31. ryan,,

just because you do not believe in a just and holy god does not mean you won't stand before him. are you under a mis-guided assumption that you create your own reality? this is exactly the kind of thing i mean with atheist.

you don't believe in a just and holy god so therefore he does not exist!!presto gone. those who do believe in god, presto,god!!

that is not reality. if you did not believe in gravity and jumped off a building then what? gravity is still there and your still dead. this is the sort of idealogy you gt from atheist..
as for my "witness" ryan, most people who are virolent atheist such as yourself are going to be offended by the truth no matter who the messenger is. so your comment is ok!!

brian at 9:03AM on Apr 28th 2008

32. Chapter Four

The Paleolithic Nomads


“Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection
determined the evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species.”

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989) Austrian Zoologist and Ethologist



Ecological change is a universal constant, which can uniformly create life, sustain life, or terminate life. The evolutionary genesis of the hominid species as well as our own civilizations has been environmental change. For if our environment hadn’t periodically turned colder and drier, the early Australopithecus would never have eventually evolved into the present-day Homo sapiens-sapiens. As a species of the primate family, we haven’t conquered our surroundings. Instead, we have learned to adapt to the crushing tides of change and overcome the competition around us.
At the beginning of the “Great Pleistocene Ice Age,” the Homo ergaster (walking human) began to migrate out of Africa into the continent of Asia. Whether they eventually evolved into the Homo erectus (upright human) while dwelling in Asia, or whether they were actually the same species, it doesn’t really matter here. As a major forerunner of modern humans, the mighty Homo erectus would ultimately arise and come to dominate the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Incredibly, they existed for a tremendously long time. Emerging around two millions years ago, they finally became extinct about the same time period as the Neanderthals, which has been estimated at about thirty thousand years ago. As an extremely mobile creature, the Homo erectus had a unique economic method in dealing with any threat to their immediate survival. When the competition for food had become too intense or if a change in the climate had begun to make their survival questionable, they would just gather up their families and move to a more promising region.
The average Homo erectus stood almost five feet, ten inches tall and weighed a little over one hundred pounds. Even though, their bodies were just as elongated as modern humans, their skeletons were thicker, thus making them more robust looking in their body features. Protected by a thin coat of wiry hair, they walked with a slightly stooped back and a lethargic gait. Resting on top of their semi-broad shoulders was an elliptical-shaped head that revealed a flat face with a broad nose and a pair of large sensitive ears. A powerful jaw with a thin and yet wide set of lips concealed their small human-like teeth. Across their sloping foreheads was a protruding brow-ridge bone that accentuated a pair of dark penetrating eyes.
Overall, their facial features were ape-like, which must have given them a very ferocious and unforgiving appearance. Yet their facial expressions and their body movements were very human. In terms of their stature, they were unimpressive as compared to the later day humanoids. On an individual basis, the larger carnivores of the savannas wouldn’t have even been very threatened by their presence. But as a group, they were very threatening.
Undoubtedly, the Homo erectus was a very formidable creature. Hardy, shrewd, energetic, resourceful, and organized into small bands, it didn’t take very long before they became the lords of their surroundings. For unlike the Homo habilis, the Homo erectus was a full-blown carnivorous hunter, who had become completely erect in their movements. Physically able to survive on the grasslands, they possessed the needed weapons, together with the necessary cognitive, communication, and organizational skills to hunt the larger animals. And due to these unique abilities, they were able to hunt and devour into extinction almost any species within their reach, including quite possibly, their own distant relatives the Australopithecines and the Homo habilis.
As a hereditary and cultural offspring of earlier scavenging societies, the Homo erectus was an accumulation of several million years of hominid development. Highly creative, socially evolved, extremely organized, and wonderfully skilled, they would take the nomadic economy to new heights. This was accomplished not only by their development of the Acheulean/Clactonian type of tools, but also by their political, social, religious, and cultural development as well. Unlike the humanoids before them, they had become so adaptable in their economic skills and in their cultural flexibility that it would take a lot more than another Ice Age to erase their way of life.
Stretching back to the early stages of our development, we hadn’t yet formed true family units. Our relationships were based upon a primitive form of cenogamy (fission-fusion arrangement); whereas everyone was free to mate with everyone else. The concept of an individual permanently bonding with another hadn’t yet emerged, so it wasn’t as if everyone was married to each other. However, the leader (alpha male) of the band and his favorite alpha female did form a special relationship called pair bonding. This relationship was essentially a mutual obligation between the two most dominant individuals within their respective genders. They weren’t married in the modern sense of the word, but they did form a special bond. Besides protecting, caressing, and grooming each other, they would ensure each other’s survival by sharing their food, warmth, and on occasion their sleeping arrangements. Even though, they were free to seek out other companions, their first allegiance was to each other.
Over a period of time, this unique pair bonding relationship between the alpha males and females would eventually spread throughout the whole group and give rise to what we know as family units. It wasn’t a process that happened over night. In fact, there was a combination of economic factors that worked together, which led to them forming several different types of family relationships. And without a doubt, it was a monumental step forward in our evolution. In short, the union of men and women into an actual family unit would assist the nomads in better organizing their hunting societies by clarifying their interpersonal relationships through the establishment of a more efficient food distribution system.
