Various Topics on Anthropology - Paleo

..b ..et..

My attempts to steer Jason, et al away from the flying feces of the wet ape
wars! 8-)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...380407,00.html

Thanks to Explorator and the good Mr. Meadows!

Very interesting article with what I suspect to be some strong implications!
If the human brain has evolved "so much faster" than most other adaptations,
it must logically be that big brains were a notable evolutionary advantage
even way back there where the human brain begain its unprecidented
expansion.

Could it be that even just a relatively minor "increase" in the utility of a
big brain (as compared to a chimp-sized brain for example), was enough to
kick off a chain reaction? Its the old "a little bit smarter" equals more
extensive tool use, more extensive tool use puts an even greater premium on
intellect, which brings more creative tool use, again incentivizing
intellect, etc, etc, etc? We have already had this sort of a discussion
before, but with the obvious "disadvantages" of big brains (ranging from the
caloric intake requirements to the compromises required in the birth canal),
those "advantages" must have been even more significant.

Any ideas?

Regards
bk

..m ..Gi..

Bob Keeter wrote:
> My attempts to steer Jason, et al away from the flying feces of the
wet ape
> wars! 8-)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...380407,00.html
>
> Thanks to Explorator and the good Mr. Meadows!
>
> Very interesting article with what I suspect to be some strong
implications!
> If the human brain has evolved "so much faster" than most other
adaptations,
> it must logically be that big brains were a notable evolutionary
advantage
> even way back there where the human brain begain its unprecidented
> expansion.

Yes, the human brain began began to evolve 8.1 mya when our ancestors
***umed communalism as a survival strategy to survive the dry season of
the new monsoon habitat that appeared in east Africa at that time. The
human brain is a communal adaptation.

>
> Could it be that even just a relatively minor "increase" in the
utility of a
> big brain (as compared to a chimp-sized brain for example), was
enough to
> kick off a chain reaction?

No. Concepts like this are pure pseudo-science.

> Its the old "a little bit smarter" equals more
> extensive tool use, more extensive tool use puts an even greater
premium on
> intellect, which brings more creative tool use, again incentivizing
> intellect, etc, etc, etc?

Ridiculous. Tool use doesn't show up for millions of years.

> We have already had this sort of a discussion
> before, but with the obvious "disadvantages" of big brains (ranging
from the
> caloric intake requirements to the compromises required in the birth
canal),
> those "advantages" must have been even more significant.
>
> Any ideas?

Yes. Evolution is more complicated than most people can comprehend.
Until you understand that you'll be wasting your time to pretend to
address the issue of human evolution.

Jim

.... ....

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VdwGd.8105$C52.768@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> My attempts to steer Jason, et al away from the flying feces of the wet
> ape wars! 8-)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...380407,00.html
>
> Thanks to Explorator and the good Mr. Meadows!
>
> Very interesting article with what I suspect to be some strong
> implications! If the human brain has evolved "so much faster" than most
> other adaptations, it must logically be that big brains were a notable
> evolutionary advantage even way back there where the human brain begain
> its unprecidented expansion.
>
> Could it be that even just a relatively minor "increase" in the utility of
> a big brain (as compared to a chimp-sized brain for example), was enough
> to kick off a chain reaction? Its the old "a little bit smarter" equals
> more extensive tool use, more extensive tool use puts an even greater
> premium on intellect, which brings more creative tool use, again
> incentivizing intellect, etc, etc, etc? We have already had this sort of
> a discussion before, but with the obvious "disadvantages" of big brains
> (ranging from the caloric intake requirements to the compromises required
> in the birth canal), those "advantages" must have been even more
> significant.
>
> Any ideas?

It would have been nice if they'd actually used the chimp lineages
for the comparisons. As it is, the macque (I think that's what they
used) is a bit far back to get a good idea of exactly how fast the
recent history has been.

The article I saw on this last week did mention the chimp
comparisons, but it wasn't listed among the four species
being compared.

I think the most significant effect will be to put the kibosh on
some of the wilder speculations: I find it unbelievable that there
are still credible researchers claiming that minor changes in
the larynx a few tens of thousands of years ago were responsible
for language!

