The Real Eve:
Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa
is the title of a popular science book about the evolution of modern humans
written by British geneticist
Stephen
Oppenheimer.
The book is largely
based on the "Out of Africa theory" of human origins. Oppenheimer uses information
from various disciplines including genetics, archeology, anthropology and
linguistics to synthesize theories on the origin of modern humans and their
subsequent dispersal around the world.
The Eve in the title refers to Mitochondrial
Eve, a name used for the most recent common ancestor of all humans in the matrilineal
(mother to daughter) line of descent.
The documentary The Real
Eve, based on the book and known as Where
We Came From in the United
Kingdom, was released in 2002.
The documentary was produced by the Discovery Channel and was narrated by Danny Glover
and directed by Andrew Piddington
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Eve
Directions for this assignment:
1. Watch the video. You can stream it on youtube or get it out of the library.
2. Write a response to the following prompts. Your answers should show that you have thoughtfully considered the first four questions based on your watching of the video and your own ideas. Simply hit the 'reply' tag underneath each question to respond.
3. Responses are due by August 6, 2016, 11:59pm.
3. Responses are due by August 6, 2016, 11:59pm.
Addendum: From last year: June 24, 2015
Some of you have wondered about what the state of current scholarship on this topic looks like. This week on PBS stations, there is a new series called First People. I have only watched the one about Africa but as you might imagine, the science and technology that we are so accustomed to in our own lives, has blown up the kind of scientific exploration that gives scholars an opportunity to posit new ideas. Pretty fascinating stuff. I watched the show on my wireless iPad while waiting for the furnace guy to show up so it is pretty easy to access. If you are interested, just go to PBS.org and stream the series.
1. To what extent did changing climate and natural resources affect the ability of people to move all over the earth?
ReplyDeleteThe motivation and ability of humans to spread out on Earth was entirely derived from climate changes and the availability of food. The first great migration, from Africa to Yemen, was a result of an ice age; the great global cooling claimed enormous amounts of water for glaciers and ice, leaving the oceans drastically reduced. The reduced oceans held less game, unable to feed the largest group of humans living in Africa at that time (around 200). Rather than starve, the group traveled to Yemen by crossing the Red Sea, a journey made possible only by the reduced sea levels. Although the global cooling was the catalyst of the reduced food supplies, thus ending the first humans' duration in Africa, it was also the thing that allowed an easier journey to Yemen. If the sea levels had been at a normal level, it would have been impossible for humans to leave Africa, leading to their starvation and possible extinction.
DeleteThe correlation between climate and food is an important one when considering the global movement of early humans. Often, climate change was the determining factor in the availability of food; in the beginning in Africa, droughts depleted food and water sources, and the Africans moved across the Red Sea into more densely-vegetated Yemen. (Humans moved with food, even without climate change; once the Africans arrived in Yemen, they followed the coast, beachcombing for food. Food was much more abundant than it had been on the Red Sea, and it became a primary motivator in migration down the coast). When migrants reached North America, climate change pushed them south; a new ice age swept the continent and they were forced further and further south, into Central and South America, to escape harsh temperatures and find sufficient food. One of the most notable, and abrupt, climate changes was the Toba Eruption, about 75,000 years ago. When the volcano erupted and plunged present-day Indonesia into at least 6 years of volcanic winter, people migrated both because of the harsh weather conditions left in the wake of the eruption, and because the sudden climate change destroyed food sources.
DeleteAs the Earth cooled down and the first peoples were moving towards the Middle East, the lack of water and food kept the travelers in a corridor where food and water were available and they didn't move for another 40,000 years. In hindsight, the first recorded cooling led to the drying of Africa and the initial journey out of the small pockets of grassland. The need for food and water has driven humans for thousands of years based on the findings of migration across the land-bridge between Eurasia and North America. However, while some thrived as the glaciers began to creep down, others moved to warmer climates such as South America where we find the Inca, Aztecs, and Mayans amongst other civilizations and populations. Now, the land-bridge is no more but humans have aviation and nautical traveling which allows us to travel at will without a 40,000 year buffer.
