> DNA holds the story of our ancestry – how we’re related to the familiar faces at family reunions as well as more ancient affairs: how we’re related to our closest nonhuman relatives, chimpanzees; how Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals; and how people migrated out of Africa, adapting to new environments and lifestyles along the way. And our DNA also holds clues about the timing of these key events in human evolution.
The scale is astonishing.
> "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, ... Much of this evolution took place in North America, where horses originated but became extinct about 10,000 years ago."
The game was codesigned by a climate scientist, you evolve animals designed to thrive as the climate changes. Adding a carnivore (cat) changes the game and brings quick gains eating other animals but when the climate shifts and carnivores have nothing to eat they die first.
Large chunks of the game are often played with no carnivores (cats) as other strategies outperform.
Great game to better understand evolutionary dynamics.
I suppose it speaks to the benefits of being an omnivore like us.
For instance, in a 1 vs 1 scenario - and I mean species, not players - it plays out more less like I outlined it above. But the equation changes if another player has 2+ potential prey species. Then he has to react by spending 1 card for each species he has. Just change your expectations - your goal doesn't have to be wrecking other players. Just exploit abundance of vulnerable species.
Also, I have Evolution but no Climate (there's no localized version). I imagine it may be possible to play smart and use predators to push players into bigger sizes, then change climate to hot. For unfamiliar people - in the game, big animals overheat easier, while small animals struggle with cold.
How is a climate scientist qualified to codesign an app? I thought you had to be a registered software developer to do that! ;)
Just sort of strikes me as absence of evidence not evidence of absence scenario after reading the article.
One possibility is that cats found themselves in relatively dry areas where their remains would be picked apart by scavengers long before any fossilization could take place. The article mentions that forests turned into savannas at the time.
On a less serious note, perhaps the cat gap occurred when cats temporarily lost their skeletons and became fully liquid, or at least cartilaginous like sharks. Don't we all know how flexible they are? :)
Yes the tables have turned
Remember, parasites: killing your host is generally a bad strategy.
Ever since the invention of writing, the #1 predator to humankind has been other humans, so we must go back to the time before written records to get to a time when cats were the #1 predator. My question is, in the absence of written records, how did the people of the current age determine the rate of death from the various predators?
Maybe you mean the #1 predator not including other humans?
Maybe I was unclear because I was trying not to cause offense.
My question is, How would anyone know that there was a time in human history or prehistory when cats were the #1 predator of human ancestors? (I assume he means the #1 killer of our ancestors that eats us for food.)
I can't see anywhere where the article says "changes in canine dental morphology caused the cat gap."
Edited to say: oh derp, I only looked at the first line of the article - there's a discussion of that connection further down in the article, although it says in the summary that the connection is disputed.
> During or just prior to this "cat gap," numerous caniform species evolve catlike features indicative of hypercarnivory, such as reduced snouts, somewhat enlarged canines, and fairly extreme reduction of their crushing molars.
They propose that Felids were pushed out of their hypercarnivorous niche by Canids as evidenced by changes in Canid dental morphology from this period.
He's back to quietly snorring while sleeping on my couch, after his morning was filled with staring at birds outside, eating and taking a hell of a dump in his toilet.
Hard to believe he's got anything in common with the predators we are talking about here.
They can kill up to 200 animals per year, despite being well fed and cared for. They're doing it for sport essentially.
They will hunt and kill common shrew for example despite not eating them. They'll eat mice and birds, but shrews they kill just for the hell of it.
Present company excluded, of course. A typical human "sports hunter" can easily kill a lot more than 200 animals. And if you count all the animals that die to feed us or are simply accidental casualties of our infrastructure and resource extraction... well, the mind boggles.
A sports hunter who doesn't eat their kills but only hunts for fun is an apt comparison, but do they really kill 200 animals per year? That's more than one every two days. Typically that would be a weekend hobby and even if they went hunting 52 weeks of the year that's almost 4 kills per hunting weekend. You really think that's plausible (or even legal, given restrictions on hunting)?
The main exception is probably people who hunt feral pigs in Texas, but those are just an ecological menace to be exterminated.
They kind of just moved in with us several thousand years ago and stuck around because it worked out well for them.
Say no more.