As far as I'm concerned, there are really only two credible
big picture scenarios left. One is the one you alude to:
progressively more efficient transmission of cultural knowledge
leading to a runaway positive feedback loop; the other is
LGM. The latter, however popular in some circles, has no
concrete evidence whatsoever backing it.

John Roth

>
> Regards
> bk

..m ..Gi..

John Roth wrote:

> I find it unbelievable that there are still
> credible researchers claiming that minor changes
> in the larynx a few tens of thousands of years
> ago were responsible for language!

These tend to be the same ones that tell us that
the emergence of human intellect is the result
of tool usage.

> As far as I'm concerned, there are really only
> two credible big picture scenarios left. One is
> the one you alude to: progressively more
> efficient transmission of cultural knowledge
> leading to a runaway positive feedback loop;

This is kind of like saying that the reason the
car won the race is because it went faster than
the other cars. All new adaptations can be
described as the result of a, "runaway positive
feedback loop." If you can't tell us what was
the change in selective factors that allowed the
emergence of this "runaway positive feedback
loop," then you aren't telling us anything useful.

> the other is LGM. The latter, however popular in some
> circles, has no concrete evidence whatsoever
> backing it.

I'm afraid to ask what LGM stands for.

One thing is certain. Language is only useful in
the context of very large groups. Thus if language
began to emerge very early in hominid evolution
(let's say 8.1 mya) then we pretty much have to
***ume that early hominid began to form very large
groups very early also. This is consistent with my
hypothesis which indicates the emergence of very
large groups, communities, beginning at 8.1 mya.
And this is the only hypothesis that does so.

Jim

.... ..owl..

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105906273.063052.108860@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> One thing is certain. Language is only useful in
> the context of very large groups. Thus if language
> began to emerge very early in hominid evolution
> (let's say 8.1 mya) then we pretty much have to
> ***ume that early hominid began to form very large
> groups very early also. This is consistent with my
> hypothesis which indicates the emergence of very
> large groups, communities, beginning at 8.1 mya.
> And this is the only hypothesis that does so.

Not so.

..b ..et..

"John Roth" <newsgroups@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:10ulfmh937od3bb@news.supernews.com...
>
Snippage. . . .


>
> As far as I'm concerned, there are really only two credible
> big picture scenarios left. One is the one you alude to:
> progressively more efficient transmission of cultural knowledge
> leading to a runaway positive feedback loop; the other is
> LGM. The latter, however popular in some circles, has no
> concrete evidence whatsoever backing it.
>
> John Roth
>

OK, you have got me fair and square. The ONLY words I can come up
with for LGM is "little green men" and SURELY that is not the only
opposition
for my dingbat little idea! ;-) ROTFL!!

Regards
bk

.... ....

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sxEGd.8604$C52.4204@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>
> "John Roth" <newsgroups@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
> news:10ulfmh937od3bb@news.supernews.com...
>>
> Snippage. . . .
>
>
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, there are really only two credible
>> big picture scenarios left. One is the one you alude to:
>> progressively more efficient transmission of cultural knowledge
>> leading to a runaway positive feedback loop; the other is
>> LGM. The latter, however popular in some circles, has no
>> concrete evidence whatsoever backing it.
>>
>> John Roth
>>
>
> OK, you have got me fair and square. The ONLY words I can come up
> with for LGM is "little green men" and SURELY that is not the only
> opposition
> for my dingbat little idea! ;-) ROTFL!!

You got it!

However, back to the main point.

The function of language is to communicate. This
_should_ be obvious, but people seem to forget
it when they're talking about brain evolution.

We're talking about multiple mutations in several
hundred genes over a time frame that is no longer
than the chimp/homo lca, and possibly not much
longer than the australopith/homo lca (whatever
that is). Somewhere around 2.5 to 3.0 my.

Now, the fact is that most of what we see
as cooperation and cultural transmission
is already there in chimps and orangs, as
well as other, more primitive offshoots of
the tree. It's just there in a very primitive
form, and it's transmitted by example and
imitation.

So the question is: what can be communicated,
how can it be communicated, and to what
purpose (why) is it communicated.

What is relatively easy. Just about anything that
can be represented in any area of the brain can
be encoded in language and then decoded into
a low quality but servicible representation in the
same brain areas. There are, I think, exceptions
to this blanket statement, but they aren't very
well characterized at the moment.