DeleteClimate change and natural resources were a major part of humanity's migration from the heart of Africa. Being over 130,000 years ago, a change in the climate to hotter, dryer conditions was soley due to the Ice Age, when more water was locked up in huge glaciers, drying up the current water sources where our first ancestors were inhabiting. As the water disappeared, so did much of the game that was caught and used as a mandatory source of nourishment, and especially with growing numbers (over 250 people in a group), the need to find a better place to live was demanded. This climate change led up to the evidence of our crossing in the south across the Gates of Grief to Yemen, only about 10 miles long at the time, compared to up north to the Middle East (not until later on) which would have required crossing the Sahara Desert. This is just one example of how much climate and resources affected our movements out of Africa and into other locations. Ice Ages, and even volcano eruptions resulted in food shortages that had us coasting the shores of the Red Sea, and the oceans, dividing and conquering so that we spread to warmer climates as well as the cooler, northern areas.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBoth climate change and the availability of natural resources are the engines in the machine that propelled the modern humans to travel and populate the entire world. We can see evidence of this when looking at the first trek of humans to Yemen, and the multiple pulses of migration from Asia to North America that occurred later. In the two cases, Ice Ages caused the sea level to be much lower than before, revealing land such as the Beringia Land Bridge and the ten mile passage through the Gates of Grief. Climate change such as the Ice Ages, volcanic eruptions, or drought go hand in hand with the availability of natural resources, as they vary accordingly with one another. For example, before the first trip out of the Southern coast of Africa, the Ice Age made the sea level drop drastically. In turn, this induced the land to be dry, and desert-like. The modern humans relied primarily on sea food, so when the seas dropped and land dried, beach-combing became difficult. This problem increased with the population. After travelling to a new, non-populated place (in this case, Yemen), natural resources were plentiful, since the Ice Age hadn't affected the land. This happened over and over again, until the whole world had felt a human footprint - all due to climate change, natural resources, and of course, human curiosity.
DeleteOur survival has always been propelled by a changing climate. As the natural conditions changed, so did humans. When the land dried up, we were forced to find a new one. When the animals in which we hunted moved, we followed. It is the natural movement that caused the dispersion of the first groups of people. As those groups of people increased, so did the demand for food- and so continues the expansion.
Delete
DeleteThe spread of people throughout the world is tied to both the climate and natural resources. From the beginning the idea of moving from place to place was based on necessity, the idea that going somewhere else would provide the people with a more sustainable place to leave. Since the original migration to Yemen from Africa, the traveling of people was essentially based on the need for basic human necessities (e.g. food and water) because of changing climate conditions. When the African people set out on their journey to Yemen, it was because of their need of food and water, something that had become hard to find in Africa because of the approaching Ice Age. Because of the depleting water, it provided a perfect opportunity for the crossing of the Red Sea, a task that is grossly impossible in our current climate due to fast currents (so fast that the place the African used to cross is now called the Gates of Grief). Later on humans would continue to migrate, their reasoning due to the change in climate and there need for natural resources to sustain themselves. It would become the reason that humans managed to populate the four corners of the Earth, there need to explore for new and improved living quarters is what brought us to where we are today, each and every single migration made able by a change in climate. The Africans would have never made it to Yemen if the water hadn't been so low, there would never have been any trips to Australia, nor would there have been any crossing of the almost mythical sounding Berigina LAnd Bridge. Through volcanoes and ice ages, the spread of the humans stayed pretty consistent, the need for natural resources and the change of climate a prominent reason for the migration of the human race.
Both the changing climate and need for natural resources are the most likely driving forces for humans to move across the world. The first homo-sapiens that migrated from Africa to Yemen did this because of their basic need for food and other resources that Africa was no longer providing. This was due to the Ice Age that was coming about. This caused a lot of the major water sources to dry up and sent people searching for new land. The descendants of these people went even further and populated the entire globe to make up what we call the human race. Another example of this phenomenon is when the first Native Americans traveled across the Bering Strait into the Americas' because the land at the time had a significant amount of game for food. As you can see without climate change and our constant need for food and other resources, we would not be the society we are today.
DeleteThe changing climate and the need for natural resources were the two key factors that influenced the migration of our earliest ancestors. These factors both encouraged and hindered human migration. To begin with, humans were not able to migrate out of Africa due to the harsh climate of the Middle East, but the cooling down of our planet that occurred about 80,000 years ago solved that problem. As the earth cooled down, Africa dried up, and humans had to migrate to the coast in order to procure natural resources necessary for survival. These resources contributed to the massive growth of population, which prompted the migration out of Africa. Changes in climate which dried up seas, uncovered natural resources, and shifted different lands habitableness caused this pattern of migration in order to find milder climates, more territory, and more natural resources which continued until humans had spread across the entire globe.
