After the Ancients...

Wikipedia entry - Homo heidelbergensis

Scrolling down, you find "Sima de los Huesos", a site in Spain with archaeological evidence 350,000 years old.

Also, Archaic Homo sapiens is cited here as "evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis." The actual "Archaic Homo sapiens" entry cites an origin 500,000 years ago.
 
alex_greene said:
Wikipedia entry - Homo heidelbergensis

Scrolling down, you find "Sima de los Huesos", a site in Spain with archaeological evidence 350,000 years old.

Also, Archaic Homo sapiens is cited here as "evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis." The actual "Archaic Homo sapiens" entry cites an origin 500,000 years ago.

Even if that's the case, do you honestly think that every human race evolved from "Archaic Homo sapiens" should be exactly like (or even similar to) the homo sapiens that evolved from it on Earth? They won't be. They don't have the same environments to evolve to, or the same pressures to evolve in. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that all the minor and major races should be so similar, given 300,000 years of evolutionary drift in wildly different environments.
 
Naturally.

Unless they all derive from postmodern Homo sapiens stock from a time far in the future when the species has developed time travel, and sought to find a quiet corner out of history's way for a couple of millennia ...

Naah.
 
EDG said:
BP said:
EDG said:
... What I find more problematic is why the Ancients had to go about 8 sectors to rimward of where they originated ...
Misjumps.

And that just happened to find two species that they considered worth uplifting - apparently the likes of which they'd never seen anywhere else in all their travels - on a single non-descript habitable world that was not really much different from any of the hundreds of habitable life-bearing worlds closer to home?

Sure! :D

P.S. - this is my poor attempt at humor - frankly I find this just as plausible as the whole grandfather/ancients thing - i.e. It's Not! Where I come from we have a saying - 'You can't polish a turd!'
 
alex_greene said:
Naturally.

Unless they all derive from postmodern Homo sapiens stock from a time far in the future when the species has developed time travel, and sought to find a quiet corner out of history's way for a couple of millennia ...

300,000 years isn't a couple of millennia. I just don't see how it could work - for the races to be so similar, they'd all have to evolve in the same environment for 300,000 years and then have their diaspora to the different environments. We could be similar to one race if we diverged from them a few thousand years ago and headed back to Earth, but then we're talking about us being the ancestors of mythical Atlanteans ;).

The default assumption seems to be that all the human races evolved from homo sapiens as it is today, and didn't actually evolve anywhere near as much as one should expect from 300,000 years of drift.
 
Ok, I understand and agree with your objections EDG on the Traveller front...someone just wanted to pluck a date and not worry about it.

However, if we are to think of plausible solutions what would they be...

(a) Grandfather did find a way to accelerate Time. Let's rule that out even if it is fun...it would simply become a weapon during the Final War.

(b) He "created" the Vargr from wolves could it be that he tampered with the human genome to bring about Homo Galactus (the template and offshoot that would become H. Sapiens). More plausible but again gives credience to the ommipowerful Grandfather.[/

(c) Parallel evolution...how long after did it take for H. Sapiens to evolve. I don't like parallel evolution stories, as evolution has a significant degree of chance and even with Ancient intervention into the genomes...the alien biospheres would not be condusive for life. But it would explain why there are so relatively few human minor races.

(d) Could it be despite the appearance that each of the Minor Human Races did develop independently and the Vilani who were nurtured by the Ancients did rage a genocidal war against any non-interfertile human races they encountered and the minor human races are in reality just cultural offshoots of the Main Vilani colonization wave.


(e) Could it be that Humaniti had a more important role during Antiquity than previously revealled...thereby the Ancients coddled their humans to becoming H. Sapiens while allowing those on Terra to remain feral?

Anyhow, back to subject, when I say High Tech civilizations, I mean in the range of TL B-F. The Ancient machines/reminnants would be naturally much higher.

I got this idea of the Final War being akin to the Time War of the Doctor Who mythology most would not know who or what was raging past them but the survivors would know to keep out of trouble when they saw something unusual. Eventually, naturally, the machine of war and the war machines would petter out and giving rise to the more familar configuration of Chartered Space.

