TED Conversations

Theodore Holden

This conversation is closed.

An rigorous case can be made for the proposition that modern humans cannot be native to this planet.

Hominid eye sockets and nasal areas were much larger than those of modern humans. The huge eyes of hominids and dinosaurs and even a few leftover creatures like lemurs and tarsiers, were adaptations to a very dark sort of a world. In the case of dinosaurs, the large eyes pertained in carnivores and herbivores alike

Humans by way of contrast have the smallest relative eye size of advanced creatures.

If you want to believe that humans evolved from hominids on this planet, you need to believe that some hominid/human-wannabee:

Lost his fur coat while ice ages were going on.
Lost 99% of his sense of smell while trying to make it as a land prey animal
Lost almost all of his night vision at a time when night was the only time of day to be had.

You say that doesn't sound like a formula for success?

If, on the other hand, you prefer to believe that God created modern man fully formed on this world, then there is a question as to whether God would create a creature on a world for which the creature was spectacularly ill-adapted. There's nothing in the Bible about God being stupid....

There actually is a reasonable thesis to be had for human origins, but it does not involve this planet.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 5 2013: Maybe humans evolving intelligence allowed for the sense of smell to be replaced by more easily interpreted, referenced, associative , and relevant stimuli, such as sight. Considering our current addiction to relativity, amounts in relations(numbers), geometry and so forth...

    I'm confused with the following reference:
    "Lost almost all of his night vision at a time when night was the only time of day to be had."

    Maybe our apatite for recognizing patterns and creating associative models of memory, especially with regards to that of visuospatial, outweighed any environmental conditions. Implying, that unlike other animals of the time, depth perception was of most importance... removing the evolutionary change towards stereoscopic vision.

    Maybe we emerged apex predators for many reasons, mainly intelligence resulting in the sense of smell to decrease for we don't need to smell 'predators' from long distances, or to determine edibility for example.

    Maybe we didn't remain in forests or similar environments that constantly restrict our fields of view, creating the necessity to accurately determine depths at greater distances. Again, increased night vision often results in stereoscopic vision.

    Maybe, unlike our chimp ancestors or monkeys in general... we didn't spend all of our time in the trees or heavily shaded environments, resulting in the loss of our fur.
    Maybe we lost the fur as a result of migration and being subject to varying climates resulting from either environmental changes or demand of calorie intake. We require a fare amount of calories, especially relating to cognition, implying that 'hunting' may have increased our frequency of experiencing various climates while following migrations.

    Maybe our ancestors intentionally stayed relatively close to liquid water during the coming and going ice ages, suggesting that much time was spent in shallow waters while foraging for food. Replacing fur with relatively high levels of body fat.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2013: "1 day ago: Maybe humans evolving intelligence allowed for the sense of smell to be replaced by more easily interpreted, referenced, associative , and relevant stimuli, such as sight."

      Any land prey species would go extinct within a week with our sense of smell. An aquatic mammal, on the other hand, doesn't really need a sense of smell any better than ours. Elaine Morgan's "Aquatic Ape" thesis is the best theory ever yet put forward for human adaptation. Morgan describes a fairly long list of traits which we share with the aquatic mammals, and which are rare or non-existent amongst land animals. It's never gotten any traction in academia for two reasons, there is no fossil evidence of such a development, and there's never been a body of water on this planet which would be safe for humans to live in. Wonderful theory, all it really needs is another planet to happen on...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.