DOCSLIB.ORG

A Saltational Approach for the Evolution of Human Cognition and Language

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Saltational Approach for the Evolution of Human Cognition and Language Susan J. Lanyon A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of New South Wales June 2010 COPYRIGHT, AUTHENTICITY, and ORIGINALITY STATEMENT I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International. I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restric- tion of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation, and I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format, and I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any con- tribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Signed ................................... Date ............................... iii Abstract This thesis takes a saltational approach to the evolution of both human anatomy and cognition. I argue that the cognitive traits that appear to be unique to humans emerged in a discontinuous fashion because of a radical re-organization of brain architecture. I accept Darwin’s founda- tional tenet that evolution proceeds by descent with modification, but I also give credence to the idea that emergent novelty can arise at crucial levels within complex systems. Despite many years of experi- ments with monkeys and apes, there are no obvious precursors for any of the underlying systems currently supporting human cognition that could have evolved gradually over time. Our hominid ancestors did not evolve as a ‘trend’ toward modern human anatomy, nor did they grad- ually ‘evolve’ human-like cognition and language. Homo sapiens seems to have emerged in one saltatory ‘event’, most likely in Africa, around 120,000 years ago. Evidence from paleontology, archaeology and genet- ics is garnered to support this claim. As we find more and more juvenile hominid fossils, evidence mounts that this event can be accounted for by the neotenous retention of our immediate hominid ancestor’s juve- nile anatomy. I argue that the anatomical traits that we equate with H. sapiens, especially those supporting our ability for speech or sign, were not gradually ‘adapted’ to ‘serve’ this emergence in neo-Darwinian fash- ion. I also contend that traits considered unique to human cognition, including language, arose due to the massive increase in interconnec- tivity and non-volatile memory within the human brain made possible by this saltatory event. iv Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Cognition and Evolution . 1 1.2 The Saltationist Approach . 4 1.2.1 Evolutionary Precursors . 4 1.2.2 Evolutionary Development . 7 1.2.3 Paedomorphic Hominids . 10 1.2.4 Archaeology - Saltation and Stasis . 14 1.3 The Evolution of Language . 17 1.4 Summary . 18 2 Problems with Gradualism 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Darwin’s Legacy . 23 2.3 Neo-Darwinian Evolution . 28 2.4 Natural Selection and Complexity . 30 2.5 Adaptation to Changing Conditions of Life . 34 2.6 Adaptation and Speciation . 38 2.7 Natural Selection as Conservator . 41 2.8 Brain Evolution . 42 2.9 Summary . 54 3 Saltationism and Evolutionary Developmental Biology 57 3.1 Introduction . 57 3.2 Developmental Systems . 62 3.2.1 Homeobox – Hox Genes and Development . 65 3.2.2 Paedomorphism . 67 3.3 Summary . 71 v vi CONTENTS 4 Paleontological Evidence 73 4.1 Introduction . 73 4.2 Heterochrony and Hominid Evolution . 76 4.2.1 Neoteny and Hominid Evolution . 77 4.2.2 No Trends . 79 4.3 Bipedalism . 81 4.3.1 Primate Bipedalism . 83 4.3.2 Hominid Bipedalism . 84 4.4 Hands with Precision Grip . 93 4.5 Primate Crania - Face, Jaws and Teeth . 95 4.6 Evolution of the Vocal Tract . 101 4.7 Brain Growth and Size . 104 4.7.1 The Australopithecines . 105 4.7.2 H. erectus Brains . 106 4.7.3 Homo floresiensis . 110 4.8 Summary . 112 5 Archaeological Evidence 117 5.1 Introduction . 117 5.2 Stone Tools . 120 5.2.1 Chimpanzee tool use . 123 5.2.2 Orangutan tool use . 123 5.2.3 The First Hominid Stone Tools . 124 5.2.4 Homo erectus Stone Tools . 126 5.2.5 Neandertal Stone Tools . 129 5.3 Language and Stone Tools . 130 5.3.1 Anatomically Modern Humans’ Tools . 134 5.3.2 Homo sapiens Artefacts and the Emergence of Symbolic Behaviour . 135 5.4 Burials . 138 5.4.1 Neandertal Burials . 139 5.4.2 Final Words on Hominid Burials . 141 5.5 Fire . 143 5.6 Shelter . 145 5.7 Environmental management . 146 5.8 Summary . 148 CONTENTS vii 6 Genetics and Development 151 6.1 Introduction . 151 6.2 Relationships - Great Apes and Humans . 153 6.3 Neurogenesis . 156 6.4 The Human Brain - Escaping Constraints . 157 6.4.1 The Importance of White Matter . 159 6.4.2 Language Genes? . 163 6.5 Summary . 165 7 The Evolution of Language 167 7.1 Introduction . 167 7.2 Language for Communication . 170 7.2.1 Gradual Evolution of Language for Communication 171 7.2.2 Symbolic systems . 176 7.2.3 A Theory of Mind . 179 7.2.4 Cooperation and Collaboration . 187 7.2.5 Social intelligence . 190 7.2.6 Pragmatics . 197 7.2.7 Knowledge of Causality . 199 7.2.8 Enhanced Memory . 202 7.3 Precursors of Communicative Systems . 203 7.4 Animal Calls . 206 7.5 From Animal Calls to Protolanguage . 215 7.5.1 Imitation . 216 7.5.2 Gestural Imitation . 218 7.6 Recapitulation - Acquisition and Evolution . 225 7.7 Language as Exaptation . 234 7.7.1 Language for Thought . 239 7.7.2 Language only with H. sapiens . 240 7.8 Summary . 241 8 Conclusion 243 Bibliography 251 Author Index 274 viii CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Cognition and Evolution Much of the current work in the Cognitive Sciences touches on the ques- tion of what makes humans unique, and how our complex traits have evolved. There is no doubt that the mainstream view of the evolution of human cognition is one of gradual development (hereafter, ‘gradual- ism’), but I join with the growing number of scholars who find gradu- alism untenable and are turning to saltationism as a more plausible approach. I have yet to find an account of human cognitive evolution, however, that takes the saltationist approach to the point of arguing, as I do in this thesis, that all of the unique cognitive traits attributed to hu- mans arose as the consequence of one crucial mutation, which radically altered the architecture of the ancestral primate brain. The aim of this thesis is to show that the available evidence of the evolutionary history of hominids and human cognition is more satis- factorily accounted for under a saltationist approach. I argue that the really important changes in the evolutionary development of hominids, as evidenced by the paleontological record, can be accounted for by non- adaptational processes, and that natural selection does not, and cannot, explain the sudden emergence of these developments. I further argue that modern humans1 did not evolve as a gradual ‘trend’ toward be- coming ‘human’ after the split from their Great Ape ancestor. Most of 1Wherever I use the term “modern human”, I am referring to the species Homo sapiens. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION the anatomical changes that have taken place in our hominid ancestors (evidenced by the paleontological record) are merely variations of the regular Great Ape Bauplan. Many of the anatomical traits that we use to define ‘human’ can already be found in the fossils of extinct primates. I use this fact to argue against ‘special pleading’ proposals that attempt to link anatomical changes with cognitive advances in our hominid an- cestors. Anatomical traits, like bipedalism, hands with precision grip and variations in dentition can all be accounted for by minor changes in developmental processes that have emerged suddenly and have been followed by millions of years of stasis. Many scholars have proposed that traits like bipedalism, a large brain, language, social complexity, tool use, and other characteristics of humans, must have evolved in tandem during the evolutionary his- tory of our hominid ancestors. We find, for example, suggestions like bipedalism is the key to understanding human brain evolution (Falk, 1992, p.
Recommended publications
  • The Natural Science Underlying Big History

