In questi oscuri tempi di creazionismo e' bene trovar un po' di conforto nei classici dell'evoluzionismo. A seguire un qualche spunto tratto dalle prime pagine di un libro illuminate. Uno zoologo analizza il comportamento dell'uomo in quanto animale.
The Naked Ape
Desmon Morris
1967
There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens. This unusual and highly successful species spends a great deal of time examining his higher motives and an equal amount of time studiously ignoring his fundamental ones. He is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates, but attempts to conceal the fact that he also has the biggest penis, preferring to accord this honour falsely to the mighty gorilla. He is an intensely vocal, acutely exploratory, over-crowded ape, and it is high time we examined his basic behaviour.
...
The Naked Ape
Desmon Morris
1967
There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens. This unusual and highly successful species spends a great deal of time examining his higher motives and an equal amount of time studiously ignoring his fundamental ones. He is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates, but attempts to conceal the fact that he also has the biggest penis, preferring to accord this honour falsely to the mighty gorilla. He is an intensely vocal, acutely exploratory, over-crowded ape, and it is high time we examined his basic behaviour.
...
ORIGINS
...
What happened to the early apes? We know that the climate began to work against them and that, by a point somewhere around fifteen million years ago, their forest strongholds had become seriously reduced in size.
...
Faced with a new environment, our ancestors encountered a bleak prospect. They had to become either better killers than the old-time carnivores, or better grazers than the old-time herbivores.
...
The ancestral ground-apes already had large and high-quality brains. They had good eyes and efficient grasping hands. They inevitably, as primates, had some degree of social organization. With strong pressure on them to increase their prey-killing prowess, vital changes began to take place. They became more upright-fast, better runners. Their hands became freed from locomotion duties-strong, efficient weapon-holders. Their brains became more complex-brighter, quicker decision-makers.
...
A hunting ape, a killer ape, was in the making. It could be argued that evolution might have favored the less drastic step of developing a more typical cat- or dog-like killer, a kind of cat-ape or dog-ape, by the simple process of enlarging the teeth and nails into savage fang-like and claw-like weapons. But this would have put the ancestral ground-ape into direct competition with the already highly specialized cat and dog killers. It would have meant competing with them on their own terms, and the outcome would no doubt have been disastrous for the primates in question. (For all we know, this may actually have been tried and failed so badly that the evidence has not been found.) Instead, an entirely new approach was made, using artificial weapons instead of natural ones, and it worked.
From tool-using to tool-making was the next step, and alongside this development went improved hunting techniques, not only in terms of weapons, but also in terms of social co-operation. The hunting apes were pack-hunters, and as their techniques of killing were improved, so were their methods of social organization. Wolves in a pack deploy themselves, but the hunting ape already had a much better brain than a wolf and could turn it to such problems as group communication and co-operation. Increasingly complex maneuvers could be developed. The growth of the brain surged on.
Essentially this was a hunting-group of males. The females were too busy rearing the young to be able to play a major role in chasing and catching prey. As the complexity of the hunt increased and the forays became more prolonged, it became essential for the hunting ape to abandon the meandering, nomadic ways of its ancestors. A home base was necessary, a place to come back to with the spoils, where the females and young would be waiting and could share the food. .
So the hunting ape became a territorial ape. His whole sexual, parental and social pattern began to be affected. His old wandering, fruit-plucking way of life was fading rapidly. He had now really left his forest of Eden. He was an ape with responsibilities.
If we accept the history of our evolution as it has been outlined here, then one fact stands out clearly: namely, that we have arisen essentially as primate predators. Amongst existing monkeys and apes, this makes us unique, but major conversions of this kind are not unknown in other groups. The giant panda, for instance, is a perfect case of the reverse process. Whereas we are vegetarians turned carnivores, the panda is a carnivore turned vegetarian, and like us it is in many ways an extraordinary and unique creature. The
point is that a major switch of this sort produces an animal with a dual personality. Once over the threshold, it plunges into its new role with great evolutionary energy-so much so that it carries with ix many of its old traits. Insufficient time has passed for it to throw off all its old characteristics while it is hurriedly donning the new ones.
...
It takes millions of years to perfect a dramatically new animal model, and the pioneer forms are usually very odd mixtures indeed. The naked ape is such a mixture. His whole body, his way of life, was geared to a forest existence, and then suddenly (suddenly in evolutionary terms) he was jettisoned into a world where he could survive only if he began to live like a brainy, weapon-toting wolf.
...
...
What happened to the early apes? We know that the climate began to work against them and that, by a point somewhere around fifteen million years ago, their forest strongholds had become seriously reduced in size.
...
Faced with a new environment, our ancestors encountered a bleak prospect. They had to become either better killers than the old-time carnivores, or better grazers than the old-time herbivores.
...
The ancestral ground-apes already had large and high-quality brains. They had good eyes and efficient grasping hands. They inevitably, as primates, had some degree of social organization. With strong pressure on them to increase their prey-killing prowess, vital changes began to take place. They became more upright-fast, better runners. Their hands became freed from locomotion duties-strong, efficient weapon-holders. Their brains became more complex-brighter, quicker decision-makers.
...
A hunting ape, a killer ape, was in the making. It could be argued that evolution might have favored the less drastic step of developing a more typical cat- or dog-like killer, a kind of cat-ape or dog-ape, by the simple process of enlarging the teeth and nails into savage fang-like and claw-like weapons. But this would have put the ancestral ground-ape into direct competition with the already highly specialized cat and dog killers. It would have meant competing with them on their own terms, and the outcome would no doubt have been disastrous for the primates in question. (For all we know, this may actually have been tried and failed so badly that the evidence has not been found.) Instead, an entirely new approach was made, using artificial weapons instead of natural ones, and it worked.