DeleteWhere and how we expanded across the Earth is entirely dependent on climate and the availability of natural resources. Even in our earliest form as hunters and gathers, we moved where the resources were, never staying long in a place too hot, cold, rainy, or dry, to support ourselves. Whether it is the beginning of an Ice Age opening up paths across the world or the end of an Ice Age swallowing up land as the sea levels began to rise again our survival is tied closely to the climate around us and the consequences of that climate. The quest for the perfect combination of climate and natural resources that allow us to survive and thrive has always driven us and will continue to drive us, even in the modern day.
DeleteThe modern humans were at complete mercy of climate and natural resources. In order to survive they had to move with their food and keep away from harsh climates. If the climate was to cold or hot their bodies were not able to adapt fast enough causing many deaths. If the people stayed in one location for too long that also became a hazard because the resources began to go scarce, making fresh water and food hard to come by. Climate changes such as the ice age dried out the African land forcing people to move along the coast. this turned hunting and gathering people into fisherman. The push to survive is what made the modern human able to move and adapt to the conditions thrown at them. Without their strong desire to survive human existence could've ended with the first extreme climate change, the ice age.
Delete2. Given that all human beings are biologically the same (99.9%) how have both the environment and social constructs led to cooperation and/or conflict throughout history?
ReplyDeleteHumans like other humans that are similar to them. Often, people with the same skin tone or ethnic history will be found together. The first civilizations were almost forced to behave in this way; the people inhabiting them had generally inhabited the region and developed a decent population there. This led to large clumps of similar-looking people all living together. However, as we developed and began exploring, we came into contact with others who did not look quite the same, and this led to conflict.
DeleteSkin tone is simply the degree of melanin that a person possesses. Humans that developed in the equatorial region have darker skin as a natural sunscreen, while people further towards the poles have lighter skin to collect as much Vitamin D from the sun as possible. For whatever reason, many cultures seem to value lighter skinned people. There is evidence that the Greeks and Egyptians, both naturally darker people, defied their environment by temporarily dyeing their skin to lighten it, and would lighten their hair using an ancient "Sun-In" - urine. When other cultures first discovered each other, the lighter skinned people of the two found themselves superior, and often dominated, or attempted to dominate, the other group.
The conflict of the way humans look, and how we deal with the differences is certainly no minor controversy; slavery, the Holocaust, socioeconomic differences, all stem from this issue. Although human beings share nearly all of their DNA, our preconceived social ideas have stopped us from coming to terms with the different appearances we all have.
Given that all human beings are 99.9% biologically similar, it seems peculiar that we have developed in such a way as to be in near-constant turmoil with each other. Race, as we still see today, plays a large role in the conflicts between cultures. While we know that the formation of different races can be attributed to environmental adaptations, (the amount of UV protection needed due to the sun’s intensity determines how dark or light skin color is), humans have found a way to twist this natural, evolutionary variation into a social hierarchy of “lighter is better”. Europe’s colonization of nearly every other continent, slavery, genocide; all of these conflicts stem from the social constructs based on the way that the environment has changed our skin colors. Still today, fear of unknown cultures breeds racism and hate against those who are different. Humanity, instead of embracing our 99.9% similarities, has highlighted the social and environmental differences among us, and used violence and prejudice to lead to conflict, rather than cooperation, throughout history.
DeleteThe one thing that always crops up when we learn about these early civilizations is water, always staying by the coasts or streams. With the environment constantly changing, and genetic lines spreading to Malaysia, Australia, and now past the Persian Gulf farther up north, it was important for many of these small bands of families to stay together in order to survive. Perhaps if the climate had been mild and unchanging, more conflict would have arrived between individuals, but it seems that 70,000 years ago with fluctuating food and water sources, they depended on each other for survival.
DeleteOur environment has also played the part in our body formations and skin color. As explained in The Real Eve documentary, our ancestors dating back to Africa had much darker skin due to the ultraviolet rays they experienced... this dark tone protected their skin. But, as our genetic lines divided and descended into the colder, northern areas with less sunlight, our skin reacted and turned paler with the need for Vitamin D. Not only this, but it's evident that, according to the Neanderthals, the colder climates had an effect on body type: the northern people tended to be stouter, paler, more built opposed to those in the warmer environments.
Our social history is legendary. Even at the time of the Neanderthals, when another group began moving up North toward Germany, already occupied by these stouter warriors, a conflict arose over territory, and within 10,000 years all Neanderthals had been wiped out by the incoming ancestors from Africa.
