One of THOSE Discussions / God, Free Will and Absurdities

This post has gained momentum from having one of those “late night” discussions with a friend – the type that is popular when one is in college, a bit drunk (or otherwise deranged) and which, as one gets older and wiser, one vows to never again participate in. The gist of the argument was:

Determinism (God) is totally compatible with Free Will (The Declaration of Independence), so we have both.

I could stop right here, because this “set up” is thoroughly American “wacky” thinking. It demonstrates the absolute belief that “America” is a special case = exemption from reality, that was/is made possible by American Democracy (in case you weren’t aware, democracy is not a political creation of human origin) which came about by an Act of God. “Freedom” is a basic American goal: Free Will is therefore a mandatory human endowment (by virtue of the word Free appearing in both “concepts”). God created everything, so he must have created Free Will. Jesus is a kind of “sponge” that suffices to “soak up” all those bad choices Free Will allows, that is, if you turn over all your choices, decisions and Free Will to Jesus.

The irony is that this absurd, pointless discussion “cleared the air” over previously unspoken conflict with a dear friend, like blowing up the Berlin Wall; getting it out of the way, and establishing that friendship is not “rational” at all, but an agreement about what really matters; good intentions carried into actions, loyalty and a simple “rightness” – agreement on what constitutes “good behavior” on the part of human beings and a pledge of one’s best effort to stick to that behavior.

This entire HUGE neurotypical debate is nonsense.

God has nothing to do with Free Will, the Laws of physics, or any scientific pursuit of explanations for “the universe”. The whole reason for God’s existence is that He, or She, or They are totally outside the restrictions of “physical reality”. That’s what SUPERNATURAL means. So all the “word concept” machinations over “God” and “science” – from both ends of the false dichotomy – are absurd. Free Will is also a non-starter “concept” in science: reality proceeds from a complex system of “facts” and mathematical relationshipsthat cannot be “free-willed” away.

Total nonsense.

If one believes in the “supernatural” origin of the universe as a creation of supernatural “beings, forces and miraculous acts” then one does not believe in physical reality at all: “Physics” is a nonexistent explanation for existence. One can only try to coerce, manipulate, plead with, and influence the “beings” that DETERMINE human fate. Free Will is de facto an absurdity, conceived of as something like the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, (inspired by God, after all – not really by the intelligence of the people who wrote it). In American thought, (political) rights grant permission to “do whatever I want”. The concept of responsibility connected to rights has been conveniently forgotten. Free Will in this context, is nothing more than intellectual, moral and ethical “cheating”.

So, the immense, complicated, false dichotomy of Determinism vs. Free Will, and the absurd 2,000+ year old philosophical waste of time that has followed, and continues, is very simple (at least) in the U.S. 

Whatever I do, is God’s Will: Whatever you do, isn’t. 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Overlap in Prey / Neanderthal, Hyena

_45464284_neander_sites466x268
Comparison of Neanderthal and Hyena as “top predators”.

Isotopic evidence for diet and subsistence pattern of the Saint-Césaire I Neanderthal: review and use of a multi-source mixing model.

Author information

  • 1Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, UMR 5554, Université Montpellier 2, Place E. Bataillon, F-34095 Montpellier cedex 05, France. bocheren@isem.univ-montp2.fr

Abstract

The carbon and nitrogen isotopic abundances of the collagen extracted from the Saint-Césaire I Neanderthal have been used to infer the dietary behaviour of this specimen. A review of previously published Neanderthal collagen isotopic signatures with the addition of 3 new collagen isotopic signatures from specimens from Les Pradelles allows us to compare the dietary habits of 5 Neanderthal specimens from OIS 3 and one specimen from OIS 5c.

This comparison points to a trophic position as top predator in an open environment, with little variation through time and space. In addition, a comparison of the Saint-Césaire I Neanderthal with contemporaneous hyaenas has been performed using a multi-source mixing model, modified from Phillips and Gregg (2003, Oecologia 127, 171). It appears that the isotopic differences between the Neanderthal specimen and hyaenas can be accounted for by much lower amounts of reindeer and much higher amounts of woolly rhinoceros and woolly mammoth in the dietary input of the Neanderthal specimen than in that of hyaenas, with relatively similar contributions of bovinae, large deer and horse for both predators, a conclusion consistent with the zooarchaeological data. The high proportion of very large herbivores, such as woolly rhinoceros and woolly mammoth, in Neanderthal’s diet compare to that of the scavenging hyaenas suggests that Neanderthals could not acquire these prey through scavenging. They probably had to hunt for proboscideans and rhinoceros. Such a prey selection could result from a long lasting dietary tradition in Europe.

