Researchers seem to have found evidence for that homo erectus has appeared both in China and Africa at around the same time, but not in the areas in-between. This can perhaps be explained by some hidden migration, after an evolutionary change. This issue is discussed a bit in a video that can be found here (the time it takes for propagation is discussed a bit in this video, at around 1:05, I think). It seems more likely for me that they came to be at the same time because of an evolutionary change, with a partially postponed effect, that took place long ago in some mutual ancestor of both populations. ...
I have a personal view on evolution (see also here), which involves changes that can be in stages . That is, I believe that traits can be learned from individuals of other species and/or of the same species. Probably some types of trait cunning can only be learned from individuals the same (or, perhaps, very similar) species. But most learning is simple enough to be transmitted even from other species - and some simply from situations, i.e. one can formulate one's own impression of that situation and/or one or more individual(s) one relates it to. In this sense my view is even Lamarckian, though only partly. Mostly I believe that traits are transmitted by impressions of how others can pride themselves in being able to handle circumstances.
If you happened to be curious, I have written about my beliefs here, too. Or you can keep on reading what's below (or possibly you could do both). Here I'll try to sum up something of my beliefs about it:
When someone has been impressive so that someone else takes an impression from that person, then the second person - even immediately - has something of a trait that is new for him, her - or it. The second person can from then on use that new trait for his, her or its purposes. This will very often (I believe) result in a fairly surprising new cunning in the individual. If this were not at least fairly often so, why would there ever be talk of such a thing as beginners luck? ... At least I think there wold really not be any.
After a beginner's luck period there can be a disillusionment stage. In a sense, even every actual beginners-luck period is followed by a disillusionment stage. When so, this second stage usually, I think, lasts for at least as long as the stage of beginners luck. It is also in those changes that I can call Lamarckian (that can be inherited) that such disillusionment periods can occur. A break between such periods might thereby occur for many individuals at the same time, I believe. Because I believe one can expect there to be the same length of the beginners-luck period for all who inherit the same trait. This in turn can help explain some issues of convergent evolution, I think.
Upon this, the disillusionment period too comes to an end. If inherited, that stage too is can be equally long for all who inherited it. Upon this comes a (at least theoretically) potentially eternal period of understanding and really being able to use the (by then hardly so new) trait.
Sometimes a beginners-luck period can be used more than usually. Because there may be easy triumphs about them. Some who may notice this can put into affect to overuse the tendencies that I here call "beginners luck." I call it that because it is basically about an intuition that is significant very much because the notion of it can inspire those who have it into self-secure attitudes that tend to provide more or less of a self-fulfilling positive expectations. This type of success some may glutton in. Doing so I say is hyping about their beginners-luck period.
I believe that, the shift into a disillusionment period usually - perhaps always - hits harder against those who are hyped up on beginners luck. But things get complicated because there are sometimes those who can blame their hypes on others who are not as hyped. This hardly can work forever, though. ...
Either way, I believe there is something of intelligent design in this: That is I believe destiny has beginnings of new disillusionment periods tend to be matched with ends of other, until then ongoing ones. If this were not so, I believe, there wouldn't really be feeling of security about what there was to history - neither in a conscious or (actually more important for a species' survival) a subconscious way.
Thanks to this, one can also be a winner at the change as a whole. This is so especially to the extent one hasn't been hyped about the trait that at the time passes into a disillusionment period. I believe we humans had such a change to our benefit, probably in the seventeenth (or perhaps sixteenth) century; some time before the start of the age of reason. But humanity is not without hypes, I think, most of which have, however not yet passed into disillusionment periods.
One human - though hardly pan-human - beginners-luck stage, which fairly many, I think, people hyped with, is likely, I think to be one that ended before the bronze-age collapse,
where some mighty Mediterranean peoples lost their power. I mean that
for example the ancient Greeks, as well as their neighboring Hittites
and Egyptians had built empires upon hypes, which were not shared by all
people. It's not too unlikely that it was somewhat exclusive to their
upper classes to be able to use the hype very much to its advantage.
There might be yet another hype that pertained to our own aristocracy,
who nowadays have clearly less power than before. Indeed, their power
seems to be built upon their remnants of earlier might.
That this can be so might mean that hyping up on beginners-luck periods far from always causes intimidate collapse - and not quite simultaneous
for all those who hyped about it. This is likely to apply also what I
have described further down of one or more possible pan-human human
hype(-s) that is/are about to burst with transfer from beginners-luck to
disillusionment stage of evolution. But now to another, though probably
less severe hype that even so might be pan-human:
I believe there was more or less for humanity in general, up until somewhere in the nineteenth century a beginners-luck stage of a trait about having moral seem immediate, natural and self-evident, in a way that suited humanity well. It was, I believe matched by the end of a disillusionment period of a similar trait that was less about intelligence than the first one, but still as trustworthy as the first one. In that our ancestors used that first trait efficiently, the disillusionment from it pertains to the extent the moral thus achieved was of vanity or more genuine than that it should be considered to be such.
