Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Big Brains Require An Explanation, Part I: Why Did Humans Become Smarter, Not Just More Numerous?
sp_BlogLink Read the original blog post
February 12, 2012
11:22 am
Vizeet
Guest

Great article. I am waiting more in this series and on catching fire and Neanderthals.
My thoughts:
1. It is wrong to say that humans started using tools 2.6 Mya because even great apes are known to use plant stems and leafs to push insects out and eat them.
2. You already mentioned that climate change is insufficient to cause selection pressure. I think it is not about selection pressure but more about advantage. Evolution from 10Mya to 5Mya created great apes who could walk on 2 legs making them more capable to survive both in savanna and forest because there was selection pressure. But I think this is not the case why humans evolved to more intelligent specie. Big brain is consequence of having simpler gut, and simpler gut is consequence of having lower fiber diet. It also helped humans to get more intelligent, walk faster and see predator from longer distance.

Humans started eating bone marrow and brain which was mostly left by other species by using tools which started the process of improvement in intelligence level/simplification of gut and other benefits.

I need to read catching fire but I think fire helped humans to cook starchy tubers and was not much of advantage before 250Kya. Because average tribe size used to be 150 people (Dunbar's Number) while one ox can feed 400 people at one time which means even internal organs would have been sufficient which does not require cooking. And humans were mostly scavenging not hunting.

February 12, 2012
2:01 pm
pam
Guest

ok! this article finally broke me down down so just ordered your book. i wish there was a Kindle version tho.

this reminds me what Vernon Vinge writes in "Marooned in Realtime;" which i read way before i switched diet.

it is something like "evolution favors local optimization, not intelligence." & "intelligence is a very rare thing."

regards,

February 12, 2012
4:12 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Paul:

It's good to be back. 

Geoff:

Much appreciated!  I've gone to some effort to keep the archives organized…stop by anytime.

Kate:

"Why Are We Hungry" isn't done yet…I'm just taking time to explore other topics.  Frankly, I could write an entire book about hunger, and perhaps I should.

Mich:

Pleistocene climate was indeed a wild ride…and there's no reason to think it's over.  Food for thought.

Anand:

Aiello and Wheeler are clear, in the original paper, that the ETH only applies as stated to the great apes.  They don't have solid data for other apes, let alone the rest of the animal kingdom, and they don't attempt to apply the ETH to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Why not?  Because it's clear that, as you mention, there are many more possible energetic tradeoffs between different body tissues.  Brain vs. gut was the biggest tradeoff for great apes, but muscle mass and bone mass can also be traded.  Then there is general activity level: you can have lots of muscle that spends most of its time at rest, or less muscle that spends more of its time in motion.

"Why do carnivores have a small brain?"  Answer: it's as big as it needs to be.  Larger-brained lions (for instance) have no survival advantage.  I'll discuss the reasons for this at greater length in next week's article.

It's very interesting that you're attempting to expand the ETH to apply to all mammals, not just the great apes, and it's a worthwhile exercise.  Unfortunately, evaluating your hypothesis is beyond the scope of this series at this time…that's a whole another series right there.

And while it's true that the ancestors of modern humans only left Africa c. 60 KYA, it's also true that Pleistocene climate shifts dramatically affected Africa even if there were no glaciers there.  There were permanent snowfields in Morocco even during the Little Ice Age, and there is snow on Kilimanjaro now.  More importantly, Ice Age climate is much cooler and drier than interglacial climate, and it would have featured much more savanna, grassland, and temperate forest than tropical forest and desert.  (We find all kinds of archaeological remains in the Sahara.)

Neal:

Absolutely correct, and that's a big piece of the puzzle.  In addition, larger predators spend more time scavenging, while smaller predators spend more time hunting.  I'll bring that up next week.

Anand:

That's one problem with Navarrete et.al.  There are a lot of problems with it, and I'll discuss them in the future when I devote an entire article to the subject.

Also keep in mind Kleiber's Law is both an empirical observation and an approximate rule of thumb.  There is still much debate as to the best value of the exponent (2/3 or 3/4?), and as to which biological constraints cause it to be a useful rule of thumb.

Fmgd:

Yes, spotted hyenas are awesome creatures, especially the bipedal ones…hence the name of this site! I'm glad you found TGC worthwhile.

I'll make fun of the lazy, stupid prejudice of Hemingway and Disney all day, but I understand the sex role confusion: when females are just as well-hung as males and socially dominant, it's easy to make that mistake.

jesse:

The ETH tradeoff doesn't necessarily go the other way.  Assuming constant income, if your rent goes up you have to spend less money on something else, like food…but if your rent goes down, you're not required to spend the surplus on anything in particular.

You're absolutely correct that aminos can enter directly into the Krebs cycle and be burned for energy: though each amino enters at a different place, it averages out to the published energy figure of about 4 kcal/gram for "protein".  This pathway is unjustifiably ignored by most because it's difficult to measure the degree to which it's occurring.

