DOCSLIB.ORG

Two Interpretations of Human Evolution: Essentialism and Darwinism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two Interpretations of Human Evolution: Essentialism and Darwinism ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 72, 66–80 (2009) Two interpretations of human evolution: Essentialism and Darwinism Maciej Henneberg Biological Anthropology and Comparative Anatomy Research Unit, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, and Department of Archaeology, Flinders University Australia; E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Despite intensive studies of a large number of fossils discovered during the 20th century there is no consensus as to the interpretation of the process of hominin evolution. Some authors see as many as six genera and some 17 species, while others argue for a single lineage from Plio/Pleistocene until today. Such diversity of interpretations of the same facts indicates lack of a uniform theoretical basis underlying studies of human evolution. Debates can be resolved using basic principles of scientific inquiry – parsimony and falsification of null hypotheses. Hypothesis testing is now possible with respect to the evolution of basic hominin characteristics such as brain size, body size and the size of the dentition that have sample sizes of a few hundred individual data points each. These characters display a continuous change with time. Analyses of variance do not falsify the null hypothesis of the existence of only one species at any time – variances around regression lines on time do not differ from the variance observed in the single species of Homo sapiens – distributions of residuals are normal. Thus, splitting of the hominin lineage into coeval species can only be based on descriptive character- istics that are liable to errors of subjective judgment. KEY WORDS: hominin, hominid, Australopithecus, brain, stature Understanding of the evolutionary pro- how our major traits – such as mental ca- cess that produced modern humans is of pacities and erect bipedal locomotion – crucial importance for the way people emerged are still ongoing [Carruthers and perceive themselves and their lives. It in- Chamberlain 2000, Cela-Conde and Ayala forms ideologies underlying political and 2007]. The number of validly named hu- economic decisions. Thus it is important man species by the end of the 20th century to have this process documented and inter- exceeded 50 [Meikle and Parker 1994, preted in accordance with the best rules of Henneberg 1997], while it has been pro- scientific practice. Despite over 150 years posed that an even larger number should of studies of human evolution, debates on be identified [Tattersall 1987] and actually Received 10 June; accepted 8 December 2009 DOI: 10.2478/v10044-008-0016-2 Unauthenticated © 2009 Polish Anthropological Society Download Date | 1/10/15 1:28 AM Two interpretations of human evolution 67 has recently [Brown et al. 2004]. It does the ideal pattern of the world of living not add, though, to the clarity of the pic- things, the “pattern of creation”. Similari- ture of our origins. ties among individuals were used to distil Over the last half-century several au- essences of ideal types of their respective thors proposed that the parsimony and fal- kinds and those types were then organized sification of hypotheses should be applied into nested hierarchies of species, genera, to studies of human evolution postulating families, classes, orders, phyla, etc. [Lin- a “single species hypothesis” [Brace 1967; naeus 1758]. Thus, conceptually, the small- Wolpoff 1968, 1971]. According to Hunt est unit of life was a species, not an indi- [2003], Frank Livingstone proclaimed vidual. An individual was but an example himself to be the proponent of single spe- of an ideal species type. Individual varia- cies hypothesis still at the beginning of the tion was consciously ignored for the sake 21st century. Kevin Hunt himself argues of clarity. Once described, taxa became strongly in support of the single species hy- units of study for biologists. Discussions pothesis using data on taxonomic diversity about the complexity of life in a particular of large-bodied genera of mammals. Re- region or the entire world were based on the cently Holliday [2003] proposed an inter- number of species and higher taxa present mediate interpretation of hominid diversity. in various environments, the interactions He used the notion of syngameon which is still being studied as those between par- a network of separate cohesive taxa that ex- ticular taxa, while descriptions of evolution change genes among themselves. He sup- consist of biblical lists of who is a descend- ported this interpretation with observations ant of whom and what the family tree looks of gene flow among several species of the like [Henry and Wood 2007, Stanford et al. two genera of baboons – Theropithecus 2009]. and Papio – [Jolly 1993, 2001; Jolly et al. As an example, following a suggestion 1997]. Quintyn [2009] summarized current by Robert Eckhardt: discussions concerning hominin diversity And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad be- and concluded that a temporary ban on cre- gat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methush- ating new hominin taxa should be imposed ael; and Methushael begat Lamech [Genesis until a clearer