Home
Rudy Garns's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
-
an extra copy of a brain-development gene, which appeared in our ancestors’ genomes about 2.4 million years ago, allowed maturing neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections.
-
People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke
-
Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function
- 2 more annotation(s)...
"The foregoing notwithstanding, Taylor’s hypothesis has the value of focusing attention on a critical point in early human evolution and, more generally, of emphasizing the centrality of technology from the very beginning of human existence. It is an intriguing contribution to the materialist study of how humans came to be."
Ultimately if Dunbar and his colleagues are correct, if social structure is the most powerful variate in explaining differences in brain size when controlling for phylogenetics and body size, then in some ways it is surprising to me. After all, it does not seem that ants have particularly large brains, despite being extremely social and highly successful. Clearly the hymenoptera and other social insects operate on different principles from mammals. Instead of
developing “hive minds,” it seems as if in mammals greater social structure entails greater cognitive structure.
We must adjust to our unparalleled ability to shape the world's evolution
Abstract thinking may date back further than previously thought. : Scientific American
As far as I can tell, one can discern four possible theoretical approaches to the evolutionary question of human-technology relations. And since a central theme of transhumanist philosophy concerns the use of technology to engender a new "posthuman" species - one that may be phylogenetically linked to present Homo sapiens if the cyborgization route is pursued - I believe the following distinctions may be of some relevance and value.
The new species of hominid, the evolutionary branch of primates that includes humans, is to be revealed when the two-million-year-old skeleton of a child is unveiled this week.
In a recent lecture, the Oxford neurobiologist argued that a mutation in the brain of a single human being 200,000 years ago turned intellectually able apemen into a super-intelligent species that would conquer the world. In short, Homo sapiens is a genetic accident.
-
Until 200,000 years ago, there had been a gradual increase in brain size among hominins, starting three million years ago. Then, abruptly, there was a remarkable increase of about 30% or so.
-
a dramatic spontaneous mutation in the brain of Mitochondrial Eve or a relative which then spread through the species
A comparison of ancient and contemporary footprints reveals that our ancestors were strolling much like we do some 3.6 million years ago, a time when they were still quite comfortable spending time in trees,
In the deliberations over humanity and its perceived uniqueness, a link is frequently made between our ability to support a rich, diverse culture and the origin of complex human behaviour. Yet what is often overlooked in our view of these two, clearly connected phenomena is the thread that weaves them together: the ability to coordinate behaviour. We need only look at the products of our culture, from language to religion, to see that any variant we may deem successful is contingent on coordinating the behaviour of two or more individuals. Still, what is truly illuminating about this ability is that, far from being a uniquely human feature, the ability to coordinate behaviour is ubiquitous throughout the many kingdoms of organisms.
On the day after the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, prominent paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall gives a public lecture about Darwin and his impact on what we know about human evolution. Tattersall, curator in the anthropology department at the American Museum of Natural History, then sits down for a conversation with Massimo Pigliucci, Chair of the Philosophy Department at City University of New York (CUNY) at Lehman College.
In its 2 October 2009 issue, Science presents 11 papers, authored by a diverse international team, describing an early hominid species, Ardipithecus ramidus, and its environment. These 4.4 million year old hominid fossils sit within a critical early part of human evolution, and cast new and sometimes surprising light on the evolution of human limbs and locomotion, the habitats occupied by early hominids, and the nature of our last common ancestor with chimps.
Is bigger always better? When it comes to brain size, that has long been the prevailing theory—at least among big-brained humans. But a new analysis shows that in the course of primate evolution, brains and brawn haven't always been on the rise.
t’s long been thought that so-called modern human behavior first arose during the middle Stone Age, in “modern” humans—Homo sapiens. But a new study suggests modern living may have originated roughly 500,000 years earlier—courtesy of one of our hairy, heavy-browed ancestor species.
Gibbons 2010 (119): 2 -- ScienceNOW
-
the ancient human effective population size 1.2 million years ago, the number who could breed--was about 18,500, and couldn't have been larger than 26,000.
Scientists may have solved the mystery of how human hands became nimble enough to make and manipulate stone tools.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in human-ev...
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo