Additionally, Boyd said culture gives humans a survival advantage that is beyond the capacity of other animals. "Typical apes live in a particular habitat. We can make the changes on timescales that are very fast," he said.
According to Shea, who specializes in ancient use of complex projectile weapons, "it's easy to imagine how complex projectile technology may have led humans to gain a broad and resilient human ecological niche."
Cooperation
Whether demonstrated by situations of hunting, foraging, child rearing or migrating, humans with culture, in pursuit of shared goals, had much to gain through cooperation. Cooperating humans would lead to greater survival, greater reproduction and colonization.
After all, other primates cooperate, said anthropologist Joan Silk of the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in reproductive strategies of old-world monkeys. Communal breeding, for example, reduces stress on bonnet macaques creating greater reproductive success.
Developmental psychologist Felix Warneken of Harvard University added that the social skills of human children include the capacity to look beyond shared intentionality (monkey see, monkey do) at an early age. They show an understanding of others' beliefs, exhibiting a "theory of mind,"which inspires cooperation.
Describing how field work with the !Kung people of southern Africa gave her insight into cooperation first hand, Polly Wiessner of University of Utah said hunter-gatherers used gifts as mnemonic devices across human groups and used personal adornment as an advertisement of marriage or social status.
Sequence of causal and timing factors
According to Hill, who has studied hunter-gatherers in South America for nearly 30 years, whether by shell beads, other kinds of gifts or through female transfer, the traits of cognition, culture and cooperation would eventually lead to specializations and government.
Stephen Shennan, a professor of archaeology at University College London, explained that as population size increases, culture increases exponentially: greater contact between human groups leads to much more copying of creative innovations.
Ultimately, the exponential cultural ratchet effect is demonstrated by humans' domination of the world today, said Hill and Marean, who collected proposals from the gathered researchers for a possible flowchart and eventual timeline. The proposals will be posted to a group Web site for further discussion.
In closing the workshop, Hill said, "Only by working together are we able to fully account for the emergence and timing of unique features of Homo sapiens and how humans, evolved through natural processes, resulted in a spectacular anomaly among living species."
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentExcuse me, but isn't that what humans are supposed to do. I could have told you that for FREE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the usual utter nonsense that gets put out by the Neo Darwinist lobby ... and No, I'm not a creationist, or even religious ... you don't have to be to recognise bad science. For one thing, the Neanderthals had bigger brains than HS... therefore, are you saying that made me more intelligent and more likely to survive. Funny they didn't then .... There is no evidence that cognition evolves ....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no evidence that brain size is linked to intelligence or cognition, as this article from Current Biology November 2009 shows. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=humans-brain-power-origins&posted=1#comments Added to that, the Neanderthals had bigger brain cavities than us (HS), and it didn't stop them becoming extinct. When will scientists stop believing the myth that intelligence evolves and that the species with the most intelligence will survive as the fittest? Going back to the Pleistocene, we can show the early man was at least as intelligent as us, and possibly more so because, unlike us, he wasn't under the delusion that he could DOMINATE the Earth, as your headline announces, but would work in a cooperative way with it. For how our ancestors really thought and lived, devoid of a Neo-Darwinist agenda, please visit Ishtar's Gate: http://www.ishtarsgate.com/index.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you re. brain size and intelligence. While I am not a scholar like the big headed humans studying this 'problem', it seems more likely that what is generally regarded as our intelligence is a product of increased brain functionality providing improved cognitive abilities, including the ability to represent abstract concepts symbolically, communicate and accumulate them beyond an individual lifetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, if we're half as smart as we think we are, our advanced culture will figure out how to survive the consequences of our domination of this planet.
"ow, if we're half as smart as we think we are, our advanced culture will figure out how to survive the consequences of our domination of this planet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI absolutely believe that we are half as smart as we think we are.
candide - Yeah, I'm sorry. I hope you're right. I hope we're smart enough to solve the real problems, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis... um, why do you think anyone is saying we evolved from apes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApes and man evolving from a common ancestor is quite a different thing. When the lines split, one to become us, and another to become them, our changes led us to higher culture and spaceships (as you put it) and their incremental changes led them to being where they are today. It isn't that hard to understand, unless you are actively trying NOT to understand it.
