Evolving Hierarchical Systems

[Jamin4422]

Thanks to the popular TV show about dogs we all know about the Alpha male in various animal species. This is a term that has found it's way into archeology. One of the difference between Neaderthal and Modern man is the way they bury their dead. Around 30 to 40,000 years ago you begin to see graves with a lot of effort put into them. You have flowers, tools, jewlery. Also there is a hierarchical difference that began at this time. Clear evidence of leaders that are richer with more stuff. This really becomes evident later on in Egypt where burial really takes on a whole new level. I remember when I first read about this in High School. I was amazed at how fast everything changed. They went from simple graves to pyrmids very rapidly in a very short period of time.

Of course you have

[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This leads some people to wonder if a hierarchy is really just a convenient way to organize information. I looked in some of the text books and could not find anything in the biology book about a hierarchy. So I wonder just what part of evolutionary science is this and just when or how did hierarchical difference evolve. Is there mainly just a hierarchy between individual organisms in a population. Or are their other evolutionary application also. There has to be a hierarchy between populations. For example they talk about the Lion being king of them all.

There are many changes that took place 30-40,000 years ago. This seems to be just one of the many things that evolved at the time.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks to the popular TV show about dogs we all know about the Alpha male in various animal species. This is a term that has found it's way into archeology. One of the difference between Neaderthal and Modern man is the way they bury their dead. Around 30 to 40,000 years ago you begin to see graves with a lot of effort put into them. You have flowers, tools, jewlery. Also there is a hierarchical difference that began at this time. Clear evidence of leaders that are richer with more stuff. This really becomes evident later on in Egypt where burial really takes on a whole new level. I remember when I first read about this in High School. I was amazed at how fast everything changed. They went from simple graves to pyrmids very rapidly in a very short period of time.

Of course you have

[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This leads some people to wonder if a hierarchy is really just a convenient way to organize information. I looked in some of the text books and could not find anything in the biology book about a hierarchy. So I wonder just what part of evolutionary science is this and just when or how did hierarchical difference evolve. Is there mainly just a hierarchy between individual organisms in a population. Or are their other evolutionary application also. There has to be a hierarchy between populations. For example they talk about the Lion being king of them all.

There are many changes that took place 30-40,000 years ago. This seems to be just one of the many things that evolved at the time.

Thanks for the good point. Evolutionists simply can not answer this kind of question because they see nothing about any possible trace of answer in the genetic code of human.

Human is not an evolved life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks to the popular TV show about dogs we all know about the Alpha male in various animal species. This is a term that has found it's way into archeology. One of the difference between Neaderthal and Modern man is the way they bury their dead. Around 30 to 40,000 years ago you begin to see graves with a lot of effort put into them. You have flowers, tools, jewlery. Also there is a hierarchical difference that began at this time. Clear evidence of leaders that are richer with more stuff. This really becomes evident later on in Egypt where burial really takes on a whole new level. I remember when I first read about this in High School. I was amazed at how fast everything changed. They went from simple graves to pyrmids very rapidly in a very short period of time.

'Rapid' is subjective. The Egyptians likely had these burial rituals, or similar ones, for a long time - leave a body in the dessicating desert and it persists for a long time. It's only when the Lower and Upper Kingdoms were unified that the Egyptians had the resources to build grand edifices to house their honoured dead.

It's like how the Islamic world flourish at its inception, as all the resources of the region that were put into fighting small, tribal wars were suddenly free for other projects, like science and medicine. Likewise, when the Egyptians became a unified people, their military resources - wealth, manpower, etc - were freed up for the construction of the Pyramids.

And even then, the pyramids are relatively scant (only 100-200, if memory serves), and are only the biggest and grandest of the Egyptian structures. Pre-dating the pyramids are more conventional 'tombs' made of dried mud, called mastabas, which are much more common.

So, in short, the Egyptians developed their great tombs from pre-dynasty to the very end, a period of 3500 years, and perhaps far longer if you consider the influence of non-Egyptian tomb-building (such as Sudan and Mesopotamia). 'Rapid', it was not .