understanding of hominin 4:18, 1611]. variation can be reached. Homo erctus is descended from Homo habi- lis, which in turn descended from Australo- pithecus garhi … [Larsen 2008]. Taxonomy, essentialism and the concept of species Figure 1 is an example of the classic rep- resentation of a hominin family tree. Such To make sense of the variety of forms representation may be as well reflecting that surround us we must be able to reduce a pattern of creation. No explanations of it to a manageable number of generalizing how and why particular branches arose are categories that can then be used in various given. No uncertainty as to possible mix- thought processes. Thus, the human ten- ing of categories is indicated, nor is there dency to categorize: From the time platonic uncertainty indicated in separating some idealism arose in classical antiquity to the categories from others. early enlightenment, the task of natural- Taxa are perceived as real entities and ists was perceived as that of discovering they can only have two states: existence or Unauthenticated Download Date | 1/10/15 1:28 AM 68 M. Henneberg Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus aethiopicus Australopithecus boisei Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus africanus Homo habilis Homo erectus “Archaic” H. sapiens Neandertals Homo sapiens sapiens Fig. 1. Scheme originally published on page xxix of the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehisto- ry [Tattersall et al. 1988] and repeated with modification in the second edition [Delsonet al. 2000], author’s own drawing. This is not evolution, this is systematics. It may as well be a “pattern of creation”. extinction; categorically yes or no. Such [Lee 2003] in the face of the overwhelming an approach, though producing voluminous understanding that life is variable and no descriptions, cannot provide explanations of stable categories actually exist. Following the process of evolution since evolutionary Lee [2003], current concepts of species can mechanisms are based on individual varia- be subdivided into (1) similarity concepts tion and transmission of this variation from using phenetic resemblance of organisms as one generation of individuals to the next. the sole criterion, (2) cohesion concepts in It can be argued that before we can analyze which organisms are purported to share fea- anything and search for processual explana- tures allowing them to remain coherent from tions, we must first provide a solid descrip- generation to generation, (3) monophyly tion. Such description, however, must be in concepts stressing membership of a single terms that lend themselves to further pro- nonreticulating lineage, and (4) interbreed- ductive analysis. In biology, the use of ar- ing concepts in which members of a species bitrarily and sharply delimited categories exchange genes among themselves while is not conducive to productive analysis. It being reproductively isolated from others. leads rather to “catastrophic” explanations Concepts belonging to the first three groups in the style of George Cuvier [Brace 1981]. are valid for any taxonomic rank, not be- Taxonomic descriptions may be useful in ing specific to species. Depending on how certain applications, such as ecology, but strictly one defines phenetic similarity, level the fact that they ignore individuals and the of cohesion or monophyletic inclusiveness, flow of time from generation to generation one can define supraspecific taxa (like ge- is always a limiting factor. nus) or infraspecific groupings (like races). Currently there exist some 23 definitions The interbreeding concepts emphasize that of species [Mayden 1997, Quintyn 2009]. actual exchange of genetic material oc- They all attempt to “salvage a Linnean rank” curs only within a species [Mayr 1969, Unauthenticated Download Date | 1/10/15 1:28 AM Two interpretations of human evolution 69 1995], a phenomenon which is unique to whether a Neandertal man and a modern this taxonomic rank and making it the only woman would produce fertile offspring. “real” supraindividual biological unit. For a test falsifying a hypothesis of their This is the unit of evolution because it is conspecificity we must rely on secondary in the process of differential reproduction inferences derived from comparisons of of populations isolated genetically from morphology and partly reconstructed DNA other populations that the adaptive change sequences. in gene pool can occur. The phylogenetic species concept stresses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNIT 4 HISTORY of HUMAN EVOLUTION* History of Human Evolution