Once we had become successful nomads, the cultural dynamics of our roaming groups would undergo a dramatic change. As food gatherers and scavengers, the distribution of food was carried out through the social hierarchy of their gender groups, depending upon where the individual stood within his or her own group. For instance, once the males had eaten, the females and their offspring were free to consume whatever nourishment was leftover. This type of food distribution system had worked in the jungles and the deep ravines, where the females and their offspring were free to find their own additional food among the tall trees and bushes. But as we began to venture out onto the barren savannas as nomads, where the females were expected to stay behind and protect the camp site, this system had become totally outdated, thus leaving the females and their children extremely vulnerable to undernourishment and even starvation. Under the economic stress of rectifying this situation, the previously divided gender groups would find themselves breaking up and actually forming family units.
As the males improved in their ability to hunt, there slowly appeared a wide discrepancy between the individual hunters ability to provide food on a consistent basis. Much like a bell curve within any modern profession, a small percentage of the males (alphas) were very efficient at hunting, due to their superior physical and mental skills, while another small percentage (omegas) had become very inapt. Meanwhile, the overall majority of them (betas) were just efficient enough to be called average. Within their small bands, it would become common knowledge among the members, which individual hunters were the most successful in either hunting the small game or in leading a hunting party. As a result, the individual females began pair bonding with those males efficient enough at hunting to provide them and their offspring with an adequate amount the food throughout the whole year.
In all probability, the sudden appearance of our family units began with an initial change in our ancestors’ sleeping arrangements. Instead of the females huddling around the alpha males as they had done in the past, the young females would begin to crawl next to one of the more numerous beta males during the night as a source of warmth, protection, and the possibility of bonding. If the male was agreeable to her presence by not rejecting her, they would continue to sleep together and begin forming a special relationship through the acts of sharing their food, grooming, and procreating. This simple change in their sleeping arrangements had a profound affect upon intensifying our interpersonal relationships. Ultimately, it would actually form our first single families, whereas the female began to exclusively depend upon the male for her substance in exchange for becoming his sexual possession. Of course, the better hunters would find themselves sleeping with more than one female, hence the birth of polygamy.
As a result of this new sleeping arrangement, the majority of the females and their offspring weren’t dependent upon the leftover scraps any longer. Instead of keeping the food for themselves, the beta males would take their portion of the freshly killed carcass, after the alphas had taken theirs, and share it with their new found female partners. Then the females would in turn share it with their hungry offspring. Consequently, the overwhelming majority of the Homo erectus was able to eat on a consistent basis. However, the omega males and females which normally bonded together would have had a hard time of it, unless the hunt had been a very successful affair.
The emergence of the family was not only based upon the development of a new food distribution system through the pair bonding of individuals, but it also helped to serve their population needs as well. Within the scattered and isolated groups, the ratio between the number of males and females was rarely equal. Thus our nomadic ancestors were forced to make allowances for this disparity by forming many different types of family relationships. Simply stated, if the nomadic group was experiencing an overabundance of available females and several of the males possessed the ability to support more than one of them, then the family units would become polygamous.
However, if there were an overabundance of males, then polyandry would emerge as a family unit, whereupon which one female would pair bond with a small group of males. Of course, a polyandry family was very rare among the true-blue nomads, due to the males’ sexual possessiveness. Yet it did flourish among the world’s food gatherers, where the food was more readily available to both genders. As for the monogamous relationship, it was usually present among the less dominant omegas and especially whenever the genders were almost equal in number.
The negative repercussions of incest were either unknown or probably ignored altogether as a consequence of living within a limited number of people. The choice of mates was naturally restricted within an economy that didn’t encourage peaceful interaction with the other nomadic groups. It was by no mere coincidence that giving birth to a baby boy was considered a great asset. Nomadic life was harsh and demanding, thus necessitating the desire for as many males as possible. When infanticide was performed, during the most meager of times, it was the baby girls and the weak sickly boys that were sacrificed.
One of the many reasons for the Homo erectus huge success was their ability to better organize themselves with their improved language skills. Now whether their organizational skills initiated the improvement of their language skills or vice versa will never be known. But instead of continuing to form loosely knitted bands, like the Australopithecines and the Homo habilis before them, they began to form larger, better-organized groups called clans, under the firm leadership of a single male. Over a space of time, this clan leader was able to communicate his commands in a more concise authoritarian manner by using simple syllables, and thus upholding his right to rule. It was another big step in our evolution, because it would set the precedent for their future nomadic descendants to eventually form actual tribes.
Simply stated, the clan leadership role of the nomads had directly evolved from the role that had previously been filled by the alpha males in the jungle. However, the major difference between their roles was the higher level of communication skills and the type of strict discipline required by the nomads to succeed on the savannas. The nomadic leader was a forceful domineering individual, who constantly upheld the needed discipline and singular direction within the clan, so as they could effectively roam and hunt as an organized group. With the expansion of his nomadic responsibilities and with the assistance of his loyal lieutenants, the Homo erectus leader would ruthlessly demand a higher state of obedience and unity within his clan in order for them to survive the many hardships. If he had to punish an individual for failing to properly carry out his or her responsibilities, then it was within his authority to do so. Subsequently, it had become an economic necessity for them to centralize and intensify their governing structure for the purpose of increasing their efficiency as hunters, thus enabling them to react to the ever-changing circumstances as a cohesive body of one.
