Human evolution; savannah theory fading (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 12:28 (865 days ago) @ David Turell

Savannah theory fading

DAVID: The idea that savannahs drove our evolution is shown as being much too simplistic. Not surprising as new research challenges old ideas.

Thank you for this fascinating article. I wonder what new research in say a thousand years' time might challenge old ideas about mysteries such as the Cambrian. Who knows? Meanwhile, however, I must say, I AM surprised by this discovery, but it all makes perfect sense.

QUOTE: Although open environments played a major role in early human evolution, tropical forests and forest patches still provided a significant backdrop for our first hominin ancestors as they emerged in the tropics of Africa. They likely took their first tentative steps as bipedal mammals in tropical forests, or at least mixed forest habitats[.

The first sentence is crucial. The implication seems to be that our intelligent ancestors learned to take full advantage of whatever conditions they found themselves in. They were therefore not forced into change by the loss of their original forest habitat, but instead exploited BOTH environments.

DAVID: The evidence in this article shows we evolved to take advantage of new environments not as the result of new environments.

Sorry, but I don’t see any difference. New environments require new skills, so we could hardly develop the new skills until the new environments were there. The implication is that like all other cell communities that speciated, ours had the (perhaps God-given) intelligence and the plasticity to TAKE ADVANTAGE of new conditions (in my posts I often use the word “exploit”) in order to innovate and not just to adapt. However, the article doesn’t talk expressly of new environments. The last sentence of the quote leaves it open: the forests were definitely still there, but if open environments played a “major role”, then we certainly can’t discount “mixed” habitats.