Ishtar... talk about bad science... try not to take one point and derive massive conclusions out of context!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBigger brains alone may not make a species more intelligent, but I would think it reasonable that it helps. You could also have a brain that is more efficiently organized or higher developed in function, that would increase intelligence also as a factor apart from sheer size.
So it is possible the Neanderthals had bigger brains, but their brains were less well organized... or even if they were just as (or more) intelligent than we are today, they could have had any number of other traits (not intelligence related) that didn't make them as competitive (or able to survive) as us.
There is also bad luck... you can have all the best traits to rule the world, then get hit with a disease or an asteroid, or whatever bad luck, and poof, you're species is history.
It also isn't difficult to understand that there is no evidence that we and the apes evolved from a common ancestor, unless you are actively trying NOT to understand it. Ardi was the latest in a long line of trumped up and carefully manufactured PR stunts about the common ancestor to mark the year of Darwin. In fact, following Occam's razor to its most logical conclusion, Ardi was a bog standard, common-or-garden bonobo. Please see Ardi: How to create a science myth, by John Feliks. Link to pdf here: http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/january-february2010.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistharrris .... try not to tell me what to do, and then I won't tell you what to do. Whatever you think is reasonable is fine ... but you are confusing what you think is reasonable with proven scientific fact. What you're accusing me of is exactly what the author of this article has done, except he hasn't even one scientific fact to base his stance on. The way I see it, there is a gulf of difference between intelligence and the acquisiton of a knowledge bank. Do you know who has the largest brains among US teenagers? Those who play video games, apparently! Have you ever seen the blank, zombied, glazed-over eyes of someone who play a lot of video games? If that is greater intelligence then as a species, we are really in trouble! :-) There are many reasons why the Neanderthals could have become extinct ... and that's another issue. The point that I'm making ... and other scientists are making ... is that there is no evidence that brain size denotes greater intelligence and therefore a greater ability to survive ~ as illustrated by the Neanderthals. What I don't like about the article is a kind of arrogant sub text that we survived because we were more intelligent because intelligence evolves ever upwards and leads to the survival of the fittest. Science has never shown this to be true. It is an assumption. And if anything, if how sustainably one lives with the planet could be taken as one criteria for a sign of advanced intelligence ... then ....well... I'll let you fill in the rest...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIshtar,it isn't difficult to understand what you are saying, it just difficult to believe any thinking person believes it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is ENORMOUS evidence, overwelming evidence, broad and enduring evidence of evolution. Talk about Occam's razor, sheesh.... all the convoluted thinking and ignoring of facts you have to do to AVOID evolution is so complicated, dishonest and crazy that it is no brainer.... evolution is a straight forward, simple explanation that is proved out again and again by observation and science by an incredible array of people from all over the world over a long period of time.
There are few things more proven in science than evolution. It is one of things science can be very certain about. To avoid it, you have to throw out massive piles of evidence, shut your eyes to what happens in the real world around you, and either shut down your ability to reason, or force yourself to begin your reasoning from clearly inaccurate and flawed assumptions.
I have no idea what agenda, warped personal goals, or strange faith beliefs are driving you to resist something as clear-cut as evolution, but there is little basis for anyone to have an intelligent discussion with you if the first rule of the discussion is facts don't matter, and the second is neither do logic or reason.
I actually don’t dismiss the work being done by this group of undoubtedly accomplished scientists, but I do believe they have missed the critical factors of cultural retention and accumulation of not just acquired knowledge but effective tools for solving critical problems. If this group can help humanity to solve its current critical problems it will have made a real contribution to the continuation of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most critical problems are:
1. The issues that threaten the continued survival of life.
2. Those issues that threaten the continue survival of humanity.
3. Those conditions that produce the greatest suffering.
The general recognition of immediate problems, such as an incoming very large meteorite, are agreed upon relatively quickly. In our civilized culture, identification of less immediate problems, such as the depletion of energy resources that we are most dependent on or developing critical environmental changes, produce a seemingly circular debate intended to achieve a political consensus. If and when action is taken, it is not likely to be the response that most effectively corrects the problem, as self interests becomes a primary factor.
The root cause of most of our critical problems is human overpopulation: no further argument or discussion is actually necessary for most people to recognize this. The principal inhibitor to effectively addressing all of our most critical problems is that we all know that no consensus action is possible, since the most fundamental purpose for our individual existence is reproduction.
