Humans And Chimpanzees

 

     Humans and chimpanzees have close evolutionary ties, humans being the more advanced of the two species this is a given.   Inescapably we are related having been bred from the same common ancestors (Wade, 2006).  At a point in human and chimpanzee development the two species were by circumstance guided in separate evolutionary directions why is uncertain.  It is this divergence that has led both species to their current status, and though we have become very different the differences are far out weighed by the many impressive similarities.

     The DNA sequence of chimpanzees is a 99% match with humans, virtually identical (Wade, 2006).  As new information on chimpanzees is brought to light a more deep understanding of the inner workings between our two species can be obtained.  In a study by Lestel (1998) acculturation of primates and human to ape communication was examined, Kanzi a pygmy chimpanzee demonstrated a level of language comprehension similar to a two year old child.  Chimpanzees are considered highly intelligent, lead complex social lives, and feel for one another (Wade, 2006).  These characteristics bare a striking resemblance to human life.   Clearly parallels can be drawn linking humans and chimpanzees that may provide a heightened degree of insight to human evolution for both the past and future. 

     Kanzi who is mentioned above was observed to have spontaneous access to symbolic language, understood spoken English quite well, and provided evidence of linguistic innovation (Lestel, 1998).  In addition, Lestel (1998) also indicated that common chimpanzees also had access to symbols and were able to learn ASL ( American sign language), the chimpanzees in this study were able to ask questions and teach the language to other chimpanzees. 

     Results like this inevitably force us to question are past associations with other primates while seeking more detailed answers as to what generates each species unique but interrelated progression on the evolutionary journey.

 

 

Lestel, D., (1998) How chimpanzees have domesticated humans: Towards anthropology of human-ape communication. Anthropology Today, 14, 12-15.

 

Wade, N. (2006) Before the Dawn: Recovering the lost history of our ancestors. New York: Penguin Books, pp 264-279.

The Founder Effect on Ashkenazi Jews

As we all know, the Jewish population has had a turbulent and nomadic history. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. causing yet another exodus of the Jews this time into smaller groups rather than just one large group. One of these groups, the Ashkenazi, settled in central Europe only to be persecuted yet again by Christians roughly one thousand years latter. Since the Christians were not the dominant population, the Jews were restricted to occupations that did not appeal to the host Christian’s population, specifically, banking and trading. According to this segregation, coupled with strict social boundaries upheld by the Ashkenazi by intermarriage, is said to have caused the mutation of certain neurological genes leading to a variety of neurological diseases, and also in some instances, higher intelligence within the Ashkenazi population (Wade, 251-255).

The reason why neurological diseases became so prevalent within the Ashkenazi community was through the Founder effect. According to Montgomery Slatkin, A founder effect can result either from a true founder event (i.e., the establishment of a new population from individuals derived from a much larger population) or from an extreme reduction in population size (i.e., a bottleneck in size (2004). So when the Romans forced the Jews out of Israel, a rare mutated gene was included in the population that relocated. Because the mutated gene was so rare, the mutated gene should have been eradicated by genetic drift. However, the Jewish custom was to procreate within their population. This caused the rare gene to become more familiar. Unfortunately, this gene also is the reason for a higher percentage of neurological diseases.

The genetic mutation, the same one that gave rise to neurological diseases, was also to have caused a strange side effect: higher intelligence. Because the diseases had a direct physical effect on neurons, it was also possible that extra cognitive skills were acquired to adapt to the diseases (Wade, 255). The Jews having jobs that required more cognitive exercise throughout the Middle Ages also augmented this.

Slatkin, M. American Journal of Human Genetics; Aug2004, Vol. 75 Issue 2, p282-293, 12p

Wade, N. (2006) Before The Dawn: Recovering The Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: The Penguin Press.

Dating the Emergence of Proto-Indo-European

Important tools in determining the paths of human migration is linguistics and the sub discipline paleolinguistics. Identifying language origins and paths of dissemination can help determine regions of our ancient origins and establish a timeline for the migrations of these people, bolstering previous archaeological and genetic hypotheses. For many western linguist, the challenge has been to locate and date the epicenter of Proto-Indo-European. An accurate date and location can support either of the claims that Indo-European emerged from population expansion due to the development of farming, the Anatolian farmer hypothesis, or that it was warlike expansion by nomadic horsemen, the Kurgan horsemen hypothesis. It is a determination that differs by just a couple thousand years.