Another reason why the Homo erectus was so highly successful and renowned for their accomplishments was their ability to make fire. The archeological evidence appears to be inconsistent and continues to be debated as to when they actually began to use its amazing power. But most scholars believe it was somewhere between one million and seven hundred thousand years ago that our ancestors first began to make use of this natural phenomenon.
Initially, it was probably made available to the Homo erectus by the frequent brush fires that were ignited by the ever-present lightening bolts or even by the nearby volcanic lava spills. But whatever the scenario, they would soon come to realize the many benefits of harnessing the awesome power of the flame. In fact, it enabled the Homo erectus to venture out of southern Asia and into the colder climate of Europe. This can be deduced by the discovery of their most recent remains in that continent. And quite frankly, life in the frigid areas of the earth would have been impossible for them to endure without the assistance of controlled heat. This alone would have a tremendous impact upon their nomadic lives by permitting them to follow the herds ever more northward.
Of course, the major problem in keeping natural fire was that it had to be continuously fed by someone. During the rainy season, this must have been very difficult to achieve. But to their lasting credit, this problem was eventually overcome when they discovered how to make fire on their own accord. Though in all probability, it was an accident waiting to happen. While in the process of making bifacial chipped tools and weapons, the sparks from the flints could have easily ignited some nearby patch of dried grass. And since the Homo erectus were continuously making stone and flint implements, the production of sparks must have been an everyday affair.
Furthermore, the idea of rubbing two sticks together probably came about much later in a completely different environment, where pieces of flint weren’t readily available. Again whatever the circumstances, the use of fire would have a profound effect upon their daily lives. For it would have kept the larger predators away from their camp sites, improved their meager diets, and encouraged a greater interaction between the humanoids huddled around it.
With the discovery of controlled fire, the simple act of cooking their meat would have significantly improved of their daily diets by reducing the possibility of disease by killing the parasites and by making it much easier for them to digest their food. While unknowingly extending their life spans, it would have also enlarged their taste for other foods and stimulated the different ways to prepare the many different types of food.
As they gathered around the smoky camp fire, it was a common practice for them to throw a wide variety of meats, roots, fruits, nuts, and insects onto the hot ambers for roasting. While enjoying the different aromas drifting through the night air, it was moments like these that were probably the high point of their day, momentarily safe from the dangers around them and feasting on their hot meals. Yet it was on a social level that the use of camp fires would have it greatest impact towards our evolution. The nightly ritual of cooking and consuming their meals would have not only unconsciously improved their language skills and thought processes through the exchanging of ideas, experiences, and emotions, but it would have also inspired their imaginations as well.
Nevertheless, the most mysterious aspect of our discovery of fire was in the realm of religion. The veneration of fire is one of the oldest forms of human worship. Recognized as a manifestation of a divinity or a particular spirit by the nomads, the flames represented to them a source of adoration and reverence. Since it was the first form of energy that humans could actually create and control, the nomads ended up deifying it. In their minds, it must have been a gift from one of the spirits or powers around them. Later in almost every agrarian mythology, there was an ancient account of how fire was given to their people by the gods in order to enhance their power and to provide them with both spiritual and physical light. Even in modern times many primitive religions still use fire as part of their purification rite or as a symbolic force of redemption. Amazingly, the flickering flame of an outdoor campfire still continues to this day to have a mesmerizing effect upon the young and old alike.
Before the Homo erectus began to migrate into the European continent, they had already originated a large assortment of Acheulean/Clactonian tools. By then, they were quite capable of molding or chipping a variety of woods, stones, and animal bones into an assortment of useful tools and weapons. Their best-known tool/weapon was a bifacial hand axe or cleaver. After a hunter had chipped the sides of a flaked rock to a razor sharp edge, he could employ this versatile tool for many different purposes, including the chopping, hammering, scraping, dicing, smashing, peeling, sticking, and the slicing of whatever meats, fruits, or type of nuts that he so desired. In fact, he probably made a bifacial tool for each specific purpose. Hence by the time the Homo erectus had learned to harness the awesome power of fire for their warmth and security; they were fairly sophisticated in their economic skills as compared to the Homo habilis. It is by no mere accident that many of today’s social scientists classify the civilizations of our past by the tools that they had made and used.
As the Homo erectus improved their organizational arrangements (clans), their language and tool making skills, along with their ability to produce energy (fire), they would begin pushing deeper into the northern areas of Asia and Europe, so as to pursuit the vast herds of roaming animals. And pursuit the animals they did. For almost two million years, they would migrate to almost every corner of the earth's surface, hunting and scavenging whatever food was available.
Still, it should be noted here that not all of the Homo erectus were purely nomadic. Those that followed the coastlines to the other continents, instead of following the great herds, actually lived much like their earlier food gathering ancestors, the Homo habilis. Pushing their way along the coastal plains of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and then occupying the various jungles, deep river valleys, and the tall forests and jungles, they would thrive in these isolated areas across the globe by hunting, fishing, and by gathering the local fruits, seeds, and nuts. Yet as part of this restless collection of early humanoids, they weren’t the seekers of big game nor were they the great roamers. While also possessing the ability to shape tools and produce fire, they were essentially food gatherers and the hunters of game.