PMID:
15869783

_________________________________________________________________________________________

(Below: Not the Saint-Cesaire 1 specimen) “Mystery” Neanderthal species allows artists to speculate on the “reality” of multiple human types. There is no satisfactory evidence of blue eyes in Neanderthal.

neanderthal female reconstruction, viktor deak

Neanderthal female reconstruction, Viktor Deak

reconstruction of the La Chapelle aux Saints Neanderthal, by Fabio Fogliazza

reconstruction of the La Chapelle aux Saints Neanderthal, by Fabio Fogliazza 2

reconstruction of the La Chapelle aux Saints Neanderthal, by Fabio Fogliazza 2

Light Skin and Lactose / Recent Adaptations to Cereal Diet

IFL Science

Why Do Europeans Have White Skin?

April 6, 2015 | by Stephen Luntz (shortened to get to the point)

The 1000 Genomes Project is comparing the genomes of modern individuals from specific regions in Europe with 83 samples taken from seven ancient European cultures. Harvard University’s Dr. Iain Mathieson has identified five features which  spread through Europe, indicating a strong selection advantage.

At the annual conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Mathieson said his team distinguished, “between traits that have changed consistently with population turnovers, traits that have changed apparently neutrally, and traits that have changed dramatically due to recent natural selection.”

… most people of European descent are lactose tolerant, to the extent that milk products not only form a major source of nutrition but are a defining feature of European cultures…that the capacity to digest lactose as an adult appeared in the population after the development of farming. Two waves of farmers settled Europe 7,800 and 4,800 years ago, but it was only 500 years later that the gene for lactose tolerance became widespread.

…hunter-gatherers in what is now Spain, Luxumberg and Hungary had dark-skinned versions of the two genes more strongly associated with skin color. The oldest pale versions of the SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 genes that Mathieson found were at Motala in southern Sweden 7,700 years ago. The gene associated with blue eyes and blond hair was found in bodies from the same site. H/T ScienceMag.

world-solar-energy-map

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Civilization Fanatics Forum

Debunking the theory that lighter skin gradually arose in Europeans nearly 40,000 years ago, new research has revealed that it evolved recently – only 7,000 years ago

People in tropical to subtropical parts of the world manufacture vitamin D in their skin as a result of UV exposure. At northern latitudes, dark skin would have reduced the production of vitamin D. If people weren’t getting much vitamin D in their diet, then selection for pre-existing mutations for lighter skin (less pigment) would “sweep” the farming population.  

New scientific findings show that prehistoric European hunter-gatherers were dark-skinned, but ate vitamin D-rich meat, fish, mushrooms and fruits. With the switch to agriculture, the amount of vitamin D in the diet decreased – and resulted in selection for pale skin among European farmers.

Findings detailed today (Jan. 26, 2014) in the journal Nature, “also hint that light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution”, said study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain.

The finding implies that for most of their evolutionary history, Europeans were not what people today are known as  ‘Caucasian’, said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

Kostenki_14

 

 

 

Emergence of “humans” / Berkeley.edu + Comments

slidec8

Simplified socio-cultural guide to identifying male / female.

 

The evolution of Primates – Gender dimorphism /

Top: Orangutan male and female. Middle: Modern social human; all “cases” of allowable bathroom use. Bottom: Idiot’s guide to gender ID; U.S.

 

Low sexual dimorphism in modern social humans? Really? Sexual dimorphism is created culturally in humans, and wow! Gender assignment is all mixed up! In fact, one might observe, that body alteration, decoration, behavior and costume are how Homo sapiens compensates for being a strange hairless ape, born without the elaborate fur, plumage, texture, color and behavioral displays of other species. We “copy” other animals and utilize materials in the environment to socially broadcast our sex and gender  – from the violent hyper male to the “big boob” sex object that is the “ideal” American woman. Some cultures  disguise or blur a person’s sex / gender. Neoteny promotes childlike appearance in males and females – the current trend is toward androgeny.

