[CraigD]

When I read the article about Lahn’s research, the first thing to enter my mind was the recollection of this quote

For millions of years, mankind lived much like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination: The urge to talk.
-Stephen Hawking

Although I enjoy his writing, I don’t ordinarily remember Hawking quotes, but this is one of the few to enjoy heavy radio play, in the intro to Pink Floyd’s 1994 song “Keep Talking”.

Hawking was playing fast and lose with the numbers in this quote – anatomically modern mankind – H. Sapiens – appears to have existed only hundreds of thousands, not millions of years – but he captures the mystery of which I spoke quite poetically: If humankind has been anatomically the same for so long, why did they (we?) spend so long behaving so differently than we do now? If human beings 100,000 (or as much as 400,000) years ago had the same brains and bodies that we do now, surely they’d have come up with most of the big human ideas - language, agriculture, science and technology, etc. – within at most a few thousand years.

Lahn’s hypothesis is compelling because it offers an explanation that William of Ockham or Sherlock Holms would appreciate for its simplicity: they didn’t have such ideas because they didn’t have the same brains we do now.

Proving this explanation right may be difficult, or Lahn’s conclusions may even prove wrong, but until then, the explanation is at least satisfying.

[Fishteacher73]

It seems that people either want to take the prospect of gradualism and PE as mutually exclusive concepts. Granted the idea of gradualism "marching onward to a 'improved' species" model seems to be a bot outdated and a bit IDish, the ideas of genetic drift and constant subtle change seems well established. The fossil record also seems to support the concept of PE.

These two forces can be working indeopendent of each other and still be in action. PE seems to take into account external changes a bit more and gradualism seems to be finetuning of existing traits.

If I recall correctly the rise of agriculture coincided with the recession of the last ice age. This produce more arid seasons, and more annual type growth with seeds that more storage and thus more nutrition. I think that this is the advantage of agriculture, not a nerological leap, but a botanical shift.

As for language, many feel that the origins are onomatopoeic words which exist in every language. Essentially mimicry of our surroundings. And today many children learn these types of words much quicker than the symbolic words that we use in language.

[Turtle]

Excellent discourse; I love science. I must wonder if humans brains enlarged & then they built cities & tended crops, or if humans grew crops, built ciites & this "caused" their brains to enlarge? Does one do a lot of simple things in the belief this produces synergy, or does one lay off & wait for the synergy & then employ it? I love science!

[CraigD]

Larynxes, language, and the emergence of humankind

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

It seems that people either want to take the prospect of gradualism and PE as mutually exclusive concepts.

Where this thread is concerned, I’m trying to avoid “big picture” evolutionary terms like gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and focus just on one event – “the emergence of modern humankind.” I’m especially trying to avoid speculation about any continuing process that might lead to “the emergence of the next modern humankind.”

If I recall correctly the rise of agriculture coincided with the recession of the last ice age. … I think that this is the advantage of agriculture, not a nerological leap, but a botanical shift.

I’d be more moved to agree if the ice ages had effected all H.Sapiens-populated places on earth, but they did not. Since the speciation into H.Sapiens 300-400KY ago, it appears there’s never been less than a sizable population of them/us in a place hospitable to the development of modern agriculture, and all the rest of modern human culture. The only conclusion I’m able to draw is that the innovation didn’t occur because H.Sapiens was somehow incapable of it.

As for language, many feel that the origins are onomatopoeic words which exist in every language. Essentially mimicry of our surroundings. And today many children learn these types of words much quicker than the symbolic words that we use in language.

I read an interesting article in the past year or 2, in which an evolutionary biologist/primateologist speculated that the human language was not due to any neuroanotomical feature, but due to the physical structure of the larynx. He noted that while many modern non-human primates can be trained to use non-verbal human language to some degree of proficiency, none have much facility at producing human speech – their voiceboxes are simply not shaped correctly for it, no more than a cat or dog’s. Modern Apes and monkeys have a poor ability to imitate sounds in their environment – as a group, birds are much better at it. He went on to point out that the extraordinary utility of the human larynx may be due to the elongation it underwent as part of the change in cervical anatomy that went along with adopting a permanent upright posture. In short, early hominids evolved an upright posture for one purpose (eg: seeing over high grass), with the side effect that it enhanced their vocal abilities, allowing mimicry, and eventually, language of a sort.