But, before you get yourself into a fuss, EDG, think of the reason why GDW would maybe want to go the route of transplanted humans. Could it be that even thousands of years the greatest enemy that mankind faces is still himself rather than furry creatures from Alpha Centurai. That surely must warm your Hard SF heart.
 
alex_greene said:
...Unless they all derive from postmodern Homo sapiens stock from a time far in the future when the species has developed time travel, and sought to find a quiet corner out of history's way for a couple of millennia ...

A long, long time from now...
In a pocket galaxy not at all far away...


[Key the music!]
 
I agree with EDG. The big problem is the published data says that all of these various human races that have been isolated for 300,000 years are still the same species!

Sure there is canonical references to some species not being interfertile anymore, but really? There is NO WAY that Vilani are going to be interfertile with Terrans. The environments are just too different. Vilani should be REALLY different, although still of the genus Homo.

Darrians are another race that should not be interfertile.

There is a CHANCE (a small one) that one or two human minor races might be interfertile still, but not likely. The descriptions that we have of the various homeworlds sure don't make it likely.

Just another screw up by the non-science boys that wrote our favorite game.

Then again, it is our game. If you don't want the Vilani and Solomani and Zhodani to be interfertile, don't make them interfertile. Some of the history would have to change, but not too much.

Inter species marriages would of course not produce offspring, but that is why there is adoption. Being adopted into the Emperor's household would be fun and necessary now that the Imperial Family is deliberately mixed marriages.
 
alex_greene said:
Darrians are another race that should not be interfertile.

So perhaps they are...but remember this is game of the future. That would not preclude Test Tube babies and other assisted reproduction techniques. The fact that most common victim of war is not only the truth is the only reason why I could see the reason for inter-fertility and laying the basis for bastardized Third Imperium to rise. Hope that is enough innuendo that stays within the boundaries of the board.

Anyhow, we are talking here about the interregnum between the rise of man and the fall of ancients. Also, I wonder if the hominid population would be enough to sustain itself genetically making me believe again that Grandfather would have used cloning on a much larger scale than previously explained.
 
@Kafka: Erm, the bit you quoted is from Rikki Tikki Traveller, not from me. My response was the bit beneath that, about Darrians coming from our neck of the woods and comparatively recently.
 
alex_greene said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Darrians are another race that should not be interfertile.
Darrians are supposed to have come from our neck o' the woods, and in comparatively modern times too.

Sorry Alex, but that is not completely true.

The original Darrians were placed there by the Ancients about 300,000 years ago. They rose to about TL 3. THEN during the Long Night (that's how it ties to this thread) a group of Solomani arrived (-1521 Imperial) and merged with the population, interbred and kick-started their technology which they were able to bring to TL 16 in about 600 years. Then they screwed it up by igniting the Star Trigger (by accident) and knocked themselves to the edge of extinction.

This is paraphrased from the CT Alien Module 8: Darrians.
 
kafka said:
alex_greene said:
Darrians are another race that should not be interfertile.

So perhaps they are...but remember this is game of the future. That would not preclude Test Tube babies and other assisted reproduction techniques. The fact that most common victim of war is not only the truth is the only reason why I could see the reason for inter-fertility and laying the basis for bastardized Third Imperium to rise. Hope that is enough innuendo that stays within the boundaries of the board..


And here I was reading the original post about how old modern man was, and thinking....nah. No one wants a discussion of paeloanthropology and biogenetics on this thread. Wrong wrong wrong ! Cool, though. So, this time, I'll voluntarily fail my resist pedantry roll...;)

A few points to consider.

The first is the excellent note about reproductive assistance above. There are quite a few species on earth that would be assumend non-interfertile, but that can bring to term with medical assistance. Some of which have been isolated for at least as long as Travelller Hominids.