There were two distinct aspects about the Homo erectus and their descendants that made their journeys possible and help developed our unique mental abilities. First and foremost, the mutual stimulation between their hands and brains would create an “evolutionary feedback loop.” Whereas the more they worked their thought processes, the more they were inclined to work their hands and vise versa. In other words, as our hands became more agile and skilled in the process of making more tools, the process itself would generate even more possibilities for the brain to contemplate. This bilateral relationship constantly increased our ancestor’s physical and mental capabilities to the point where our species would become destined to eventually domesticate the plants and animals and later industrialize many parts of the world.
But in addition to this initial evolutionary feedback loop, there also existed another aspect to their amazing mental and physical development, a second more substantial, broader loop.
While an individual's brain and hands were mutually stimulating each other, as in the initial feedback loop, a person’s body would become stimulated towards a greater need for nutrition. This increase in the body's nutritional requirements would therefore stimulate an additional need for more intense activities by the brain and hands. In other words, the harder the Homo erectus worked their brain and hands, the more nutrition they would require. Thus the more nutrition they required, the harder they would work their brain and hands, thus creating a perpetual cycle of expanding our species mental and physical growth.
Unquestionably, these bilateral feedback relationships still exist with us today. A phenomenon of nature, this perpetual cycle of expanding our physical and mental abilities has the possibilities of eventually developing a future humanoid with incredible physical capabilities and unlimited cerebral powers. In fact, several hundred thousand years from now, it is doubtful that we will even recognize our own species. For contrary to popular belief, we as a species will in due course evolve into another form of humanoid, so long as we don’t interrupt this process through some self-inflicted catastrophe like global war, overpopulation, or an environmental upheaval.
The key to understanding our institutions and our species can be found among the scattered remains of the Homo erectus. As nomads, they developed a very successful hunting culture. In fact, their culture was so successful that they eventually roamed the earth supreme. After learning to hunt as an organized group, their survival was assured by simply following the great herds of migrating animals. During the winter months, they pursued them southward into the warmer areas, where the grass was still green. Then during the summer months, they would slowly trail them northward to avoid the dry season. As their proficiency in hunting increased, so did their population, in spite of the fact that they practiced infanticide throughout the most difficult times. Subsequently, their overflowing populations would eventually force many of them to migrate into the other continents.
Among the vast rolling golden grasses of the world’s savannas, the arid landscape was intersected with deep ravines, raising mesas, and dried out riverbeds. Many of the animals found relief from the scorching midday sun by resting under or around the clumps of the trees, thorn thickets, and dense shrubs. Amid these shady havens, a variety of poisonous snakes, deadly insects, and other predators also rested as they waited for sundown. Constantly moving from area to area in search of better grazing land, the great herds could suddenly disappear from the horizon as quickly as they had appeared. Thus hunting them throughout the vast hinterland was no simple task. Dangers lurked behind every bush and underneath every rock.
Utilizing their heightened senses, these early nomads were able to recognize their prey at a considerable distance. On any given day, they could identify them by their peculiar mating calls, unique body odors, or their physical characteristics. Even in the most rugged terrain, they were extremely skilled in determining how far away they were from a herd by the freshness of their hoof prints or the dampness of their dung. To an alert hunter, the stench of stale urine, the pattern of matted down grasses or an overturned rock were all indications of an animal’s earlier presence. By learning to read the many different trail signs and understanding the larger animals feeding habits, the Homo erectus slowly became very proficient at locating them on a fairly consistent basis. However, it would have taken a lot of skill and patience to bring one of them down. Naturally, the best hunters would begin to achieve a special status within their group, thus encouraging the individual hunter to out perform the others.
It wasn’t very difficult for the Homo erectus to individually hunt the smaller game. The Homo habilis before them had already perfected the many different hunting techniques. But the needed skills for centralized control (hierarchy), practical planning (symbols), and accurate communication (language) that was required to hunt as a group and bring down a large animal couldn’t have been learned overnight. It would have taken millenniums.
In all probability, the Homo erectus began to learn the techniques of group hunting by observing and then emulating the different packs of marauding animals as they overcame a much larger prey. By observing an alpha male evasively maneuvering his pack (e.g. hyenas) into position to attack an unsuspecting animal, the hunters would have been given a classic example of leadership, teamwork, mobility, deception, and surprise in action. To the hungry nomads, who understood the many benefits of hunting the big game, it must have been a very enlightening sight.
In a very real sense, it was these roaming packs of animals that were the catalyst of our ancestors becoming nomads. In fact, it was another tremendous step in our evolution. The needed skills to hunt as a coordinated group couldn’t have been learned through trial and error alone. Being creatures of imitation and habit, the Homo erectus would have learned by copying the other groups of animals’ strategies in hunting the big game and in protecting themselves against the larger predators. It is no small wonder that even today many people feel an indescribable kinship towards the animal kingdom. For not only did they provide us with the food and clothing to survive, but they also showed us how change our way of life. Instead of remaining the passive food gatherers and the hunters of small game, the surrounding packs of animals had demonstrated to us the necessary tactics to become a highly organized group of wandering hunters. Our ancestors already had a pecking order that established a leadership framework within a clan, along with a rudimentary language in which to communicate between each other; all they really needed was a method and a plan.
