, and can think rationally.

I wonder if those pushing this ridiculous theory are simply drug heads who want to make excuses for their weakness.
That's possible, as is it for much theory pushing. However, this ad hom fallacy you present does not make the theory wrong.
By the way, on alcoholism.
The degree to which humans are prone to this affliction is inversely proportional to the time their population has been drinking alcohol. Australian aboriginees lived 40,000 to 60,000 years in Oz with no alcohol, and now exposed to it are falling like flies. Europeans have been drinking the stuff for thousands of years, and our rate of alcoholism is way lower. Shows that exposure to a drug reduces its effect, through evolution. And yes, there are evolutionary adaptations to alcohol. They take the form of liver enzymes which denature the stuff.
These claims do nothing to support your other conclusions, and little to support this new conclusion.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Good post. Nice to see there is one debater here who has a good brain, and can think rationally.


You may remember that I started off in Anthropological Prehistory, at Sydney Uni, pouring sand into hominid skulls to measure brain capacity. This was pre DNA and most evidence, then, was based on physiology.

Many of the theories, taught to us, at that time were wrong so I did look into McKenna's theory but realised there is no theory at all.

McKenna sort of says an unidentified hominid species, ate exact amounts of an unidentified mushroom, that no longer exists, at some unknown point in time 5,000,000 to 12,000 years ago. At no point did Mckenna actually look at the evolution of the human larynx nor bother to supply one iota of evidence. He may as well say "Aliens did it".

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:56 am

By the way, on alcoholism.
The degree to which humans are prone to this affliction is inversely proportional to the time their population has been drinking alcohol. Australian aboriginees lived 40,000 to 60,000 years in Oz with no alcohol, and now exposed to it are falling like flies. Europeans have been drinking the stuff for thousands of years, and our rate of alcoholism is way lower. Shows that exposure to a drug reduces its effect, through evolution. And yes, there are evolutionary adaptations to alcohol. They take the form of liver enzymes which denature the stuff

I wonder if those pushing this ridiculous theory are simply drug headsalcoholics who want to make excuses for their weak arguments.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:04 am

Sweet pea.

Guilty as charged!

Well, maybe not alcoholic, but I do like a drop of good Australian shiraz.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:14 am

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-89010983" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Overview of Hominin Evolution
By: Herman Pontzer (Dept. of Anthropology, Hunter College; New York Consortium for Evolutionary Primatology) © 2012 Nature Education
Citation: Pontzer, H. (2012) Overview of Hominin Evolution. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):8

How did humans evolve into the big-brained, bipedal ape that we are today? This article examines the fossil evidence of our 6 million year evolution.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:34 am

Sweet pea's article asks how humans evolved into the current big brained beast we are today.

Allow me to speculate. I think it was probably the adoption of early forms of simple technology. Even chimps do this. They smash nuts between rocks. They pull termites out with twigs. They have even been observed using sharp sticks as spears to hunt monkeys.

An extension of this idea involves our pre-human ancestors adopting this kind of technology and developing it. So, for example, they might seek out superior sharp rocks for tools and then hold onto them instead of dumping them. A long stick is a spear. A thigh bone is a club.

We know that Australopithecines moved partly onto the grasslands out of the trees. How did they avoid predators? After all, lions and leopards and hyenas were prevalent then, as today. I suggest it was using team work and weapons. A lion might be put off attacking a bunch of pre-humans armed with long sharp sticks and clubs, and working together like a phalanx of ancient Greek soldiers. Obviously more crudely, but probably effectively.

Team work, tools, and weapons. This would drive evolution into the direction of being better with all three. Upright stance. Big brain. Language.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:40 am

I was trying to bring the discussion into line with modern naming - hominin vs hominid.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:46 am

Nah, they just threw the dopiest one at the lion and ran. :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: I think it was probably the adoption of early forms of simple technology. Even chimps do this. They smash nuts between rocks.
Australopithecus smashed the bones of animals already killed by bigger predators. Bone marrow is high protein.

You can see stone scrapping over bite marks on the fossilized remains of prey on some examples. Early hominids were "scavengers" and not "hunters". Australopithecus was only 3 to 4 feet tall. My cat could chase them through the savanna.


Lance Kennedy wrote: We know that Australopithecines moved partly onto the grasslands out of the trees. How did they avoid predators?
Running like buggery..... Now that's an incentive to evolve running quickly!
Lance Kennedy wrote: I suggest it was using team work and weapons.
Sexual division of labour already existed. Team work within the band seems very probable. I'm thinking about a "look out" for when they are scavenging sort of like a pride of big cats sleeping or eating.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13349
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:29 am

Matthew

A one metre high ape that is still only half adapted to life away from the trees will not run terribly fast. I doubt that a look out and a willingness to run is the answer.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew

A one metre high ape that is still only half adapted to life away from the trees will not run terribly fast. I doubt that a look out and a willingness to run is the answer.
And with offspring that take investment and time to raise...difficult explanation.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:09 am

Holdover religious crap or unscientific arrogance from the article I posted:
Nonetheless, we know from fossil and comparative evidence that it was much more similar to living apes than to living humans.
Humans are living apes. The field is a litterbox of junk.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:13 am

Think these guys are doped? :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:28 am

Regarding previous discussion of traits, genetics, and evolutionary processes: would use of fire be considered an evolutionary advantage, and would it necessarily entail a "fire using" genetic change?

I'll argue that cultural changes can be just as powerful, in evolutionary "forcing" terms, as genetic changes.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:34 am

[ytube][/ytube]

[ytube][/ytube]
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:41 am

I'd agree with that, sort of. In the sense that a more evolved brain might find advantages a less evolved wouldn't. And that brain plasticity would built on that and keep increasing ability.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:42 am

Why opposable thumbs can come in handy
[ytube][/ytube]
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:44 am

scrmbldggs wrote:I'd agree with that, sort of. In the sense that a more evolved brain might find advantages a less evolved wouldn't. And that brain plasticity would built on that and keep increasing ability.
and teaching ...faster mutation and way faster spread than a genetic change.
Last edited by SweetPea on Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:49 am

Right.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Post by SweetPea » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:51 am

i had second thoughts about my second sentence :)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;