The most recent attempts at dating the origin of Proto-Indo-European with computational statistic methods, based on studies of genetic population modeling, suggest an origin of approximately 10,000 years ago to the time agriculture spread across Europe (Gray & Atkinson, 2003). Paleolinguists, and other scientist, are divided on the accuracy of computational and other methods used to data language. Considering the proximity of the dates determining whether Proto-Indo-European speakers were farmers or warriors, a small error accumulated in the calculation, a result of either statistical error or environmental error, could skew the results enough to favor one hypothesis over the other. Unknown also is the effect climate may have had prompting migrations of people or whether multiple migrations took place, one of nomadic warriors, the previous of farmers, a combination of which would alter the assumptions of cognate vocabulary (Adams & Otte, 1999). Attempts to develop language dating based on grammar structure may be more accurate and are already being applied to other language families (Dunn et al, 2008).

Adams, J., & Otte, M. (1999). Did indo-european languages spread before farming? Current Anthropology, 40, 1, 73-77.

Dunn, M., Levinson, S., & Lindström, Eva. (2008). Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics:methodological explorations applied in island melanesia. Language, 84,4, 710-759.

Gray, R.D., & Atkinson Q.D. (2003). Language tree divergence times support the anatoliantheory of of indo-european origin. Nature, 426, 435-438.

Emergence and the Spread of Language

Language evolves for many reasons, but the main reason its evolution is to establish memberships among groups in order to distinguish between a friend and a foe. According to Robin Dunbar, languages were invented to exclude the outsider. If non-members are blocked from comprehending and communicating with members, then people can distinguish those within the same group from those of another (Dunbar 2003).
In order to better understand how language spreads to different regions, it should be orgainized into two categories: the mosaic zone and the spread zone. The mosaic zone is an area of different languages due to constant and rapid changes, such as the changes seen from one generation to the next, from one village to another, and from different variations of dialects in nearby regions. Spread zone is a large area dominated by a single language.

In a spread zone, a large group of territorial people occupies a region and causes trouble for those crossing their land. As time passes by, differences arise among different groups from different regions, giving rise to a mosaic zone. Moreover, when different groups of people occupy neighboring regions, diversity among groups causes the regions to differentiate according to language differences. Finally, as diversity leads to dissimilarity, different groups of people demonstrate hostility towards each other. Therefore, one group may feel the need to block another group from interfering with its group.

Once a mosaic zone is established, it can be reverted back to a spread zone in three ways: climatic disaster, transition to agriculture, and warfare (Wade, 2006). First, when a large land mass is destroyed by disaster, the new population colonizing the area will create a spread zone of its own language. According to Colin Renfrew and Peter Bellwood, as agriculture develops, a population expands outward and spreads language along with its expansion (Renfrew & Bellwood, 2003). Warfare, the driving force of spread zone, occurs whenever conflict arises. The victory group will dominate the conquered area with its language.
As human kind evolves, so do our anatomy, culture, and language. There are at least 6,000 different forms of languages around the globe. The varieties are thought to derive from a common root. If this is so, then it is possible to trace back the route of human expansion from 50,000 years ago until its current state.

Reference
Dunbar, R. M. I. (2003). Language evolution. In M. H. Christiansen & N.D. Simon Kirby, The origin and subsequent evolution of language (p. 231). Oxford University Press.
Diamond, J., & Bellwood, P. (2003). Farmers and their languages: The first expansions. Science, 300, 597-603.
Wade, N. (2006). Before the Dawn. In language spread zone and mosaic zones, p 206. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

The Importance of Race in Medicine

Humans often use race as a way to categorize the differences in the way people look. There are better reasons to categorize the differences between people, such as mapping genetic variations in large populations and applying those variations to medicine.

In some cases genetic similarities shared by people of a common race increase the chance of those people developing certain diseases. Many diseases have a genetic component which varies with race. This explains why some races are more or less susceptible to a sickness and even certain medicines.

For instance, BiDil has had a higher rate of effectiveness in treating heart failure primarily in African Americans. The Food and Drug Administration is likely to make it the first drug on the market targeted at a single race. “BiDil may be effective in people of African ancestry because, as a way of retaining salt in hot climates, they have genetically low levels of a chemical signal that BiDil enhances.” (Wade) The idea of treating patients racially may seem to be linked to racism, but it is necessary for the health and treatment of many patients.

Skin color is an equivocal way of identifying race. It is better to identify race based on the ancestry of the individual. Neil Risch (Geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco) wrote an article that included the five continent-based races; the list is below:

Africans are those whose primary ancestry is in sub-Saharan Africa.
This includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans.

Caucasians are people of Eurasia—Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and those of the Indian subcontinent (India and Pakistan)

Asians are people of eastern Eurasia (China, Japan, Indochina, the Philipines and Siberia).

Pacific Islanders are Australian aborigines and people of New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronasia.

Native Americans are the original inhabitants of North and South America.(Rische)

This list categorizes the race of humans based on their ancestry of many generations. We were taught to look past race, but it is necessary for us to recognize that we are different. Racial profiling is more important for our fitness. If drugs could target each patient according to race, than the outcome could be better for many patients.

Works Cited

1. Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 2007. Print.

