The Ascent Of Man

[RichardT]

I found this article and thought it was really interesting, the author attempts to explain why the human species is so unique, and finds some interesting reasons for it.

http://www.theattractionforums.com/discussion/23893-ascent-man.html

Sure it's long, but it's really worth the time spent to read it.

 

[RichardT]

An excerpt:

"Physical survival gets a creature to the stage where it can contend with others for mates. It puts it in the game. If if cannot play the mating game successfully, it will not reproduce. Bluntly put - it needs to pull. The two engines of evolution are survival selection and sexual selection. The key aspects of the human animal which make it so successful – an amazingly powerful ability to think abstractly and creatively, an incredibly sophisticated communication system, the faculty of physical versatility developed to a massive degree – these things could not have been driven directly by survival pressure. They give us incredible survival advantages, sure - but they cannot have developed to the level they have through that application of direct survival pressure. Why? There are three simple reasons for this.

Firstly, they are too good. We have developed these abilities beyond any level you could successfully portray as necessary to our survival. We do not need to be anywhere near as clever as we are in order to survive. The intelligence and creativity you need to make an effective bow and arrow would give us a massive and critical advantage over most large predators. The intelligence and creativity you need to explode a nuclear fission device in Trinity, Nevada simply cannot be explained by recourse to environmental pressure. No natural environment in which our ancestors found themselves required that level of ingenuity

Secondly, we have actually developed these faculties to a point where they clash directly with our survival chances at an individual level. This clash occurs in profound ways for extended periods of our lives – what we call childhood. This fact puts the fundamental nature of the human animal totally at odds with the theory of natural selection by survival pressure. Survival pressure acts directly on individual organisms. Our prolonged helplessness cannot be due to survival pressure, but seems more analogous to the kind of survival problems faced by the male peacock, having to carry its enormous tail around all day.
A quick word about childhood. We emerge from the womb at a much lower developmental age than the apes we are descended from. We take something like a decade to reach the level of competence in the use of our own evolutionary faculties that a deer would achieve after a few days, and two decades to reach full adulthood. Why? Many evolutionary biologists contend, and I believe correctly, that our psychological faculties are so important to us that we have a massively extended developmental stage where we are, effectively, helpless. From the point of view of individual survival, this makes no sense – a decade of helplessness in exchange for the ability to think makes no sense. Surely our ancestors would have faced enormous dangers as children – and all to facilitate the development of a faculty that is much more potent than anything we need in order to survive. The most profoundly human traits that we see in others and recognise in ourselves must have arisen from a completely different kind of selective pressure than survival, and evolution only has two engines.

Thirdly, the fossil record shows that our ancestors seem to have evolved more or less consistently toward more human traits from a simian origin. Whether the pressures were connected to our survival or to our sexuality, they must have been really very intense. For any organism as complex as us to evolve at the awesome rate we did would take a huge degree of selective pressure. At the same time, the type of selective pressure provided by survival selection cannot explain our current form without massive and unfounded leaps of imagination."

 

[Gracchus]

There was a different kind of selection at work in human evolution.

In most "primitive" societies, a boy, on reaching adolescence, was taken away and tested. The test would involve enduring pain without complaint, and an evalutation of his behavior. It was all about restraint.

It was a pass/fail test. If he failed, he never came back from the trial, and his name was never mentioned. He had been judged as insufficiently human. This culling process increased the rate of human change.

Vestiges of this custom remain in such "rites of passage" as "confirmation" and "bar mitzwah".

The custom died out, however, before the adaptation was complete, which is why we still have so many animals among us, incapable of human self-restraint.

 

[Nathan45]

There was a different kind of selection at work in human evolution.

In most "primitive" societies, a boy, on reaching adolescence, was taken away and tested. The test would involve enduring pain without complaint, and an evalutation of his behavior. It was all about restraint.