    UNIT 4 HISTORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION* History of Human Evolution Contents 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Trends in Human Evolution: Understanding Pre-modern Humans 4.2 Hominization Process 4.2.1 Bipedalism 4.2.2 Opposable Thumb and Manual Dexterity 4.3 Summary 4.4 References 4.5 Answers to Check Your Progress Learning Objectives: After reading this unit you will be able to: analyze the major trends in human evolution; review characteristics which distinguish human from their primate ancestors; learn anatomical and cultural changes associated with the process of hominization; and comprehend the significance of these changes during evolution of human. 4.0 INTRODUCTION Humans first evolved in East Africa about 2.5 million years ago from an earlier genus of apes called Australopithecus, which means ‘Southern Ape’. About 2 million years ago, some of these archaic men and women left their homeland to journey through and settle vast areas of North Africa, Europe and Asia. Since survival in the snowy forests of northern Europe required different traits than those needed to stay alive in Indonesia’s steaming jungles, human populations evolved in different directions. The result was several distinct species, to each of which scientists have assigned a pompous Latin name. Humans in Europe and western Asia evolved into Homo neanderthalensis (‘Man from the Neander Valley’), popularly referred to simply as ‘Neandethals’. Neanderthals, bulkier and more muscular than us Sapiens, were well adapted to the cold climate of Ice Age western Eurasia. The more eastern regions of Asia were populated by Homo erects, ‘Upright Man’, who survived there for close to 2 million years, making it the most durable species ever.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanics of Bipedalism: an Exploration of Skeletal Morphology and Force Plate Anaylsis Erin Forse May 04, 2007 a Senior Thesis
    MECHANICS OF BIPEDALISM: AN EXPLORATION OF SKELETAL MORPHOLOGY AND FORCE PLATE ANAYLSIS ERIN FORSE MAY 04, 2007 A SENIOR THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- LA CROSSE Abstract There are several theories on how humans learned to walk, and while these all address the adaptations needed for walking, none adequately describes how our early ancestors developed the mechanism to walk. Our earliest recognizable relatives, the australopithecines, have several variations on a theme: walking upright. There are varied changes as australopithecines approach the genus Homo. These changes occurred in the spine, legs, pelvis, and feet, and changes are also in the cranium, arms and hands, but these are features that may have occurred simultaneously with bipedalism. Several analyses of Australopithecus afarensis, specifically specimen A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy"), have shown that the skeletal changes are intermediate between apes and humans. Force plate analyses are used to determine if the gait pattern of humans resembles that of apes, and if it is a likely development pattern. The results of both these analyses will give insight into how modern humans developed bipedalism. Introduction Bipedalism is classified as movement of the post-cranial body in a vertical position, with the lower limbs shifting as an inverted pendulum, progressing forward. Simply, it is upright walking. Several theories have addressed why bipedalism evolved in hominids, with some unlikely ideas taking hold throughout the history of the issue. Other theories are more likely, but all lack the same characteristic: answering how bipedalism developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Denisovans, Neanderthals Or Sapiens?
    Could There Have Been Human Families... 8(2)/2020 ISSN 2300-7648 (print) / ISSN 2353-5636 (online) Received: March 31, 2020. Accepted: September 2, 2020 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.019 Could There Have Been Human Families Where Parents Came from Different Populations: Denisovans, Neanderthals or Sapiens? MARCIN EDWARD UHLIK Independent Scholar e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-8518-0255 Abstract. No later than ~500kya the population of Homo sapiens split into three lin- eages of independently evolving human populations: Sapiens, Neanderthals and Den- isovans. After several hundred thousands years, they met several times and interbred with low frequency. Evidence of coupling between them is found in fossil records of Neanderthal – Sapiens offspring (Oase 1) and Neanderthal – Denisovans (Denisova 11) offspring. Moreover, the analysis of ancient and present-day population DNA shows that there were several significant gene flows between populations. Many introgressed sequences from Denisovans and Neanderthals were identified in genomes of currently living populations. All these data, according to biological species definition, may in- dicate that populations of H. sapiens sapiens and two extinct populations H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens denisovensis are one species. Ontological transitions from pre-human beings to humans might have happened before the initial splitting of the Homo sapiens population or after the splitting during evolution of H. sapiens sapiens lineage in Africa. If the ensoulment of the first homo occurred in the evolving populations of H. sapiens sapiens, then occasionally mixed couples (Neanderthals – Sa- piens or Denisovans – Sapiens) created relations that functioned as a family, in which children could have matured.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Evolution of Human Fire Use