2. Risch, Neil, Esteban Burchard, Hua Tang, and Elav Ziv. "Categorization of Humans in Biomedical Research: Genes, Race and Disease." Categorization of Humans in Biomedical Research: Genes, Race, and Disease. Genomebiology.com. 3 July 2002. Web. 15 Sept. 2009. 7

Sociality in Animals: Property Rights/Property Ownership

Humans have intricate social structures, which have allowed large populations to exist without constant warfare. Reciprocal altruism may have lead to cooperation amongst non-family members helping to create large societies were one can depend on another. Animals too create social bonds to form societies similar to that of humans. Wade explains similarities found in humans sociality and animals, but he states “…all human societies support institutions not found in the chimp repertoire. These include property rights…” (Wade, 141). Most animals defend their territorial rights the same way humans protect their homes and property.
W. H. Burt published an article in the Journal of Mammalogy showing that property ownership is a trait not only found in humans but also animals. “In fact, it may be held that the recognition of territorial rights, one of the most significant attributes of civilization, was not evolved by man, but has ever been an inherent factor in the life history of all animals” (Burt, 346). Many observations show that animals, reptiles and even invertebrates posses a type of territorial behavior that is common to humans. Observations of beavers that live in close proximity to each other still show signs of ownership; “…it is more than probable that each family knew its own, and always entered at their own door without having any further connection with their neighbors…” (Burt, 347-348)
Dogs are a good example of animals that show property rights. Humans protect their homes from unwanted intruders just as dogs would do. Primates show strong signs of property rights; any intruder entering a group or individuals land is subject violent retaliation. All primates possess ownership traits. Civilized societies and the humans within them still possess the same underlying behaviors apparent in most animal groups. Environmental pressures and sendentism redefined human evolution, spurring sociality to new levels different from all other beings. Yet social structures can be seen in many species and humans were not the first creatures to create social institutions.

References

Wade, Nicholas. Before The Dawn. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006.

Burt, Henry, “Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals,” Journal of Mammalogy Vol. 24, No. 3. (Aug., 1943) [346-352]. http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Burt_1943_JMammal.pdf (accessed September 10, 2009)

Foraging our way into Archaic States

Over the past 15,000 years humans have become more docile allowing groups to forage together and become settled societies (Wade 178). With the art of social societies comes the pressure for the need of a constant food supply. Hunter-gatherers had rarely experienced a surplus of food. They would hunt just enough to feed their immediate family and no more. Now that these groups of hunter-gatherers forged together they were faced with positive predicament of an excess food supply. This surplus could be used for trade with other groups of hunter-gatherers but it also created the need for storage, leadership, distribution and other technicalities. As far as research shows, before the foraged hunter-gatherers began to trade with one another they lived an egalitarian lifestyle. This lifestyle was disrupted by the emergence of archaic states. These archaic states consisted of larger groups of hunter-gatherers that gathered together to form a greater community. The members of the archaic states evolved into a way of thinking and socializing that allowed their society to function with these new roles being disrupting their peaceful homeostasis.

Within the past 5,000 years these groups of hunter-gatherers began to form larger groups known as archaic states. Wade cites that anthropologists Allen Johnson and Timothy Earle believe that these archaic states may have exceeded 100,000 individual societies. However the author Norman Yoffee disagrees with the statements made by Johnson & Earle. Yoffee states that “These myths of the earliest states and their evolution are products of archaeological theory, that attempt to understand a process whose outcome is observed but whose dynamics and details are imperfectly known from the observations” (Yoffee 196). Yoffee does agree with Johnson & Earle that these hunter-gatherer groups shared a cultural system and that these groups appear approximately 5,000 years after the hunter-gatherers. Yoffee states that these small family-sized groups game together and created a society that survived on hunting, domesticated animals, and flourishing agriculture (Yoffee 200). Yoffee deducts that these groups would live in an area until drought, disease or some other natural occurrence caused them to move on and as they did so they would trade such items as obsidian, grain, and in some cases, semi-precious stones (Yoffee 202).

Regardless of why these groups of hunter-gatherers began to trade, the important issue is that they evolved into a homeostasis where they governed themselves, allowed other groups to trade food supplies, tools and other goods. This evolution of society demonstrates the capacity for a , somewhat, chosen evolutionary path.

Works Cited

Allen W. Johnson, Timothy Earle. The Evolution of Human Societies. 2nd ed. USA: Stanford University Press, 2000.

Norman Yoffee. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations. 1st edition ed. USA: Cambraige University Press, 2005. Google ScholarSeptember 15, 2009 <http://books.google.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/books?uid=6821351402528902958>.

Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn. USA: Penguine Books, 2007.

