Bookmark and Share

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Big Brains Require An Explanation, Part V:Re-Orienting Ourselves In Time, and Why Are There "Southern Apes" In Ethiopia?
Read the original blog post
March 28, 2012
5:14 am
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

In Part IV, we established the following:

  • Our ancestors’ dietary shift towards ground-based foods, and away from fruit, did not cause an increase in our ancestors’ brain size.
  • Bipedalism was necessary to allow an increase in our ancestors’ brain size, but did not cause the increase by itself.
  • Bipedalism allowed Australopithecus afarensis to spread beyond the forest, and freed its hands to carry tools. This coincided with a 20% increase in brain size from Ardipithecus, and a nearly 50% drop in body mass.
  • Therefore, the challenges of obtaining food in evolutionarily novel environments (outside the forest) most likely selected for intelligence,…
Bookmark and Share
March 28, 2012
6:13 am
Tracy
Guest

So glad you're back to this series! Fascinating stuff.

Re: social sharing buttons: there are a few good plugins, one is 'Digg Digg' which lets you choose whether you want a counter or not (for most of the sites, anyway - have to double check if G+ lets you choose); another is Sexy Bookmarks, which seems pretty good but a tad flamboyant :) I use Digg Digg a lot on client sites.

Love that you're using Atahualpa, BTW - one of the best free themes out there.

Bookmark and Share
March 28, 2012
5:13 pm
Uncephalized
Guest

Awww, JS, you left us at a cliffhanger!

Mean, but effective.

That graph of brain size vs. time is interesting--I didn't realize the expansion between habilis and sapiens was such a large percentage of the total growth--although I would like to see it plotted as encephalization quotient instead of absolute size, since I believe body mass was also expanding significantly during much of that time, no? I suspect that correction would flatten out the rate of increase closer to a constant.

Bookmark and Share
March 28, 2012
5:15 pm
Uncephalized
Guest

So in addition, I guess I should ask--does the increased body size begin about the same time as the inflection point on that graph, just before habilis?

Bookmark and Share
March 28, 2012
6:39 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Tracy:

Thank you!  I'll look into Digg Digg.  Counters are cute, but WOW do they slow down page loads, especially in Safari, which likes to put the spinner up instead of letting you do things while waiting for something to finish.

I like Atahualpa because it's clean and heavily customizable: most themes make your site look exactly like everyone else's with that theme.  It takes a lot of experimentation and work to make Atahualpa do what you want -- but I'm reasonably happy with the results.  

That said, I'd like to have a more magazine-like front page, with the ability to have Featured Articles that stay in the Featured spot (and have a "Read More" for just that category) as well as smaller, more frequent squibs (again, using categories to tell which is which) but no one seems to make such a theme.  Let me know if you have any leads.

Uncephalized:

Yes, this one was a bit short -- but I realized that I needed a whole new article to do justice to all the issues that crash together at the beginning of the Paleolithic.  Even then it's likely to be a long article!

Re: weight, modern Homo sapiens males are only perhaps 27% heavier than Homo habilis, but sapiens females are 70% heavier than habilis females.  The sexual dimorphism is much smaller in sapiens.  These figure aren't the whole story, however, because we're much smaller than our hunter-gatherer ancestors.  Homo heidelbergensis, in particular, were huge and powerfully built: they averaged 6' tall, and males probably weighed well over 200#.  Some populations regularly grew to over 7 feet tall (2.1m)!

JS

Bookmark and Share
March 29, 2012
6:25 am
eddie watts
Guest

interesting. so it seems we lost mass overall as we developed larger brains, then regained mass over time to get back to where we were.
(or this seems to be the process now generations seem to have a pattern of taller, shorter, taller than previous tall generation, shorter but not as short as previous short generation etc etc)?

Bookmark and Share
March 29, 2012
6:54 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

eddie:

I'm not sure which way the causality runs -- but my guess is that the selection pressure of living more on the ground vs. in the trees pushed Ardipithecus towards being lighter in weight and more nimble (Australopithecus).  After that the picture becomes more complex because it involves technology.

JS

Bookmark and Share
March 29, 2012
10:47 pm
Neal Matheson
Guest

I jokingly say that heidelbergensis is my favourite ancestor and the high point of hominid evolution! There was a kill site down the road from me at Swanscombe Where they were killing adult male rhinos!!!

Bookmark and Share
March 31, 2012
12:05 pm
David Rourke
Guest

One of my other interests is painting. Interestingly (to me, anyway) I've relied on the exhaustive information about pigment and color at Handprint.com for more than a decade. It gave me quite a chuckle to find here a completely different like to Bruce's site.