By the time H.Sapiens appears, though, there should have been many hominids with advanced vocal abilities, including the newly speciated H.Sapiens. Why H.Sapiens continued, until very recently, to live like the other hominids, rather than like modern humans, can’t be explained only in terms of their capacity for language use. Some neurological advance seems necessary, such as the one Lahn is hypothesizing.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’d be more moved to agree if the ice ages had effected all H.Sapiens-populated places on earth, but they did not. Since the speciation into H.Sapiens 300-400KY ago, it appears there’s never been less than a sizable population of them/us in a place hospitable to the development of modern agriculture, and all the rest of modern human culture. The only conclusion I’m able to draw is that the innovation didn’t occur because H.Sapiens was somehow incapable of it.

The thing that makes Fish's reference to gradualism/PE relevant to this is that while the "speciation" into anatomical h. sapiens may have been at 400kya, the "evolution" of *language* between "expressive grunting" (which probably did have a significant environmental advantage for h.sapiens) and conceptual communications probably did take up a lot of othe intervening 350k years to dominance by sapiens and their "extermination" of h.neandertalis and h.florensis and the other hangers on that we now know lasted until a few 10kya, and the conincidence with severe Ice Age around the same time probably combined to finalize this "change in equilibrium." Not all of our evolution is physical, and the gradual growth in brain size within h.sapiens is probably significant, but "inconclusive" evidence of "speciation."

I've really come to appreciate the notion that "speciation" is in the eye of the beholder...

Cheers,
Buffy

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Turtle

… I must wonder if humans brains enlarged & then they built cities & tended crops, or if humans grew crops, built ciites & this "caused" their brains to enlarge? …

My guess is the former, and that probably a good bit of time passed between the neurological change and the city building and crop tending. There are, to this day, numerous genetically modern humans living in cultures that never developed cities or crop-tending, or animal herding, who are not significantly intellectually different than any other group of humans.

If city building and crop-tending was something that any primate could stumble into under the right conditions, I’d expect there to be some evidence of another primate species having done so in the past few 100 KYs, but, with the arguable exceptions of Neanderthals and a few hominid species that may have been either befriended or enslaved by H.Sapiens, there just doesn’t seem to be.

Of course, paleoanthropology is an iffy, haphazard science. 30 years ago, there was no evidence of H.Sapiens living cooperatively with other Hominids, now there are several, including the recent, spectacular H.Floresiensis “hobbits”, the sites of which some believe show H.Floresiensis (believed to have evolved from H.Erectus) living alongside H.Sapiens ca. 12,000 years ago. Someone might dig up the remains of a great H.Erectus Giganticus city tomorrow, throwing all this speculation stem-over-stern.

Keeps it exciting, eh?

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that consciousness can manipulate and evolve the DNA. For example, if one thinks about food one can feel hungry. If one traces the biochemistry cascade going on due to the thought of food, the genes within certain cells will unpack, increase RNA transciption, protein translation leading to increased enzyme activity to generate the chemical train need for the instinctive potential. I could see nervous impulse changing the DNA in male and female gamete cells. This is probably why population growth comes primarily from poor people. Their limited world allows more unused nervous potential to be available for gamete cell DNA modifications.

[damocles]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I believe that consciousness can manipulate and evolve the DNA. For example, if one thinks about food one can feel hungry. If one traces the biochemistry cascade going on due to the thought of food, the genes within certain cells will unpack, increase RNA transciption, protein translation leading to increased enzyme activity to generate the chemical train need for the instinctive potential. I could see nervous impulse changing the DNA in male and female gamete cells. This is probably why population growth comes primarily from poor people. Their limited world allows more unused nervous potential to be available for gamete cell DNA modifications.

Interesting hypothesis!

Suggested test. Take one bacterium and introduce it to a new unfamiliar mixed food supply. See if the subsequent generations of bacteria show a planned preference for specific efficient food energy sources in the mixed food supply as opposed to a mixed diet
using all available food sources in the supply.

Make sure you establish a control group.

I suggest this as an experiment since conscious evolution SHOULD NOT be human restricted but rather should be a basic organizing principle for animals that are capable of reacting to their environment through measurable stimulus response.

With regards;

[HydrogenBond]

That should work. Humans have sensory systems, as do bacteria within their outer membrane. Their sensory systems are more limited but serve the same puprose for data input and environmental reaction. I was always amazed by white blood cells. Human white blood cells have human DNA and therefore the whole range of human genetic potential, although most of it is unused. They are essentially human one cell animals on the hunt for prey.

[emessay]

I believe in human consciousness would eternally be linked with chaotic system, like a coin toss which sometimes come out Shiva mimic , sometimes we've Wishnu mind , we've separated mind to reach highest points and understanding Brahman as conceptual unity of Yin-Yang. Heisenberg uncertainty principle would play the coin toss of human consciousness.

So we would facing chaotic phenomena like : how to create off-genes of hate, our immune againts veneral diseases or AIDS till we think possible immortality.