Any questions about this guy’s gender? 

papua13

Old school “gun”

50%20cent

Below: Modern neotenic “feminized” male – androgeny is the popular goal.

jaejoong-jyj korean

__________________________________________________________________________________________

How bizarre can the “story” of human evolution get?

The following chapter “The Emergence of Humans” is from Berkeley.edu, a site about evolution for students. I confess that to my Asperger type of thinking, this review of evolutionary studies is excruciating: One (dumb) point of view is especially mind-boggling; that chimpanzees are a legitimate focus of “study and research” into ancestral humans and modern human behavior, merely because “they are alive” and eligible for torture in labs’; they don’t have “souls” or “suffer.” And they appeal to neotenic social humans, by scoring high on the “cute” scale.

The apparent inability of researchers to get past this 19th C. world view is stunning; instead of a thorough examination of assumptions across disciplines, we again see “warfare” between disciplines, and the ongoing attempt to assemble a human “dinosaur” from bits and pieces of fossilized thinking. In fact, paleontology has exploded with new ideas since “old” dinosaur reconstructions were discovered to be highly inaccurate. Hint, hint.

FOUND! The last common ancestor of Humans and Chimps.

imagesZYC0W6GI

Berkeley.edu / The emergence of humans

The narratives of human evolution are oft-told and highly contentious. There are major disagreements in the field about whether human evolution is more like a branching tree or a crooked stick, depending partly on how many species one recognizes. Interpretations of almost every new find will be sure to find opposition among other experts. Disputes often center on diet and habitat, and whether a given animal could occasionally walk bipedally or was fully upright. What can we really tell about human evolution from our current understanding of the phylogenetic relations of hominids and the sequence of evolution of their traits?

Hominid evogram

(consistency problem)

To begin with, let’s take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of “apes vs. humans,” the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Humans share many traits with other apes, and those other “apes” (i.e., non-human apes) don’t have unique features that set them apart from humans. Humans have some features that are uniquely our own, but so do gorillas, chimps, and the rest. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

Virtually all systematists and taxonomists agree that we should only give names to monophyletic groups. However, this evogram shows that this guideline is not always followed. For an example, consider Australopithecus. On the evogram you can see a series of forms, from just after Ardipithecus to just before Homo in the branching order, that are all called Australopithecus. (Even Paranthropus is often considered an australopithecine.) But as these taxa appear on the evogram, “Australopithecus” is not a natural group, because it is not monophyletic: some forms, such as A. africanus, are found to be closer to humans than A. afarensis and others. Beyond afarensis, for example, all other Australopithecus and Homo share “enlarged cheek teeth and jaws,” because they have a more recent common ancestor. Eventually, several of these forms will have to have new genus names if we want to name only monophyletic groups. Students should avoid thinking of “australopithecines” as a natural group with uniquely evolved traits that link its members together and set it apart from Homo. Instead they should focus on the pattern of shared traits among these species and the Homo clade, recognizing that each species in this lineage gains more and more features that are shared by Homo.

In popular fiction and movies, the concept of the wild “ape-man” is often that of a tree-living, vine-swinging throwback like Tarzan. However, the pantheon of hominids is much richer than this, as the evogram shows with forms as different as Paranthropus and Ardipithecus shows. For example, imagine going back in time to the common ancestor of humans and chimps (including bonobos). What did that common ancestor look like? In the Origin of Species Darwin noted that the extinct common ancestor of two living forms should not be expected to look like a perfect intermediate between them. Rather, it could look more like one branch or the other branch, or something else entirely.

Found! The last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Did the common ancestor of humans and chimps conform to the ape-man myth and live in the trees, swinging from vines? To answer this, we have to focus not only on anatomy but on behavior, and we have to do it in a phylogenetic context. Apes such as the gibbon and orangutan, which are more distantly related to humans, are largely arboreal (i.e., tree-living). The more closely related apes such as the gorilla and chimps are relatively terrestrial, although they can still climb trees. The feet of the first hominids have a considerable opposition of the big toe to the others but relatively flat feet, as arboreal apes generally do. But other features of their skeleton, such as the position of the foramen magnum underneath the skull, the vertically shortened and laterally flaring hips, and the larger head of the femur, suggest that they were not just mainly terrestrial but habitually bipedal, unlike their knuckle-walking relatives. Most evidence suggests that the hominid lineage retained some of the anatomical features related to arboreal life and quadrupedal gait even after it had evolved a more terrestrial lifestyle and a bipedal gait. There is no fossil record of these behaviors, but the balance of the available evidence supports the hypothesis that the hominid ancestor was terrestrial and bipedal.

