Good Bye Peak Oil Hypothesis - Outside The Beltway
Peak Oil Hypothesis MP3 & Music Downloads at Juno …
Some further examples of the complexity and debate follow. About when is supposed to have appeared, a fossil formed in a similar location, which was at least contemporary with . Where it fits in the human family tree is unknown at this time, but today it is called . This is perhaps a descendant of , which (who led the team that discovered it) argued is a member of a new genus. Because there is in the modern human genome, under the , have been placed within by some anthropologists. Some small fossils in , but are now designated as a subspecies. The have been widely considered as , but they have features that suggest that they may have been habilines or even australopithecines, which would dramatically change the current view on the first migrations past Africa. They may well have been Oldowan culture australopiths that migrated from Africa about when did, and they also controlled fire. Similarly, a relative of that precedes is called , but may also be a subspecies. The confusion and debate is partly because the differences between those “species” are minor and more on the order of regional variation than any radical change. They perhaps could have all interbred with each other. Other than the “hobbits,” there are no great anatomical changes and few noticeable cultural ones among the various specimens for more than a million years of evolution, so I refer to them all as , as do many anthropologists, particularly when writing for the lay audience. For those who want to explore the relatively fine distinctions, the material is readily available for study and can be another useful example of the process of science, if one of the more heated illustrations.
Peak oil hypothesis | The Naked Hedgie
Monkeys, apes, and humans have many traits in common, and one is that members of "out-groups" are fair game. Chimpanzees are the only non-human animals today that form ranked hunting parties, and they are also the only ones that form hunting parties to . Distinct from the killer ape hypothesis, which posits that humans are instinctually violent, the chimpanzee violence hypothesis proposes that chimps only engage in warfare when it makes economic sense: when the benefits of eliminating rivals outweigh the risks/costs. Macaque wars and revolutions appear spontaneously, but chimp wars have calculation behind them, which befits a chimp’s advanced cognitive abilities; they plan murderous raids and carry them out. It is quite probable that the advancing toolset of protohumans was used for coalitionary killing when perceived benefits exceeded assessed risks/costs. Just as with , these traits probably also existed in our last common ancestor. Other animals also engage in intra-species violence, which includes spiders when key resources are scarce and contested, and when ant colonies have power imbalances, they can trigger invasion and extermination by the larger colony. But human and chimpanzee warfare is uniquely organized and calculating.