This is certainly the first but not the last time that our social or physical differences have caused a stir; years and years of our history reflect wars and slavery and genocides that have been aimed at the "inferior race" or a religion that someone strongly believed in eliminating. Despite all our ties to the mitochondrial Eve, humanity has a way of seeing divisions between people and their circumstances, and thousands of year of historical evidence pointing out that we're all and the same has yet to change that. Our environment now, compared to 130,000 years ago, is so much more complex when it comes to affecting our cooperation, and it seems that now, the more resources we have, more hostility is gained rather than a mutual cooperation amongst others.
The first thing to consider when looking at the nearly identical DNA make up of humans is the statistic itself. All humans are 99.9% biologically the same. This is not a known fact - ask twenty people on the street, maybe one will guess 99.9%. So, of course when this scientific fact was not known, social constructs did not have the equality of the human mitochondrial DNA. With different groupings of people settling in separate places, each populations' distance from the equator differed. Those closest, got more melanin in their skin to protect themselves from the sun's rays, making their skin darker, while those farther away got increasingly paler. With the numerous shades of skin came one of humanity's "greatest" instincts - judgement. For whatever reason, lighter was often seen as better, which is seen in conflicts such as the Holocaust and slavery. Environmentally, the places with more dark people were often seen as inferior, seen when the British branched out to places such as Africa and India to "help and find religion in the savages." Nowadays, there is a bit of cooperation throughout most countries, especially those with many races intertwined in the society. Even still humanity finds the different confusing, and sometimes (wrongfully) repulsive, not just with skin color. The irony being that we are all the same mitochondrial DNA, whether we're ignorant to it or not.
DeleteLike all animals, there is a system of power and control within our species. The biggest creature is therefore looked upon as the dominant. The difference with humans is that it is not the biggest that holds dominance, but the most powerful. The ones that quickly became the most powerful were the Europeans, who then took to colonizing and taking control over other civilizations. The Europeans, who evolved to having light skin and different features, looked down upon the people who did not look or speak like them, deeming them savages, leading to the greatest horrors of our time. Today, even though we all know that the color of your skin does not determine anything else about you, there is still a stigma that is carried around. Social constructs have been built over race; constructs that people are still unwilling to break. Even if science has proven that we are all, biologically, 99.9% the same.
DeleteIts very evident that humans like other humans that are similar to themselves. Unfortunately that has created a lot of tension throughout the history of the human race because, despite being 99.9% biologically identical, people can’t seem to see past the one very obvious difference between individual humans, skin color. Scientifically, the color of one's skin is based on how much melanin a person contains, different skin colors were brought as a way to adapt and survive. When the human race traveled out of Africa they started to settle in places with far less sun than Africa, the human body had to change in order to soak up as much vitamin c as it could. Later on in history these different races began to run into each other and seeing as one race didn’t match the others physically aesthetic problems began to aris. Problems with differences in appearance have shown up so much that it's almost impossible to picture the world without it, even from the beginning when the humans met the neanderthals [shorter, stocker, creatures that are very close to the modern human race in physicality but instead of thinking with their brains they acted more through there bodys]. The humans aided in wiping out the neanderthals completely. As the world grew in population and empires began to for the idea of different races and ethnicities became even more of an issue,empires began to fight with one another creating tension and that tension grew into bigger things, like racism and disagreements between religion. It seems so arbitrary that the human race discriminates people because they don’t look the same, especially when we are literally only .1% away from being biologically identical.
DeleteToday, racism and social stereotypes still greatly plague our society. From the amount of police brutality and use of offensive terms, it is still evident that we have not let go of our social stigmas from the past. All of this racism is rooted from the age-old belief that lighter-skinned people are superior. This often is stemmed from European colonization, when blacks were literally regarded as "savages". Even though, it is scientifically shown that the reason our skin is the way it is, is due to evolution. The people farther away from the equator ended up adapting lighter skin-tones, while the people close to it ended up having the same tone as all humans once had. The reason for this is that when people are exposed to more sunlight (eg. North Africa), they need more melanin in their skin to protect them from all of the UV rays, while people not inherently exposed to the sun as much did not need this protection. This was the case when humans started to leave Africa and develop this evolutionary trait. So, basically slavery and many other racial events in the past were based on nothing but stigmas created by us because we are all almost exactly the same biologically.