Of course you have Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This leads some people to wonder if a hierarchy is really just a convenient way to organize information. I looked in some of the text books and could not find anything in the biology book about a hierarchy. So I wonder just what part of evolutionary science is this and just when or how did hierarchical difference evolve. Is there mainly just a hierarchy between individual organisms in a population. Or are their other evolutionary application also. There has to be a hierarchy between populations. For example they talk about the Lion being king of them all.

So, are you asking, why are their hierarchies in human populations?

It probably stems ultimately from the concept you originally mentioned: the alpha male. The oldest, strongest, and wisest male leads the tribe by sheer virtue of his longevity. This, in turn, stems from a more general concept in social species: 'listening to one's elders'. Your elders are those who've survived in the world, and thus necessarily know how to survive in the world. By listening to their advice, watching their actions, etc, you too learn to survive. Thus, in the most basic hierarchical society, one's elders are automatically placed at the top.

From this most basic structure, more developed systems can evolve as the need arises - being an elder might not be enough, you might also have to be strong enough to assert mating rites. In more advanced cultures, as found in H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, and other Homos, burgeoning artistic expression naturally lends itself to capture these more ancient leaders.

So, in short, the evolution of social hierarchies is rooted in biological necessity - one's elders become one's elders by surviving the world, knowing what food to eat, what prey to avoid, etc - and developed fro there.

 

[Jamin4422]

Thanks for the good point. Evolutionists simply can not answer this kind of question because they see nothing about any possible trace of answer in the genetic code of human.

Yet this is suppose to be what evolution is all about. The alpha male is the one that is suppose to be doing all the mating. Like Solomon in the Bible with 700 wives and they say something like 2,000 kids. Yet when you ask what makes Solomon the King. What makes Solomon the alpha male so that he is producing his DNA. Then they do not seem to have any answers. Solomon is the one that tells us:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all."[/FONT]

Like Sarah Hughes. She came in 8th in the world event. She should not even have gone to the Olympics. Yet she wins the Gold when she get there. Michelle Kwan is a five time world champion. Yet she can not win the Gold at the Olympics.

So just how do we factor this: "time and chance" into Darwin's theory?

 

[Jamin4422]

'Rapid' is subjective.

Subjective or not, you still need a cause. Neanderthal went extinct and Modern man began to "evolve". The big strong up close and personal brute died out and the lighter faster man began to evolve and take over the food supply. I just do not see how evolution could have brought about all this change. All of a sudden we have fishing hooks, we have sowing needles, we have nets for fishing and they are making snares and traps for their food. Art has progressed to where they are making little statues. Actually if you look at what some call the Venus statue she was not so little. Crafts have progressed to where they are making baskets to store and carry their extra grain in. In fact the very first writing was a symbol for a grain plant and how many baskets of grain you had. Before they even had numbers and before they could count. The very first clay tablets was actually a little plot of land shown on a clay tablet. Perhaps a sign of ownership.

We do not know when this began. But we know that men will join together to fight for land, then divide it up among themselves. In the Bible we read about David who joined his army together out of men that like him were pretty much social outcasts. So is that how Darwin's theory works? If you have social skills so you can work with others you survive. If not then you perish?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Subjective or not, you still need a cause.

As I said, the cause was in the evolution of listening to one's elders. As they had the smarts to survive the harsh world we live in, learning through trial-and-error what plants are poisonous, etc, it pays to listen to them. This is found in many social species, from canines to pachyderms.

Neanderthal went extinct and Modern man began to "evolve". The big strong up close and personal brute died out and the lighter faster man began to evolve and take over the food supply. I just do not see how evolution could have brought about all this change.

Why not? H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis lived together for quite some time, possibly interbreeding, possibly fighting. H. sapiens was intellectually superior, and it's possible this confrontation with H. neanderthalensis is was what suppred the evolution of smarter brains, perhaps as a sort of 'arms race'.

All of a sudden we have fishing hooks, we have sowing needles, we have nets for fishing and they are making snares and traps for their food. Art has progressed to where they are making little statues.

All true, but what time period are you talking about?

Actually if you look at what some call the Venus statue she was not so little.

Even today, girth is a sign of plenty - if you can get fat, then you have the luxury of abundant food.

Crafts have progressed to where they are making baskets to store and carry their extra grain in. In fact the very first writing was a symbol for a grain plant and how many baskets of grain you had. Before they even had numbers and before they could count. The very first clay tablets was actually a little plot of land shown on a clay tablet. Perhaps a sign of ownership.