From tool-using to tool-making was the next step, and alongside this development went improved hunting techniques, not only in terms of weapons, but also in terms of social co-operation. The hunting apes were pack-hunters, and as their techniques of killing were improved, so were their methods of social organization. Wolves in a pack deploy themselves, but the hunting ape already had a much better brain than a wolf and could turn it to such problems as group communication and co-operation. Increasingly complex maneuvers could be developed. The growth of the brain surged on.
Essentially this was a hunting-group of males. The females were too busy rearing the young to be able to play a major role in chasing and catching prey. As the complexity of the hunt increased and the forays became more prolonged, it became essential for the hunting ape to abandon the meandering, nomadic ways of its ancestors. A home base was necessary, a place to come back to with the spoils, where the females and young would be waiting and could share the food. .
So the hunting ape became a territorial ape. His whole sexual, parental and social pattern began to be affected. His old wandering, fruit-plucking way of life was fading rapidly. He had now really left his forest of Eden. He was an ape with responsibilities.
If we accept the history of our evolution as it has been outlined here, then one fact stands out clearly: namely, that we have arisen essentially as primate predators. Amongst existing monkeys and apes, this makes us unique, but major conversions of this kind are not unknown in other groups. The giant panda, for instance, is a perfect case of the reverse process. Whereas we are vegetarians turned carnivores, the panda is a carnivore turned vegetarian, and like us it is in many ways an extraordinary and unique creature. The
point is that a major switch of this sort produces an animal with a dual personality. Once over the threshold, it plunges into its new role with great evolutionary energy-so much so that it carries with ix many of its old traits. Insufficient time has passed for it to throw off all its old characteristics while it is hurriedly donning the new ones.
...
It takes millions of years to perfect a dramatically new animal model, and the pioneer forms are usually very odd mixtures indeed. The naked ape is such a mixture. His whole body, his way of life, was geared to a forest existence, and then suddenly (suddenly in evolutionary terms) he was jettisoned into a world where he could survive only if he began to live like a brainy, weapon-toting wolf.
...
10 commenti:
In tempi oscuri di creazionismo???? :-D
lo so che sembra strano, ma alcuni individui sostengono che colle scimmie noi nn c'abbiamo nulla a che fare, dimenticandosi forse che il 99% del nostro dna e' uguale a quello degli scimpanze'
e dici va be saranno dei pazzi che parlan da soli in metropolitana...
nono, sono tantissimi e per dirne una sono una delle correnti piu' influenti del partito repubblicano statunitense.
sono seriamente preoccupato.
si ma anche tu non puoi dar sempre retta alla propaganda....anche coi topi abbiamo il 99% di Dna in comune lo sapevi?
Nn credo che nel racconto biblico, ma lo trovo più interessante di una presunta evoluzione (molto probabile a dir la verità. Ma mancano i famosi anelli di congiunzione.)
Spiega molto di più l'aver mangiato il frutto del bene e del male, ovvero della conoscenza, che il fatto che dobbiamo pisciare, mangiare, scopare ed affermarci socialmente pure noi, come gli animali. Secondo me.
Se è vero che la natura evolvo è anche vero che l'uomo evolve se stesso.
Certezze non ve n'è :-D
Oh, a scanso di equivoci....non c'è niente di più dannoso, irritante ed ignorante dei fondamentalisti cristiani Americani. E da noi di Cl ed Opus Dei. Che schifo.
che propaganda scusa?
il fatto dell'aver il dna in comune pure coi topi mi sembra un'ulteriore prova della, per me ovvia, nostra appartenenza al regno animale.
non capisco cosa spieghi meglio il racconto biblico, il nostro comportamento dici?
be' non so, non ti riesco ad interpretare molto bene ma il mio messaggio e' leggiti sto libro che per me e' illuminante. i primi due capitoli (origins e sex) in particolare.
il fatto che il racconto biblico sia interessante, non c'e' dubbio, ma perlappunto e' un racconto.
mettiamola così: l'uomo come animale spiega molto ma non tutto; e quindi?
non so, per me e' scontato che l'uomo sia un animale.
e nulla, son un tipo curioso e mi appassionano le teorie scientifiche sul nostro passato piu' antico.
cosi' come mi divertono i racconti mitologici sul nostro passato piu' recente.
tutto qui.
e se vuoi qualche "quindi" in piu' leggiti sto libro che andrebbe fatto leggere a scuola.
ps
questo tuo e "quindi?" si potrebbe riferire alla conoscenza in generale. il mondo e' tondo. e quindi? la forza di gravita' ci attrae verso il centro della terra. e quindi?
beh ma al fatto che il mondo sia tondo c'è una spiegazione, anche al fatto che è schiacciato. Meno invece sulla gravità.
Io non penso che l'uomo sia solo un animale. Dotte citazioni parlano di "Vanità, tutto è vanità", ad esempio, senza che esistano riscontri nel mondo animale. E l'arte? La letteratura? Non parlo solo della capacità di produrre, ma anche di goderne.
leggiti il libro e troverai possibili spiegazioni ai tuoi quesiti...
e il tuo "e quindi" e' ben diverso dal "perche'?" (conseguenze vs cause)
in ogni caso davvero il mio consiglio al mondo intero e': leggete sto libro.
Posta un commento