DeleteHumans did not migrate as a whole, but as small groups of individuals that saw themselves as different from one another, despite being almost the same, biologically. This differentiation became visible as humans adapted to their environments and developed their own unique social constructs. As humans became seemingly more different the potential for conflict rose because it is human nature to be defensive against the unknown in order to survive. It is also human nature to stop at nothing to procure the necessary means to live and thrive and if that means gaining an ally or an enemy it will certainly occur.
DeleteOur lives are full of physical and social differences that cause divides- gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and socioeconomic status are just a few of the many forces that separate and section us off as human beings. As humans began to expand and form communities, conflict was inevitable. In the beginning it was tribes fighting over things like land and resources and as we evolved into creatures with more complex thoughts and beliefs, we just developed even more reason to fight. Things like race, nationality, and religion can be huge unifying forces, bringing people who feel, understand the world, and deal with the same struggles together but by uniting these groups, you also create an open door for conflict from people who disagree or dislike those groups. Even though biologically we may all be the same, these differences that we have constructed through physical separation and centuries of separate mental growth make us all socially unalike and that uniqueness can work in our favor, or against it.
DeleteAlthough humans are 99.9% the same based off of biological makeup our different environment and social scene makes us very different. Based on the environment we live in we adapt to the conditions. The Real Eve shows that when the modern humans made it out of Africa ad began exploring the world we started changing. People in the rainforests, out of intense sun had a light skin color therefore changing our appearance through our climate. As far as socially, we change based on the type of people we surround ourselves with. Whatever the people around you are doing 9 time out of 10 you do it too in order to fit in; this is simply how human minds word.
DeleteHistorically these changes caused both cooperation and conflict. The changing skin color because of climate made people view darker skin as if they weren't humans at all which is what led to discrimination and slavery. Cooperation came a lot through the social side. People were communicating and becoming friends through helping each other survive hard times.
Environment and social constructs contributed to both cooperation and conflict throughout history the biggest thing they did was create differences among the human race making individuals instead of all the same people based on our biology
3. When thinking about early humans we need to consider that change took place over a very long time. [Think about how life was different 100 years ago. Now think about life 1000 years ago. Now think about how long 100,000 years ago was.] How can we keep in mind individuals across history while at the same time understanding that change over time takes many generations?
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, the mitochondrial Eve theory simplifies the changes taking place over large periods of time, down to "marker Eves." These women are, of course, descendants of the mitochondrial Eve that possess a new genetic mutation or previously nonexistent characteristic. Although they are individuals, the marker Eves represent the changes taking place across generations. Unlike many other evolutionary theories, which focus on large scale change and adaptation, the Eve theory focuses on individuals to carry on evolution and movement throughout the globe. The Eve theory allows us to better identify with our ancestors; the individual Eves feel more personal than an entire generation of humans. Indeed, the finding of a full human skeleton instigates excitement because we now have a body to put with the past. Instead of learning about vast periods of genetic change, we can see the representation of it in an individual. Evolution is too much for us to take in, and individuals throughout history allow us to size it down and better comprehend it.
DeleteThrough studying history, we can observe that both genetic and behavior changes take place over many generations. The Real Eve delves into the process of the genetic changes that occur over time. By using the biblical metaphor of Eve, the film keeps individuals in perspective; Eve, as one woman, shows the importance of individuals throughout the span of time. Even if we know nothing of past individuals today, the representation of a singular Eve reminds us of the value each human has contributed to the world, whether we know them by name or not.
DeleteThis documentary did a very good job on giving the watcher one focal point amongst the rest of the historical context: our individual ties to this woman, Eve, who we're all theoretically descended from since the beginning of humanity. Because our history is so rich and constantly happening around us as we speak, this single woman becomes the reminder of all that ever happened in our migration of the world. I agree with Avocet in saying that Eve is a representative of all individuals who have ever lived; she's very much like the Greek or Roman deities, Zeus, Hera. They're very representative of a long period of time in history and of a very important people. Just by knowing this fact about ourselves and our lineage, we can finally think about our evolutionary process over generations, and though it might always be a mouthful to comprehend, it's still noticed; it's believed one feature changes every 20,000 years, just as our skin color altered over generations. If we focus on this idea, we can look forward to change and perhaps accept our slow but progressive movements in future generations.
