Depends how we adapt. It's dangerous to assume the end goal, since being "completely" bipedal isn't actually something biology would conform to. For all intents and purposes, we work fine as we are. That means not being 100% designed for any one thing. Except survival!

Just want to add that bipedalism isn't even an efficient evolution within humans. We basically just shifted our hips and torso to an upright position, but everything else stayed the same. From a skeletal or evolutionary standpoint, only the legs/hips really evolved to the bipedal part. The rest of us is catching up.

To some extent, each den is unique and crafted to suit the needs of the individual animal. So each one could be called unique, potentially. We have also seen evidence of "locality" among certain species, where beavers pick up different techniques from their parents or neighbors when building and re-building dams. Or where bears teach each other tricks to get around human habitation.

But I don't know if I would go so far as to call it a style... I think "style" implies an ideal of fashion or values. There would have to be a clear idea of good or bad examples in order to decorate properly. It feels a bit too far outside of function to have a strong presence in non-domesticated animals. Even animals like rats (which are fastidious about their homes and re-arrange daily or weekly), the arranging part is still largely functional, changing pathways, access points, cleanliness, or textures.

So, to answer your question, I think "style" is a purely human concept. However, plenty of individuals animals DO have a preferred form of building and maintaining dens, and that is something we see across many species. Each animal is going to have its own unique method of going about things and its own way of meeting needs. The way they change and decorate the den is probably going to be a reflection of that rather than a particular "look".

The growth of trees record the level of rainfall they received. There wouldn't be a reason for the tree to continue growing without showing evidence. when the tree dies is when it stops growing, not before.

We can date wood from lumber, even when it's from an archaeological site hundreds of years old. This is because we actually have a databank or library of tree rings. We can compare the exact measurements of each ring to the local weather data and just count backwards or forwards. So basically, you don't need to count every single ring, you just need to find a reference point in your local rainfall and then count from there.

No, that isn't how age works.

Even for a forensic examiner, reading age from the body itself is rarely conclusive. The sole exeption is early childhood, which has specific stages of growth and therefore can be a little more telling. However, for adults or cases of malnutrition...determining an exact age is guesswork, not science. Humans do not grow uniformly.

The answer isnt simple. All language reflects the context in which it is used. However there is no 1:1 correlation, nor is there any "correct" way to use a language. Language is formed to attempt communication, but that requires both transmission and reception. Meaning that the meaning of language can change as it is passed between groups or individuals. In order to establish a response to your question about connection, we would have to be able to quantify an "origin" but its incredibly unlikely we'd be able to do that with certainty unless we have extensive written records AND something to compare to. Even then, there is no guarantee that the history is accurate or complete.

Basically, language is constantly changing by the way its used. We can't nail down any particular concept/style as "more" accurate or more true than another. The only difference between a dialect and a language is the army and navy. (meaning its a political difference not a real one)

Not necessarily. Ithaca NY is famous for its waterfall gorges, which always have a TON of fossilized ammonite and stuff. There are places that advertise to tourists that way. Just depends on local geography and tide currents etc

There are parts of the world where groups navigate using ONLY cardinal directions (north south east west). In these parts of the world, they found that each person has an innate sense of where North is. They can all navigate this way, but their language doesnt have ANY relational words (front back left right top bottom). So they always use compass points. I think that tribe was in the Amazon. Not sure how they saw the stars.

Gene testing to prove ethnicity/individuality is bad science. This is how I was taught in my anthro degree, that we should move away from trying to isolate social constructs like ethnicity/"subspecies" (doesnt exist in bio). The way we use it really is not how science works. Basically, they take a "perfect sample" (the only one available) and then compare everything else to it. They make a 1:1 comparison between one unique sample and another, equally unique sample. Then they say something like, "You are 56% asian pacific islander."

The reason this doesnt work is because EVERY place has more variety than similarity. You could take two samples from New York and record drastically different genomes, but someone decided that the one on the left was a Nigerian sample while the one on the right is a caucasian sample. I hope I've explained a little bit how the system is flawed due to humans choosing which sample means what and NOT based on any actual genetics/science. Its just comparing "perfect" ideals to one another. But nature has no such thing. This is why you see twins with different results or re-testing with lots of changes.

https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-022-00391-2 The link between ancestry testing and ethnic superiority

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/28/18194560/ancestry-dna-23-me-myheritage-science-explainer Limits of Genetic testing

scientificamerican.com/article/white-nationalists-are-flocking-to-genetic-ancestry-tests-with-surprising-results/ Nazis facing severe cognitive dissonance after realizing "pure white" isnt a racial group used by genetic testers.

So, I can't answer for the whole genus. However, if you're referring to neolithic hunter-gatherers, we know that they COULD have children roughly every 2 years (if they could feed it) and that small family units traveled in 3-6 people. Very small, close units of direct family. We know this because foraging had to be done on the move, so childbearing was limited by your ability to carry younger children (0-2).

