A special edition of Scientific American

Vance · Sep 3, 2003

There is a new special edition of Scientific American out (for those in the States) called "New Look at Human Evolution". I think it is very interesting reading for those who believe in evolution and for those who don't since it sets out what the current state of the discoveries are, what the current debates are all about, etc.

One interesting thing is that it contains articles written by competitors who challenge each other's theories and, throughout the magazine, the competitive nature of these scientific fields is highly apparent. This is good and bad. On the bad side, it means that each scientist will go to great lengths to prove the importance of his or her find or theory. The good is that the competitors are equally zealous in showing its faults and weaknesses. This is NOT a good ol' boys network with everyone watching each other's back in order to preserve the unity of the evil scientific agenda.

I am wholly convinced that if there was any credible reason not to believe that evolution takes place as it is generally accepted, there would have long since been a dozen reputable scientists who would have jumped at the chance to make scientific history. Can you imagine the status of the scientist who was convincingly able to show that evolution just couldn't happen? Even if scoffed at initially, he or she would know that if they had sound science behind them, it would have to be looked at and, if it was convincing, it would eventually be accepted.

The other interesting point I got from the articles is that there is still a significant gap in the knowledge of how, exactly, modern man rose so dramatically to the symbolic thought and language which seems to have defined our species even over the earlier hominids. I know I will be accused of "God of the gaps", but really there does seem to be a fairly large gap here. A major leap forward in a very short period of time. I hate to have to type in the quotes (but I will if anyone would like it and can't get hold of the magazine), but even the scientists describe it as a bit puzzling, although that does not prevent them from developing theories, of course. That is their job.

Stormy · Sep 3, 2003

Man is the one piece of the puzzle where I can not fit together my Bible, and evolution as being the tool that was used.

For God said "let the land produce " when he spoke of all other life, and to me that is evolution.

But man's creation was separate and distinct.

I was going to ask questions about this very subject. I would be extremely interested in your article.

Arikay · Sep 3, 2003

It was seperate, but did not man come from the dirt just as the animals?

God may have specifically done it, but since science can not test for god, science has no way to know if he did or not and cant comment.

Stormy · Sep 3, 2003

Arikay said:
It was seperate, but did not man come from the dirt just as the animals?

God may have specifically done it, but since science can not test for god, science has no way to know if he did or not and cant comment.

But Science has commented. It says, man has evolved from lower species. The Bible does not agree.

Arikay · Sep 3, 2003

But god, and an interpretation of the bible are two different things.

Example:
My interpretation of the bible says the earth is Flat.
Science says the earth is round.
My interpretation must be wrong.

No where in that does it show that the bible is wrong, or that god is wrong, but that a man made interpretation is wrong.
This is the same thing that is happening with creationism vs evolution.

However, since science cant really detect god, or a soul, one could say that god used Evolution to create man and animal, but he payed carefull attention to us and gave us a soul (which is why he specifically forms us).

Stormy said:
But Science has commented. It says, man has evolved from lower species. The Bible does not agree.

OneLargeToe · Sep 3, 2003

Stormy said:
But Science has commented. It says, man has evolved from lower species. The Bible does not agree.

Please don't sidetrack this thread into the "Literal Interpretation of the Bible Debate."

The point was that the immergence of man and intelligence is, supposively, rather mysterious and abrupt. It could've been caused by a god, or aliens, or just the natural course of evolution.

Arikay · Sep 3, 2003

Im not sure about Inteligence, but self Awareness was originally thought to be just a primate thing, as along with Humans, a couple other primates have been able to pass the self awareness test. They originally thought that it was something primates developed from evolution (a favorable trait)

However, with the Dolphin just recently passing the self awareness test, they have started changing their view and are now thinking Self Awareness may have to do more with an inteligence level than a specific evolved trait.

David Gould · Sep 3, 2003

I think awareness is simply a consequence of a certain level of complexity of the brain.

In other words, we can have a slow linear build of comlexity but once it passes a certain level, BOOM!, suddenly we have awareness.

There is no real discontinuity between us and animals, as complexity is a quantitative thing.

The qualitative difference - that certain animals have it and some do not - is simply a function of slight quantitative differences.

Michali · Sep 3, 2003

I think animals are a lot smarter than what we make them out to be.

From a christian perspective, we see Balaam's donkey using some rather intelligent reasoning skills.

