Closer to Creating Life in the Laboratory

And, yes, early stone tool technology remained the same, for a really long time.
This is one of the things that always struck me as being fairly enlightening about human progress, or our exponential rate of.

If memory serves (which sporadically it does, with some accuracy) humans and their ancestors ran about for roughly 500,000 years making sharp rocks before it occurred to many of them to put the sharp rock on the end of a stick.

Now, using any modern example of any seminal work, we still see eons of lackluster productivity go by until someone successfully develops a technology with utility - and then - all of a sudden there's an explosion of copycat replication of the same tech.


Peepole r funnie. Haff ben 4 kwyt sum tym. :lol:
 
Ok, so the site is known as Olorgesailie. It's apparently in Kenya. It appears I got a couple of facts mixed up, there was no quarry there, they actually transported their materials from a great distance to do their work there.
 
Ok, so the site is known as Olorgesailie. It's apparently in Kenya. It appears I got a couple of facts mixed up, there was no quarry there, they actually transported their materials from a great distance to do their work there.

Okay, that's not the site I was thinking of. However, they're similar in the fact that what makes them significant is that the wealth of artifacts is a result of geological conditions that made fossilization possible. It's not that this was some super-special site that played special significance in early human development; it's just that this is one of the few places where their remains are intact, so that we can study them.

Also, it's possible/probable that the materials traveled great distances via trade-networks.

If memory serves (which sporadically it does, with some accuracy) humans and their ancestors ran about for roughly 500,000 years making sharp rocks before it occurred to many of them to put the sharp rock on the end of a stick.

Actually, it was more like 2 million years, but that's beside the point. It's kind of pointless to compare development of modern human technology with that of our early ancestors. Nowadays, technology almost produces itself. Way back when, development of technology was more a byproduct of evolution. I hate to be crass, but our earliest ancestors were basically walking-chimps.
 
That's a fair point, but it doesn't make it any less interesting.

Here's the passage where I first read about that site.
Bill Bryson is a travel writer so it's hardly a scientific study, but he paints a good picture and raises more questions than he answers, which at least makes it partly scientific :P

If you wish to understand at once why we know as little as we do about human origins, I have the place for you. It is to be found a little beyond the edge of the blue Ngong Hills in Kenya, to the south and west of Nairobi. Drive out of the city on the main highway to Uganda and there comes a moment of startling glory when the ground falls away and you are presented with a a hang glider's view of boundless, pale green African plain.

This is the Great Rift Valley, which arcs across three thousand miles of east Africa, marking the tectonic rupture that is setting Africa adrift from Asia. Here, perhaps forty miles out of Nairobi, along the baking valley floor, is an ancient site called Olorgesailie, which once stood beside a large and pleasant lake. In 1919, long after the lake had vanished, a geologist named J.W. Gregory was scouting the area for mineral prospects when he came across a stretch of open ground littered with anomalous dark stones that had clearly been shaped by human hand. He had found one of the great sites of Acheulean tool manufacture that Ian Tattersall had told me about.

Unexpectedly in the autumn of 2002 I found myself a visitor to this extraordinary site. I was in Kenya for another purpose altogether, visiting some projects run by the charity CARE International, but my hosts, knowing of my interest in humans for the present volume, had inserted a visit to Olorgesailie into the schedule.

After discovery by Gregory, Olorgesailie lay undisturbed for over two decades before the famed husband-and-wife team of Louis and Mary Leakey began an excavation that isn't completed yet. What the Leakeys found was a site stretching to ten acres or so, where tools were made in incalculable numbers for roughly a million years, from around 1.2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago. Today the tool beds are sheltered from the worst of the elements beneath large tin lean-tos and fenced off with chicken wire to discourage opportunistic scavenging by visitors, but otherwise the tools are left just where their creators dropped them and where the Leakeys found them.

Jillani Ngalli, a keen young man from the Kenyan National Museum who had been dispatched to act as guide, told me that the quartz and obsidian rocks from which the axes were made were never found on the valley floor. "They had to carry the stones from there," he said, nodding at pair of mountains in the hazy middle distance, in the opposite directions from the site: Olorgesailie and Ol Esakut. Each was about ten kilometeres, or six miles, away--a long way to carry an armload of stone.

Why the early Olorgesailie people went to such trouble we can only guess, of course. Not only did they lug hefty stones considerable distances to the lakeside, but, perhaps even more remarkably, they then organized the site. The Leakeys' excavations revealed that there were areas where axes were fashioned and others where blunt axes were brought to be resharpened. Olorgesailie was, in short, a kind of factory; one that stayed in business for a million years.

