@Sohan Lalwani ohhhhh thanks, man. I forgot the early humans from 3mya didn't talk, due to lack of a verbal language. So wait: how did h. erectus and h. habilis communicate and coexist? Is there a book for that?

2 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Sohan Lalwani ohhhhh thanks, man. I forgot the early humans from 3mya didn't talk, due to lack of a verbal language. So wait: how did h. erectus and h. habilis communicate and coexist? Is there a book for that?

They likely used a combination of gestures, facial expressions, body postures, and vocalizations (grunts, calls, tonal patterns, etc). Early hominins probably had something similar but increasingly advanced, especially with Homo erectus, who had larger brain sizes and more complex social structures.

@Sohan Lalwani I guess the croods would be homo erectus lol. Maybe the humans before them ( I think it might be h. heidelbergensis if I recall correctly) used apes as an example of communication and behavioral patterns, since they didn't walk upright (which is why they aren't h. erectus ha). What do you think?

19 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Sohan Lalwani I guess the croods would be homo erectus lol. Maybe the humans before them ( I think it might be h. heidelbergensis if I recall correctly) used apes as an example of communication and behavioral patterns, since they didn't walk upright (which is why they aren't h. erectus ha). What do you think?

I call it human evolution, rhymes with grug!

As for the idea that early humans modeled their communication on apes, it’s actually kind of the reverse. Our hominin ancestors were apes, just with gradually evolving cognition. But it’s totally possible that as their brains developed, they still leaned on the expressive, gestural systems that their primate relatives used. Eye contact, dominance cues, vocal tones, all that pre-language communication you see in chimps today likely formed the foundation for early human interactions.

And funnily enough, the reason H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis do qualify as Homo is because they walked upright. Bipedalism had already been the norm for a couple million years by the time of H. erectus. Earlier species like Australopithecus afarensis (think "Lucy") were already upright walkers, so by the time we’re at H. erectus, walking tall was old news. It’s the brain and behavior that really start to change at that stage.

@Sohan Lalwani speaking of brains, there is a study called, "The cooking hypothesis" which basically proposed the idea that humans obtaining cooking skills increased brain sizes over time, especially eating the cooked food. The hypothesis was supported by comparing raw and cooked foods, caloric intakes, and digestion difficulties. There was a lot of criticism on this idea, but one that stuck out to me was the test they did on mice for comparison and evidence that it wasn't true. They fed mice raw and cooked food and said they found no difference, but what I don't understand is how this can be if when we eat cooked food, it literally upgrades our brains, especially when we're babies and kids. And how come they're comparing today's mice to prehistoric humans? They know that when we changed our diets, our bodies changed, including our gastrointestinal tract. Shouldn't they use those mice for them and not us? I feel like this hypothesis is pretty accurate and could very well be true.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2
Rephrasing

5 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Sohan Lalwani speaking of brains, there is a study called, "The cooking hypothesis" which basically proposed the idea that humans obtaining cooking skills increased brain sizes over time, especially eating the cooked food. The hypothesis was supported by comparing raw and cooked foods, caloric intakes, and digestion difficulties. There was a lot of criticism on this idea, but one that stuck out to me was the test they did on mice for comparison and evidence that it wasn't true. They fed mice raw and cooked food and said they found no difference, but what I don't understand is how this can be if when we eat cooked food, it literally upgrades our brains, especially when we're babies and kids. And how come they're comparing today's mice to prehistoric humans? They know that when we changed our diets, our bodies changed, including our gastrointestinal tract. Shouldn't they apply it to them and not us? I feel like this hypothesis is pretty accurate and could very well be true.

Even though they are often used in lab settings for controlled dietary experiments, they do not have the same digestive system or energy requirements as humans, especially not as early hominins whose bodies and brains were shaped by millions of years of environmental and nutritional pressures. So, comparing the effects of raw and cooked food on a modern mouse is not the same as testing those effects on an early Homo erectus or Australopithecus.

Also, your point about the gastrointestinal system is spot on. Over time, human guts shrank while our brains grew. That tradeoff, called the expensive tissue hypothesis, proposes that we could not have both a large brain and a large gut without more available energy. Cooking made that possible. In fact, fossil evidence suggests that some hominins had smaller teeth and jaws, weaker chewing muscles, and less robust gut structures as their diets evolved to include more easily processed food. That supports the idea that something changed to reduce the physical effort and digestive cost of eating.

So yes, while the mouse study is interesting in a narrow, controlled sense, it is not a fair test of the cooking hypothesis as it applies to human evolution. The environment, food types, and biology involved are simply too different. It is also important to remember that no single study disproves a hypothesis, but skepticism around the specific theory may be high for such reasons

@Sohan Lalwani wait really? I read somewhere that mice have a similar digestive system to humans. They were wrong? I can't believe I believed that! And that hypothesis had some very strong evidence, including physical evidence. The critics didn't sound very educated in my very humble opinion (even when they're wrong they're still so much smarter than me!). Also, I'm thinking about checking out Richard wrangham's book, "Catching Fire: how cooking made us human". I read an awesome review that praise his book, and in specific areas and ideas. However they did mention he had a few unnecessary, flippant, baseless comments, so I'm on the fence.

1 hour ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Sohan Lalwani wait really? I read somewhere that mice have a similar digestive system to humans. They were wrong? I can't believe I believed that! And that hypothesis had some very strong evidence, including physical evidence. The critics didn't sound very educated in my very humble opinion (even when they're wrong they're still so much smarter than me!). Also, I'm thinking about checking out Richard wrangham's book, "Catching Fire: how cooking made us human". I read an awesome review that praise his book, and in specific areas and ideas. However they did mention he had a few unnecessary, flippant, baseless comments, so I'm on the fence.

First off, it is totally understandable why you might think mice have a similar digestive system to humans. In some very general ways, they do share certain features, after all, they are mammals, they eat many of the same macronutrients, and their gut includes similar organs. That is why they are often used in laboratory studies. But the big catch is that similarity does not mean equivalence. Their diets, gut microbiomes, metabolic rates, and especially their evolutionary context are all very different. Mice did not evolve under the same pressures as early hominins, and their digestive systems have not had to adapt to things like long-term cooking or scavenging fatty meat on the savannas. So yes, whoever said mice are “similar” to humans in that way was oversimplifying, not totally wrong in every sense, but not capturing the full picture either.

As for Catching Fire, I think it is a fantastic choice if you want to dig deeper. Richard Wrangham writes with both scientific insight and personal passion (From my opinion) which makes the book overall feel engaging. He does make a few claims that are more speculative or less backed by hard data, and some readers might feel that he occasionally moves too quickly over complex counterpoints. But that is part of the nature of bold ideas, not every sentence needs to be perfect for the overall theory to hold weight. You can always read it with a critical but open mind, which it sounds like you are totally ready to do. If anything, those “flippant” comments can be an opportunity to pause and ask, “Do I agree with this? Why or why not?” That is how you get the most out of any book, especially one about something as central to our humanity as food and fire.

Sorry for the late response btw

I have been busy

So I discovered something called the Eocene and learned it came before the Paleolithic, which means I have to work backwards and learn everything before then to where I started and then past that. I learned all of this new stuff for no reason so I'm going to go cry now 🥲

8 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

I'm going to go cry now 🥲

Hey! If you ever need help, I am here my friend 😀

@Sohan Lalwani dries tears thanks, man!

4 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Sohan Lalwani dries tears thanks, man!

lol anytime!