    ON THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN FIRE USE by Christopher Hugh Parker A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology The University of Utah May 2015 Copyright © Christopher Hugh Parker 2015 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Christopher Hugh Parker has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Kristen Hawkes , Chair 04/22/2014 Date Approved James F. O’Connell , Member 04/23/2014 Date Approved Henry Harpending , Member 04/23/2014 Date Approved Andrea Brunelle , Member 04/23/2014 Date Approved Rebecca Bliege Bird , Member Date Approved and by Leslie A. Knapp , Chair/Dean of the Department/College/School of Anthropology and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT Humans are unique in their capacity to create, control, and maintain fire. The evolutionary importance of this behavioral characteristic is widely recognized, but the steps by which members of our genus came to use fire and the timing of this behavioral adaptation remain largely unknown. These issues are, in part, addressed in the following pages, which are organized as three separate but interrelated papers. The first paper, entitled “Beyond Firestick Farming: The Effects of Aboriginal Burning on Economically Important Plant Foods in Australia’s Western Desert,” examines the effect of landscape burning techniques employed by Martu Aboriginal Australians on traditionally important plant foods in the arid Western Desert ecosystem. The questions of how and why the relationship between landscape burning and plant food exploitation evolved are also addressed and contextualized within prehistoric demographic changes indicated by regional archaeological data.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HOMINIZATION PROCESS of HOMO SAPIENS Ajeet Jaiswal University of Delhi, Delhi, India
    TENSIVE COURSE IN BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 1st Summer School of the European Anthropological Association 16–30 June, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic EAA Summer School eBook 1: 43-46 THE HOMINIZATION PROCESS OF HOMO SAPIENS Ajeet Jaiswal University of Delhi, Delhi, India The Hominization process consists of evolutionary transformation of hominoids into Hominids. It is a process that has occurred in the hominoid-line since its divergence from the last common hominoid ancestor shared with any living ape. Initially the term has a restricted meaning and implied emergence of modern man, different from all other forms. Currently, however, the term is broadened and includes all those aspects of structural and behavioral changes that occurred in the Hominid line finally leading to man. All such changes can be broadly grouped into following heads. 1. Bipedalism 2. Hand manipulation and tool use (manual dexterity) 3. Modification of jaw and teeth. 4. Enlargement of brain 5. Changes in vocal tracts, language and speech Bipedalism Analysis of postcranial elements of A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. ramidus (Tim et al. 1994) and A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995) clearly establishes bipedalism to be one of the oldest of all hominid characteristics. The age of most primitive australopithecines. A. ramidus is estimated to be 4.4 mya, perhaps one million years after separation of ancestral lines leading to great apes and man. The branch point between ape and human accestors is estimated to be 5-6 mya. According to Stanford (1995). A. ramidus was a biped, its lower body was clearly adapted for walking on the ground, though they may have continued to use trees for gathering fruits and for shelter at night.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brain in Hominid Evolution
    v\useum o/ ,\. %,'*/ * \ 1869 THE LIBRARY j? THE BRAIN IN HOMINID P EVOLUTION PHILLIP V. TOBIAS The brain in hominid evolution g COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Q NEW YORK & LONDON i 9 yi Phillip V. Tobias is Professor of Anatomy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. This book is based on the author's James Arthur Lecture, delivered at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, April 30, 1969; it was the thirty-eighth in this series of lectures. Copyright © 1971 Columbia University Press International Standard Book Number: 0-231-03518-7 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 78-158458 Printed in the United States of America LIBRARY OFTHE AMERICAN MUSEUM JAMES ARTHUR LECTURES ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN March 15, 1932 Frederick Tilney, The Brain in Relation to Behavior April 6, 1933 C. Judson Herrick, Brains as Instruments of Biological Values April 24, 1934 D. M. S. Watson, The Story of Fossil Brains from Fish to Man April 25, 1935 C. U. Ariens Kappers, Structural Principles in the Nervous System; The Development of the Forebrain in Animals and Prehistoric Human Races May 15, 1936 Samuel T. Orton, The Language Area of the Human Brain and Some of Its Disorders Apnl 15 R. W. Gerard, Dynamic Neural Patterns Franz Weidenreich, The Phylogenetic Development of the Hominid Brain and Its Connection with the Transformation of the Skull G. Kingsley Noble, The Neural Basis of Social Behavior of Vertebrates John F. Fulton, A Functional Approach to the Evolution of the Primate Brain Frank A. Beach, Central Nervous Mechanisms Involved in the Reproductive Behavior of Vertebrates George Pinkley, A History of the Human Brain James W.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Science, and Culture on Human Origins