The biggest problem facing our ancestors wasn’t whether or not they could bring down a large animal. As an organized group, they could surround and then kill a prey fairly quickly with their crude fire-tipped wooden weapons. Thus their biggest problem in successfully hunting the vast herds was twofold. Initially, they had to figure out a way to get close enough to a wandering herd without alarming them. Then secondly, they also had to figure out a way to isolate one of animals from the rest of the herd, so as to have any chance of killing one of them. Since the nomads couldn’t out run them or kill them at a great distance, they were forced to come up with a variety of different strategies for the different types of terrain.
Simply chasing a herd off of a cliff or pursuing them until they became incapacitated through exhaustion might have solved their problem. But unfortunately, herds can turn on a dime in order to avoid the cliffs and the average gazing animal can run a lot farther and faster than humans can. Moreover, these erect humans had become fleet of foot, intelligent, organized, and well armed with a growing social desire to prove their abilities to the others in their group. Thus their hunting techniques were obviously more sophisticated than originally thought as they traveled from continent to continent.
Among the vast plains, the hunters had the ability to locate a roaming herd by following their fresh hoof prints or by picking up their scent among the gentle breeze. By positioning themselves downwind, it would have been an easy matter for them to conceal their approach by moving along a dried up riverbed or a shallow ravine. In this manner, they were able to move within the general vicinity of the herd without giving them an opportunity to see or smell the approaching danger. Pausing long enough to camouflage themselves with mud and grass, the hunters would then attempt to get as close as possible to the herd by slowly crawling along the ground. By remaining downwind and out of sight, their intent was to position themselves on the outer periphery of the herd, thus forming a wide semi-circle among the deep grass or thick shrubs.
It was at this point that they had to patiently wait for a single gazing animal to wander into their ambush. Communicating to each other by using hand signals and thirsting for water, they literally laid there in the grass for hours on end, as if they were a part of the scenery. On many occasions, the herd would move off into another direction, leaving the disappointed hunters behind to hunt another day. But when one of animals did enter the trap, the leader would give the signal to the other hunters and then they would spring up from the ground, plunging their fire-tipped spears into the prey’s body. Knowing the most vulnerable part of the animal to plunge their spears, the actual kill didn’t take but a few minutes, as the rest of the herd scattered to the four winds.
As a rule of thumb, the herds naturally congregated around sources of water, such as rivers, streams, or lakes. The hunters also used the vegetation around these water sources as a form of concealment for their ambushes. As a result of hiding in the underbrush near a riverbank or around a lakeshore, they were able to have the herd come to them, instead of the other way around. Predictably, the approaching animals would become excited by the smell of fresh water and begin pushing each other towards the source of refreshment. Among the confusion, a few of them invariably ended up wandering up and down the riverbank looking for a point of entry into the cool water, thus separating themselves from the rest of the herd. It was at this critical point that one of them would eventually stumble into the hunters’ semi-circle. Then it was just a question of the hunters springing their trap at the right moment.
It was during the dry season along the shrinking rivers that the hunters employed a technique from their ancient past. It was a simple technique and ridiculously effective. As a thirsty herd was fast approaching the river, the concealed hunters would jump up from their hiding places situated behind the on-rushing herd and create a scene of total mayhem. By waving a hand-full of bushes or animal pelts in the air and screaming at the top of their lungs, the hunters were able to panic the herd into the shallow water by effectively using the animal’s own momentum. Then, once the majority of the herd had panicked and rushed across the river, the hunters would kill the unlucky ones that had found themselves stuck in the mud and left behind.
Since the Homo erectus lived and prospered in almost every continent, what had worked for them out in the open plains wouldn’t have worked for them along the bush covered riverbanks, the tree-lined streams, or even in the mountains or jungles Yet their tactics must have been based upon their previous experiences. Centered mainly upon the ambush, they would employ the tactics of camouflage, concealment, surprise, and panic to their best advantage. Not surprisingly, they eventually became skilled enough to hunt the most elusive animals within every type of terrain and weather.
Being extremely flexible in their eating habits, our early ancestors consumed almost everything that walked, hopped, crawled, swam, or flew. In addition to eating a large assortment of seeds, wild fruits, roots, berries, leaves, tree bark, and even insects, they also gorged themselves whenever possible on birds, fish, turtles, frogs, small game, and any available eggs. Long before there were any established religious taboos about eating certain foods, our ancestors were free to eat whatever nourishment was available to them. And since their survival was at stake and the herds could sometimes disappear for weeks or even months on end, there wouldn’t have been any moral code from preventing them from eating the most unimaginably foods from the most unimaginably sources. In addition to eating every conceivable animal along with every part of that animal, including its intestines, brain, eyes, and tongue, it was during the winter months that they would pick and eat the seeds from the surrounding animal dung or the parasites from their own bodies.
Furthermore, it wasn’t beyond the Homo erectus disposition to consume a humanoid or two. As predominant and indeed ruthless carnivores, the hunting and consumption of fresh meat was the basis of their nomadic economy and of their culture. Whether the meat came from an antelope or from another humanoid wouldn’t have made much difference to them within an extremely primitive and highly mobile culture. The eating of other forms of food might have satisfied their hunger up to a certain point, but eventually, they would have turned to whatever source available to fulfill their need for protein.
There is ample evidence that the act of cannibalism was much more prevalent within our hunting cultures than our modern scientists and scholars have cared to admit. In all probability, it didn’t become an absolute taboo within our societies until after we had begun to domesticate the surrounding plants and animals. At that point, our prehistoric ancestors were in the middle of changing their eating habits from their previous nomadic days, towards eating less meat and more grains. Secondly, it also probably became a prohibited behavior among the farmers and herders, because for the first time in our history, the individual’s ability to produce food was far greater than his or her value as a mere cadaver.