Various replications have shown that the axes were tricky and labor-intensive objects to make--even with practice, an axe would take hours to fashion--and yet, curiously, they were not particularly good for cutting or chopping or scraping or any of the other tasks to which they were presumably put. So we are left with the position that for a million years--far longer than our own species has even been in existence, much less engaged in continious cooperative efforts--early people came in considerable numbers to this particular site to make extravagantly large numbers of tools that appear to have been rather curiously pointless.

And who were these people? We have no idea, actually. We assume they were Homo erectus because there are no other known candidates, which means that at their peak--their peak--the Olorgesailie workers would have had the brains of a modern infant. But there is no physical evidence on which to base a conclusion. Despite over sixty years of searching, no human bone has ever been found in or around the vicinity of Olorgesailie. However much time they spent there shaping rocks, it appears they went elsewhere to die.

"It's all a mystery," Jillani Ngalli told me, beaming happily.

The Olorgesailie people disappeared from the scene about 200,000 years ago when the lake dried up and the Rift Valley started to become the hot and challenging place it is today. But by this time their days as a species were already numbered. The world was about to get its first real master race, Homo sapiens. Things would never be the same again.
from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
 
Oh, cool. That was an interesting read. Okay, when you said the materials were transported long distances, I assumed we were talking about much farther than six miles. You don't need a trade-network for something to travel six miles, you just need feet and arms. :)

I'll be honest, I'm just doing a lot of guesswork at this point, but for what it's worth...

It sounds to me like that's where they lived. Humans (especially hunter/gatherers) have always sought out sources of fresh water as their favorite places to live.

Imagine you live on the shores of a lake. There is a mountain nearby that has a particular type of stone that makes great tools. But the process of making these tools requires a significant investment of time. Would you rather spend time away from home, crafting these tools? Or, would your rather transport the raw materials a few miles back home, so that you can spend as much time as you need, in the comfort of your home? I would transport the materials. :)
 
But where are the bones? Or should we assume they burned their dead?

I don't know. The google search I did, for "Olorgesailie", netted descriptions of an area that produced many fossils, because of a nearby volcano that produced a great deal of sediment. The article you've referenced is kind of the opposite, so I'm not sure they're entirely the same thing.

It's totally possible for a site to have no fossilization, but many artifacts. If a site is significant because of an abundant amount of human activity, it might produce many artifacts, but not necessarily any fossils. Stones don't require fossilization -- they just kinda last forever. Fossilization of bones, and other organic material, requires a great deal of convenient geological coincidences. Most organic material decomposes; it's really rare for it to find itself in the right conditions that it will last forever.

So, in retrospect, it sounds like this site that you've linked to is the opposite of my earlier assessment. It sounds to me like it was a very important location, as far as early human activity was concerned, but that it did not have geological conditions that would make fossilization of organic materials possible. That's the best educated-guess I can make, anyway.
 
Fossilization is a millions of years process.

Yes, but only if you define that word to mean that an organic material has turned to stone, and that is a rather narrow definition. There are plenty of fossils that are only tens of thousands of years old.

All I'm saying in the previous posts is that rocks last longer than bones, and you need special circumstances for bones to survive more than a few weeks. The rest is semantics.
 
Last edited:
Yes, great and fun post to read, Cracker. :)

As to the question of whether or not sapiens and neanderthals mated -- I must begrudgingly give the filmmakers credit and say that they kind-of, sort-of, almost got it right. It really pains me to say so, because I think their assessment of early-human procreation is fucking asinine.

It really bothered me, and I mean really, it kinda pissed me off, to see that the filmmakers thought that early humans procreated like dogs. Male-selection, that's how early humans mated. If a dude wanted to fuck a girl, he did. She could not protest, nor would she even try. Asinine.

Neanderthals buried their dead. They had religion. And yet I'm supposed to believe that when it comes to procreation, they behave on the level of a dog? Even our lesser-evolutionary-relatives, monkeys, have complex social systems that determine who mates with whom. Even if they didn't have full language, I think it's fair to say that neanderthals behaved roughly the same as we do.

However, if there were to be a mating between sapien and neanderthal, this is just a total guess on my part, but I would think it most likely would be a neanderthal(male)-sapien(female) rape. And that's pretty much what they did in this movie, except for some inexplicable reason, she decided that she likes her neanderthal, and teaches him the beauty of the missionary position. Which, by the way, the missionary position is highly underrated.

I remember Helen Fisher explaining in one of the TV shows about human evolution (probably from the 90s?) that generally it was probably females who did the choosing, mate selecting. You know, they had actors demonstrating what that might have looked like while she explained it. I tried to find the clip on youtube or something but I came up empty handed.

So, did you start writing your own film on the subject matter yet? ;)


Edit*******

Somewhat related to this conversation, this, Nova: Iceman Murder Mystery aired just last week. A 5,300 year old Stone Age man (the oldest intact human body known to exist) with a copper axe is partially autopsied and his DNA is sampled and analyzed leading to some fascinating discoveries and speculations.
 