Savage Intelligence

Aurignacians, inhabitants of Europe from 45,000 to 28,000 years ago, showed great skill in fighting as they kept back the Neanderthals and ultimately eliminating them from existence. However, combat was not their only skill. Art was also revealed to be apart of these warriors lives. Cave drawings located deep in the Chauvet cave give vast insight into the complex and sophisticated minds of the Aurignacian people.

In the cave of Chauvet, located in the Ardeche Valley of France, lie the earliest known cave paintings found dating back to 32,000 to 30,00 years. Animals cover the walls in a beautiful and expressive way that seem to articulate the intensity of their lives. (wade 103) With the discovery of these paintings, many questions arise and many debates began. Perhaps the biggest is on the true date of the cave drawings. Some argue that the art resembles later cultures in the Magdalenian era (17-12,000 yrs) while some go as far as to argue that the art is “too magnificent” for the Aurignacian Period so it must not be. But French rock art expert Jean Clottes shoots these theories down stating Chauvet is “the best dated rock art site in the world” (Balter) and Wade counters the assumption that people like us are the only ones capable of creating art. By looking at these cave drawings and studying their strokes, archaeologists have begun to hypothesize the symbolism and appreciate the detail of their form.

Symbols lie in calculated depictions of the animals as they move across the wall telling a story. In a drawing of lions chasing bison, Gilles Tosello, cave art expert, sees the humans identifying with lions with the hope to imitate their hunting expertise. In another drawing, we see attention to detail in full force as a prehistoric version of bas-relief form; (Balter) the etching of the horses head accentuate the importance and adds dimension. These two points give us reason to believe that the Aurignacians people were in fact capable of art. However, no matter what time these painting took place, the Chauvet cave offers us an insight to the expression and beliefs of the anatomically modern humans (Balter) , something we can all but be grateful for.

Balter, Michael. "Going Deeper Into the Grotte Chauvet." Science 15 Aug. 2008: 904-05. Jstore. Web. 14 Sept. 2009. http://www.sciencemag.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/cgi/content/full/321/5891/904.

Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn. New York: The Penguin, 2006. Print.

The Beginnings of Man's Best Friend

The people of the upper paleolithic era drastically changed the course of all humans. They discovered new territories, created art, and even aided in domesticating wolves, which through thousands of years, created the domesticated dog. Well many people, including Ray Coppinger, an expert in dog behavior, believe that people can take miniscule credit for domesticating wolves, they still made an impact (Wade 112). People might not have done all the work in terms of the domestication of wolves, but they definitely made a difference.

Wolves are known scavengers, it is believed that they would end up at different campsites and scavenge for leftovers, and after a while, they would tend not to be too shy around people. They would end up coming back repeatedly or even following people as they moved from place to place, knowing that they would be able to scrounge up some kind of food. It is also speculated that after a while, the cohabitation was so blended that people began taking in wolf pups and raising them from a young age, which probably also aided in domestication.

Many favorable outcomes arise from having a pet, especially a wolf or dog, by one's side, first of all, is protection. Once the canine became domesticated and comfortable with the human, a bond was created. The humans looked out for the animal, and the animal might have even helped the human out as well. Another benefit is the positive behavior that owning a pet tends to instill in people. Pets are believed to improve and increase bonds between family members and friends. If these ancient homes had pets, it might have helped them relate to each other and form stronger relationships, which could have helped in their survival, by making them more prone to protect each other.

Dogs (and pets in general) really add rewarding moments to humans' lives. Whether they provide distraction, stress relief, or protection, they really help maintain and improve daily life. Whether or not people of the upper paleolithic era consciously and deliberately spent time domesticating wild animals, they made an impact and changed future humans' life for good. It is odd to think of life without pets, so however ancient man helped to bring them into human life is something everyone should be thankful for.

Shipman, Pat. "The Woof at the Door." American Scientist 97.4 (July 2009): 286-289. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Martin Luther King Jr. Library], [San Jose], [CA]. 14 Sep. 2009 .

Agriculture the worst catastrophe in human history?

***This isn't required reading.

If any of you are familiar with CrossFit or the Paleo Diet, this article might be of some interest to you: "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel).

The article is a critique of agrarian evolution and societies—stating that they lead to social stratification, sexual inequality, and higher disease rates. Many of the topics discussed in class are covered in the article. If you have time, take a look!

Neanderthals vs. Modern Humans

As the first modern humans began to journey outside of Africa they inevitably came face to face with their archaic relatives, the Neanderthals. Although the Neanderthals seemed to have been physically superior to the newer human version, “year by year, the moderns’ territory expanded and the Neanderthals’ shrank” (Wade 94). In studying the fate of the Neanderthals, behavioral variations were perhaps the primary factors in distinguishing the old human population from the new.

According to the Single-Origin and Replacement Model of W.W. Howell, it is proposed that anatomically modern humans expanded their reign by “competitively displacing all other human populations without interbreeding with them” (Shea 42). The highly innovative behavior of these modern humans is what gave them the upper hand in survival. It is readily arguable that in “virtually every detectable aspect – artifacts, site modification, ability to adapt to extreme environments, subsistence and so forth – the Neanderthals were behaviorally inferior to their modern successors” (Wade 91).