Much discussion in human paleontology surrounds the evolution of a bipedal, upright stance. When and why did this occur? One thing to keep in mind is that “bipedal” and “upright” are not equivalent terms. An animal can be bipedal without having a vertical backbone (think T. rex). It seems clear from the fossil record of hominids that habitual bipedality preceded the evolution of a recurved spine and upright stance. Other changes in the gait, such as how the relatively “splayed” gait of chimps evolved into the gait of humans, who put one foot directly in front of the other, involve studying the hip joint, the femur, and the foot. The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans. (WOW! they are doing it again despite their own caution: humans did not evolve from chimpanzees!)

Another extremely interesting feature in hominid evolution is the degree of sexual dimorphism (i.e., physical differences between the sexes) in different species. Sexual dimorphism is linked to features of sociality and mate competition in many sorts of animals. To understand the evolution of this feature in humans, which have relatively low sexual dimorphism, we need to consider the other apes, in which sexual dimorphism tends to be moderate to high (with exceptions). 

(Again, culture is utterly ignored: the fact is; women and men “self-morph” according to socio-cultural “genders” into very dimorphic animals)

We don’t have sufficient evidence about Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus to understand much about sex differences in these species, but we do know that A. afarensis had relatively high sexual dimorphism: the males were considerably larger than the females. The difference seems to have been less in A. africanus, Paranthropus, and most of the Homo lineage. The evolutionary explanation for A. afarensis‘ dimorphism is not entirely clear. The larger males may have used their size to attract females and/or repel rivals, which would fit with an explanation based on sexual selection. Or the males and females may have been differently sized because they played different roles in their groups, the males hunting and gathering and the females caring for the young. Darwin thought that this differentiation of the sexes may have played a critical role in human evolution, but we simply do not know much about the role of this feature in A. afarensis. Some, all, or none of these functions may have been in play. (Novel-writing again! If we don’t have facts about a subject, why not say so? Speculation becomes dogma in the “magic word syndrome” social mind and people argue over imaginary histories and qualities.  Also – I suspect that once again the writers have “EuroAmerican humans in mind regarding sexual dimorphism: why?

We do know that by the time the animals known as Homo evolved, they could make tools, and their hands were well suited for complex manipulations. These features were eventually accompanied by the reduction of the lower face, particularly the jaws and teeth, the recession of the brow, the enlargement of the brain, the evolution of a more erect posture, and the evolution of a limb more adapted for extended walking and running (along with the loss of arboreally oriented features). The evogram shows the hypothesized order of acquisition of these traits. Yet each of the Homo species was unique in its own way, so human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear progression of improvement toward our own present-day form. (But, we show it that way, anyway!)

More…. Should you need a mind-boggling experience:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Chapter_13_-_Gender_Communication

And to clarify all this: 

Male Beards / Covering up a Weak Chin?

The contemporary “love affair” that men are having with their ability to grow facial hair may be a reaction to the feminization (neoteny) of the male face that has been a trend for decades. Ironically, soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, who grew beards in order to “fit in” with ideals of manhood in those cultures, have encouraged the new “manly man” tradition.

No. Possibly the most unattractive type of beard: The Old Testament, patriarchal, we hate women facial hair.

The most creepy facial hair of all: The long and scraggly Patriarchal Old Testament, ‘we hate women’ beard. This style says, “I don’t know what a woman is, and I don’t want to know.”

______________________________________

I intended to write a post concerning “facial expression & mind reading.” Psychologists have made quite a big deal out of their contention that Asperger people are devoid of the ability to “read” the messages sent human to human via facial expressions and body language, and that this phantom “ability” must be displayed by an individual in order to be classified as “normal” or fully human. Other than the arrogance of this declaration, which to begin with, ignores cultural traditions and differences, one simply cannot get past asking questions about physical aspects that must be addressed in order to support the definition of “human” that has been derived by psychologists.