I'm looking for papers on carnivore physiology, but they're rather rare!

jesse, anand:

The "inefficiency" is more in the fact that we don't have a dedicated storage organ for protein as we do for fat and (limited amounts of) glucose: building lean tissue is much slower than fat storage in adipocytes or glycogenesis in muscles and the liver.  So it's not that protein is an intrinsically poor energy source, it's that we have a limited ability to store and retrieve it.

More soon!

JS

February 12, 2012
4:35 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

eddie:

Glad to be back!

It's amazing watching anyone lift over half a ton.  My excuse (and I'm sticking to it) is that Magnusson is short and stocky, so I have to pull the bar about three times higher than he does when I DL. 

Yes, it's reasonably well-accepted now that Neandertals contributed perhaps 1% to the African genome and up to 4% to the European and Asian genomes.  There even appears to be a small contribution from the Cro-Magnons to some populations, though I think we're still arguing about which and how much.

Vizeet:

Absolutely.  2.6 MYA is the first traces of stone tools, not tools in general.  The Schoningen spears didn't come out of nowhere.  It's too bad that we'll probably never know the real history of wooden tool use.

Keep in mind that a significant survival advantage is a selection pressure.  It's not just about not dying, it's about having more offspring.  The ability to procure more surplus high-quality calories (e.g. from fat) would have allowed those hominids to reproduce more often and provide their offspring with better nutrition.

In general, I agree with your interpretation of the evidence...more on that subject next week.

pam:

Thank you!  Sales of TGC are what keeps this website running and updated without lots of ads or donation buttons.  (That, and Amazon referrals...if you buy things through this link (or the link on the sidebar), I get a small spiff from your purchases at no cost to you.) 

Vernor Vinge is right: general-purpose intelligence is far more expensive than local optimization, and is only selected for under rare circumstances.

 

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions!  You've given me ideas for future articles, and you're helping keep gnolls.org a civil, troll- and drama-free place for high-level discussions, whether of evolutionary discordance or otherwise.

JS

February 12, 2012
8:38 pm
Elenor
Guest

Instead of trying to shoehorn larger brains into natural selection -- which never quite works -- let me recommend very highly this book:

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller

EXCELLENT exploration of the other half of Darwin's wisdom -- it's not survival (of the fittest) that "forced" the growth of the human brain, but sexual selection -- mate choice! Really well written, good read, very provocative and makes good sense!

February 12, 2012
9:04 pm
Elenor
Guest

"The idea of hyenas being hermaphroditic is hilarious. I wonder how could anyone conclude that."

It's because the female hyena APPEARS to have a penis...
Leolupus on Yahoo questions writes:
In spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), females are larger than males and have an enlarged clitoris that resembles a penis (it's often called a 'pseudopenis'). They also have 'pseudotestes' - fatty lumps in the lips of the vagina that resemble testes. These fuse the lips together, and females of this species are obliged to urinate, mate and give birth through the clitoris. These unusual adaptations led to people once thinking these animals were hermaphrodites, but this is not the case.

Note that the other two hyena species, the striped and brown hyenas, and their relative the aardwolf, do not have these unusual features. In these species, males are larger than females, and females have 'normal' genitalia.

Photo here: http://scientopia.org/blogs/scicurious/2009/09/25/friday-weird-science-the-hyena-mating-game/

February 13, 2012
2:51 am
eddie watts
Guest

as for Benedikt Magnusson, he is 6 foot tall and i think the majority of impressive deadlifters are over 6 foot.
he is not short and stocky, just looks that way because he is so damn big!
(of course i don't know how tall you are, i'm at 6'4" so can't use my height as an excuse!)

February 13, 2012
4:37 am
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elenor:

Aren't spotted hyenas fascinating? 

That's a good article on the problems of hyena reproduction, but I have one bone of contention: it claims erroneously that "They hunt for themselves sometimes, but do a lot of scavenger work", when the extensive existing literature is clear that they hunt the majority of their food -- far more than lions, who in some locations (like Ngorongoro Crater) subsist almost entirely on what they steal from hyenas!

Re: sexual selection, books like "The Mating Mind" concentrate on "culture" -- by which they mean its modern manifestations.  Miller: "Even if the survivalist theory could take us from the world of natural history to our capacities for invention, commerce, and knowledge, it cannot account for the more ornamental and enjoyable aspects of human culture: art, music, sports, drama, comedy, and political ideals."

Given that the first known manifestations of art were created well after our ancestors became anatomically modern, I'm more interested in the question of how we got to that point in the first place.  More in my upcoming article!

eddie:

You're right...I had no idea he was 6 feet tall.  When someone weighs 380 pounds it kind of throws off your sense of scale.