DeleteA basic knowledge of science, and a concept of time is required to fully comprehend the past, and changing characteristics over time. One must be familiar with natural selection, but further than the surface level. The new trait doesn't appear magically in the next offspring, it's truly a long process. As the documentary states, it takes 20,000 years to develop a feature change. The documentary does a nice job, of consistently adding markers in the film. It does this both with mentions of "marker" Eves (granddaughters of the original Mitochondrial Eve), or by mentions of how long ago events occurred. Doing this helps the viewer understand that the change of something such as skin tone did not happen overnight. This should translate into the viewers. We need to have timelines engraved (metaphorically, of course) into our brains to fully understand and study history.
DeleteI think that it is easy, when watching a documentary, to lose grasp of the amount of time within the intervals that are discussed. However, I thought that this documentary did an excellent job by providing "Eves" throughout time, and tracing them back to the original. And it is, or should be, a very well known piece of information that genetic changes take a decent amount of time to appear. Such is the case with any adaptation within a species; it occurs through the slow process of life and death. It is this fact that we have to keep in mind when studying history; that is it a very gradual thing.
DeleteI believe the best way to keep individuals in mind as we look at history through numerous generations is to try to view it from important people's prospective and how they would feel at their certain point in history, while trying to grasp how many years ago that event did indeed happen. The documentary did a excellent job at putting things in perspective and basing the time they were talking about in "generations from Mitochondrial eve" so that we can comprehend when an event took place and have an overall sense of how much time has passed. With that being said, I think we all need to keep in mind, as we study history, that we need to have the knowledge to realize exactly how long something takes place, so we can get an accurate view of what we are studying.
DeleteThis documentary splits the importance of focusing on history as a whole and centering in on people throughout history quite well. The idea of the Genetic Eve provides a more zoomed in perspective of our history as human beings, the thought that we came from one single person instead of a giant cluster. It can be rather difficult when studying history to relate to the people of the past when you learn about them as an entire generation, their individual lives wiped out only to be replaced with stories of the wars and hardships of the masses.With things such as Genetic Eve it allows us to feel more content to our ancestral history, allowing us to think of our genetic forefathers as a singular pearson similar to us instead of a large group of people specific to just that time period. The Genetic Events that represent the changes in human kind as we grow and progress helps us narrow down the idea of evolution throughout time. Instead of thinking of evolution as a fast happening thing that just randomly happened a very long time ago, there is a chance to fully consider that the mammoth like history of the world didn't just happen overnight a gagillion years ago. It puts into perspective the idea that evolution takes time, in fact it takes approximately 20,000 years.
DeleteAlthough real change can only occur over generations, this change is only due to the individual actions of every human who has ever lived. We must keep in mind that no matter how insignificant our actions may seem, they are still a part of the massive conglomerate of human actions, which will shape the history of our race. Of course, some actions will make a larger impact then others, and these actions should be remembered so that we do not lose hope in our abilities to inflict change.
DeleteI think the best way to keep in mind the individuals while also understanding the amount of time passing is to do just what the movie has done- namely, picking a person or a few people from across a period of time that can be looked at as representative of that transition. Just like the movie used the mitochondrial and marker Eve's as a symbol of the evolution and expansion of the human genome from that one woman, we can keep some perspective and some grasp on time by looking at some of the many individuals who were part of a larger change. In this way, we can simplify social movements, historical movements, and scientific movements into easier to understand packages that give us insight into both how change occurs and how long that change takes to occur.
DeleteTo me the best way to keep the significant time change and individual change is, track one person and follow their family tree, just as the movie did in order to identify the migration of the first modern humans. Following one person through their life will lead you through generations. Once they get older and have children you follow the child then you follow their child and so on. Doing so will give you perspective of history through an individual as well as giving you an insight to the times of changing taking place through time. For example, if someone were to follow my grandma, then my mother, and now me they would see how technology has advanced, how schooling has changed, and how time has changed traditions. To me this is the best way to study history wile keeping both individual and time change in mind.
Delete4. This is just one theory of how people spread across the earth. In the years since this video was made new technology has shed additional light on human migration about the globe. Yet, compared to how long people have been around our scientific knowledge is in its nascent stage. Are science and technology going to force us to be continually reinterpreting the past and if so is this a good or a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteAs science and technology progress, we gain more access to our past and the general universe we inhabit. Just in my lifetime, I watched Pluto lose its planetary status and regain it, all thanks to technological advances. Even the mitochondrial Eve theory would not be possible had the technology not been available; genetic mapping on such a large scale is only a recent addition to our scientific progression.