And finally as our ancient histories have illustrated, this taboo for cannibalism within the early agrarian societies took on an extreme religious and civic dimension. After becoming morally and economically repugnant to the agrarians, these untamed cannibalistic nomads were ostracized, hunted down, and then exterminated by the ranging armies of the farming societies. Eventually, the nomads were forced to give up the practice except as a secret ritual in order to ensure their continued existence. Over time and to the present day, the remnants of these cannibalistic cultures can only be found in the most remote regions of the world.
While roaming the earth’s surface for close to two millions years, our ancestors, the Homo erectus, lived a roaming lifestyle either as wandering food gatherers or as true nomads. They were lifestyles or rather economies that demanded a high birth rate for them to be successful. Undoubtedly, the females experienced an exceptionally high number of miscarriages due to the rugged nature of living outdoors and the physical demands placed upon them. And even when a child was born, the majority of them wouldn’t have survived for very long. Their lack of hygiene and prenatal care would have created a soaring mortality rate. Thus in response to the economic need to produce as many offspring as possible, the nomads slowly underwent several physical, biological, and cultural changes. In due course, these changes would include the enhancement of our males’ already intense biological sexual drive (libido) and a change in the females’ physiological ability to bear more children.
Within the broad spectrum of human evolution, the nomadic males with the strongest libidos had a distinct advantage in reproducing more offspring than their less testosterone-driven male relatives. In the long run, this had a tremendous impact upon their roaming culture and our biological evolution as a whole. For generation after generation, the more sexually inclined and thus the more aggressive males were continuously breeding as a way to maintain their nomadic way of life. While at the same time, they were unknowingly creating a genetic pool of hyper-active males, who could only satisfy their sexual needs by constantly relying upon their aggressive behavior. As a result, the male’s intense sexual instinct (libido) was not only intensified even further, but it would also increase his aggressive drive towards his female counterpart as well. This increase of the male’s libido and his aggressive drive would metabolically make him an emotionally inclined introvert as compared to the average female. Since his most inner emotional and instinctual needs were constantly being expressed and then fulfilled whenever he masturbated or copulated, there wasn’t any motivation on his part to dwell on his feelings. His world was one of directing his personal and physical power towards a specific goal without pausing to evaluate those feelings.
For the average humanoid male, his primordial desire to copulate or to achieve ejaculations could be described as a form of biological addiction. Similar to a modern day drug addicts experiencing the sensation of having a monkey on their back, the young males would come to exhibit the same symptoms of physical irritation, frustration, obsessive behavior, and the lost of rational thought and social responsibility, whenever his reproductive drive wasn’t being biologically satisfied. Subsequently, the males of our species have evolved into the most sexually obsessed and prolific creatures within the animal kingdom. They would find themselves an ardent prisoner to their own exhilarating and ever-present passion to spread their seed. It is a passion so overpowering that it can lead an older respectable man into playing the young fool and a young fool into playing the hero. Even today, if the average male isn’t actively seeking out a sexual partner, he is either talking about it or fantasying about it. This form of habitual behavior doesn’t make him morally weak, depraved, or even socially irresponsible and immature. Instead, it makes him quite human and deeply vulnerable.
Then on the other side of the coin, the females of our species who could breed the most children had naturally left behind the most offspring. Primarily bred and raised to bear a large number of children, her physical adaptation came in the form of developing tremendous leg, buttocks, and back muscles in order to support her child bearing. Furthermore, her oestrus would eventually disappear and be replaced by the much more fertile uterus as her pelvic bone became wider so as to ease the strain of child birth. Even though, she possessed an under-developed upper body, she could still carry a heavy load on her back for long distances while baring a child within her womb. Unlike her hominid predecessors, who gave birth to a single child every three or fours years, she was soon able to produce children on a year round basis. Literally pregnant throughout her brief existence, when she wasn’t giving birth herself, she was usually assisting other females in giving birth. Except for her actual desire to produce offspring (mother instinct), she evolved into a less sexually driven individual as compared to her male counterpart, thus exhibiting less physical aggression.
This physical and biological adaptation to produce more children in order to succeed as nomads had a tremendous impact upon our females’ maternal impulses. Comparable to the males’ libido, they would eventually develop an extremely forceful mother instinct, rarely matched within the animal kingdom. Exceedingly possessive of their children and intensely protective of their nests or dens, this inflamed instinct had made them extremely determined, adaptable, emotionally extroverted, resilient, and profoundly patient. Unlike the males’ primary instinct to aggressively spread their seed and then impatiently move on to find another den, the females’ maternal instinct is to organize and then preserve the den, while nurturing her offspring into adulthood. Although the two genders of our species evolved into completely different creatures in their compulsions, perceptions, and priorities, their relationship would evolve into an indomitable partnership of one.
It should be noted that because of the extraordinary development of the males’ inflamed libido and the females’ profound sense of motherhood, our species has been able to historically overcome a succession of wars, famines, epidemics, natural disasters, and environmental changes. This ability to produce our offspring in large numbers and under extreme conditions has been the foundation of our species success. Without either one of these distinctive gender characteristics, we would have remained a mere footnote in the passage of time.