David Gould · Sep 3, 2003

Michali said:
I think animals are a lot smarter than what we make them out to be.

From a christian perspective, we see Balaam's donkey using some rather intelligent reasoning skills.

I agree that some animals are smarter than we make them out to be. I would suggest, however, that trying to use Balaam's donkey as an example would not get you very far if you were trying to present a scientific paper on it ...

Vance · Sep 3, 2003

OK, then, for those who are interested:

In the article "Once We Were Not Alone" in the magazine Scientific American, Ian Tattersal discusses the possibility that a variety of hominids co-existed at different points over the last few million years. When he gets into more modern times, he discusses this phenomenon with regards to homo sapiens and neandertals and points out that it was modern cognition, which he relates to symbolic thought, which created the primary turning point which led to the rise of the homo sapiens and the fall of the Neandertals. He discusses the evolutionary concepts of exaption and other possible explanations for such a change, but then goes on to say this:

"We have no idea at the present how the modern human brain converts a mass of electrical and chemical discharges into what we experience as consciousness. We do know, however, that somehow our lineage passed to symbolic thought from some non-symbolic precursor state. The only plausible possibility is that with the arrival of anatomically modern H. sapiens, existing exaptions were fortuitously linked by a relatively minor genetic innovation to create an unprecedented potential.

Yet even in principle this deduced scenario cannot be the full story, because anatomically modern humans behaved archaically for a long time before adopting modern behaviors. That discrepancy may be the result of the late appearance of some key hard-wired innovation not reflected in the skeleton, which is all that fossilizes. But this seems unlikely, because it would have necessitated a wholesale Old World-wide replacement of hominid populations in a very short period of time, something for which there is no evidence."

He goes on to propose that some modern capacity was born at or close to the origin of H. sapiens and that ability just lie fallow until activated by some cultural stimulus. And he asserts that this may have been language.

Elsewhere in the magazine it talks about how this emergence into symbolic thought was very rapid (in evolutionary terms). All very interesting. I wonder whether his "the only plausible possibility" is the only possible possibility.

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX · Sep 4, 2003

Vance said:
OK, then, for those who are interested:

In the article "Once We Were Not Alone" in the magazine Scientific American, Ian Tattersal discusses the possibility that a variety of hominids co-existed at different points over the last few million years. When he gets into more modern times, he discusses this phenomenon with regards to homo sapiens and neandertals and points out that it was modern cognition, which he relates to symbolic thought, which created the primary turning point which led to the rise of the homo sapiens and the fall of the Neandertals. He discusses the evolutionary concepts of exaption and other possible explanations for such a change, but then goes on to say this:

"We have no idea at the present how the modern human brain converts a mass of electrical and chemical discharges into what we experience as consciousness. We do know, however, that somehow our lineage passed to symbolic thought from some non-symbolic precursor state. The only plausible possibility is that with the arrival of anatomically modern H. sapiens, existing exaptions were fortuitously linked by a relatively minor genetic innovation to create an unprecedented potential.

Yet even in principle this deduced scenario cannot be the full story, because anatomically modern humans behaved archaically for a long time before adopting modern behaviors. That discrepancy may be the result of the late appearance of some key hard-wired innovation not reflected in the skeleton, which is all that fossilizes. But this seems unlikely, because it would have necessitated a wholesale Old World-wide replacement of hominid populations in a very short period of time, something for which there is no evidence."

He goes on to propose that some modern capacity was born at or close to the origin of H. sapiens and that ability just lie fallow until activated by some cultural stimulus. And he asserts that this may have been language.

Elsewhere in the magazine it talks about how this emergence into symbolic thought was very rapid (in evolutionary terms). All very interesting. I wonder whether his "the only plausible possibility" is the only possible possibility.

Intersting that Neanderthals had brains larger than most humans, but some physical anthropologists think the inability of language due to the physical location of the larynx.
Hominid skulls have a hole which the hypoglossal nerve ( controling tongue movements for language ) passes thru.....in modern humans, this nerve canal is twice as big in diameter than Australopithecines and apes. also the position of the larynx goes down. which helps give range to vocal ability ( and also increases the danger of choking) So they see this enlargment of the hypoglossal canal 500,000 years ago, and AFTER the ability to make weapons and tools.
Interesting study on primates ability to understand language is "Kanzi" the bonobo who understood as well as a 30 month old human, I dont have links to post, sorry

Jet Black · Sep 4, 2003

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX said:
Interesting study on primates ability to understand language is "Kanzi" the bonobo who understood as well as a 30 month old human, I dont have links to post, sorry

http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwlrc/biographies/kanzi.html

truly remarkable.