    The Natural Science Underlying Big History

    Review Article [Accepted for publication: The Scientific World Journal, v2014, 41 pages, article ID 384912; printed in June 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/384912] The Natural Science Underlying Big History Eric J. Chaisson Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA [email protected] Abstract Nature’s many varied complex systems—including galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society—are islands of order within the increasingly disordered Universe. All organized systems are subject to physical, biological or cultural evolution, which together comprise the grander interdisciplinary subject of cosmic evolution. A wealth of observational data supports the hypothesis that increasingly complex systems evolve unceasingly, uncaringly, and unpredictably from big bang to humankind. This is global history greatly extended, big history with a scientific basis, and natural history broadly portrayed across ~14 billion years of time. Human beings and our cultural inventions are not special, unique, or apart from Nature; rather, we are an integral part of a universal evolutionary process connecting all such complex systems throughout space and time. Such evolution writ large has significant potential to unify the natural sciences into a holistic understanding of who we are and whence we came. No new science (beyond frontier, non-equilibrium thermodynamics) is needed to describe cosmic evolution’s major milestones at a deep and empirical level. Quantitative models and experimental tests imply that a remarkable simplicity underlies the emergence and growth of complexity for a wide spectrum of known and diverse systems. Energy is a principal facilitator of the rising complexity of ordered systems within the expanding Universe; energy flows are as central to life and society as they are to stars and galaxies.
  • Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B

    Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B

    Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B. M ü ller, G ü nter P. Wagner, and Werner Callebaut, editors The Evolution of Cognition , edited by Cecilia Heyes and Ludwig Huber, 2000 Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Development and Evolutionary Biology , edited by Gerd B. M ü ller and Stuart A. Newman, 2003 Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis , edited by Brian K. Hall, Roy D. Pearson, and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2004 Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach , edited by D. Kimbrough Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2004 Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems , edited by Werner Callebaut and Diego Rasskin-Gutman, 2005 Compositional Evolution: The Impact of Sex, Symbiosis, and Modularity on the Gradualist Framework of Evolution , by Richard A. Watson, 2006 Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment , by Robert G. B. Reid, 2007 Modeling Biology: Structure, Behaviors, Evolution , edited by Manfred D. Laubichler and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2007 Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication , edited by Kimbrough D. Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2008 Functions in Biological and Artifi cial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives , edited by Ulrich Krohs and Peter Kroes, 2009 Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain, and Behavior , edited by Luca Tommasi, Mary A. Peterson, and Lynn Nadel, 2009 Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology , edited by Michael J. O ’ Brien and Stephen J. Shennan, 2010 The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited , edited by Brett Calcott and Kim Sterelny, 2011 Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology , edited by Snait B.
  • Natural Necessity Natural Selection