Hey, Ishtar, put this in your hukkah and smoke it: Orcas have larger brains than "HS", and we know who rules the swimming hole. Just want your take on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Ardi is a bonobo, unchanged for 4.4 million years?? Where did Ardi come from, just walk out of a swamp somewhere or did the stork bring him. I need your input so I can finish my thesis, please.
I agree with all the above points as distinguishing factors for the triumph of our species. We are indeed blessed to have evolved such intelligence. However, we need to have a better sense of preservation to save our planet from pollution and ultimate destruction due to our activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-PTS (<a href>www.parttimescholar.com</a>)
Big brains *does* make a difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so much between humans.
But although elephants have a bigger brain than ours and so did Neanderthals, what makes the difference is our larger association cortex. The brain is basically an ice cream cone of evolutionary development. And we have a scoop of chocolate that no other animal does - is this a great analogy or what.
Check out "Accidental Mind" by David Linden
TheBlindWatcher – Well put. Better still: the principal distinction of human brain physiology is the number of neuron and glial cells in the prefrontal cortex allocated to cognitive, planning and communication functions. This physiology produces improved cognitive abilities, including the ability to represent abstract concepts symbolically, communicate and accumulate them beyond an individual lifetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@tharriss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your good writing, and your patience in trying to deal with people like Ishtar. I suspect that you won't get too far. He has already determined to ignore the overwhelming evidence. While we need to remain careful enough not to call this "proof", you do a good job at summarizing the incredible amounts of evidence that would need to be ignored in order to discount it as he has done.
Thanks for you patience.
nice article and good comments...give me a scoop of chocolate please;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"innovation", "team work", that sounds like a Deepak Chopra book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Brain Power", "Innovation", "Teamwork", that sounds like a Deepak Chopra book (which obviously is not science at all).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID is short for IDiot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe falsity of intelligent design is established by the existence of those who can believe in it.
@bipolar2: LOL. The issue here is about the rightness of this particular paper, not about the rightness of evolution: Evolution is a fact, early humans with such modern market traits like "innovation" and "brain power" are not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.michaeltripper.com/functionsofnature
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://michaeltripper.com/functionsofnature/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLawdy. We did not evolve from apes. We evolved from a an ancestor species that was also the ancestor to the apes and to many other hominin species. The apes are different from us because they evolved to be well suited to their environment, just as we did. It appears that many intelligent hominin species evolved but for some reason they all died out. Luck no doubt played a role in this, but I our species killed many off. It seems to be in our nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIshtar: even superficial analyses of anthropological and other evidence for evolution reveals overwhelming evidence in support. There are many unknowns, of course, but the pseudo science links you post are neither compelling nor logical in their representations of alternative hypotheses. Science has no problem with alternative hypotheses, but they must be testable and they must ultimately be supported by evidence. A superficial photo of a bonobo (which shares only a few anatomic features with ARdi) is hardly convincing. Indeed, it only turns the rationally minded away from your hypotheses. That is, you're going to have to do a great deal better than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis: I (and I'm sure many others) will agree that we are not evolved from the same apes that we see today. one possibility is that there was a single species that both humans and apes descended from and at some point the evolution began to change. one group (possibly affected by climate, population at the time, predators and/or diet) went down one evolutionary path and to become apes and the other (being us) became humans. This theory is based on the finding of early neanderthal skeletons and fossils, after examining these remains we were able to determine that humans had lived on this earth with another humanoid race. This race did however die out because of their lack of intelligence. So it is possible that we are evolved from early apes but the apes of today are another species that was formed from the same ancestral gene pool .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe kernel of mankind is still an animal. I believe we need to recognise that kernel to be able to learn to survive in an increasingly intricate world we are building ourselves. http://www.noisepollution.nl/?p=2353
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInsects dominate the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut seriously, the article concentrates on the brain and ignores the human buttocks, leg, ankle, foot, sweat glands, and hand dexterity that go with that brain. Early man could run down any prey including neanderthal. Early man could climb away from any predator.
Advancing to the aircraft carrier with jets, George Benson, Voyager leaving the solar system, and questioning the morality of genealogically perfect babies... suggests the subtle touch of God.
On another vein, the article aims squarely at collectivism, but accidentally promotes the value of the individual in one phrase towards the end.
Merry Christmas.
Sorry. That was too obscure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCopying of creative innovations = an individual had to create the innovation as in, earlier, who made the first kayak?