“If by cultural you mean the explanation(s) given by Anthropology they are not as much unconvincing as they are tentative and open to various theories and interpretations.”
CB: Actually there is substantial agreement among anthropologists of human origins in Africa from 2.5 million to 200,000 years ago
I hone it down to culture giving the human genus a population explosion of genus homo compared with the allopatric , fellow primate and mammal and vertebrate species in Africa, such that Genus Homo expanded into Eurasia , and then the Western Hemisphere ( while remaining in , not vacating Africa or Asia ).
And: http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/decisive-battle-between-early-culture.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/only-humans-have-symbolic-communication.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/05/culturally-inherited-adaptations-give.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2020/12/differentia-specifica-of-human-species.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2017/01/let-beauties-beautify-you-you-beast.html
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2017/01/remix-of-blackwell-concrete-abstract.html
That follows from the complex nature of a process that took millions of years and for which the empirical basis is scattered and scarce. This epistemological sense of uncertainty depends on how the various strands of research approach and manage a plethora of concepts such as: - broad-spectrum and Neolithic revolutions - competitive inclusion - convergent evolution - descent with modification, natural selection
CB : with humans Sexual Selection was probably more important in making bigger and bigger brains
- molecular homologies - hunting and gathering, food production, the use of fire.
CB: 2.5 million years of the Old Stone Age is direct appropriation of wild food, _not_planting seeds or husbanding animals - inclusive and individual fitness. - knuckle-walking, bipedalism, orthograde posture - language acquisition, symbolism.
CB: This should be # 1; it is the Differentia specifica of Genus Homo - nomadism, sedentism
CB:Stone Age , 2.5 million years long is very nomadic - Oldovan and Acheulian tools, microliths
CB: stone tools MADE BY DESIGN, IN STYLES ; Oldivan and Acheulian are styles .
- Paleolithic and Mesolithic - reproductive productivity, estrus, uterine groups, microband
CB: Genus homo population explodes relative to other African primates , mammals , ; thus having the highest Darwinian fitness of these species closely related on the Phylogenetic, Tree of Life
Etc. etc. Thus there is not currently one single totally convincing explanation of the origins of humankind.
CB: Yes there is . The beginning of the Stone Age because the tools made by design mean the tool makers had symbolic communication, language and culture , the Differentia specifica of the human genus .
Tony : "All the same there is a widespread consensus that this kind of analytic, crticial and naturalistic evolutionary perspective is the only valid one for modern science.”
The linguistic evidence also strongly supports the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis [See here Joseph Greenberg and Merritt Ruhlen]. Indeed, in many cases the linguistic evidence is more definitive than the genetic….as language doesn’t have sex…and so is less prone to mixing."
CB: Thanks I didn’t know that . However , the mitochondrial evidence doesn’t mix sexes , as you said . Also, how does Greenberg get linguistic evidence from 200,000 years ago ??! Agree, with out of Africa specifically Darwinist evolutionism / critiqued by Blackwell/ human natural history
Bottomline is that this estimates the time and place of human origin. IMPORTANTLY, FOSSIL EVIDENCE IN AFRICA NOW CORROBORATES THE DNA EVIDENCE . About 200,000 years ago in East Africa https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0903207106
Tony: "Actually, no. The DNA evidence used to establish the Out of Africa hypothesis (the so-called ‘Eve’ hypothesis) uses *both* mitochondrial DNA…*and* nuclear sex-chromosome (Y) DNA. In fact, I’ve had my own DNA checked in this way (by the National Geographic Genome Project…costs about $100 per test; so doing both maternal and paternal tests cost approx. $200…or at least that was the cost from over a decade ago). By the way, a fine and fairly concise and accessible discussion of the linguistic argument is to be found in Merritt Ruhlen’s, ‘The Origin of Language’; overall a good primer of comparative and historical linguistics. T