Vance · Sep 4, 2003

Yes, the author and others discuss how and why language development could have been the all important "push over the top". But what is interesting is that they see this morphological change which would allow for speech hundreds of thousands of years before it is put to use for speech.

Now, I understand the concept of exaption, and it is theoretically possible that such a morphological adaption had some *other* use in the meantime. But this feature, as you point out, is very costly in terms of choking danger. These types of changes usually only occur when the pay-off is big, but no one suggests any big pay-off. In fact, this particular scientist proposes that the feature lay "fallow" for all that time after its adaption.

Another is the very large brain. I have seen scientist go through the same discussion there. A VERY "expensive" adaption in the degree of energy it needs to function. But they do not see any big payoff which would provide the necessary pressures to create such a complex brain. Evolutionary processes happen so slowly that our modern brain must have, by evolutionary rules, have existed in all its intense complexity in H. sapiens from about it's very beginning, but no noticeable use of this massive computing power is seen for a VERY long time.

The first question becomes why these were adapted so early, but only "used" later? This can only be speculated and the stock response is "exaption" and that could be. But the second question is what was the trigger for this use of the feature at some magical point?

If I was going to create a WAT about a Divine Creative event for Man which would be entirely consistent with our current knowledge base regarding evolution, I would say that God might have set the morphological traits needed for the true humans He intended to "create" and then, at the right time, he reached down and touched Man, giving the species a soul and triggering the use of all those "fallow" features.

But I am not inclined to make such a WAT since I know the dangers of assigning God to the gaps. Besides, I am still inclining toward a special creation of homo sapiens. Call me old-fashioned.

Plan 9 · Sep 4, 2003

Vance said:
OK, then, for those who are interested:

In the article "Once We Were Not Alone" in the magazine Scientific American, Ian Tattersal discusses the possibility that a variety of hominids co-existed at different points over the last few million years. When he gets into more modern times, he discusses this phenomenon with regards to homo sapiens and neandertals and points out that it was modern cognition, which he relates to symbolic thought, which created the primary turning point which led to the rise of the homo sapiens and the fall of the Neandertals. He discusses the evolutionary concepts of exaption and other possible explanations for such a change, but then goes on to say this:

"We have no idea at the present how the modern human brain converts a mass of electrical and chemical discharges into what we experience as consciousness. We do know, however, that somehow our lineage passed to symbolic thought from some non-symbolic precursor state. The only plausible possibility is that with the arrival of anatomically modern H. sapiens, existing exaptions were fortuitously linked by a relatively minor genetic innovation to create an unprecedented potential.

Yet even in principle this deduced scenario cannot be the full story, because anatomically modern humans behaved archaically for a long time before adopting modern behaviors. That discrepancy may be the result of the late appearance of some key hard-wired innovation not reflected in the skeleton, which is all that fossilizes. But this seems unlikely, because it would have necessitated a wholesale Old World-wide replacement of hominid populations in a very short period of time, something for which there is no evidence."

He goes on to propose that some modern capacity was born at or close to the origin of H. sapiens and that ability just lie fallow until activated by some cultural stimulus. And he asserts that this may have been language.

Elsewhere in the magazine it talks about how this emergence into symbolic thought was very rapid (in evolutionary terms). All very interesting. I wonder whether his "the only plausible possibility" is the only possible possibility.

This seems to be the retooling of an old argument that anthropologists such as Ashley Montague refuted years ago?

Jet Black · Sep 4, 2003

Vance said:
Yes, the author and others discuss how and why language development could have been the all important "push over the top". But what is interesting is that they see this morphological change which would allow for speech hundreds of thousands of years before it is put to use for speech.

I don't really like commenting on articles I haven't seen, but looking around at other areas such as chimp language studies and so on, it seems to me that language development needn't have been the "push over the top" as it were. The choking danger isn't all that bad, and perhaps the location of the larynx there provided a more sophisticated communication system when pack hunting for large prey and so on.... there are a number of potential scenarios that I can think of that would allow the development of a number of these traits, but I have to go to work now

I hope I can get hold of that article so I can think about it in more detail.