If facial expressions are necessary to human to human communication, doesn’t extensive facial hair negatively impact this “social ability”?

imagesSV2037JB orange-video-pub-avec-sebastien-chabal-L-1imagesWNFYGU3C

If you go hairy, you had better have the face and body to back it up. A beard does not “hide” a neotenic face. 

How does reading faces apply to earlier generations of males, and the many cultures around the world, that favor or demand that men grow varying amounts of facial hair? Shaving is a product of modern cultures beginning notably with the Egyptians who began removing facial hair and body hair because it harbored dirt and lice.  Other ancient cultures used beard growth as the transition to adult obligations and benefits, including the Greeks. Ancient Germanic males grew both long hair and full beards. The Romans made a ritual of a young male’s first shave, and then favored a clean face. Of course, growing a beard also depends on having hairy ancestors – or does it?

farnese-herculesLysippus greek

Top: Roman Hercules Bottom: Greek Hercules (Lysippus)

Reconstructions of Early Homo sapiens and a Neanderthal contemporary

Reconstructions of Early Homo sapiens and his Neanderthal contemporary

Right: Do we actually know how hairy early Homo species were? It would seem that without evidence, artists settle on a 5-day growth or scruffy short beard. Does a beard cover a “weak” Neanderthal chin?

The image of archaic humans, notably Neanderthals, as hairy and unkempt Cave Men has influenced how we interpret hairiness or hairlessness in Homo sapiens. Hair is extremely important in both favorable and unfavorable ways: hair can be a haven for disease and parasites; we need only look to the large amount of time that apes and monkeys spend grooming each other for lice, time that could be spent looking for food, learning about the environment, and practicing skills.

Growing hair requires energy. Our large human brain requires 20% of the energy that our body generates in order to power that brain. It could be that the growth of the modern brain (beginning with Homo erectus) was intricately tied up in a slow feedback cycle; the brain produces energy saving inventions (fire, tools, clothing, travel to more abundant environments) which means more energy to devote to the brain, which can increase brain connections, which makes increased technical innovation possible, which frees more energy for the brain. So, technology could be seen as part of streamlining the human animal into a energy-conserving species, which in turn improves brain function. In other words, the brain benefits from its own thinking when that thinking becomes a set of “apps” that manipulate the environment and the human body.

Meanwhile, what about facial hair? Personally, I’m thankful that I live in a time when men have the choice to grow, or not to grow.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

imagesKX09DYBA imagesLF2IM31T

 

 

 

 

The Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Reaction / Neanderthal Myths

The “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!” reaction is what happens when I read articles written for public consumption that “boil down” science for the “educated public” – those who are genuinely interested in the physical universe, but may or may not  have a science background. One of my favorite examples is how Neanderthals are “created” out of the modern social typical penchant (and temperamental obligation) to write stories (myths) from scant, contradictory or preliminary information.

Claiming that Neanderthals were "dumb" is dumb.

The claim that Neanderthals were “dumb” is dumb. Are these skulls to scale?


Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal

Neanderthal brains had more capacity devoted to vision and body control, with less left over for social interactions and complex cognition

By Joseph Stromberg Smithsonian.com March 12, 2013

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-shows-why-youre-smarter-than-a-neanderthal-1885827/ Full article

COMMENTS: This article hits the Whoa! Stop! barrier before getting past the subhead. “Neanderthal brains had more capacity devoted to vision and body control, with less left over for social interactions and complex cognition.”

