3 ms·

We're always looking for something to make humans seem more unique. Basically every biological evolutionary adaptation that humans have is present in other spec

by briga 7y ago

We're always looking for something to make humans seem more unique. Basically every biological evolutionary adaptation that humans have is present in other species of animal to some extent. Why is it so hard to believe that Neaderthals could have used fire? They had larger brains on average than humans, they had other signs of culture as well. They also weren't nearly as genetically different from homo sapiens as chimpanzees. Seems likely to me that humans and neanderthals were similar in many ways, which is why they were able to survive for so long in the same habitat.

Ericson2314 7y ago
I think you have it backwards. The researchers are also surprised, but if their new hypothesis is correct it means perhaps it isn't homo sapiens than domesticate fire, but domesticated fire than makes homo sapiens the modern humans. Perhaps we're not the "best" hominin species, but merely the lucky ones that happened on the technology to out compete and eradicate. And that's what we did. Worse is Better when Prometheus is VC?
catalogia 7y ago
The article seems to muddy the distinction between whether Neanderthals were mentally or physically incapable of making fire, or whether they were simply ignorant. The article talks about chimps, who are incapable of making fire even when modern humans try to teach them. Chimps aren't merely ignorant; they're incapable. In some parts of the world, homo sapiens and neanderthals lived alongside each other for thousands of years, close enough to have hybrid offspring. If earlier neanderthals were merely ignorant, they could have learned how to make fire from homo sapiens. Fire making isn't an innate human behavior, it's something that we teach each other. Since neanderthals obviously had the dexterity and brainpower to nap tools out of flint, which chimps are incapable of, the talk of chimps being unable to make fire doesn't seem particularly relevant. I don't doubt for an instant that some homo sapiens and some neanderthals didn't know how to make fire. But that's a weaker claim than the blanket statement about all neanderthals.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
It's harder to believe that Neanderthals didn't have fire than that they did. In fact as the article points out, there are heaps of evidence that show the presence of fire at Neanderthal sites. One mentioned there even has evidence of fire used for tool making [0]. The research presented is more about looking at discrepancy between the dating of the evidence that shows gaps in the geological record of fire use at sites, and presents several hypotheses about why that is the case - some of it is paradoxical, where colder time periods showed less or no fire use. They then present the idea that naturally occurring fires that could be collected and maintained are less likely during those cold periods, and this could help explain the gaps. It's a very interesting article and I don't think human exceptionalism is a takeaway here, but rather that we have a lot of evidence in the similarities of our species and it's more surprising how our technology evolved differently under different circumstances. Personally I think a lot of the success of our species has been luck. There's a lot of evidence of things being lost and rediscovered prior to agriculture and the development of writing and preservation of information. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/1959 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/1959

by briga 7y ago

Ericson2314 7y ago

I think you have it backwards. The researchers are also surprised, but if their new hypothesis is correct it means perhaps it isn't homo sapiens than domesticate fire, but domesticated fire than makes homo sapiens the modern humans. Perhaps we're not the "best" hominin species, but merely the lucky ones that happened on the technology to out compete and eradicate. And that's what we did. Worse is Better when Prometheus is VC?

catalogia 7y ago

The article seems to muddy the distinction between whether Neanderthals were mentally or physically incapable of making fire, or whether they were simply ignorant. The article talks about chimps, who are incapable of making fire even when modern humans try to teach them. Chimps aren't merely ignorant; they're incapable. In some parts of the world, homo sapiens and neanderthals lived alongside each other for thousands of years, close enough to have hybrid offspring. If earlier neanderthals were merely ignorant, they could have learned how to make fire from homo sapiens. Fire making isn't an innate human behavior, it's something that we teach each other. Since neanderthals obviously had the dexterity and brainpower to nap tools out of flint, which chimps are incapable of, the talk of chimps being unable to make fire doesn't seem particularly relevant. I don't doubt for an instant that some homo sapiens and some neanderthals didn't know how to make fire. But that's a weaker claim than the blanket statement about all neanderthals.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

It's harder to believe that Neanderthals didn't have fire than that they did. In fact as the article points out, there are heaps of evidence that show the presence of fire at Neanderthal sites. One mentioned there even has evidence of fire used for tool making [0]. The research presented is more about looking at discrepancy between the dating of the evidence that shows gaps in the geological record of fire use at sites, and presents several hypotheses about why that is the case - some of it is paradoxical, where colder time periods showed less or no fire use. They then present the idea that naturally occurring fires that could be collected and maintained are less likely during those cold periods, and this could help explain the gaps. It's a very interesting article and I don't think human exceptionalism is a takeaway here, but rather that we have a lot of evidence in the similarities of our species and it's more surprising how our technology evolved differently under different circumstances. Personally I think a lot of the success of our species has been luck. There's a lot of evidence of things being lost and rediscovered prior to agriculture and the development of writing and preservation of information. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/1959 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/1959