It was a pass/fail test. If he failed, he never came back from the trial, and his name was never mentioned. He had been judged as insufficiently human. This culling process increased the rate of human change.

Vestiges of this custom remain in such "rites of passage" as "confirmation" and "bar mitzwah".

The custom died out, however, before the adaptation was complete, which is why we still have so many animals among us, incapable of human self-restraint.

and you have evidence for this?

I can't tell if you're making this up yourself or if you heard it from someone else who was making it up.

 

[gaara4158]

and you have evidence for this?

I can't tell if you're making this up yourself or if you heard it from someone else who was making it up.

probably just watched "300"

 

[Cabal]

probably just watched "300"

Or Dune.

 

[rahmiyn]

I admit I stopped reading at this:

Interestingly, the strange, twisted, crinkled shape of the human brain itself is something that is also uniquely human. The crinkling and folding allows us to fit more, much more, into our heads than we otherwise would with a more orderly structure.

Just a little thing like this makes me suspect the research behind the writing.

 

[FedererFan]

I admit I stopped reading at this:



Just a little thing like this makes me suspect the research behind the writing.

Why? It makes sense.

Brain Size and Folding of the Human Cerebral Cortex -- Toro et al. 18 (10): 2352 -- Cerebral Cortex

 

[rahmiyn]

Because a quick research seems to prove the opposite. You find the "the strange, twisted, crinkled shape of the human brain" is not unique to the human brain. For me, since I am not a biologist, I rely heavily on good research, and this made me suspect that the writing is not well researched.

I only need to be proven wrong with credible references.

 

[rahmiyn]

Sorry, I just saw your link. However, did you read this from your link?

We analyzed cortical folding in a large cohort of human subjects exhibiting a 1.7-fold variation in brain volume. We show that the same disproportionate increase of cortical surface relative to brain volume observed across species. . .

It seems the experts are saying the same, that this is not unique to the human brain.

 

[RichardT]

Sorry, I just saw your link. However, did you read this from your link?



It seems the experts are saying the same, that this is not unique to the human brain.

I think that you might be arguing over semantics.

"Interestingly, the strange, twisted, crinkled shape of the human brain itself is something that is also uniquely human. The crinkling and folding allows us to fit more, much more, into our heads than we otherwise would with a more orderly structure."

He might be saying that the crinkled, twisted and strange shape of the human brain specifically (for whatever reason) is unique, not that any other species don't also have crinkled shapes.

 

[rahmiyn]

I think that you might be arguing over semantics.

But, because I'm not the expert, I need more. I am educated enough to require from any reading credibility, and when there are questions, excellent resources, neither of which this writer provides.

I hope you understand. However, having said this, I love being persuaded by a good argument that is well-grounded in evidence or references to documentation that supports ones claims.

 

[RichardT]

But, because I'm not the expert, I need more. I am educated enough to require from any reading credibility, and when there are questions, excellent resources, neither of which this writer provides.

I hope you understand. However, having said this, I love being persuaded by a good argument that is well-grounded in evidence or references to documentation that supports ones claims.

The author certainly knows what he's talking about; It was posted on an internet forum as a collection of his ideas. It is not a peer reviewed article. Having said that, if you find any errors in his post, please point them out.

 

[rahmiyn]

The author certainly knows what he's talking about; It was posted on an internet forum as a collection of his ideas. It is not a peer reviewed article. Having said that, if you find any errors in his post, please point them out.

I thought I did.

 

[Gracchus]

and you have evidence for this?

I can't tell if you're making this up yourself or if you heard it from someone else who was making it up.

And you are certainly not going to believe it, even if it is true. (Or maybe, especially if it is true.) It makes sense, and I picked it up in some reading I did for a Cultural Anthropology class I took nearly fifty years ago. (I got an "A" on the paper, and in the class!)

Sorry, I lost my old cultural anthropology texts years ago, so I can't provide citations. You might want to read up on "initiations" and "rites of passage." (But I suspect you won't.)