Thanks, Tony, hadn’t heard that before Although ,The dna evidence is Mitochondria dna which is only through one sex, the mother ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. In terms of mitochondrial haplogroups, the mt-MRCA is situated at the divergence of macro-haplogroup L into L0 and L1–6. As of 2013, estimates on the age of this split ranged at around 155,000 years ago,[note 3] consistent with a date later than the speciation of Homo sapiens but earlier than the recent out-of-Africa dispersal.[4][1][5] The male analog to the "Mitochondrial Eve" is the "Y-chromosomal Adam" (or Y-MRCA), the individual from whom all living humans are patrilineallydescended. As the identity of both matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs is dependent on genealogical history (pedigree collapse), they need not have lived at the same time. As of 2013, estimates for the age Y-MRCA are subject to substantial uncertainty, with a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the estimate for mt-MRCA.).[2][9] The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species".[note 4]
Tony:Historical linguistics is a deep, complex and, of course, fascinating subject. In truth, however, the origins of human language can be pushed back very, very far. I don’t think anyone can claim to set precise dates on any of it, but the idea – according to Ruhlen – is that there is good evidence to suggest a more or less single origin (though this might be analogous to the genetic ‘Eve’ paradox itself) for all human language from which all other languages have evolved by common descent. The reconstruction of ‘proto’ languages of Dene-Caucasian and Eurasiatic , or at least some few foundational words of such, have already been proffered. Indeed, it has been suggested that the ‘click’ languages the central African San peoples et al might, in fact, represent just such an echo of this foundational proto-language (though again, like the mitochondrial genetic argument, this would likely represent a ‘latest common ancestor’ of all present-day language)
Charles :Yes My hypothesis is that there is symbolic communication at homo habilis and the origin of the Stone Age, 2.5 million years ago ; Not articulate speech but singing , whistling , clicking . music with instruments ( among first tools) , dance, drawing ; because it defines us, genus Homo http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/09/origin-of-language-human-dancer_27.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/only-humans-have-symbolic-communication.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/several-hypotheses-on-human-evolution.html Culture -custom is symbolically constituted behavior : http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/anthropological-definition-of-culture.html
C JACK:"You seemed to have missed the most obvious means to communicate--gesture. Gesture is still integrated with speech in our communicative routines, and for sighted people with hearing, acquiring and using speech to communicate is actually tri-modally audio-visual-kinestethic. "
Charles Brown says Dance is gesture , whole body gesture , includes hand sign language .
C JACK" says "What does it represent? What does it communicate? Bees dance to communicate. I don't know humans that do. Gestural routines for communicating would mostly incorporate the upper body, especially arms and hands. Speaking also creates gestures visible on the face. These are dynamic and integrated with vocal speech now. "
Charles Brown says ,Lower body can make signs as much as lower body . Also lower body and lower body in combinations can make words just like fingers do in sign language . Whole body can be seen further away than than fingers . A language/words / symbolic signs can be made from anything by conventionally establishing binary oppositions as with Morse Code . A left leg up is the opposite of right leg up. Binary oppositions are the cells of language. Computer language cell is the “on\off” binary opposition. See structural linguistics and anthropology on binary oppositions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/binary-opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition
Then there’s music , sound made with instruments or voice . As it’s sound , it is obviously a candidate for the language system from which speech ( sound symbols ) derives .
Different musical notes and rhythms ( like indigenous drummers) can be made into a system of binary oppositions which are the cells of symbolic communication systems .
Then there are smoke signals .