DeletePeople do not enjoy change, especially when the change is a contradiction to a fact they have known all their lives. Reinterpreting the past via advanced technology stems these contradictions, leading many people to disagree with such a process. I consider interpreting the past as a growing process for humanity; just as a toddler learns how to walk and run, we must all learn how we came to walk and run and who was the first person to walk and run. The frequent publication of human evolution and movement theories is important. It means we are still interested in learning about who we are, where we came from, and what we will do.
As technology helps us to discover new scientific findings, it will force us to continually reinterpret the past. While change of any kind can be uncomfortable, this change would certainly be for the better. If new evidence was discovered, we wouldn’t just be able to discredit it; under good, sound, scientific practices, we would have to evaluate it and determine where it fit in with the other evidence already amassed. In this way, reinterpreting the past may be tedious, like piecing together a puzzle when you don’t know what the whole picture is supposed to look like. But we cannot refuse to consider new sources of information in fear of a change in our familiar knowledge. Without changing concepts of science, we would still think that our Earth, a flat planet, was orbited by the sun. New information is what allows for the progression of society, and increasingly efficient technology is going to be a great asset in uncovering even more facts about our past.
DeleteWith our breakthroughs in technology today, we have uncovered so many amazing facts about our world, and our past that would probably have never been discovered otherwise. Technology has confirmed theories and suspicions, and, safe to say not all, but with everything that we've "re-understood" now that technology has been able to uncover such knowledge, I think that we WILL be re-interpreting several things over. Some beliefs have been modified as more has been understood about them, and this cause of increased innovation, I think, has become natural to us. I think it can be a good thing as understanding our world before our time has always been a fascinating topic that has mystified us for hundreds of years. Now with the gadgets we have, it's possible to find out what life was like and how humans have changed. I believe we can also go too far in confirming and solidifying info... we are a species that constantly changes, yes, but how much change can we take in a small period of time? Change has caused revolutions. It's caused conflicts that might not have arisen had we not had the idea, or delved deeper into our baffled minds.
DeleteSometimes, change as seen as wrong, because just as characteristics take long periods of time to develop, so do human minds and opinions. To prove this, I take from a personal reference. As Siena said, Pluto lost and gained it's planetary status in our lifetime. I refused to accept that Pluto was not a planet (maybe because I was right, and it's a planet again...). I disliked the change, and it would've taken a long time for me to not connect Pluto with our galaxy's planets.
DeleteThe question has the key to the answer within it. With the innovations of technology, additional light has been shown upon "The Real Eve"'s theory. There will always be changes, as the human race and our technological advances continually grow. I mean, at some point, there's going to be an iPhone 32 - and people will still be buying Apple's recycled CHANGING phones. We live in a world of change; we thrive on it. It is good for us. With idle-sitting minds, we would never discover anything. So yes, the innovations of technology will constantly force us to reinterpret the past, but it is for our own good.
Technology continues to be an incredibly powerful tool in the way of scientific discoveries. Things in which we were certain about seem to change and become more complex (or simpler) than we previously imagined. While many can look upon this as being frustrating, it truly does benefit the whole. If we stop researching and growing, what might become of us? Rather than thinking of new findings as reinterpretation, we should think of it as an extension to what we already know.
DeleteThere has been a scientific and technological "boom" in the past 30 years with computers and all sorts of advances. So, I believe that soon they are going to force us to be continually reinterpret the past, which I feel is a good thing. For instance, without being updated on new scientific information because scientists don't want people to have to rethink the past, it would not help us grow as a society and we would be left in the dark about what happened on this earth. And, since this information benefits us in the long run, it absolutely should be shared.
DeleteAs discussed in the last question, physical evolution takes tens of thousands of years, the evolution of human knowledge on the other hand can take only a few weeks. For a very long time humans took their information about the universe from the church, not questioning the stories they were told, then as time progressed human began to think outside of the box and soon enough new discoveries were made proving that the Earth was not pear shaped nor were you able to fall of off its corners. In the past few decades human curiosity has heightened even further with the invention of computers and software, leading way to a plethora of new of new theories and explanations. Of course as our technology evolves so do the theorys, new information popping up on a daily bases, changing our thoughts about the history of the world over and over again. but that's a good thing, we should be looking deeper into the reasons why we exists, the science of our world, the science of other worlds. Its important for us to now more because understanding is the key to progression, and sure maybe that means that science is going to prove some theories wrong but if we refuse to believe in new things then we are growing. What Would the human race be without growth and curiosity? Look at it this way, if the we never took in new information or changed our ideas based on new findings in science, we would all still think the sun revolved around us.