Both human species had similar ways of using the land and hunting, but it was their differing social organization practices which may have aided the modern humans in their long struggle against the Neanderthals. “Neanderthal societies were not structured around the nuclear family, as modern human hunter-gatherers are” (Henry 67). Since the males only visited the female groups to mate, the females and their offspring were left unprotected and were therefore at a disadvantage to modern human societies in the changing environment.

The cognitive capacity of the Neanderthals is relatively contentious, but the emotional, technological, and social capabilities of the modern humans are undeniably superior. This evolutionary change in human behavior is what has made our species an effective rival to all we have encountered from the Middle Paleolithic Period to the present day.


Henry, Donald O. (2003) Neanderthals in the Levant: Behavioral Organization and the Beginnings of Human Modernity. New York: Continuum.

Shea, J. (2001, March). The Middle Paleolithic: early modern humans and Neanderthals in the Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology, 64(1-2), 38-64. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials database.
Wade, N. (2006) Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: The Penguin Press

Wade, N. (2006) Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: The Penguin Press

Rise of the New Age Consciousness

In chapter two of Before The Dawn, Wade discusses the three major genetic steps in the process of morphing the chimp like ancestors into modern humans. The emergence of bipedalism, which is the ideology of transforming from walking on all fours with our bare knuckles to only using our legs, and the beginnings of a large brain were the first two major steps in this evolutionary process. The third consisted of physical and behavioral changes relating to the modern human (Wade 20). In terms of the large brain, Wade neglected to mention the birth of consciousness and the social impact it had on their small community. The birth of consciousness was one of the main evolutionary processes that effected both social interaction and the environment around them.

In an article written by John C. Eccles through the National Academy of Science, he proposes that the evolutionary process of thinking was derived from the fact that the evolving cerebral cortex was the key driver to the “new consciousness” (Eccles 7322). Wade’s argument about nutrition and diet being the reason for a larger brain in primates holds true with Eccles argument as well since Dendrons need a strong amount of glucose and oxygen. Dendrons can be regarded as the main ingredient for the cerebral cortex’s functional design in most mammals, including humans (Eccles 7322). An example of this process can be found in the Homo Ergasters new evolutionary thinking process. A sudden shift from a sex oriented hierarchy derived from gorillas and chimpanzees to a more harmonious living proves the evolvement of a higher consciousness. In addition, Ergasters began to protect their offspring and the mother, which indicates a thinking process geared toward the future. The birth of consciousness not only affected the individual primates on a survival level, but on a social level as well (Wade 22).

In another article written by R.I.M. Dunbar through the Annual Review of Anthropology, he discusses a hypothesis by Byrne and Whiten suggesting that the complexity of primate’s social skills rather than their survival skills impacted their brain evolution (Dunbar 164). Wade argues that higher social primates probably encountered no problem more challenging than those of the other members of society. Therefore, the likely reason for a greater brain size would be an increase in social complexity (Wade 19).

In the end, the evolution of the conscious mind was a critical procedure that pushed primates to evolve into modern humans because of both social complexity and the need to survive. It is hard to say which one had more of an impact on this birth or consciousness, but either way it was a crucial evolution that is still prevalent today.



R. I. M. Dunbar ,The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary Perspective
Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32, (2003), pp. 163-181
Published by: Annual Reviews

John C. Eccles ,Evolution of Consciousness
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 89, No. 16 (A... more
Published by: National Academy of Sciences

Wade, N. (2006). Before the Dawn: recovering the lost history of our ancestors
New York: Penguin Press

The Evolving Brain: Opposing Views of Language Acquisition

Erlich’s chapter on the evolving brain explains theories on how the mind and body connection has developed over time to create human language and modern human behavior. Erlich relies on theories generated by Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor and Franz Gali to elucidate the idea that “various brain functions are indeed localized.” One of the areas of the brain involved with language acquisition is Broca’s Area which is often cited as evidence of the modular functioning of the brain, however, research done by Gary F Marcus, Athena Vouloumanos & Ivan A Sag suggests a refinement of previously accepted paradigms is in order. “Rather than there being a single, localizable ‘language module,’ our faculty for language might consist of a small number of uniquely human neural substrates working in tandem with a wide range of other evolutionarily conserved mechanisms.”

One of the concepts Chomsky has linked to the idea of language being a localized function of the brain is Universal Grammar, (UG), where gradual but steady progress is made by all humans as they learn the rules of the language spoken around them. Erlich relies on UG as a principle of natural selection which “endowed our ancestors with brains, able early in an individual’s development, to acquire easily one or more languages.” Erlich goes on to stress that “understanding the pattern of brain-language coevolution is clearly central to understanding our human natures.”

While Chomsky’s theories have been commonly regaled as the pre-eminent framework for understanding how our brains acquire and use language there are those that disagree. In Philip Lieberman’s study he attributes subscription to Chomsky’s UG theory as being the reason why many have misinterpreted data related to the FOXP2 gene, “one source of evidence for UG would be a genetic anomaly that prevented afflicted individuals from mastering a specific aspect of English syntax, while retaining other aspects of normal linguistic ability. This was reported to be the case for the afflicted members of a large extended family (KE) who suffer from a genetically transmitted anomaly.”

Lieberman goes on to say that the problems with the KE family were not just the FOXP2 abnormality but also other abnormalities of the brain which did lead to significant differences in their mean intelligence when compared to other non-affected members of their family, as well as, physical abnormalities which contributed to their impaired speech function. Lieberman suggests that what is really significant about FOXP2 is that it regulates the expression of other genes during embryogenesis, such that the mutation of this (FOXP2) amino acid leads to a protein dysfunction which affects many areas of the brain and development including: “the thalamus, caudate nucleus and putamen as well as the inferior olives and cerebellum. These structures are all intricately interconnected. As Lai et al. (2003) point out, their data are consistent with the emerging view that subcortical structures play a significant role in linguistic reasoning.”

Works Cited:

Marcus, Gary F, Athena Vouloumanos, and Ivan A Sag. "Does Broca's play by the rules?." Nature Neuroscience 6.7 (July 2003): 651.

Lieberman, Philip. "The pied piper of Cambridge." Linguistic Review 22.2-4 (June 2005): 289-301.

Erlich, Paul R. (Chapter 6) Evolving Brains, Evolving Minds

Evolving Brains, Evolving Minds: What Sets Us Apart

What Sets Us Apart

As the human brain expanded, grew a neocortex, and reorganized itself in the process of evolution, Homo Sapiens Sapiens emerged a more complex social animal which was fit for its increasingly complex social environment. Several functions of our brains separate us from the ancestral chimpanzee.

We now experience intense consciousness. Erlich (410) states our brains evolved to maintain continuously alert and aware of our surroundings during our waking hours. We stow memories and plan for the future. We think about who we are and analyze our self importance, fretting about the moment that we will cease to exist. Although some primates are self aware and can recognize themselves in the mirror, it is doubtful that they contemplate their social situation ( Chet 429.) Most humans are social memories, social plans, and social worries.

Another adaptive trait that humans specialize in is following another human’s gaze. This becomes important to us now in social settings. Following a leader’s gaze to locate a predator may not be as useful today for modern humans as following the gaze of your classmates so that you spot the professor before you say something mean about her/him. In a trial using two year old human children and chimpanzees, many of the human children followed and return the gaze of the interviewer with much more consistency.

It is necessary for human beings to have a sense of the theory of the mind. The acquirement of a theory of the mind enables humans to understand unobservable mental state ( Ehrlich 435). In a social situation one must be at least try to become aware of the mental states of the people around you . This is very important in becoming a respected member of the community.

Language of course is the miraculous adaptation that has allowed us to share knowledge and create meaning.

As our word began to take on complex meaning, our brain began to grow.

Erlich, Paul R. Evolving Brains, Evolving Minds.

Sherwood, C., Subiaul, F., & Zawidzki, T. (2008, April). A natural history of the human mind: tracing evolutionary changes in brain and cognition. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4), 426-454. Retrieved September 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00868.x

The Left Field More Beautiful

Please take a moment to briefly look at the image above. Which person do you think is the male and which do you think is the female? Was your answer that the person on the left is the female while the person on the right the male? If so, you, among many others, further the research that individuals make decisions based upon perceptions their brains allow them to perceive and thusly see. Individuals have a strong tendency to identify organized objects holistically, also known as the Gestalt Laws of grouping, as well as also recognizing these objects while having to look through their cognitive lens.

The answer to the question above is neither. The overall image is merely a result of an image of a male and that of a female who share a great resemblance, both cut in half and then matched up to the opposite one. Therefore, the image on the left is a female on the left half and a male on the right half while the image on the right is the other way around. Similar along the lines is the Gestalt theory on how one would experience perceptions via the retina, where the notion is that if individuals see a car parked behind a pole they will perceive the object as a car in its entirety rather than an object of separate units (Palmer 2002). Then why would most individuals not see this image as disconnected objects? That is because individuals who visually perceive objects that share patterns or similarities will automatically group those objects together. You, upon taking a quick look at the image, and assuming you did not believe it to be a trick question, may not even have realized the two images split down the middle and thus demonstrating this certain portion of Gestalt’s Laws of grouping.