  1. This view of the brain as having a “capacity” related to volume, like a closet that can be packed with X amount of clothing and Y amount of shoes, and if you want to add more shoes or ski equipment, you have to remove the clothes to make room, defies what we know (and brag about endlessly) about the brain: it’s built of networks that connect across regions and functions, and these are PLASTIC – what is referred to as “able to rewire itself in reaction to the environment.” This blows apart much of what the article has to say.
  2. Visual thinking is judged to be INFERIOR, low level cognition. Tell that to a raptor, such as a hawk, raven or eagle; to giant squid or octopi and the myriad species which utilize various segments of the electro-magnetic spectrum to perceive the environment. This opinion is based in ignorance and the noises made by the perpetual cheer leaders for Homo sapiens, who believe humans are the pinnacle of evolution, and therefore, whatever “we” do is de facto superior.
  3. Which brings us to the question, if human abilities are superior, why must we compensate for our lack of sensory, cognitive and physical abilities by inventing technology? The average “know-it-all” American CONSUMES the products invented and developed by a handful of creative people in each generation. Knowledge is purchased in the form of “gadgets” that for the most part, do not educate, but distract the average individual from pursuing direct experience and interaction with the environment.
  4. Which means, “we” cognitive masterminds are taking a whole lot of credit for adaptations that are INHERITED from our “inferior, stupid, ancestors” who over the previous 200,000 years, not only survived, but built the culture that made us modern humans –
  5. Which comes to the egregious error of ignoring context: Compare an imaginary modern social human who exists in a context that is utterly dependent on manmade systems that supply food, water, shelter, medical care, economic opportunity, government control, cultural benefits and instant communication with a Neanderthal (or archaic Homo sapiens) whose environment is a largely uninhabited wilderness. One of the favorite clichés of American entertainment is “Male Monsters of Survival” cast into the wilderness (with a film crew and helicopter on call) recreating the Myth of Homo sapiens, Conqueror of Nature. These overconfident males are often lucky to last a week; injuries are common, starvation the norm.
  6. If visual thinking is so inferior, why do hunters rely on airplane and helicopter “flyovers” to locate game, and now drones, and add scopes, binoculars, game cameras,  and a multitude of “sensory substitutes” to their repertoire? Ever been to a sporting goods store? They’re packed with every possible gadget that will improve the DIMINISHED senses and cognitive ability of modern social humans to function outside of manmade environments and to be successful hunters and fishermen.
  7. As for forcing Neanderthals into extinction, modern social humans could accomplish this: we have a horrific history of wiping out indigenous peoples and continue to destroy not only human groups, but hundreds of species and the environments they are adapted to. Modern social humans could bomb Neanderthals “back to the Stone Age”. Kill them off with chemical weapons, shred them with cluster bombs, the overkill of targeted assassination and nuclear weapons.
  8. BUT there is no proof that Archaic Homo sapiens “extincted” Homo Neanderthal. We know that in some areas they lived cheek by jowl, had sex and produced offspring, but modern social humans maintain that Neanderthals were so “socially stupid” that the entire species fell to the magnificence of party-hearty Homo sapiens.  Actually, a modern social human would have difficulty distinguishing the two fearsome types: the challenge may have been like distinguishing a polar bear from a grizzly bear, which are actually both brown bears adapted to different environments. rather irrelevant if you’re facing down either one with a sharp stick.
  9. The myth that Homo sapiens individuals outside of Africa “contain” a variable 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA, with  specific “snips” related to various functions in modern humans, is incomplete. Rarely included in articles about how Homo sapiens and Neanderthal are connected is whole genome sequencing results which show that overall, the Homo sapiens genome, even now, is all but identical to the Neanderthal genome. This is logical: the divergence between the common ancestor of Chimps and  African great Apes (us) occurred 5-6 m.y.a. and yet, the human and chimp genomes share 99% of our DNA. How similar then, is Neanderthal and Denisovan genome to ours? This is a simple math question.
  10. What we need to compare is the Neanderthal genome and the ARCHAIC Homo sapiens genome – two groups of humans who were contemporaries.

 

 

 

Baboons, Social Typicals, Aspergers / STRESS

The usual human approach: stress is a killer; modern social environments are high stress; lets “engineer” humans to be able to tolerate high stress. What about changing environments so that human beings experience less stress? Of course not: that would benefit the average human. This is about what the top of the hierarchy wants – change the peasants so that they can live with extreme stress –

This article has dire implications for those of us who are born “Asperger” or with other neurodiverse brain types. 

_____________________________________________________

http://www.wired.com/2010/07/ff_stress_cure/

by: Jonah Lehrer

Under Pressure: The Search for a Stress Vaccine

Excerpts: 

Baboons are nasty, brutish, and short. They have a long muzzle and sharp fangs designed to inflict deadly injury. Their bodies are covered in thick, olive-colored fur, except on their buttocks, which are hairless. The species is defined by its social habits: The primates live in groups of several dozen individuals. These troops have a strict hierarchy, and each animal is assigned a specific rank. While female rank is hereditary — a daughter inherits her mother’s status — males compete for dominance. These fights can be bloody, but the stakes are immense: A higher rank means more sex. The losers, in contrast, face a bleak array of options — submission, exile, or death.