How is equally easy: speech (sound), writing
(visual), sign language (likewise visual, but also
involving motion which writing doesn't involve),
pressure (Braille encoding for the blind.)

That leaves why, and that's the crux of the
entire issue. My hypothesis is that it's the
transmission of knowledge, both horizontally
(among people) and vertically (between
generations.)

It took time, several million years of it,
to evolve the interconnection network
that makes it possible to encode internal
experiance, externalize it, receive and
decode it. It undoubtedly happened area
by area, not all at once. Each area allowed
another whole cl*** of information that could
be communicated with language rather than
by imitation.

Social interaction is just one aspect of
it, and a not very important aspect, at least
if you see all of the chimp style behavior that
seems to be going on!

John Roth



>
> Regards
> bk
>

..m ..Gi..

John Roth wrote:


> Now, the fact is that most of what we see
> as cooperation and cultural transmission
> is already there in chimps and orangs,

I think what you mean is that the preadaptations are
there.

<snip>

> So the question is: what can be communicated,
> how can it be communicated, and to what
> purpose (why) is it communicated.

No. The best question is what caused the emergence
of very large groups in the earliest years of hominid
evolution. What was adaptive about large groups?
Until you can answer this question you don't have the
basis for the emergence of language. The current
paradigm of Paleoanthropology completely has it's
head up it's *** on this issue. Language could not
have emerged in the context of the small groups that
PA currently finds fashionable to ***ume.

> My hypothesis is that it's the
> transmission of knowledge, both horizontally
> (among people) and vertically (between
> generations.)

This is the height of vagueness.

Jim

.... ....

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106169603.202238.128760@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> John Roth wrote:
>
>
>> Now, the fact is that most of what we see
>> as cooperation and cultural transmission
>> is already there in chimps and orangs,
>
> I think what you mean is that the preadaptations are
> there.

No. I meant what I said.

>
> <snip>
>
>> So the question is: what can be communicated,
>> how can it be communicated, and to what
>> purpose (why) is it communicated.
>
> No. The best question is what caused the emergence
> of very large groups in the earliest years of hominid
> evolution. What was adaptive about large groups?
> Until you can answer this question you don't have the
> basis for the emergence of language. The current
> paradigm of Paleoanthropology completely has it's
> head up it's *** on this issue. Language could not
> have emerged in the context of the small groups that
> PA currently finds fashionable to ***ume.

A negative is very hard to prove. Anytime someone
says "could not have", my bull**** detectors go off -
it's a clear violation of Clarke's Law. To support
"could not have" requires a _lot_ more data on how
language actually works than we have at the moment.

>> My hypothesis is that it's the
>> transmission of knowledge, both horizontally
>> (among people) and vertically (between
>> generations.)
>
> This is the height of vagueness.

And yours isn't?

John Roth
>
> Jim
>

..m ..Gi..

John Roth wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106169603.202238.128760@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > John Roth wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Now, the fact is that most of what we see
> >> as cooperation and cultural transmission
> >> is already there in chimps and orangs,
> >
> > I think what you mean is that the preadaptations are
> > there.
>
> No. I meant what I said.

When you pretend to see things that aren't there
you are no longer doing science.

>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> So the question is: what can be communicated,
> >> how can it be communicated, and to what
> >> purpose (why) is it communicated.
> >
> > No. The best question is what caused the emergence
> > of very large groups in the earliest years of hominid
> > evolution. What was adaptive about large groups?
> > Until you can answer this question you don't have the
> > basis for the emergence of language. The current
> > paradigm of Paleoanthropology completely has it's
> > head up it's *** on this issue. Language could not
> > have emerged in the context of the small groups that
> > PA currently finds fashionable to ***ume.
>
> A negative is very hard to prove. Anytime someone
> says "could not have", my bull**** detectors go off -
> it's a clear violation of Clarke's Law. To support
> "could not have" requires a _lot_ more data on how
> language actually works than we have at the moment.

Believe what you want to believe. What I'm
saying makes perfect sense. This would explain
why language is mostly nonexistent among any
other species.

> >> My hypothesis is that it's the
> >> transmission of knowledge, both horizontally
> >> (among people) and vertically (between
> >> generations.)
> >
> > This is the height of vagueness.
>
> And yours isn't?

No, it isn't. Really.

Jim