Again, all fascinating markers in humanity's early history, but I don't see what the issue is. By and large, from that point in time (tens of thousands of years ago) to today, we haven't had any major changes in our brains or bodies (beyond the biochemical). These developments are cultural, not biological.

Take mathematics. Technically, all the discoveries being made today and tomorrow could have been made a thousand years ago - we had the brains to do it, after all. So why weren't they? Because of culture. As Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". In other words, the evolution of our brains far outpaced the cultural and technological developments that it is capable of achieving. Advances in art and literature (and, indeed, tool-making and language) developed gradually over the millennia, influenced by our growing history and culture. It's not something that evolved biologically - van Gough didn't paint The Starry Night due to an evolved instinct, at least not directly.

So, in short, I disagree that these sorts of achievements pose any problem for evolution.

We do not know when this began. But we know that men will join together to fight for land, then divide it up among themselves. In the Bible we read about David who joined his army together out of men that like him were pretty much social outcasts. So is that how Darwin's theory works? If you have social skills so you can work with others you survive. If not then you perish?

Well, yes, almost by definition: if you have social skills, then you can work with others, by virtue of the sheer fact that you have social skills.

A species which is aggressively cannibalistic or which otherwise kills its own members, is unlikely to survive long in close-knit quarters. But a species which doesn't have these tendencies, which evolves instincts to support each other, is much stronger, much more likely to survive, and thus much more likely to pass on those instincts. If humans suddenly became violent at the sight of another human, our civilisation wouldn't last long (qv. 28 Days Later).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We went from paper aeroplanes to lunar landings in 50 years. I dont mind the T of E. It is consistent wiyh data, but I am not dogmatist aboutbit though being in Descartes skeptical fireside chair half the time.

 

[Cromulent]

Thanks for the good point. Evolutionists simply can not answer this kind of question because they see nothing about any possible trace of answer in the genetic code of human.

Human is not an evolved life.

You keep thinking that if it makes you happy. In spite of the explanation posted right below your own post.

 

[HitchSlap]

So just how do we factor this: "time and chance" into Darwin's theory?

Well, given enough time and a chance to survive, organisms will. If your god/s exist, then he sure wrote some nifty software for the propagation of life.

 

[Jamin4422]

As I said, the cause was in the evolution of listening to one's elders.

Interesting how the Bible talks about listening to your elders if you want to live a long life. I use to think my elders did not know what they were talking about. IN a lot of ways they didn't, but I still would have been better off listening to them. It was the people that had been through the Holocaust that first got me to listen and pay attention.

Why not? H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis lived together for quite some time, possibly interbreeding, possibly fighting.

I guess I am going to have to put more research into this. They were alive at the same time. I am not sure there were a part of the same ecosystem though.

All true, but what time period are you talking about?

The information I have right now is 30,000 years ago.

Even today, girth is a sign of plenty - if you can get fat, then you have the luxury of abundant food.

I am not so sure if I should get into this or not. The VERY first building was a temple. Some people say some very nice things about this temple. We also hear stories about temple prostitutes. So from the perspective of some people the oldest building we can find was little more then a fancy brothel. There has been a lot written on this, but I have not had a chance to study up on it very much. Of course the Bible was very much against this and warned people to stay away from this sort of sin.

we haven't had any major changes in our brains or bodies (beyond the biochemical). These developments are cultural, not biological.

We have high schools with a 98% graduation rate and we also have high schools on the other side of the track with a 50% graduation rate. I think it is important to have a teacher that can wake up the mind of a student and teach them how to think. Even this increase in brain activity can be seen on a brain scan. At my age I think it is very important to read and study and keep my brain as active as I can to keep all those neurons going.

van Gogh didn't paint The Starry Night due to an evolved instinct, at least not directly.

I have not really had time to study up on sacred math or sacred geometry. It looks like that was one of the areas that he did study and was interested in.

if you have social skills, then you can work with others, by virtue of the sheer fact that you have social skills.

Actually that is a lot of what school is all about. Learning how to get along with or how to work with people. I am not a big fan of home schooling. Because I do not think they learn the social skills they need. I worked as a salesman and worked on my own in sales for years and years. So I have had to learn a lot of different things on how to communicate with people.