Secondly, the assumption that 300k years would guarantee speciation is not a given; the smart money bet, perhaps, but not absolute, by a long shot. Speciation is a complicated issue, not simply determined by viable breeding (anymore). Lions and tigers have been crossed, as have a wide variety of other isolated populations. In fact, a significant amount of noninterfertility is actually caused behavioraly. Many breeding populations have developed complex mating rituals which essentially preculde breeding with other groups, even when it is possible...and in fact physical separation of breeding populations isn't even always needed for this (Avians and such show this).

Thirdly, and this is important, there is no definitive genetic measure for when humans cannot interbreed -in fact, there have been comparative studies that suggest there is a large amount of distance between modern and archaic members of the species and offshoots, such as Neanderthals, but, as we have no living examples, the lack of fertility has to be inferred; and that's not so clear as you'd thing: Neanderthals have a marked and significant divergence from both modern and contemporary humans, and yet, specimens have been found mixing unique neanderthal traits and archaic/modern traits; the same for H Erectus and Archaic humans, and Neanderthals. The problem is, the actual in vitro issues are generally much more important to viability than simple genetic distances.

Even isolation of a small group (and generally the group size for rapid speciation is well less than 100) will be more likely to produce breeding barriers typified by non-viable embryos or sterile offspring, than actually being unable to cross fertilize. And assisting viability is just the issue that medical technology deals with, and can be expected to deal with moreso.
The upshot is this: A significant body of evidence suggests that as a species, we are very promiscuous; and that for higher animals, speciation by cross fertility isn't as valid a measure as it used to be; nor as inevitable.

Fourth, Keep in mind that speciation isn't a constant process. There are many examples of static species, even in hominid lines; and seperated static species remaining interfertile (insects, birds and reptiles on isolate islands). The key to remember is that while evolution is a constant force, speciation isn't. Given that the Vilanii are a technologically assisted race (the Shamen who prepare food), the kind of harsh selection for (say) digestive enzymes and dietary histamines that migh cause fertility problems at the genetic level wouldn't be an issue. One could argue easily tht once the food issues were solved (and they were), the Vilanii homeworld was very hospitible for humans - compatable environment, no diseases, predation very limited, no particular competition(Except for the giant sentient war robots, of course :shock: ... harder to deal with those via natural selection, though) ; so, for them, and the Zhodani (who have a similar if more dietary compatable homeworld) , genetic stasis is at least as likely as speciation.

Finally, its worth pointing out that the OTU Humans are a mix of interfertile and not -Vilani are, Florians are not, neither are those sharp teethy dudes who's name I forgot. And we don't have any information on most of them.
 
EDG said:
300,000 years isn't a couple of millennia. I just don't see how it could work - for the races to be so similar, they'd all have to evolve in the same environment for 300,000 years and then have their diaspora to the different environments. We could be similar to one race if we diverged from them a few thousand years ago and headed back to Earth, but then we're talking about us being the ancestors of mythical Atlanteans .

The default assumption seems to be that all the human races evolved from homo sapiens as it is today, and didn't actually evolve anywhere near as much as one should expect from 300,000 years of drift.
and...

Even if that's the case, do you honestly think that every human race evolved from "Archaic Homo sapiens" should be exactly like (or even similar to) the homo sapiens that evolved from it on Earth? They won't be. They don't have the same environments to evolve to, or the same pressures to evolve in. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that all the minor and major races should be so similar, given 300,000 years of evolutionary drift in wildly different environments.


With all due respect, Doc, that is not the case without more influence than simple genetic drift. even with added influence, the time frame isn't a guarantee of stasis or speciation. It's complicated.

The short answer: Speciation simply simply due to constant genetic drift needs more than 300K years to occur. Evolution occurs, but breeding compatability, which is really what is being discussed, is much more complex, and much more punctuated. A manipulated population isn't subject to the same drift as a natural population, in any case. The environment is only an issue insofar as it challenges basic genomic survivability -and the Vilani and Zhodani homeworlds are less hostile than earth, in many ways.