DeleteScience and technology will force us to continually reinterpret the past because as science and technology advance our ability to study the past will change. This is a good thing because as we learn more about our past, we will learn more about what to expect in the future and how to face it.
DeleteOf course science and technology are going to continue to make us reevaluate our understanding of history- as we understand more about the world around us, we understand more about what came before us. Just as scientific discoveries combined with greater technology are now giving us new insight into what dinosaurs were like, so will scientific discoveries and technology allow us to gain a better estimate of what the world may have been like when early humans were around. Our knowledge of the world is never and will never be complete. This growth in our knowledge is an extremely good thing, that is as long as we keep in mind that what is true today may or may not be true tomorrow. We as a human race have to consciously know that we do not know everything and that what knowledge we do have is not absolute. Only with this understanding can we truly enjoy the thrill of new discovery that comes with our increased technology and come closer to answering our curious questions about the past and the future.
DeleteScience and technological advancements provide us with new ways to investigate the past. Sadly because of the constant advancements we will have to continuously reinterpret the past. However, this is good because with every advancement and every reinterpretation we get closer to uncovering what truly took place so many years in the past. Sometimes we may go back before we go forward when it comes to uncovering the past, but that is the price we have to pay in order to get the information we need to understand the past and help us understand what could take place in the future.
Delete5. Any other comments? What will you take away from this movie?
ReplyDeleteI found this documentary fascinating. I had never heard of, nor thought possible, the mitochondrial Eve theory; and especially loved the segment where they took DNA from all different types of people and were able to trace them back to the "first" woman. I am eager to see where technology has taken this theory today, and am about to get busy watching the First People series!
DeleteI had never heard the mitochondrial Eve theory before and found it fascinating; it was interesting to see theories like Darwinism and natural selection applied to my species.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that although the mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mother to daughter, that the father gives his surname to the offspring. Why isn't it the mother that passes on her name, along with her DNA?
The concepts and ideas explored through the film were unique; I have not heard the theory of a mitochondrial Eve before. As discussed in question 4, new technology will unearth new discoveries, and it will be interesting to see how the theory holds up (or even if since the publication of the film in 2002, new information has expanded upon or discredited the theory).
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered where we first began, who the first human that humanity transcended from might've looked like, and so learning about Eve was mind-blowing, as she was technically the catalyst of it all from the beginning. It was fascinating to learn about our evolution of skin color due to particular climate changes, as well as the concept of genetic lines. I'll definitely be taking away the knowledge of the mitochondrial Eve and the journey from Africa across the world. I'm curious to know what else scientists and archaeologists have unearthed since the time this documentary was created. :)
ReplyDeleteI personally think it was incredibly smart to almost poke fun at the biblical story of Adam and Eve, and call a completely scientific theory The Real Eve. Although I am nowhere near Christian, I know this story (as does everyone else whose been in America during the wintertime). Everyone will connect the name Eve with the start, good choice on the part of the scientists.
ReplyDeleteAs for what I get out of this film - a new outlook. I, like Avocet, have never heard of this theory. It is very interesting - I found myself looking at completely different-looking actors in movies, thinking about this theory.
I honestly really enjoyed this documentary and thought it was really insightful on how connected we all really are. I knew that we all originated from Africa, but I was not aware on how they left and how they scattered throughout the globe. As far as taking things away from this, I think I'll definitely look more into this whole theory and see if there is any new information on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI found the information in this documentary to be utterly fascinating. Mitochondrial evolution is not something I tend to think about on a regular basis, its one of those things that you know there's a science to but you never search to find the explination. This documentary answered a question that I was unaware I was searching for theories about but now that i have heard one theory I am anxious to find out more. The idea of the Mitochondrial Eve is definitely going on my list of things to research, along with some newer theories on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI will take away a renewed curiosity in our origins. The concept of a Mitochondrial Eve was very fascinating but I'm not convinced (I'm never convinced) so more research for me.
ReplyDeleteI think the number one thing that I will take from this documentary as well as these questions is a new appreciation for the idea that learning is never done. Our concepts of evolution and where we come from have changed so much over the last century and it is fascinating to be around in a time of such great discovery.
ReplyDeleteWhat I will take away from this video is a new found appreciation for historians. They are constantly exploring new ideas of what could have taking place in the past and trying to piece together the never ending puzzle. This video has truly opened my eyes and mind to all the possibilities of how we developed into who we are today. The learning never ends.
ReplyDelete