In 1978, Robert Sapolsky was a recent college graduate with a degree in biological anthropology and a job in Kenya. He had set off for a year of fieldwork by himself among baboons… here he was in Nairobi, speaking the wrong kind of Swahili and getting ripped off by everyone he met. Eventually he made his way to the bush, a sprawling savanna filled with zebras and wildebeests and elephants…

Sapolsky slowly introduced himself to a troop of baboons, letting them adjust to his presence. After a few weeks, he began recognizing individual animals, giving them nicknames from the Old Testament. It was a way of rebelling against his childhood Hebrew-school teachers, who rejected the blasphemy of Darwinian evolution…

Before long, Sapolsky’s romantic vision of fieldwork collided with the dismal reality of living in the African bush. (The baboons) seemed to devote all of their leisure time — and baboon life is mostly leisure time — to mischief and malevolence. “One of the first things I discovered was that I didn’t like baboons very much,” he says. “They’re quite awful to one another, constantly scheming and backstabbing. They’re like chimps but without the self-control.”

____________________________________________________________

Baboon behavior compared with modern humans: One advantage of the “bipedal stance” – showing off “the junk”. Could the female be “twerking”?

Olive baboon male standing on his hind legs watching a female presenting her rear (Papio cynocephalus anubis). Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Feb 2009.

____________________________________________________________

While Sapolsky was disturbed by the behavior of the baboons — this was nature, red in tooth and claw — he realized that their cruelty presented an opportunity to investigate the biological effects of social upheaval. He noticed, for instance, that the males at the bottom of the hierarchy were thinner and more skittish. “They just didn’t look very healthy,” Sapolsky says. “That’s when I began thinking about how damn stressful it must be to have no status. You never know when you’re going to get beat up. You never get laid. You have to work a lot harder for food.”

(Asperger types – is this us?)

So Sapolsky set out to test the hypothesis that the stress involved in being at the bottom of the baboon hierarchy led to health problems…“It struck most doctors as extremely unlikely that your feelings could affect your health. Viruses, sure. Carcinogens, absolutely. But stress? No way.” Sapolsky, however, was determined to get some data… Instead, he was busy learning how to shoot baboons with anesthetic darts and then, while they were plunged into sleep, quickly measure their immune system function and the levels of stress hormones and cholesterol in their blood….

A similarly destructive process is at work in humans. While doctors speculated for years that increasing rates of cardiovascular disease in women might be linked to the increasing number of females employed outside the home, that correlation turned out to be nonexistent. Working women didn’t have more heart attacks. There were, however, two glaring statistical exceptions to the rule: Women developed significantly more heart disease if they performed menial clerical work or when they had an unsupportive boss. The work, in other words, wasn’t the problem. It was the subordination.

(Female gender = subordinate in modern social hierarchy.)

One of the most tragic aspects of the stress response is the way it gets hardwired at a young age — an early setback can permanently alter the way we deal with future stressors. The biological logic of this system is impeccable: If the world is a rough and scary place, then the brain assumes it should invest more in our stress machinery, which will make us extremely wary and alert. There’s also a positive feedback loop at work, so that chronic stress actually makes us more sensitive to the effects of stress.

The physiology underlying this response has been elegantly revealed in the laboratory. When lab rats are stressed repeatedly, the amygdala — an almond-shaped nub in the center of the brain — enlarges dramatically. (See post  on amygdala, hippocampus) (This swelling comes at the expense of the hippocampus, which is crucial for learning and memory and shrinks under severe stress.) The main job of the amygdala is to perceive danger and help generate the stress response; it’s the brain area turned on by dark alleys and Hitchcock movies. Unfortunately, a swollen amygdala means that we’re more likely to notice potential threats in the first place, which means we spend more time in a state of anxiety. (This helps explain why a more active amygdala is closely correlated with atherosclerosis.) The end result is that we become more vulnerable to the very thing that’s killing us.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Imagine you are a newborn: everything about you “looks normal” and your parents show you off; send photos to friends and relatives. They coo and gurgle over your parents’ splendid achievement. A Perfect Baby.
Then reality sets in: Human parents are obsessed with the fear of giving birth to a less-than-perfect baby. Can we deny the social pressure endured by an infant and parent, when parents “freak out” over a growing suspicion that their child is “abnormal”? They rush the child to the “witch doctor” – the expert, the authority, the interpreter of all human behavior; the priest or priestess who has the power to decide the fate of a child as a member of its society. What power over individual destinies these “judges” have!  
In American culture, it is the medical / behavioral industry which decides whether or not a child is conforming to a rigid schedule of physical, social, emotional and mental development. This used to be “the job” of religious authorities (and still is in many communities), but the “Helping Caring Fixing” industry has become a “co-religion” for many believers.  
An imaginary epidemic of “defective children” has grown into a reign of terror in contemporary American culture: children are labeled, isolated, shamed, bullied and virtually discarded; drugged into submission, simply for being children. 