The longer answer : See my previous post for details, but the factors that we humans pay attention to (height, skin color,teeth, hare type and color, blood type, metabolic ensymes and protiens, even) are actually trivial with regard to speciation - which is why "race" as commonly used, isn't a valid scientific distinction on any but ideological levels. Zhodani do look different -taller, different dentiton and Vilanii have unique blood types and digestive enzymes compared to terrans....but then, Asians have very visual differences from europeans, and African humans -and new world africans and indiginous africans do have some very interesting and important metabolic differnences; and yet none of them are a noninterfertile species.

So actually, the scenario in the OTU is at least as likely as not; and if one assumes that the Ancients took a random sample of the entire breeding population, genetic diversity would make maintainance of interfertility traits far more likely.
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
See, you all have it wrong...

The Ancients took Homo Erectus to the stars, force-evolved them into what we would consider Homo Sapiens and that was the species used around the galaxy.

Some of those Homo Sapiens returned to Earth after the final war and became what we are today.

There is no missing link. The Ancients made us what we are.

Sold! I like this one. Consider it stolen for my game.
 
kafka said:
Anyhow, we are talking here about the interregnum between the rise of man and the fall of ancients. Also, I wonder if the hominid population would be enough to sustain itself genetically making me believe again that Grandfather would have used cloning on a much larger scale than previously explained.

Short answer: assuming the Ancients took a random sample from the whole population, yes; and if they took a specific sample, but screened them for non-viable recessives, yes also. In the former case a few dozen would work, really, and in the latter (screened case) a dozen might be enough (but see below) . About five hundred would essentially reproduce the human genome wherever it was established.

The long answer: I don't know if the numbers gathered by the ancients have ever been noted, but genomic work suggests that a survivable population group is surprisingly small. I think I've seen some data suggesting that humans had an ecological bottleneck where the poulation was reduced to less than 5000 - I believe due to a major climactic event. And timberwolves seem to have been reduced to possibly a single breeding pair at some point -

Statistical analysis suggests that about 50 guarantees survival if randomly selected from the entire population -if non randomly (say from one small tribe) it depends entirely upon the frequency of dangerous recessives (hemophelia, etc). If there are some, survival is unlikely - if not, however, a much smaller goup can be viable (Pitcarns island, and most polynesian islands had very small initially isolate poulations); this seems to have been the case with timber wolves, BTW.


In a compatable environment with no disease risk (or minimal risk), the odds go up lots (I'm guessing here, no data yet on that subject).
I think I remember an estimate that a population of 500 random examples selected from the entire human population would be sufficient to preserve almost all of the human genome, which would make speciation less likely from what we understand about the process. even in 300K years


This, BTW, only adresses the issue of a survivable viable population in any given site from a genbetic perspective. A small population is at much higher risk of being eliminated by even minor non-genetic events (big forest fire, say), granted, but that's not the question, really (maximum genetic diversity and/or good genetic selection is irrelevent when all of the breeding population is on fire... :? ).

Also, for interfertility or speciation issues, see earlier posts. ;)
 
captainjack23 said:
Sorry, not actually the case without more influence than drift. Speciation simply simply due to constant genetic drift needs more than 300K years to occur. Evolution occurs, but breeding compatability, which is really what is being discussed, is much more complex, and much more punctuated.

Let me put it this way. There is no way in hell that members of homo erectus/proto homo sapiens plucked from Earth and put on alien worlds and left there for 300,000 years would even remotely look anything like Homo Sapiens that evolved on Earth - certainly not as similar as all the major and minor human races do in the OTU at the moment.
 
EDG said:
captainjack23 said:
Sorry, not actually the case without more influence than drift. Speciation simply simply due to constant genetic drift needs more than 300K years to occur. Evolution occurs, but breeding compatability, which is really what is being discussed, is much more complex, and much more punctuated.

Let me put it this way. There is no way in hell that members of homo erectus/proto homo sapiens plucked from Earth and put on alien worlds and left there for 300,000 years would even remotely look anything like Homo Sapiens that evolved on Earth - certainly not as similar as all the major and minor human races do in the OTU at the moment.

Sorry, that's just wrong, unless you have access to different scientific data than I have. Again, with all due respect, your premise is faulty. Did you read the information above ?
 
Back
Top