In all likelihood, our species’ homosexual tendencies were handed down to us by our primate ancestors from the eastern forests of Africa. Within their small bands, the young males regularly engaged in such behavior either as an alternative to mating with a female or as a sexual preference. Primarily motivated by their intense sexual drive (libido) and their emotional inclination, it wasn’t considered a social taboo among the food gatherers or the scavengers. However as nomads, it was probably frowned upon because of their need to sustain a large population of hunters. Nonetheless, this sexual inclination was eventually inherited by our agrarian descendants, once we had begun farming the soil and constructing villages. By that time, homosexual behavior had become an intricate aspect of human societies. As a consequence, many of our ancient cultures would embrace their presence, while many others would not.
Now whether or not this particular behavior was socially learned or genetically inherited within an individual is still being hotly debated even in modern times. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, depending upon an individual. Yet one cannot deny the fact that no matter what the culture or the time period, it is quite common for the males and females of our species to experiment and explore their sexuality at a very early age. And in most incidences, this will include a period of sexual experimentation with their own gender. As a result, it is during this period of adolescent experimentation that the individual will usually discover his or her sexual orientation.
Unlike the female’s impulse for homosexuality, which is basically derived from her “mother instinct” to nourish, protect, and to emotionally bond with another human being, the male’s homosexual impulse is initially driven by his instinctual “libido.” It is through this act of sexual gratification that a male is able to express and to fulfill his biological need to spread his seed, while emotionally satisfying his need to bond with another human being. Within the realm of both hetero/homosexuality, those individuals that desire to dominate a relationship will intentionally seek out those individuals that want to be dominated and vice versa. This need to dominate or to be dominated by another individual was handed down to us from our primate ancestors. For better for worst, it is a very prominent aspect of being a highly socialized species, whose individuals’ identity and social acceptance are derived from his or her hierarchal group.
The human homosexual has always sought out an emotional and physical relationship with a partner that can best fulfill his or her biological needs. But whatever its true origin, human homosexuality has always been a part of our societies and it will continue to be so. As many scholars have come to believe, there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, thus implying that they aren’t any less human or any less normal than the average heterosexual.
The early nomads sought immediate sensual gratification in the simple everyday pleasures of warmth, security, food, companionship, and sex. The sensation of the moment was more important to them than the memories of the past or the possibilities of the future. Living in the moment gave their lives meaning and purpose, while they struggled to scratch out a meager living. Personally dreaming of a better tomorrow or the occasionally regretting a past deed didn’t exist within their intellectual framework. To them, life was immediate, unforgiving, hostile, and completely centered around the moment. Thus their hedonistic approach to surviving another day was not only a reaction to their environment, but it was also a reflection of their nomadic lifestyle.
While living in an economy that wasn’t conducive to scientific thought, the early nomads could understand the concepts of cause and effect only on an elementary level. The killing of a helpless animal to provide food for their families, the clipping of a rock into a tool, and the making of a camp fire were all actions and results they could perceive and understand. But they were incapable of understanding a phenomenon like the appearance of snow, the glare of the sun, or the sudden illness among their own. In their minds, it must have something to do with the unseen mystical powers around them. Naïve and suspicious of their surroundings, these powers would become a part of their spirit world, filled with mysterious omens, scared events, and random calamities. It was a world where magic prevailed over sweet reason, where fear triumphed over knowledge, and where hysteria succeeded over equanimity.
In between the countless towering mountain ranges, the plush emerald forests, the deep river valleys, and the desert flatlands, our ancestors would roam the endless steppes of Eurasia in search of game and water. Life was harsh and unrelenting, especially for those who failed to organize themselves and defend their right to live among the grasslands. Unlike scavenging or the hunting for small game, the consequences of continuously roaming behind the large herds inevitably brought them into direct contact with the other groups of wandering humanoids. However under normal circumstances, their conflicts were usually short in duration and relatively bloodless affairs. There wasn’t any urgent need or desire on anyone’s part to actively seek out an enemy. The terrain was so vast and their numbers were so few that it was much easier for the Homo erectus just to move to another local. The actual hunting of the herds was their main priority, and since the herds were plentiful and always on the move, the early nomads rarely if ever proclaimed a particular territory as their own.
Yet that doesn’t imply they didn’t have their conflicts. When they did occur, it was usually over possession of a freshly killed animal or an isolated watering hole. Much like the scavengers before them, these confrontations didn’t last for very long, nor were they very bloody affairs. The nomads’ livelihood was based upon the young males’ ability to hunt. Thus they couldn’t afford to sustain a high number of casualties or their clans would have quickly disappeared from the face of the earth. The truly bloody engagements wouldn’t occur in our history, until we became agrarians and began forming villages and huge cities. At that point, we had developed an overwhelming population of people, which motivated our species desire to stand and fight over the ownership of the land.
The Homo erectus was a complex social creature, who would attempt to overcome the powers of nature by whatever means possible. Fundamentally, they were incestuous, cannibalistic, superstitious, suspicious of strangers, and abundantly ruthless in their behaviors. But on a more positive side, they were also intensely devoted and caring parents, personally sacrificial and charitable, resourceful, and absolutely determined to adapt to their environment. In modern terms, the Homo erectus was extremely human in their habits, interpersonal relationships, and in their boundless desire to protect their own. Yet they were savages, attempting to survive in a savage land, where survival was almost nonexistent for those that couldn’t adapt to the changing circumstances around them.