If you're referring to early agricultural communities, this differs greatly. We know that early agriculturalists were creating their own labor force. So probably as many kids as possible. This is the part of the archaeological record where we begin to see bone pathology tied with over-birth. Specifically, women who have died from constant birthing or are otherwise impaired/limited to this job function. This brings the life expectancy down 9 years compared to hunter-gathering (life expectancy roughly 23yo) and we begin to see a lot of malnourishment too. Because their diets begin to lack biodiversity and relying on starch vegetables causes cavities.

source: anthropologist

That would be so cute. My favorite quote from the park rangers at Yosemite is, "There is considerable overlap in the intelligence of the smartest animals and the dumbest humans."

This isn't how it works, sorry. There is no neurological separation between Neanderthal and homo sapiens. The reason for this is that we interbred relatively quickly and assimilated. This is true for the other "kinds" of early homonids. There really is no difference by any modern standards. Like spotted vs. brown cows. So neanderthals are fully a part of homo sapiens' ancestors and genetic material.

My source is a degree in cultural anthropology and archaeology. This is the way we are all taught.

The FOXP2 gene and tool making happen in the same part of the brain, specifically Broca's region. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16437554/ Archaeologists know that tool making is a primary skill for early neolithic and stone age homonids. They also know that hominid evolution was originally driven through adaptations related to grasping ability. This means catching bugs, branches, and tools. I don't have any of the textbooks in front of me right now, but our approach is working from the other direction, if that makes sense. Archaeologists didnt look to prove the FOX2P gene; that came after. We are looking at the actual remains and culture to see what actions drove evolution, adaptation, variation, and reproduction. What we've found is that tool making is an early behavior that was extremely advanced, difficult, and required a higher level of computation/communication. We can see evidence of toolmaking that explores the process of adopting this behavior, as well as the newer technologies that came from the results.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32995491/ (VanderVert 2020). The prominent role of the cerebellum in the social learning of the phonological loop in working memory: How language was adaptively built from cerebellar inner speech required during stone-tool making

Modern study: https://www.academia.edu/33081159/Human_brain_activity_during_stone_tool_production_tracing_the_evolution_of_cognition_and_language_2016_

Toolmaking tied to communication skills in Oldowan period https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5774752/

Knapping process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDJ5gJxheRo

I cant find it! I wish I could. I found some more generic articles about how beavers work, but not including behavioral analysis of the parenting tactics. Within any animal culture (including humans), the way we teach skills will contain some localized techniques. There have been more specific studies done with this in bear populations.

https://www.beaversolutions.com/beaver-facts-education/beaver-behavior-and-biology/

http://resp.llas.ac.cn/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/213152 Interesting ties between beavers and climate change

What you're discussing is called Skeletal Pathology. That means looking at the marks leftover to try and find clues. It's part of forensic archaeology. Here's an overview by Durham University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbqpzILKENI

Testing/isotopes: This is a video showing how bones can be tested for minerals and isotopes, which is good for determining diet or location. It also goes into dental analysis a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-gC7UXUoYk&list=PLVBHL30tV1pdlB6yNVKzTGsnVlC-k7Uu1

Real life example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bWNF_eNwvI&list=PLgquNEQ4NAWmku99VbZ9l2At0FTk98Vlu&index=64&t=6s This is a very funny/interesting youtube documentary about how Christopher Columbus had and spread syphilis. Its mostly about syphilis, which interestingly, can lead to a lot of very distinctive bone damage in early middle-age remains. We see it mostly on priests and rich guys, who survived long enough to get damage. Ironic, ha.

Hi! Anthropologist here. When people talk about the FOXP2 gene, we believe the skill associated with it is actually sentence-construction. That means being able to put words together and "predict" what the end result will be. That might be distinctive wording or the cumulative meaning, etc. It's more about the mental math required to have a composite.

We know this because the FOXP2 gene is also used in tool-making, specifically knapping. Which is how you get spear heads and stone age tools. This process is very difficult and requires you to be able to "predict" how the stone will flake away. You have to be able to calculate angles visually and match your hand-eye coordination to achieve that result, many many times. It takes a while. This super-difficult skill is what we believe trained early homo groups (including Neanderthals) .

Lastly, we know that the culture of early homo groups was deeply spiritual. We know that shared identity was very important and that many early humans traveled in small family unit groups of 4-6 people. Early humans were prolific travelers and managed to explore the globe, leaving behind the nearly universal image of a religious carving. If I recall, it was an animal totem or some small vaguely humanoid sculpture, kind of like Venus of Willendorf. Basically, anthropologists never see anything that truly universal--because variety is the rule. But we found enough of these sculptures around the ancient world, all identical, all depicting shared group identity (humankind etc). This keepsake was traded globally, but also carried with many groups. From this, we know that their culture valued something even more than survival. We expect that shared communication and spirituality are the early adaptive skills of humans, which allowed us to assimilate the Neanderthals (genetically proven) and eventually take over the world.

Actually the correct answer is that it's both. Beavers ALSO have a cultural component to damn-building. Beaver families learn to build different ways, which passes on "localized" or unique build patterns to the offspring. This is similar to how bears in particular parks have learned to open bear-proof jars through practice and observation. Basically, we knows beavers also have localized culture because they pass on (ineffective or specific) building techniques. Some of the dams beavers build are really awful, no lie.