Skip to comments.Animal Connection: New Hypothesis for Human Evolution and Human Nature
Posted on 07/23/2010 3:11:21 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
It's no secret to any dog-lover or cat-lover that humans have a special connection with animals.... paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman of Penn State University argues that this human-animal connection goes well beyond simple affection. Shipman proposes that the interdependency of ancestral humans with other animal species... played a crucial and beneficial role in human evolution over the last 2.6 million years...
"Having sharp tools transformed wimpy human ancestors into effective predators who left many cut marks on the fossilized bones of their prey," Shipman said. Becoming a predator also put our ancestors into direct competition with other carnivores for carcasses and prey. As Shipman explains, the human ancestors who learned to observe and understand the behavior of potential prey obtained more meat...
Over time, Shipman explains, the volume of information about animals increased... benefits of communicating this knowledge to others increased.. and communicating information through symbols. "Though we cannot discover the earliest use of language itself, we can learn something from the earliest prehistoric art with unambiguous content. Nearly all of these artworks depict animals. Other potentially vital topics -- edible plants, water, tools or weapons, or relationships among humans -- are rarely if ever shown,"...
Shipman concludes that detailed information about animals became so advantageous that our ancestors began to nurture wild animals -- a practice that led to the domestication of the dog about 32,000 years ago. She argues that, if insuring a steady supply of meat was the point of domesticating animals, as traditionally has been assumed, then dogs would be a very poor choice as an early domesticated species...
Shipman suggests, instead, that the primary impetus for domestication was to transform animals we had been observing intently for millennia into living tools during their peak years, then only later using their meat as food.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
And yet, after 100,000 years, we still have to take them out so they can go to the bathroom.Study acclaims dog's role in development of mankindAn Australian study claims mankind couldn't have conquered the globe without the dog.
Tuesday 26th March 2002
Researchers say the domestication of the wolf led to the hunting of bigger game and even the development of art.
They claim the dog was one of a few key forces which led to modern humans and therefore changed the world forever.
Dr Paul Tacon, of the Australian Museum in Sydney, and bio-archaeology consultant Dr Colin Pardoe, say fossil and DNA evidence both point to dog domestication over 100,000 years ago.
That is around the same time humans began marking their territory, something they may have learned from dogs, and which then led to symbolism and art.
Tacon and Pardoe say the human and dog partnership also led to new forms of bonding which let humans negotiate complex situations.
Their study is published in Nature Australia magazine and reported by the Australian Museum.
In her Plato Prehistorian: 10,000 to 5000 B.C. Myth, Religion, Archaeology, Mary Settegast reproduces a table which shows four runic character sets; a is Upper Paleolithic (found among the cave paintings), b is Indus Valley script, c is Greek (western branch), and d is the Scandinavian runic alphabet.
Tacon and Pardoe
· Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg ·
· Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · ·
Remember the horse at the gun range.
Early man had a link with animals.
Fallacy of petitio principii noted...
The dog's eyes have itThey can follow the human gaze or a pointing hand, figure out what it is we are looking at and seek out the target. Dogs have spent thousands of years living with humans so a Hungarian research team set out to investigate whether this cunning ability came from wolves, the genetic ancestors of today's dogs, or developed during domestication... The wolves could find the food when their handler either tapped the correct hiding place or pointed from a close distance... However, the real difference came when the researchers tested the dogs and wolves in a tricky situation. Food was hidden in a bin or on the end of a rope, and the animals got used to opening the bin or pulling the rope to get the bait. But when the bin was sealed shut, or the rope tied down, the main contrast between the two became clear. Dogs frequently looked back at their master while wolves just kept their heads down and tried to solve the problem. Wild wolves generally tend not to look at human faces, and not even careful hand-rearing of the wolves could change this behaviour.
by Katharine Arney
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
Of course there is a special relationship. man named them and was to tend them from the time of creation
I think the first thing we did with dogs and cats was cut their little claws off to use as tools so we could build houses.
After we learned to make tools from other things, we quit cutting their paws off and they just ‘hung around the house’ from then on.
What’s it say?
NO PETS ALLOWED IN BUILDING
HEAR HEAR, VERY GOOD.
It’s probably a menu, although I kinda picture the prehistoric human diet as more of a buffet-style.
It takes great trust from a dog to stare you in your face. Normally dogs are affronted if a stranger looks them directly in their eyes. They consider it a challenge and an insulting one at that. That is undoubtedly what wolves think and why they don’t look back at their handler. If you want to get close to a strange dog, don’t stare him in the face; he becomes defensive and is likely to bite you.
Now when your Golden Retriever comes up, nudges you in the elbow, and stares adoringly into your eyes, you know that he completely trusts you. And he wants your dinner too.
I’m not going to waste much time on this, because what she’s saying isn’t what you said it was, I merely posted a link to a page describing and giving examples of it.
Funny. I don't recall the Expedition of Discovery members being set upon while they were having dinner.
I think the article is trying to distinguish between domesticated animals and those in the wild. “Naming” doesn’t do much, in that regard. It’s beyond just that.
Note your excerpt, "Over time, Shipman explains, the volume of information about animals increased... benefits of communicating this knowledge to others increased.. and communicating information through symbols."
Versus the actual article, "Over time, Shipman explains, the volume of information about animals increased, the evolutionary benefits of communicating this knowledge to others increased, and language evolved as an external means of handling and communicating information through symbols."
You simply snipped out the offending sections which clearly demonstrated the presence of the fallacy of petitio principii.