 

[RichardT]

"The more the feedback loop took hold within the population of our ancestors, the more successful those ancestors would have been at surviving. Soon, their intelligence, physical versatility and ability to coordinate complex actions would have outstripped the day-to-day survival requirements of savannah life.

And the more intelligent, versatile and social our ancestors became, the more pressure there would be on the individuals within that developing population to become even more intelligent, versatile and social.

Because these traits were of such high value to survival, there would be no limiting factor from the external environment which would have curtailed their development. Their development would have, therefore, continued unchecked, until some other factor associated with the survival of the individual organism impacted on the further development of intelligence, versatility and sociability.

Essentially, the evolutionary feedback loop that took hold of our ancestral apes emphasised the development of traits that massively aided their dominance of their external environment. Because of this, the factors that slowed this evolutionary leap to a halt must have been internal reasons associated with their physiology, and not external reasons associated with the environment in which they lived. The feedback loop helped the apes to master their external environment. Resultantly, it could not have been stopped by anything external to them. All that is left to slow it down, to call the evolutionary leap to a close and stabilise the species, are internal factors. The pressure to halt must have come from within their bodies.

At the same time, that halt would be a long time coming. A sexual selection feedback loop that accelerated the development of traits with massive survival value would have no external limit on how much it could change an organism. When the evolutionary priorities on that organism finally stabilised, the resultant species would have developed the traits within that sexual feedback loop to a level that would make the peacock’s tail look like a poorly written lonely hearts ad in the back of a tabloid newspaper."

 

[RichardT]

All of us here can thank women for selecting us. Without women we would definitely not be highly intelligent, extremely versatile, and exceptionally social as we are now. Yet again this places a real standard to us men that we have to keep up with. We must be the high value males that women select for or our genes will be weeded out of existence.

"So what kind of organism would our ancestral apes have evolved into if the evolutionary priorities I have described were the main pressures acting on the apes themselves over an extended period of time?
They would have been highly intelligent, extremely versatile and exceptionally social. They would have developed each of these abilities to a degree which was totally unnecessary for survival in all but the most extreme environments. They would be capable of interfacing with and manipulating the world at large to a degree totally unprecedented in nature. All of the traits which made them unique, however, would basically be massively exaggerated versions of traits that existed in their simian ancestors.

They would have expanded vastly in terms of population because they woud be able to exploit a vast range of food supplies, and they would be able to exploit them more effectively than any other creature. They would have no natural predators. Their rapid evolutionary leap would completely outstrip the evolution of predators who could specialise in hunting them. This is because predators such as cheetahs, lions, wolves and other hunters have evolved to hunt in specific, specialised ways. These apes would have evolved a practical infinity of different defences against predation – defences which could be invented in the space of a day or a year, and not in the millions of years necessary for predators to evolve corresponding weaponry.

They would be physically versatile to an unprecedented degree, allowing them each to develop a high degree of expertise in a limitless range of applications. This expertise would facilitate greater cooperation between them, as experts in different fields would naturally discover that cooperation would produce dividends far greater than any individual could achieve alone. This would lead to a massive increase in the speed and importance of communication and social relationships. It is highly likely that these apes would have developed their skills of communication to an exceptional level of accuracy, allowing them to communicate their feelings and their sophisticated intellectual concepts clearly and with little effort."