gshort3011 at 9:06AM on Apr 28th 2008

33. gshort, that's way too long.

The stumbling and vicious way brian types always makes me imagine him spitting as he talks.

Mokele Mbembe at 9:09AM on Apr 28th 2008

34. Mokele; good morning. I just picture him always red faced.

brian; "you don't believe in a just and holy god so therefore he does not exist!!"

No, "A just and holy god" most likely does not exist because there there is no evidence.

Ryan Anderson at 9:13AM on Apr 28th 2008

35. "you don't believe in a just and holy god so therefore he does not exist!!presto gone. those who do believe in god, presto,god!! "
Who is this line even supposed to convince?

Mokele Mbembe at 9:15AM on Apr 28th 2008

36. "Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses."
Strategic use of "always". Like your favorite audiences have never booed anyone. Sneak.

"Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein?"
What, you mean twisting the context of his discussion to earmark him as a UFO freak? Who's disingenuous now?

Mokele Mbembe at 9:20AM on Apr 28th 2008

37. Dinesh,

Nice job Dinesh. I believe God is alive and well. The Bible tells us that during Biblical times, 2 of the 12 tribes of Isreal rejected God.

I've often wondered if the legacy of those two tribes are the atheist of today.

Willet at 9:32AM on Apr 28th 2008

38. Dinesh D'Souza has a strange effect on me. I have seen him in many debates. His vocal style reminds me of morally bankrupt southern preachers bilking millions from the hopeful and ignorant. His expertise in avoiding key objections coupled with brilliantly practiced obfuscation seems to make for good show while doing double duty for religious apologists who are more than willing to look both ways, hear clapping and say, "Wow, I guess he's doing well!!" I am glad to hear Dinesh has been "slumming it" with second tier atheists. His farcical past debates with the likes of Hitchens and Dennett among others have obviously convinced the right people that he has no business sharing that stage. His charades can't possibly hold a candle to their intellectual rigor, verbal clarity and astonishing honesty. Why don't you head down South, Dinesh? It is, after all, the next logical step. You might even be able to catch Expelled before it closes.

Warren Tappe at 9:33AM on Apr 28th 2008

39. Willet: "I've often wondered if the legacy of those two tribes are the atheist of today"

Seriously??? You think atheism is genetic? WTF?

Ryan Anderson at 9:35AM on Apr 28th 2008

40. gshort: just a suggestion re: posting:

Your posts are long, although when I have time to read them, very interesting and relevant to science and evolution.

However, I believe that if you put your posts into paragraphs, with extra spaces inbetween they would become much more readable.

======================================================

Just a question, BryanCRT. Have you ever been to a DD debate?

I've been to one. Michael Shermer was a real "gentleman", DD kept shouting at him, and made virtually no points in the debate that could be refuted by Shermer with a single sentence. The believers in the audience were very quiet, not because they are polite, but because they had nothing to cheer about.

I guess he thinks that shouting louder than your opponent and interrupting your opponent constitute winning?

I wonder if William Hayes went to the Biola debate.

I would be curious to see the entire debates, but I'm unable to view them at work and my home computer is too slow.

Linda at 9:35AM on Apr 28th 2008

41. "just because you do not believe in a just and holy god does not mean you won't stand before him. are you under a mis-guided assumption that you create your own reality? this is exactly the kind of thing i mean with atheist." - brian
--==--

Just because you believe in a god does not meant you will stand before it. My grandaughter believes in the tooth fairy - that does not make it real.

When you can give me more evidence than the inaccutate bible, we'll talk about who's wrong Until then, the non-theist side is, by default, right

mac at 9:42AM on Apr 28th 2008

42. mac,
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF187-Way_Too_Much.jpg

Mokele Mbembe at 9:45AM on Apr 28th 2008

43. What the hell is a "Darwinian Primate" supposed to be? What's the opposite, a "Christian Primate"? Its a nonsense term.

AndrewV at 9:50AM on Apr 28th 2008

44. Funny Moke

I asked her last week if she wanted me to 'help'( smashing fist to palm), she giggled and said " NO THANKS PAWPAW"

mac at 9:51AM on Apr 28th 2008

45. Truely is a shame when we debate one another on who should have faith or who should have a scientific opinion. I believe there is a difference from having passion and having an enraged thought. Who am I though? I've only been reading these blogs and comments to get a good laugh from time to time. Also to see how many people actually think that an arguement will educate.

So here's my babble:
I believe Dinesh has accomplished what needs to be said. He had acouple debates, felt victorious over the non believers, gave some people a different perspective on chrisianity, and now can go live his days satisfied once again. That's how everyone feels when they have "won" over another human beings belief. Thus... that's all he wanted to speak of.
What he has not accomplished was judgement. He can not overcome his judgement of other people. The only one who can judge every single person that walks upon this dirt called earth is God. God wants you to speak his words, but not to judge. No matter who is sinning or doing wrong we must forgive at one point in our lifetime (as people we do hold grudges, it's called a flaw) and hope that they are doing right for themselves or at least pray that God himself will forgive.
If someone wants to be an atheist, that was the right decision for their own life. No one knows for sure because they are not God. If someone wants to convert to any other religion, that was their decision, not yours, so what are you worried about?
How do you know God wasn't testing you in your faith? People are getting abortions, being homosexuals, making non religious organizations. Yet you can not judge.
Maybe because... you are not God and God is giving you signs you can not see. Logically everyone would know this and wouldn't bash one another. All would keep peace, hope for the best, and feel joy no matter who or what crosses their path.
Dinesh has a problem doing so since he apparently is so well educated when it comes to Christianity. Also, not meaning to pick at anyone, but I feel the need to bring up the quote "atheist stylings".
If he is against athesim and needs to debate on how they're wrong, I feel as though you insulted him.
Not that I care, I do find Dinesh quite annoying.
......Do I get a bat with the Atheist Bashing Week? Just curious.

Elizabeth at 9:52AM on Apr 28th 2008