Surely for evolution to come into the equation there'd need to be a mutation where women could start fertilising themselves and that to be passed on to their offspring?
I can only assume that doesn't happen, as there are not many animals that reproduce by themselves (if it even is an advantage).
Don't forget that men were generally the hunters, so if you wanted some nice protein then they'd be good to have around.
,
That's been debunked at this stage. Yeah, the men made a show of the big game they hunted but if you had to rely on them to live there would not have been a hope in hell of humans surviving. The women provided at least 75% of theirs, the tribe's and their offsprings's dietary needs though breast feeding, gathering berries, plants and the odd dead animal. It is now claimed that the hunting was more political and bravado than actual food for the family.
,
That's been debunked at this stage. Yeah, the men made a show of the big game they hunted but if you had to rely on them to live there would not have been a hope in hell of humans surviving. The women provided at least 75% of theirs, the tribe's and their offsprings's dietary needs though breast feeding, gathering berries, plants and the odd dead animal. It is now claimed that the hunting was more political and bravado than actual food for the family.
Isn't the reason we evolved a more intelligent brain than our ape ancestors protein? What I mean is if our ape ancestors didn't hunt then humans wouldn't exist?
Isn't the reason we evolved a more intelligent brain than our ape ancestors protein? What I mean is if our ape ancestors didn't hunt then humans wouldn't exist?
Does it need much protein to grow and power a big brain?
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.
The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.
but later it says:
Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.
if animals asexually reproduce that leads to everyone's genes being the same, which I have always thought would slow down the ability for a species to adapt and evolve, and so hinder its ability to survive in the long term.
The origins of sexual reproduction are one of the greatest mysteries of evolution.
I don't know an awful lot about this, but as far as I know there are a number of postulated explanations, all of which are pretty controversial.
I read a book called "Power, Sex and Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" a few years back and from what I can remember, the author (Nick Lane) talked about a possible link between the cellular processes which bring about apoptosis (programmed cell death) and the cellular processes which bring about meiosis (formation of sex cells).
I read this quite a while ago so my memory of the details are quite hazy so I'll have to go back and read the chapter again.
That is it in a nutshell. A species with the random element of sexual combinations has the ability to produce potentially useful variants far more often than a self fertilising species.
The same factors also account for why species that live indefinetely have not evolved.
It would until there was a change in the environment then the mono-sexual species would not be able to adapt quickly enough. Beneficial random changes would occur rarely if ever.
You've got me thinking now. I can understand the need for variation, so maybe that's it - still surprises me a bit that every species seems to have hit on the same solution. Does that indicate a common evolutionary stage that predates individual species development? .... I'm minded that it's not the only area we have 'standard' solutions (number of 'legs', eyes etc.).
If land animals came from the sea - I guess that might mean we would expect to see more variety there than on land.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
Yup - and hi to you Richard btw, been a while ;-)
I do believe our species would die pretty sharpish without males.
That's not funny..
So your saying all men are are sperm donors ????
Contributing to a fatherless Britain...
I know many men who make up those statistics
Think before you say stupid statements
That's been debunked at this stage. Yeah, the men made a show of the big game they hunted but if you had to rely on them to live there would not have been a hope in hell of humans surviving. The women provided at least 75% of theirs, the tribe's and their offsprings's dietary needs though breast feeding, gathering berries, plants and the odd dead animal. It is now claimed that the hunting was more political and bravado than actual food for the family.
Isn't the reason we evolved a more intelligent brain than our ape ancestors protein? What I mean is if our ape ancestors didn't hunt then humans wouldn't exist?
Does it need much protein to grow and power a big brain?
To power it I thought carbs would be more useful.
Article about it here
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
I'm not sure. The article itself says:
but later it says:
so does meat actually provide energy or not?
Yes
Or maybe it was a joke
Thanks all , and hi Rich.
You've got me thinking now. I can understand the need for variation, so maybe that's it - still surprises me a bit that every species seems to have hit on the same solution. Does that indicate a common evolutionary stage that predates individual species development? .... I'm minded that it's not the only area we have 'standard' solutions (number of 'legs', eyes etc.).
If land animals came from the sea - I guess that might mean we would expect to see more variety there than on land.