 

[shinbits]

An excerpt:

Firstly, they are too good. We have developed these abilities beyond any level you could successfully portray as necessary to our survival. We do not need to be anywhere near as clever as we are in order to survive. The intelligence and creativity you need to make an effective bow and arrow would give us a massive and critical advantage over most large predators. The intelligence and creativity you need to explode a nuclear fission device in Trinity, Nevada simply cannot be explained by recourse to environmental pressure. No natural environment in which our ancestors found themselves required that level of ingenuity

It should be noted that humans are not the only ones that use tools to hunt. trap door spiders use an ingenious method of ambushing. a spider's web is also an ingenious design, made for catching prey. there are also many types of organisms that that build complex tunnels, which have many different purposes. along with beavers and dams, I'm sure there are many other examples I could bring up.

the point is, that these things are often just as, or even much more complex than an arrow, spear, or other primitive contraption. only three or four hundred years ago, mankind's tools weren't much more ingenious than a spider's web.

but I understand the overall point: that humans seem unecessarily smart. but the truth is, that's a subjective comment. if human beings couldn't develop the technology we have today, our population could never have risen to what it is today; maybe humans NEED to be that smart in order to accomodate our needs as social beings.

Secondly, we have actually developed these faculties to a point where they clash directly with our survival chances at an individual level.

the excerpt doesn't really explain why this is so. it just goes on to talk about childhood. as far as I can tell, developing technology like we have, has actually helped individual humans; people who'd normally be to weak, fat, poor of site, slow, etc., can live to reproduce. had our society not been what it was, it may be impossible for those people to live and get a chance at reproduction, under more primal conditions. basically, all you need is a good job, and your chances of a family are pretty good.

A quick word about childhood. We emerge from the womb at a much lower developmental age than the apes we are descended from. We take something like a decade to reach the level of competence in the use of our own evolutionary faculties that a deer would achieve after a few days, and two decades to reach full adulthood. Why? Many evolutionary biologists contend, and I believe correctly, that our psychological faculties are so important to us that we have a massively extended developmental stage where we are, effectively, helpless. From the point of view of individual survival, this makes no sense – a decade of helplessness in exchange for the ability to think makes no sense. Surely our ancestors would have faced enormous dangers as children – and all to facilitate the development of a faculty that is much more potent than anything we need in order to survive. The most profoundly human traits that we see in others and recognise in ourselves must have arisen from a completely different kind of selective pressure than survival, and evolution only has two engines.

I agree, this is hard for evolution to explain. But, as this article points out, we are incredibly smart. So this slow period of growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage, since our intelligence helps us make up for our slow growth process.

Thirdly, the fossil record shows that our ancestors seem to have evolved more or less consistently toward more human traits from a simian origin. Whether the pressures were connected to our survival or to our sexuality, they must have been really very intense. For any organism as complex as us to evolve at the awesome rate we did would take a huge degree of selective pressure. At the same time, the type of selective pressure provided by survival selection cannot explain our current form without massive and unfounded leaps of imagination."

well, not all evolution has to be at the same rate. secondly, not all evolution has to be exclusively tiny, incrimental changes, done only over a period of many millions of years. punctuated equillibrium, is one example.

 

[RichardT]

but I understand the overall point: that humans seem unnecessarily smart. but the truth is, that's a subjective comment. if human beings couldn't develop the technology we have today, our population could never have risen to what it is today; maybe humans NEED to be that smart in order to accommodate our needs as social beings.

But apes could have also sufficiently lived in the jungle and sufficiently survived there had they not become socially dependent on each other. Once they have become socially dependent, the women had to select mostly for traits in males that would help in their survival and the survival of their children, and those traits were increased social intelligence, increased overall intelligence, increased versatility. Women would keep selecting for the best in every generation because better and better would continually improve their and their offspring's statistical chance of survival. The gist of the article is that sexual selection played a much bigger role in human evolution than simply surviving the habitat did.

 

[shinbits]

But apes could have also sufficiently lived in the jungle and sufficiently survived there had they not become socially dependent on each other.

but as you've said in your own words:

Women would keep selecting for the best in every generation because better and better would continually improve their and their offspring's statistical chance of survival.

evolution is not about "sufficience" or being "good enough". organisms that are the most adapted to their envirornment, have the greatest chance of reproducing and passing on their genes. what's merely "sufficient" for survival isn't what matters. so if humans are smarter than they "need" to be, it's not a problem for evolution.