Last edited:
So, did you start writing your own film on the subject matter yet? ;)

Nope. Next movie is set in stone, so that comes first. Plus, all I have is a setting, but no story. So, basically I have nothing. If you think of anything... :D

Thanks for the NOVA link. Of course I know about that frozen dude -- he gets talked about in every intro anth class. I don't think I've ever seen an entire NOVA episode on him, though -- should be a good watch. Cheers!
 
Have you seen The Clan of the Cave Bear? You all might be young enough that that too was never on your radars. It's a must see for someone interested in early humans, films about them, or making a film about them. I think it's definately more authentic, so to speak, than Quest for Fire. Don't pay attention to the low rating it has on IMDb. I think it deserves better than that. But maybe that's why they never made any sequels. It's based upon a book series that was pretty popular in its day, if I'm not mistaken.

The Clan of the Cave Bear

I checked; it is available on Netflix.

Nope. Next movie is set in stone, so that comes first. Plus, all I have is a setting, but no story. So, basically I have nothing. If you think of anything... :D

I really haven't. But I think it's good to start with what's already been done, like Quest for Fire and The Clan of the Cave Bear in order to put your own spin on it. I don't know if there have been any other major motion pictures about early humans. The only other one I can think of is Caveman. :P I have given it some cursory thought, and nothing very interesting has popped into my head. =( It would help if I knew a lot more about early humans. But that's no problem for you.

Especially since your moving back West, I would suppose that you'll have plenty of locations to think about, especially if you'll be shooting guerilla.

From another thread:

I concur with 2001 Productions. If you have a crew of a camera man, a director and a couple of actors then you're not going to draw attention, especially when you're off the street at a park or cemetery. If I was shooting something like this in LA, where it costs like $900 a day for a permit plus $65 a hour times 4 hours minimum for a cop, then you bet ya I'm gonna try and save $1,160.00!!!!! The key is being LOW KEY!

Woh. That scares me. I don't know how micro-budget filmmakers can shoot in any other way but guerilla, if those are the kind of costs you can expect to shoot with permission.

Anyway, you got me thinking about the different places you could shoot your film in California and the American West if you're willing to travel a few states away. Doesn't the Pacific Northwest have those Old Growth rain forests? That's one idea that keeps titillating my imagination. And you have different mountain ranges and national forests to think about. How about the San Gabriel Mountains and the Angeles National Forest? The Rocky Mountains in multiple states and not all that far away. But uh, watch out for lime disease carrying ticks and them damn mountain lions.

I recently and fiiiinally finished a book by Steven Pinker that has been sitting on my shelf waiting to be read for years and years. One of the little gems that I appreciated was when he mentions that humans are savanna/grassland animals. So it was and is perfectly natural for humans to want to clear away forests and turn them into the grasslands which they are used to and thrive upon. Humans had reason to slash and burn way before the modern cattle or beef industries encouraged them to do so. Anyway, I've wondered this before. Would American prairie or savanna work as a substitute for an African, Eurasian, or European savanna in a film? Did Eurasia or Europe have grasslands then? I don't know where you want to set your story though.

Prairies and Savannas

In the movies Quest for Fire and The Clan of the Cave Bear they seem to have preferred to portray their early humans moving about in forests and on hills and mountains. It seems that you have to watch science documentaries to see them portrayed hanging out in grasslands. Well, maybe grasslands aren't dramatic enough. My long winded point is that perhaps you'd also have access to faux Old World savannas too...in the form of some American prairie or savanna land, if you found some appropriate to shoot in. Would your audience be able to tell that your Old World savanna was not the Old World at all? Well, would a little AE magic be able to help with that? Anyway, I'll bet that your story would be set in Europe or there abouts, so maybe a non-issue. Still, nice to think that it might also be an option.
 
Last edited:
Clan of the Cave Bear! I forgot about that one. I'll definitely check it out.

As far as a story for a movie about early humans is concerned, I think it'd be best to make it a story that modern humans can relate to. I really despise the movie "Apocalypto", because of it so wantonly caricatured the Maya, but the one thing Mel Gibson got right was to tell a story that is timeless -- a soon-to-be-dad who needs to protect his pregnant wife.

Both the movies we've discussed have been about the first meeting between sapiens and neanderthals. That's an interesting subject, no doubt, but there are a couple problems with it. First, the introduction of the neanderthal makes it considerably more difficult to keep it in ultra-low-budget range. The second problem is that the introduction of two different species doesn't easily relate to modern audiences.

One thing I consider is introducing a modern element. What if a time-traveler finds themselves in this ancient world? But the time-traveler is not the protagonist; they are the catalyst that turns the world upside-down, causing all sorts of mayhem. Our protagonist would be just an ordinary kid trying to get his first taste of the fairer sex, or something like that.