But there are of course also other animals that have had hypes. Likely are the mammoths (the disappearance of which seems to bring about more cause for concern; see here) as well as those dinosaurs that did not evolve into birds and also trilobites, examples of passed-time creatures that can have been hyped and then crushed by disillusionment periods. Inherited hype might not apply to all of a group (of a species, a clade, even a kingdom - whatever). But, all descendants do not at all necessarily inherit it. Thereby, there are for example birds, I think. Sometimes there might be survivors for long time that perhaps eventually might return after an extinction event.
The theories about the dinosaurs' disappearance are fairly many, and there has been asteroid impacts which do seem explanatory. But perhaps the large beasts among them would have survived had they not also been weakened by having had an evolutionary-hype bobble that burst.
As for us humans, you just might want to be aware that - at least in some perspectives - we seem likely to be into at least one hype, considering our population growth, up until now. I feel that many many of us are quite optimistic us, about going for some qualities that seem virtuous in ways that can be due simply to some evolutionary beginners luck. ... Therefore I expect that there will be a fallback - or several - perhaps soon. A severe time for human disillusionment might about to begin.
If so, it most likely means, I say, that humanly sophisticated attitudes will become less and less reliable. I suspect this to be about more than only one disillusionment era that begins around these - basically, for humanity as a whole, thriving - times. Very many human beings will to lack clear-mindedness about responsibility for society. Those who do will very often deceptively seem trustworthy. Thereby it's likely to become extremely risky, I think, to keep relying upon human attitudes - even for inspiration, probably.
To the lighter side of things, we seem also to be right now in
a period where several fairly evil attitudes have more or less recently
passed into disillusionment stages. On the other hand, some such attitudes have finished their disillusionment stage.I have a hunch that at least one of those is related to an ended beginners-luck period that there was a human hype about.It ended quite recently, you might even say very; within the last few decades. This means that .human some attitudes that one used to associate with (for very many humans in a hyped way) trying to feel good about caring about depth, can tend more and more to be dependent on being arrogant and seeming stuck up and/or trickily seeming worthwhile by claiming such arrogance and so be something that should be seen as worthwhile. But before this shift happened there was an end to something that caused idealizing of arrogance about being evil enough, sort of, I think.Thereby, I guess things even out fairly well, because we already had a time period that was much into democracy and so, probably much because other evil beginners-luck periods had ended.
Also, as with other species, I think, at least fairly many of us humans do not quite tend to be quite hyped up about the mentioned very pan-human qualities, which I believe to be set for a disillusionment period soon. There is, however, a fallback, I think, in that human society relies upon having sophisticated measures for seeming certain about the way things should work. Thereby almost every human has in his or her society a hype that is reliant on the evolutionary beginner's luck. To some extent most religions pose an exception to this, since their hype is on a spiritual basis. Such hype usually does not, however, usually beat all the none-religious ones.
So there will most likely, I think, be an era of disillusionment for humanity in general. But this does not as much pertain to those who are into having enough of a spirit of safeguard interest of its own. I mentioned earlier that Asian Indians have been into a morality issue, which I think makes them inclined to still find morality to be very natural. It is not only they who can do this, although I, for example, can't do it as well as they, though, as i I have found it to be it, a bit better than most people.
About as well as me, I have found, Muslims seem able to find morality to be natural. This means only that they pertain to knowing that it's real in a sense that does not disqualify them from showing actual potential for responsibility that naturally shows how moral can be real. I believe that their religion is so hyped about their own discipline that they can influence almost any other issue, and thus compete with almost any hype, including those that soon go into disillusionment periods for most of humanity.
It is not safe, thereby, to assume that they will not sooner or later tend to be the ones who turned out as winners. ... It is hardly safe to assume that they will not thereby conquer, dangerously much. But it is very likely even more dangerous to trust those who go into their disillusionment stages, and who thereby will be into desperate tricks. It is however essential to note that every little aspect of the coming centuries will rely on much else than Islam alone. Even so, I believe, Islam will dominate sooner or later - just as we can expect if we choose to believe in the prophecies of Michelle de Nostradame. Those can however be interpreted in various ways.
Either way, I do not propose that we should expect reliance upon prophesies to show us a lot about what we aught to do, nor even very much about what to expect. Instead, our societies need to be good for supporting diverse cares of diverse people!