Baboons: 

Baboons are African and Arabian Old World monkeys belonging to the genus Papio, part of the subfamily Cercopithecinae. The five species are some of the largest non-hominoid members of the primate order; only the mandrill and the drill are larger. Baboons use at least 10 different vocalizations to communicate with other members of the troop. Wikipedia

Scientific name: Papio / Lifespan: Guinea baboon: 35 – 45 years
Height: Olive baboon: 2.3 ft. / Hamadryas baboon: 44 – 66 lbs, Olive baboon: 22 – 82 lbs, Guinea baboon: 29 – 57 lbs
Fantastic photos:

 

Baboon behavior compared with modern humans: One advantage of the “bipedal stance” – showing off “the junk”. Could the female be “twerking”?

Mystified Asperger Female / Sexual Assault and the Media

I shouldn’t have to say this, but I will: Any assault on another person is an assault. The “measure of severity” and consequence-punishment is a socio-cultural determination. Sexual assault has traditionally been considered a separate and “special” case, with various cultures having very different attitudes, customs and laws surrounding “who owns” a person’s body. It is a subject basic also to slavery; slavery is “ownership” of body, soul and mind” of another human being. Traditionally, females have been subject to “ownership”, from outright slavery, to marriage customs to “simply being inferior” by virtue of being biologically female – and by supposedly being little more than a child in “intelligence” and self-actuation. This has been the social condition of females for all of recorded history.

Much of how modern social humans “view” sex – and the myriad complications heaped on what is a biologic necessity – by hundreds of thousands of discussions, negotiations, codes, laws, practices, controls, moral-ethical stances, criminal statutes, marriage contracts and the consequent “control” of children, is rooted in this concept of “ownership”.

The qualitative and functional hierarchy goes like this:

Men own women.

Men own children, because men own women.

Men choose when and where to have sex with women and children.

UH-OH! That’s a recipe for male-on-male conflict, which is of immense threat to society.

The hierarchy forms:

Top Males choose for lesser males. (The history of male access to females is clear about this being extremely important). There’s a distinct “Top Predator” hierarchy of “sexual privilege”. That hierarchy of restricted access to sex is one very big reason why males want to be “Top Males”. (See Ghenghis Khan and Y haplogroup)

This “set up” hasn’t changed, just because a bunch of American women have decided, in the last century or so, that this is a fundamentally “bad system” for females. (Me included). The campaign for equality with men; in fact, opportunity and aspiration, has largely been the purview of women who have had the opportunities for education, work and personal expression due to family circumstance and expectations. Class distinctions.

The current “eruption” of female anger toward an inarguably predatory “sexual” culture, are women who have managed to “gain some measure of power” – in media, politics, entertainment – essentially $$$$. It’s politics, pure and simple. Why wouldn’t women who have gained a foothold in the status, power, and wealth hierarchy not “turn on” males, who are now their “equals” in politics, business and media-entertainment; that is, “competitors”? And, the traditional male hierarchy “permits” and even requires that younger males “knock off” Top Males who are “declining in potency”.

Meanwhile. What about the other 99% of men and women?

Most cannot afford to do anything but “slog on” trying to find the ways and means to have a decent life. A revolution is well underway that affects all of us. Men benefit from having strong female partners; they must learn not to abuse women who are adding much “good” to their lives. At the risk of being “optimistic”, which goes against my practical Asperger instincts, I would say that most men understand this, but they are up against the male “way of being” as dictated by thousands of years of cultural tradition, in a way that is fundamentally different than the experience of females. Males are “somebody” by virtue of being male. No matter how low on the pyramid they fall, there is always 50% of the population they “outrank”. Embracing equality requires a profound individual rejection of male tyranny.