It is now important to discuss why the image on the left is the female and the image on the right that of the male. The left brain is in charge of controlling the right side of the body and it processes detailed analysis and languages while the right brain controls the left side of the body, puts pieces of information together to see the overall picture, and “tends to deal with large elements of perception…” (Ehrlich 2000). Thus, the vision of the left side is processed by the right brain, which has the functions of perception and piecing together information. This also makes the right brain better at differentiating gender hence if the left half is a female the brain will determine it is a female.

The puzzle is now complete and you understand why and how it is you arrived at your initial answer. If you want to be noticed more or perceived more masculine or feminine, do so by standing to the person’s left field of vision. And lastly ladies, if you are rushed, sacrifice that make-up on the left for your right!

References

Ehrlich, P., 2000: Human natures: genes, cultures, and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington D.C., 576 pp.

Palmer, Stephen., 2002: Perceptual Grouping: It’s Later than You Think: Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 101-106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182780

The Origin of Adam

“Adam,” in this case, is the single male ancestor that is the connection for all males throughout the world. The Y chromosome in every male alive today is a duplicate of the original, but is not exactly the same due to mutations. One mutation on the Y chromosome, the M168 mutation, is found in some African men and men outside of Africa. Every living male’s Y chromosome outside of Africa contains the M168 mutation and can be linked back to an African Origin.

Numerous mutations sprouted lineage in various regions throughout the world. If one man’s Y chromosome experienced a mutation, his offspring will affected and their offspring and so on. However, since there is only one Y chromosome, Wade concludes the lineage connects back to one single male. The ancestral population may have contained countless “Adams,” but only one proved to be the fittest from the group and successfully reproduced males.

Wade estimates the M168 mutation took place 44,000 years ago, prior to humans migrating away from Africa. Wade also mentions that genetic dates have a wide range of error. Gibbons states the M168 mutations may take place anytime between 39,000 and 89,000 years ago. A study conducted by Stanford University analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 different populations from various regions of Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. The study showed that all Y chromosomes shared the same M168 mutation and that the evidence indicates that modern humans originated from the humans migrating from Africa.

Sources:

Wade, N. (2006) Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: The Penguin Press

Gibbons, Ann. (2001) Modern Men Trace Ancestry to African Migrants. Science, New Series, vol. 292, No. 5519, pp. 1051-1052. Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3083624

The Answer Lies Within Our DNA

Mankind has only been able to obtain 10% of our human history, but the remaining 90% has yet to be discovered. In  2003  Genesis  were able to find the missing link between how humans lost their hair and gain the power of speech. They have paved the road map for paleoanthropologist, anthropologist and archeologist  to uncover the missing 90% of our human history. Genesis believe that the missing 90% can be uncovered by analyzing mutations of  the human DNA. 

The human DNA  holds more then distinctive human characteristics and facial features, it also gives scientist evidence of human history. Scientist believe that subtle changes or mutations in the human DNA is  the evolution process of Neanderthals to human beings. DNA mutations can only occur in the Y chromosome, and the Y chromosome can only be found u male human beings. The mutated Y chromosome is then given to the offspring, causing the evolution process to be passed down from one generation to the next.

Scientist have uncover evolution as a change in human DNA. To understand these changes, scientist have developed  mathematical procedures to discover where humans evolved from. By applying these mathematical equations, scientist have been able to pin point where and when humans originated from. They are able to see who humans really are and how they began their journey lost in time.  

It has been six years since the discovery of analyzing DNA mutation to uncover the human evolution. Scientist have taken human DNA to uncover our human history, they have solved the missing link between humans and chimpanzees. Scientist have solved the mystery of human past, but will they able to solve the mystery of human future? The next step for scientist to uncover is, "where do humans go from now?"

References: 

Wade, N. (2006) Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: The Penguin Press

Mizas, C, Sirakoullis, G, Mardiris, V, Karayllidis, N, Glykos, R Dec 2006. Reconstruction of DNA Sequences Using Genetic Algorithms and Cellular Automata: Towards mutation Prediction? Retrieved from: Academic Search Premier database on September 1, 2009

Human Genetics and Evolution from Within

Human Genetics and Evolution from Within

Change, change, change, one thing is for certain and that is change. Human genetics and evolution have at least one thing in common and that’s change. Everything around us is switching from what was, to what is, and from humans to the environment we are changing. Scientists have discovered how man was formed from it be a monkey or not, genetics played a huge role alongside evolution.