    European Journal of Science and Theology, August 2015, Vol.11, No.4, 29-42 _______________________________________________________________________ RELIGION, SCIENCE, AND CULTURE ON HUMAN ORIGINS Rubén Herce* Universidad de Navarra, Ecclesiastical School of Philosophy, Edificio de Facultades Eclesiásticas, 31009 Pamplona, Spain (Received 30 September 2014, revised 17 March 2015) Abstract The most recent anthropological and genetic research has shed new light on human origins and contributed to seemingly rule out the concepts of ‗Mitochondrial Eve‘ and ‗Y-Chromosome Adam‘ as our Most Recent Common Ancestors. In addition, it has posed new questions about how many ancestors human beings have and whether the Christian doctrine on the origin of human beings and original sin still makes any sense. To address these questions we need to consider not only the latest population genetics data, but also the contributions of other sciences, such as cultural and biological anthropology. This paper reviews the current state of research and attempts a philosophical reading of the data, taking into account the Christian teaching on human origins and original sin. Keywords: monogenism, polygenism, original sin, human origins, human species 1. Introduction Following some recent scientific papers, such as ‗Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences‘ [1], some authors have pointed out the possibility of harmonizing the Christian doctrine of original sin with the new scientific data [2]. These papers infer that the existence of a group of a few thousand individuals would be required, about 40,000 years ago, to account for the whole human genome of today. A portion of that group would have remained in Africa and the rest, less numerous [3], would have left the continent.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 2 Biological Evolution of Humans*
    UNIT 2 BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF HUMANS* Structure 2.1 Objectives 2.2 Introduction 2.3 Theories of Evolution 2.3.1 Pre-Darwin Theories of Evolution 2.3.2 Darwinism 2.3.3 Synthetic Theory of Evolution 2.4 Hominization 2.4.1 Bipedalism 2.4.2 Encephalization 2.4.3 Sexual Dimorphism 2.4.4 Other Factors 2.5 Human Evolution 2.5.1 Before Homo 2.5.2 Evolution of Genus Homo 2.6 Summary 2.7 Key Words 2.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 2.9 Suggested Readings 2.10 Instructional Video Recommendations 2.1 OBJECTIVES This Unit deals with the biological evolution of humans. After going through the Unit, you will be able to: z Describe the phenomenon of evolution; z Compare and evaluate the various theories of evolution; z Explain the contribution of Darwin to evolution; z Appreciate how fossils are the greatest evidence of evolution of humans; z Identify differences between apes and humans; and z Explain how apes transformed to Homo sapiens. 2.2 INTRODUCTION Hall and Hallgrímsson (2008) defined evolution as ‘change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations’. Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and sociologist, first articulated the term ‘evolution’ in 1862 to denote the * Prof. Rashmi Sinha, Faculty of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National 32 Open University, New Delhi. historical development of life. Evolution is the progressive change within the organism. Biological This change is termed as ‘micro-evolution’when it occurs over a period of time and Evolution of referred as ‘macro-evolution’ when it involves the transformational changes from one Humans being to the other.
    [Show full text]
  • A Connectomic Hypothesis for the Hominization of the Brain
    Cerebral Cortex, May 2021;31: 2425–2449 doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhaa365 Advance Access Publication Date: 26 December 2020 Feature Article FEATURE ARTICLE A Connectomic Hypothesis for the Hominization of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/31/5/2425/6047724 by guest on 24 September 2021 the Brain Jean-Pierre Changeux 1,2, Alexandros Goulas 3 and Claus C. Hilgetag 3,4 1CNRS UMR 3571, Institut Pasteur, 75724 Paris, France, 2Communications Cellulaires, Collège de France, 75005 Paris, France, 3Institute of Computational Neuroscience, University Medical Center Eppendorf, Hamburg University, 20246 Hamburg, Germany and 4Department of Health Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA 02115, USA Address correspondence to Jean-Pierre Changeux CNRS UMR 3571, Institut Pasteur, 75724 Paris, France. Email: [email protected]. Abstract Cognitive abilities of the human brain, including language, have expanded dramatically in the course of our recent evolution from nonhuman primates, despite only minor apparent changes at the gene level. The hypothesis we propose for this paradox relies upon fundamental features of human brain connectivity, which contribute to a characteristic anatomical, functional, and computational neural phenotype, offering a parsimonious framework for connectomic changes taking place upon the human-specific evolution of the genome. Many human connectomic features might be accounted for by substantially increased brain size within the global neural architecture of the primate brain, resulting in a larger number of neurons and areas and the sparsification, increased modularity, and laminar differentiation of cortical connections. The combination of these features with the developmental expansion of upper cortical layers, prolonged postnatal brain development, and multiplied nongenetic interactions with the physical, social, and cultural environment gives rise to categorically human-specific cognitive abilities including the recursivity of language.