Abstract Since the discovery of the first man-ape, many have assumed that the earliest humans were hunters and that this was associated with a “killer instinct.” The myth of “man the hunter” was repeated in the 1960s in anthropology texts and popular literature. In the 1970s it was adopted by sociobiologists to explain human nature. “Man the hunter” is used to explain not only human biology but also human morality. The morals described, however, often reflect ancient beliefs and appear to be new ways of justifying old morality codes. The newest version of this myth is presented in a recent book, Demonic Males. I will discuss various accounts of this myth and the evidence used to justify them, and will specifically critique the arguments presented in Demonic Males. Citing Literature
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251205750_Donna_L_Hart_Robert_W_Sussman_Man_the_hunted_primates_predators_and_human_evolution_expanded_edition https://phys.org/news/2008-08-controversial-theory.html Despite popular theories to the contrary, early humans evolved not as aggressive hunters, but as prey of many predators. "Humans are no more born to be hunters than to be gardeners," argues Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, in the newly-updated version of the controversial book "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution." The soft cover book, released in July by Westview Press, includes a new chapter aimed at quieting critics and responding to new evidence that has appeared since the book's original publication in 2005. In the original volume, Sussman poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. The book won the 2006 W.W. Howells Award for the best book in biological anthropology written for a wide audience. Both versions are co-authored by Donna L. Hart, Ph.D., a member of the faculty of Pierre Laclede Honors College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The controversial ideas proposed by the original "Man the Hunted" raised many eyebrows in the academic community and beyond. "We wrote this update to answer some of the criticisms and to provide more evidence for our view of early man as prey," Sussman says. The book's new chapter addresses such topics as evidence of additional predators found in the fossil record since the first book's publication, evidence of predation by eagles, cannibalism, cut and tooth marks, scavenging and cooperation. "One major alternative theory that has gained more attention since we wrote the original book is that early man was not a hunter, but was a scavenger instead," Sussman says. "We have found that while early man may have done some scavenging, it was opportunistic. Very little of early human's diet came from meat." Sussman and Hart argue that early man did not have the capacity to detoxify rotting meat nor the ability to chase off competing animal scavengers. "Not one of the more than 250 living primate species is a scavenger," says Sussman. "They are not scavengers because they avoid decomposing food." Sussman and Hart also address the topic of cannibalism, which they claim is "beyond rare," and atypical, strange human behavior. "It just hardly ever happens," Sussman says. The philosophical question of how a new scientific paradigm gets accepted is also discussed. "Once a paradigm becomes established within a scientific community, most practitioners become technicians working within the parameters of the theory but rarely questioning the validity of the theory itself," Sussman writes. Changing the currently popular Man the Hunter theory is difficult for that reason. Though Sussman realizes there will still be critics of the Man the Hunted theory, he believes the book's new version will help to quiet some of that. Early man may have hunted, but was not a hunter. He may have scavenged, but was not a scavenger. Humans evolved mainly as a plant-eating species that ate some animal protein collected opportunistically, Sussman and Hart claim. "We are not saying that our theory is absolutely correct and will never be disproven," he says "But we are saying that the evidence we have today best fits the theory of Man the Hunted than of Man the Hunter." Background on the original 'Man the Hunted.' Sussman's book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution," poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. He co-authored the book with Donna L. Hart, Ph.D., a member of the faculty of Pierre Laclede Honors College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The book is scheduled to be released in late February. Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator, says Sussman. Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct. Through his research and writing, Sussman has worked for years to debunk that theory. An expert in the ecology and social structure of primates, Sussman does extensive fieldwork in primate behavior and ecology in Costa Rica, Guyana, Madagascar and Mauritius. He is the author and editor of several books, including "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," "Primate Ecology and Social Structure," and "The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review." The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, who served as past editor of American Anthropologist and is currently editor of the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case." And examine the evidence they did. Sussman and Hart's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and Hart decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record. "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?" It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says. "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues. The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs." Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well. Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman. "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon." Source: Washington University in St. Louis Feedback to editors Related Deja vu all over again? Human genome project has lessons to learn, suggests anthropologist Feb 15, 2013 Modern life's pressures may be hastening human evolution Apr 13, 2009 Recommended Load comments (0) How giant viruses mature: New evidence from the medusavirus provides insight 1 hour ago 5,000-year population history of Xinjiang brought to light in new ancient DNA study 1 hour ago New human reference genome opens unexplored regions 1 hour ago Study shows gaps in how STEM organizations collect demographic information 1 hour ago Heat and drought slow down tropical tree growth 2 hours ago Blue Origin launches its fourth crew to final frontier 3 hours ago How is haze formed? Soot as a surprising source of haze-building hydroxyl radicals 3 hours ago Easy test can see if breeding bulls have the right stuff 3 hours ago Spiderweb galaxy field: Feasting black holes caught in galactic spiderweb 3 hours ago Structure of a bacterial 'drug pump' reveals new way to counter hospital-borne infection 3 hours ago Quantum 'shock absorbers' allow perovskite to exhibit superfluorescence at room temperature 3 hours ago GET IN TOUCH Contact us OUR PRODUCTS Tech Xplore Medical Xpress Science X OTHER PUBLICATIONS Android app iOS app RSS feeds EXTRAS Help FAQ LEGAL About Terms of use Privacy policy Science X Account Sponsored Account Newsletter Archive © Phys.org 2003 - 2022 powered by Science X Network Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:57 PM, Charles Brown
No comments:
Post a Comment