Vance · Sep 4, 2003

Plan 9:

Could be, I am not familiar with those arguments or the refutation. Can you summarize them for us, or point me to a site? I am not extremely read up on the theories behind human evolution, but I find the give and take and the evolving theories (no pun intended) very interesting.

Other articles discuss two subtheories which have been abandoned:

1. that of the great rift separating the common ancestor into two groups with the eastern group going on to become humans and the western group becoming chimps. The recent hominid find in Chad blew that one away.

2. The idea that it was a move to the savannah which prompted bipedalism. The finds of numerous bipedals in dense wooded areas are causing a rethinking of that one.

Actually, it is this type of challenge and willingness of the community to accept new information and discard faslified ideas which makes science actually more believeable.

Plan 9 · Sep 4, 2003

Vance said:
Plan 9:

Could be, I am not familiar with those arguments or the refutation. Can you summarize them for us, or point me to a site? I am not extremely read up on the theories behind human evolution, but I find the give and take and the evolving theories (no pun intended) very interesting.

I'll see what I have in my library, Vance, and try to get back to you on the specifics.

In essence, Montague and others assert that both Cro-magnon people and Neanderthal people were true Homo Sapiens and simply intermarried, with the Neanderthal culture being subsumed in the process. Montague pointed out that we may see persons with clear Neanderthal physical features among us today.

The siuation in which this occured involved acculturation, with the Neaderthal tribes on the 'losing side'.

Drotar · Sep 4, 2003

I've been reading this halfway through, and I wonder why it is that humans can use only less than 5% of our brains.

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX · Sep 4, 2003

Vance said:
Yes, the author and others discuss how and why language development could have been the all important "push over the top". But what is interesting is that they see this morphological change which would allow for speech hundreds of thousands of years before it is put to use for speech.

Now, I understand the concept of exaption, and it is theoretically possible that such a morphological adaption had some *other* use in the meantime. But this feature, as you point out, is very costly in terms of choking danger. These types of changes usually only occur when the pay-off is big, but no one suggests any big pay-off. In fact, this particular scientist proposes that the feature lay "fallow" for all that time after its adaption.

Another is the very large brain. I have seen scientist go through the same discussion there. A VERY "expensive" adaption in the degree of energy it needs to function. But they do not see any big payoff which would provide the necessary pressures to create such a complex brain. Evolutionary processes happen so slowly that our modern brain must have, by evolutionary rules, have existed in all its intense complexity in H. sapiens from about it's very beginning, but no noticeable use of this massive computing power is seen for a VERY long time.

The first question becomes why these were adapted so early, but only "used" later? This can only be speculated and the stock response is "exaption" and that could be. But the second question is what was the trigger for this use of the feature at some magical point?

If I was going to create a WAT about a Divine Creative event for Man which would be entirely consistent with our current knowledge base regarding evolution, I would say that God might have set the morphological traits needed for the true humans He intended to "create" and then, at the right time, he reached down and touched Man, giving the species a soul and triggering the use of all those "fallow" features.

But I am not inclined to make such a WAT since I know the dangers of assigning God to the gaps. Besides, I am still inclining toward a special creation of homo sapiens. Call me old-fashioned.

Its been years since I read about a theory that drugs/ hallucengens influenced human evolution, or at least the beginings of culture/religion. I have no idea what kind of evidence there is for this. so correct me if I am wrong.
Our brains use 60% of our energy, and big brains came along BEFORE the use of tools, culture, language? Very interesting. my pet theory is that the more intelligent hominds devoted thier creativity, brains, and energy in getting more females, impressing them with thier smarts....thinking back before I got married, I would'nt admit it at the time, but I devoted all my time trying to impress the females ( as most young males do). Sex is a strong drive, enough I think too influence evolution. those big brains had the advantage over the smaller brains in impressing the opposite sex.

p.s. call me a male pig, but I observe men taking advantage over woman all the time, useing manipulation tactics and all sorts of other stuff thats related to intelligence, and the females fall for it every time. And whats the result? sex and kids.

A special edition of Scientific American

Contributor

Senior Contributor

HI

Senior Contributor

HI

Mister Boisei to you!

HI

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Teleologist

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Contributor

Liberated from SinComplex

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Drotar

Guest

Liberated from SinComplex

Similar threads