Re: evolutionary success of humans
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:38:48 -0500 (EST)
<pauldepstein@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dlrpsb$1p47$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I understand that there are approximately 6 billion humans. How does
> this compare with the total number of living mammals? Is there any
> other mammalian species as numerous?
Not many. I think that mice and rats may outnumber us, but that is about
it. Not too long ago, we were probably outnumbered by various species
of wild cattle and pigs, but I am pretty sure we outnumber our domestic
varieties. If you count total biomass (organism count times average
organism mass) we are probably the most significant land mammal. Ants and
termites might compete among land animals. I'm pretty sure that I read
somewhere that squids win among all animals. But plants and maybe some
kinds of bacteria would probably provide the species with the greatest
total biomass.
> I am a little bit puzzled by our evolutionary success because we have
> an enormous number of relative disadvantages compared to other mammals.
> Here are just a few of them.
>
> 1) Long gestation period.
> 2) Almost no multiple births.
> 3) Bad hearing.
> 4) Poor mobility -- slow on land, and terrible at swimming and
> climbing.
> 5) Terrible sense of smell.
Well, it is important to realize that until about 10,000 years ago,
our population was no greater than a few million. Reasonably successful,
but hardly dominant. That changed with agriculture. And we are good
at agriculture primarily due to our hands. No other creature comes
close to us in manipulative and general purpose carrying capability
(except maybe ants).
.
- References:
- evolutionary success of humans
- From: pauldepstein
- evolutionary success of humans
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: On Noise in Gene Expression
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Previous by thread: evolutionary success of humans
- Next by thread: Re: evolutionary success of humans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