JS

February 13, 2012
10:19 am
Fmgd
Guest

@ JS, Elenor

Oh, I had no idea. That makes sense. I knew there had to be an (wacky) explanation behind it all 🙂

February 13, 2012
11:55 am
Vizeet
Guest

Your answer got me thinking. Aren't humans capable of reproducing more then other great apes?
Some changes that happened during human evolution:
1. All human babies are born premature.
2. Human females are not seasonally receptive.
3. Humans have shorter nursing age then other primates.

Isn't that human evolution not just favored increased brain size but also better ability to reproduce? May be it was easier to increase brain size then to become numerous. It might be evolution complexity involved between the two choices that favored increased brain size.

February 13, 2012
2:52 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Vizeet:

Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and human hunter-gatherers all have approximately four-year interbirth intervals.  Having more than 5-6 offspring is a primarily Neolithic behavior, because it's only made possible by sedentism.  (If you're a hunter-gatherer mother, you can only realistically carry around one small child at a time.  H-G mothers nurse for several years vs. the one year or less common with agriculturalists.)

Also, none of the great apes have seasonal estrus, though it isn't concealed to the degree it is in humans.

However, you are correct AFAIK that human babies are indeed 'premature' (helpless for longer than chimp/gorilla babies), most likely because it's difficult to fit that big head through the hips.  Thus the flared hips of the human female.

JS

February 15, 2012
6:23 am
Sean
Guest

I always figured "premature" human babies is just another aspect of human neotony. As far as the difficulties of childbirth go, I'm convinced a lot of this is related to the modern hospitalized process--going back to doctors replacing midwives. I picked this up from Desmond Morris' "Babywatching" and my own experiences with the birthing process.

February 15, 2012
6:44 am
anand srivastava
Guest

JS

Good point. Dolphins might have a larger capacity for storing proteins directly, so that they don't need to convert as much protein to glucose.

Or they may eat small fishes constantly. That way they don't need to store much. But this rule would apply more to blue whales, which eat very small animals.

Unfortunately I don't know much about their anatomy or their energy utilization :-(.

February 15, 2012
6:53 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sean:

I don't know whether early birth was part of the neoteny package or not...big heads are definitely part of it, though.

anand:

That's how you know you're doing science: there isn't already a paper (or body of work) out there that answers all your questions!

JS

February 16, 2012
12:32 am
Honora Renwick
Guest

Regarding using tools to extract bone marrow. When I was horse trekking with Mongolians, they roasted the bones in the fire, then smashed them on rocks and sucked out the bone marrow. I guess that could be done with a skull too. So I infer we can add the technological advance of cooking with fire for enabling more consumption of fat as well as starch.

February 16, 2012
2:16 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Honora:

Very interesting...and delicious, I'm sure!

It's no problem to eat bone marrow raw, so I don't think fire is necessary: you can just smash the bone open and dig in.  However, you can boil bones in water to extract otherwise-unavailable fat out of the extracellular matrix...the Plains Indians did that with the bison they killed. 

Unfortunately the boiling technique was hot rocks dropped into a pit lined with bison skin, which doesn't fossilize, so we don't know for how long this technique was used.

JS

March 1, 2012
7:40 am
jffryz
Guest

we were created smarter

March 1, 2012
5:09 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

jffryz:

I don't find any compelling evidence that we were "created" in any meaningful sense of the term, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.  All the "but you haven't found the missing link!" canards have been definitively put to rest by finds like Ardipithecus and Orrorin.

That being said, you're welcome to take the dietary information from my other articles and discard the anthropology.  However, I have no interest in debating established scientific fact.

JS

March 7, 2012
7:14 pm
Elton
Guest

@Sam K:

Uhm, we were. There is strong evidence that Man had been on the Earth as h. sapiens 300 mya. There are ruins in Africa that support this hypothesis, as well as digs in North America (Mexico) that have tools dating to abt 250 mya. There have also been some anomalous artifacts that turn up every now and then that stumps science. They aren't in the right strata, in fact they are in older strata than they are supposed to be. We had a very high degree of technology then, perhaps ST: TNG tech. The Mahabarata and the other Rig Vedas say we have been here for longer than Paleo-anthropologists say we have.

Typically, I don't know what the impetus was that drove us to till the ground and to start Agriculture from a Paleo-Anthropological perspective. The reason why has not been explained by Scientists, they can only give dates. However, there is a reason why. Were we meant to eat seeds? Certainly not, not at the degree it's been pushed into our heads since school (the food pyramid is all wrong).

March 7, 2012
7:28 pm
Elton
Guest

oops, I made a mistake. It's 300,000 years ago, not 300 mya. Sorry everyone. I'm an Atlanteologist, so I have license to exaggerate. 🙂 But not by that much.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 183

Currently Online:
3 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1763

Members: 5336

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 250

Posts: 7101

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2045