Humans have evolved over a thirty-five thousand years span and will continue to change and that is why it is possible, to be what we are today. We all remember the poster of the gorilla slowly evolving into a man, is that true, did humans evolve from monkeys, if so why did we stop there and why aren’t we called “momans”? But if that’s the case why do we all look so different? Well according to a study done by Pedro Simoes, in a book titled The role of Geographical Orgin and Founder Effects in Laboratory Adaptation, they state that, “In particular, differences in adaptive dynamics have been shown between populations with different ancestors that share a common environment in which they undergo subsequent adaptation” (Simones). Through human evolution depending on their place of origin humans were able to change along with their cultures and fellow people. So pretty soon one culture would differ from the next both physically and emotionally. They go on to say that, “With respect to the subsequent evolutionary rate during laboratory adaptation, starvation resistance varied considerably among foundations such that the outcome of laboratory evolution is rather unpredictable for this particular trait, even in direction” (Simones). It is interesting to understand that through time each species that couldn’t develop would die off, like the short-necked giraffes. Because most giraffes have long necks and were able to eat the leaves on the top of the trees as well as the bottom verses the short-necked giraffes only being able to eat from the bottom. When food was scarce and the long necks were eating the bottom leaves as well, the short-necks were soon extinct. So if humans had a trait that didn’t accommodate reproduction it too, would die out.

Another study done by Franz and Nunn on the “Roger Model” through the journal Of Evolution Biology they state that, “Using simulation experiments, we re-analyzed extensions of Rogers’ model after relaxing the assumption that genetic evolution is much slower than cultural evolution” (Franz and Nunn). To learn about a species it is important to see where they come from, because people in Africa may be genetically different than those from Poland. Another part of Rogers’ model states that, “For many parameter settings, genetic and cultural evolution occur on the same time scale, and feedback effects between genetic and cultural dynamics increase the net benefits” (Franz and Nunn). That is true, the more information you find through genetics, evolution and environmental dynamics the more knowledgeable you will be.

Over thirty-five thousand years ago evolution and human genetics began working together as a team and together were able to change, as did evolution. And as time continues to change human genetics and evolution will change alongside harmoniously. Change is part of life, part of evolution, without change we would probably be stuck in a monkey’s body. So, in this case I am welcoming all further changes.





Simoes, Pedro. 2009. The Role of Geographical Origin and Founder Effects in Laboratory Adaptation. EBSCO Industries, Inc. Vol. 62 Issue 8, p1817-1829, 13p. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=101&sid=8c4df304-2cd3-4fbb-9737-19441c27ddcc%40replicon103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=33281162#db=a9h&AN=33281162 (Accessed August 31, 2009).

Franz, M. and Nunn, C.L. Dec. 2009. Rapid Evolution of Social Learning: Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Blackwell Publishing. Vol. 22 Issue 9, p1914 – 1922, 9p. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=105&sid=18eb4b35-0362-46f9-8063-6b44001624cd%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=43792655 (Accessed on 31 August 2009).

Altruism and Natural Selection

According to Paul R. Ehrlich’s theory behind natural selection, phenotypic features include human behavior. He raises the issue of altruism and discusses its benefits to procreation. When a human is altruistic to another, it increases the likelihood that the recipient procreates (Ehrlich p 39). Clearly, humans have managed to work together to create society in order to protect each other and ourselves, but to what extent altruism plays a role in selection is questionable.

Some scientific journals have used evidence in evolutionary studies to say that phenotypic and learned behavior is statistically ineffective in survival. A study published in 2001 compiled research between 1984 and 1997 on natural selection and found no significant signs of phenotypic advantages in natural selection. In fact, the study’s results identified that dramatic genetic mutations made the biggest difference in natural selection (Kingsolver, p 245).

Although scientific research suggests that altruism could not be improving survival, Ehrlich is not admonishing genetic variation as a supporting feature of natural selection. Instead, Ehrlich explains that natural selection is the ability to reproduce the most in the face of environmental circumstances (p 8). If that environment is harsh to individual survival methods, then something such as altruism becomes useful.

While it is difficult for some evolutionary scientists to agree., Alan Carter seeks to establish a similar understanding to Ehrlich with the notion that altruism itself is possibly beneficial to natural selection. One potential situation is ‘reciprocal altruism’, where altruists are able to exist amongst each other as long as selfish individuals do not rise within their ranks and take advantage of them (Carter, pp 220-1). Altruistic people can easily benefit one another and survive and a group, while selfish individuals must rely solely upon themselves.

Altruism could have a role in natural selection, but there is no clear path towards reproducing more. Reproduction is the cornerstone of natural selection. Altruism may increase chances of survival over short periods of time, but when it comes to survival of genes over generations, it is unlikely that such behavior could significantly increase chances for reproduction, but instead that it is a characteristic of intelligent creatures.


Sources:
Alan Carter, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 123, No. 3 (Apr., 2005), pp. 213-230

J. G. Kingsolver, H. E. Hoekstra, J. M. Hoekstra, D. Berrigan, S. N. Vignieri, C. E. Hill, A. Hoang, P. Gibert and P. Beerli, The American Naturalist, Vol. 157, No. 3 (Mar., 2001), pp. 245-261

Paul R Ehrlich, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, & the Human Prospect (New York: Penguin 2000)