    [Show full text]
  • Roots of Language
    Roots of language Derek Bickerton language Classics in Linguistics 3 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X Roots of language Derek Bickerton language science press Derek Bickerton. 2016. Roots of language (Classics in Linguistics 3). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/91 © 2016, Derek Bickerton Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-08-1 (Digital) 978-3-946234-09-8 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-10-4 (Softcover) 978-1-523647-15-6 (Softcover US) ISSN: 2366-374X DOI:10.17169/langsci.b91.109 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Felix Kopecky, Sebastian Nordhoff Proofreading: Jonathan Brindle, Andreea Calude, Joseph P. DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph T. Farquharson, Stefan Hartmann, Marijana Janjic, Georgy Krasovitskiy, Pedro Tiago Martins, Stephanie Natolo, Conor Pyle, Alec Shaw Fonts: Linux Libertine, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Language Science Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party
    [Show full text]
  • Can We Give up the Origin of Humanity from a Primal Couple Without Giving up the Teaching of Original Sin and Atonement?
    S & CB (2015), 27, 59–83 0954–4194 ANTOINE SUAREZ Can we give up the origin of humanity from a primal couple without giving up the teaching of original sin and atonement? Recent genetic studies have strengthened the hypothesis that humans did not originate from a single couple of the species Homo sapiens. Different models have been proposed to harmonise this with Christian belief on original sin and atonement. In this article I discuss these models and propose a new explanation derived from Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I, 98-100 and Romans 5:19;11:32. I argue that generations may have passed before the appearance of sin, and hence belief in ‘original sin’ does not require that it was committed by a pair of persons who are biologically the common ancestors of all human persons. In the light of this analysis I consider moral responsibility as the distinctive sign of human personhood, and assume that the creation of the first human persons happened during the Neolithic period. The article concludes that views of the biological origin of humanity from a primeval Homo sapiens population (polygenism) or a single couple (monogenism) are both compatible with Christian belief, and therefore deciding between these two hypotheses should be better left to science. Keywords: human evolution, genetic diversity, ‘Homo divinus’, ‘relational damage’, God’s intervention, first human persons, Adam and Eve, Romans 11:32, moral responsibility, original sin, atonement, Darwinian principles, monogenism, polygenism. Four appendices are available as online supplementary material. I Introduction The hypothesis that humans did not originate from a single couple of the species Homo sapiens is receiving increasing support from current re- search on individual whole-genome sequences.1 It is therefore important to interpret the Genesis narrative of the origins of mankind to account for these emerging scientific observations.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Perspective on the Development and Evolution of Human Language
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29, 259–325 Printed in the United States of America Language and life history: A new perspective on the development and evolution of human language John L. Locke Department of Speech–Language–Hearing Sciences, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY 10468. [email protected] Barry Bogin Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan–Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48128. [email protected] http://casl.umd.umich.edu/faculty/bbogin/ Abstract: It has long been claimed that Homo sapiens is the only species that has language, but only recently has it been recognized that humans also have an unusual pattern of growth and development. Social mammals have two stages of pre-adult development: infancy and juvenility. Humans have two additional prolonged and pronounced life history stages: childhood, an interval of four years extending between infancy and the juvenile period that follows, and adolescence, a stage of about eight years that stretches from juvenility to adulthood. We begin by reviewing the primary biological and linguistic changes occurring in each of the four pre-adult ontogenetic stages in human life history. Then we attempt to trace the evolution of childhood and juvenility in our hominin ancestors. We propose that several different forms of selection applied in infancy and childhood; and that, in adolescence, elaborated vocal behaviors played a role in courtship and intrasexual competition, enhancing fitness and ultimately integrating performative and pragmatic skills with linguistic knowledge in a broad faculty of language. A theoretical consequence of our proposal is that fossil evidence of the uniquely human stages may be used, with other findings, to date the emergence of language.
    [Show full text]