Bookmark and Share
April 2, 2012
2:36 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Neal:

I agree...the evidence is that heidelbergensis was the most capable and fearsome of our direct ancestors.  Perhaps too capable...but I'm getting ahead of myself!

David:

There are hundreds of different graphical timelines of human evolution, but the handprint.com chart is the best I've found.  It's an eclectic site, and I confess I haven't explored it in depth yet.

JS

Bookmark and Share
April 2, 2012
8:08 pm
BPT
Guest

Great post again JS your research is fascinating. Your previous on climate ties in nicely with this one, but you did not mention that rapid climate change was also a driver to select for intelligence, there were many evolutionary factors going on, one being that the trees were retreating from a cooling climate and fruit was not available year round...as grass took over ruminent game was the best source of food but man had to compete with every other predator on the plain. The quick, smart ( tooled ) were more likely to survive, and with such a diet, big then became an advantage.

Bookmark and Share
April 3, 2012
9:59 am
Wanderer
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
April 2, 2012
Offline

I'm really enjoying this series! Along the lines of the comment above by BPT, one idea that has struck me as I’ve read these articles is that it seems that humans have been the only animal whose evolution has depended on and been shaped by tools. Our use of tools, in conjunction with hunting in packs, allowed us to hunt large ruminants, which in turn, gave us the nutritional support for the continued development of our brains. 

I am not a historian or scientist, and I could be wrong in my assumptions, but I find this idea very exciting. It seems to point to many explanations, from providing a response to the silly vegan argument that we aren't meant to eat meat because we can't kill prey (without tools) to humanity's general fascination with weapons. Even our desire for possessions--we need to keep our tools in order to kill our food and process it.

How long have we been using tools? And has the use of tools, even simple ones, been an overwhelmingly significant factor in our evolutionary development?  I have a new appreciation for the cave paintings of people and their spears--maybe the two have been linked longer than I had imagined.

--

Tom

Bookmark and Share
April 3, 2012
12:07 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

BPT:

You're getting a bit ahead of me.  I need to lay the groundwork of evidence before jumping to any conclusions...and you'll note that I already mentioned that meat enters the picture in Part IV.

The problem with the size argument, of course, that no matter how big our ancestors got, it wouldn't have helped them against the much larger carnivorous predators of the time: ancestral lions, giant Pachycrocuta hyenas, and several species of saber-toothed felid.  So there must have been another explanation for increased body size.

mirrormtn:

You'll note that Part IV presents evidence that australopithecines were using naturally-occuring sharp rocks to deflesh bones 3.4 MYA.  As the series continues, I'll present the evidence for purposely manufactured stone tools in their time.

Keep in mind that composite weapons (stone-tipped spears, etc.) are a comparatively recent development, postdating anatomical modernity.  Wooden spears are older -- at least 400 KYA -- but because wood tends not to fossilize, we may never know exactly how old.  (Though chimpanzees make small wooden spears to kill sleeping monkeys in their dens, so for all we know, spears may predate stone tools!)

JS

Bookmark and Share
April 3, 2012
9:33 pm
Vizeet
Guest

JS:

One benefit I see of being tall is that our ancestors can see a predator from longer distance but it could be seen other way round also (Predator can see him from longer distance). So I think size might have started increasing when becoming big gave real advantage. I think that would have happened when we were able to kill them so tools and intelligent may have played an important role. And of-course food availability to support increasing size and population.

Bookmark and Share
April 4, 2012
10:25 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Vizeet:

I'm also quite skeptical of the "being taller let you see farther" hypothesis.  Your second thought, I believe, is the key: "size might have started increasing when becoming big gave real advantage."  I suspect the advantage was more against our fellow apes of genus Homo than against our predators or prey...but that will enter the picture in future installments.

JS

Bookmark and Share
April 8, 2012
6:26 pm
Tom
Guest

Re the slow +1 button, Google implemented an asynchronous version of the button which at least theoretically won't slow page loads.

I say theoretically because I couldn't get it to work when I tried it.

You may have better luck.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/1-button-now-faster.html

Bookmark and Share
April 10, 2012
7:00 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Tom:

Thanks!  I'll take a look after I'm done with this week's article.

It's annoying that page load speed is one of the metrics they use to rank results -- while their own social media button slows them down so dramatically!

JS

Bookmark and Share
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 86

Currently Online:
7 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1677

Members: 3423

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 247

Posts: 7155

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2105