I dunno, I'm just tossing that out there, off the top of my head; we could go a million different ways. But the point is that the Cro-mag protagonist is dealing with an issue that modern people can relate to, and then everything gets crazy when this outside element is introduced. Let the hilarity ensue! Also, the modern-human could serve as a really convenient vessel for exposition (sorry, sometimes it's necessary).

This is a fun thread. Big ups to you, richy!
 
One thing I consider is introducing a modern element. What if a time-traveler finds themselves in this ancient world? But the time-traveler is not the protagonist; they are the catalyst that turns the world upside-down, causing all sorts of mayhem. Our protagonist would be just an ordinary kid trying to get his first taste of the fairer sex, or something like that.

I dunno, I'm just tossing that out there, off the top of my head; we could go a million different ways. But the point is that the Cro-mag protagonist is dealing with an issue that modern people can relate to, and then everything gets crazy when this outside element is introduced. Let the hilarity ensue! Also, the modern-human could serve as a really convenient vessel for exposition (sorry, sometimes it's necessary).

This is a fun thread. Big ups to you, richy!

:)

Oh, I hadn't been thinking you'd make a comedy. Cool. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

Edit: Oh, I just had an idea when I wrote the above. It made me giggle a little. Probably nothing worth mentioning, but I won't post it on a public thread. :cool:
 
Last edited:
One thing I consider is introducing a modern element. What if a time-traveler finds themselves in this ancient world? But the time-traveler is not the protagonist; they are the catalyst that turns the world upside-down, causing all sorts of mayhem. Our protagonist would be just an ordinary kid trying to get his first taste of the fairer sex, or something like that.

So like, a sci-fi flavoured take on a Gods Must Be Crazy type concept, but all in the background of the story! That's an awesome idea! You could really play with it too...start with a time-traveller, but work up to all sorts of weird and crazy goings-on; all off camera and messing with the society as a whole, just not necessarily the main character. I'm thinking of the beginning of Shaun of the Dead, "The Zeppo" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the scene in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book or radio editions) where the Golgafrinchams land on Earth and inadvertently wipe out the indigenous life (and make a documentary about it).

Loads of potential there, and tons of different ways you could take it!
 
I hate, HATE, HATE, HATE that episode of TNG. As far as I'm concerned, it never happened, and I will not accept that as part of the Star Trek canon.

This is how I feel, when I watch that episode:

:angry::rofl::bang::grrr::mad:



why?? It explains why almost every alien is humanoid. And why somehow, they're able to breed with each other (cross-species breeding is not possible, unless super closely related)
 
why?? It explains why almost every alien is humanoid. And why somehow, they're able to breed with each other (cross-species breeding is not possible, unless super closely related)

Yes, that's precisely why I hate it. Because they explain the unexplainable by using the very non-scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Sure they used an alien race, instead of God, and thankfully, it wasn't politicized, but there's no question about -- that is the Intelligent Design episode of Trek.

We already know why we're humanoid -- we got this way by the process of Natural Selection. Natural Selection and Intelligent Design don't mix (at least not the way it's portrayed in that episode); one of them negates the other. So, whereas Trek normally takes good science and augments it with hypothetical plausibility, in this episode, they just threw one of the most important and trusted theories, in all of science, right out the window! Impressionable minds are watching. Tsk, tsk.

richy -- thanks for sharing that link. I can't wait to watch it later tonight!
 
Interesting data point: the last group of organisms we know of that went bipedal lasted for 165 million years -- the dinosaurs. (Technically longer -- birds are now definitively classed as dinosaurs and are the last surviving group of those particular animals.)

Still, trying to explain away cheap-for-TV aliens via intelligent design doesn't work so well for me either.
 
Yes, that's precisely why I hate it. Because they explain the unexplainable by using the very non-scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Sure they used an alien race, instead of God, and thankfully, it wasn't politicized, but there's no question about -- that is the Intelligent Design episode of Trek.

We already know why we're humanoid -- we got this way by the process of Natural Selection. Natural Selection and Intelligent Design don't mix (at least not the way it's portrayed in that episode); one of them negates the other. So, whereas Trek normally takes good science and augments it with hypothetical plausibility, in this episode, they just threw one of the most important and trusted theories, in all of science, right out the window! Impressionable minds are watching. Tsk, tsk.

richy -- thanks for sharing that link. I can't wait to watch it later tonight!

I'm no backer of intelligent design, I certainly don't think an alien race seeded life, and evolution has been 100% proven, but within the context of the Trek-verse, they needed an explanation to why almost every alien was hardly an alien whatsoever.

It's a dumb explanation, but it works
 
Back
Top