    Natural Necessity Natural Selection

    NATURAL SELECTION NATURAL NECESSITY See Laws of Nature NATURAL SELECTION In modern evolutionary biology, a set of objects is Adaptationism said to experience a selection process precisely when At the close of his introduction to those objects vary in/itness (see Fitness). For exam­ On the Origin oj' ple, if zebras that run fast are fitter than zehras that Species, Darwin [1859] 1964, 6 says that natural selection is "the main but not the exclusive" cause run slow (perhaps because faster zebras are better ofevolution. In reaction to misinterpretations ofhis able to avoid lion predation), a selection process is theory, Darwin felt compelled to reemphasize, in the set in motion. If the trait that exhibits variation hook's last edition, that there was more to evolution in fit~ess is heritable-meaning, in our example, that faster parents tend to have faster offspring than natural selection. It remains a matter of con­ troversy in evolutionary biology how important and slower parents tend to have slower offspring­ then the selection process is apt to chancre trait natural selection has been in the history of life. frequencies in the population, leading fitte';. traits This is the poinl of biological substance that pres­ to increase in frequency and less fit traits to decline ently divides adaptationists and anti-adaptationists. The debate over adaptationism also has a separate (Lewontin 1970). This change is the one that selec­ tion is "apt" to engender, rather than the one that methodological dimension, with critics insisting that adaptive hypotheses be tested more rigorously must occur, because evolutionary theory describes <Gould and Lewontin 1979; Sober 1993).
  • Origin of Language

    Origin of Language

    Origin of language The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. There is no consensus on the origin or age of human language. The topic is difficult to study because of the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection. This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris banned any existing or future debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are various hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might have emerged.[2] Despite this, there is scarcely more agreement today than a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculation on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a number of linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others
  • Abstracts of Reports and Posters

    Abstracts of Reports and Posters

    Abstracts of Reports and Posters Amira Adaileh The Magdalenian site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld The open air site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in Sachsen-Anhalt, Eastern Germany. It was discov- ered in the mid 1950´s in the immediate vicinity of the famous Magdalenian site of Saaleck. Since that time, archaeologists collected over 2000 lithic artifacts during systematical surveys. The technological and typological analyses of the lithic artifacts confirmed the assignment of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld to a late Magdalenian. Furthermore, the investigation of the surface collections brought forward information about the character of this camp site, the duration of its occupation and the pattern of raw material procure- ment. The fact that Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in a region with more than 100 Magdalenian sites fostered a comparison of the lithic inventory with other Magdalenian assemblages. Thus, allowing to spec- ify the position of the Lengefeld collection within the chorological context of the Magdalenian in Eastern Germany. Jehanne Affolter, Ludovic Mevel Raw material circulation in northern french alps and Jura during lateglacial interstadial : method, new data and paleohistoric implication Since fifteen years the study of the characterization and origin of flint resources used by Magdalenian and Azilian groups in northern French Alps and Jura have received significant research work. Diverse and well distributed spatially, some of these resources were used and disseminated throughout the late Upper Paleolithic. Which changes do we observe during the Magdalenian then for the Azilian? The results of petrographic analysis and techno-economic analysis to several archaeological sites allow us to assess dia- chronic changes in economic behavior of these people and discuss the significance of these results.
  • Paleoanthropology of the Balkans and Anatolia, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0874-4 326 Index

    Paleoanthropology of the Balkans and Anatolia, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0874-4 326 Index

    Index A Bajloni’s calotte BAJ, 17, 19–20 Accretion model of Neanderthal evolution, 29 Balanica Acculturation, 164–165, 253 BH-1, 15, 24–29, 309 Acheulean, 80, 148, 172, 177, 201, 205, 306, 308, 310 hominin, 15–17, 29 large flake, 129, 132, 218 Mala, vi, 16, 24, 30, 139–140, 144–145, lithic artifacts, 80 148, 309–311 Lower, 308 Velika, 24, 36, 139–140, 144–145, 148 Middle, 308 Balıtepe, 214, 223–224 Admixture, vi, 29, 258 Balkan, v, 3, 139, 159, 171, 187, 218, 229, 274, 282, 303 Neanderthal, 51–64 and Anatolia, 308–310 Adriatic, 46, 154, 157, 162, 164–166 Central, vi, 3, 15–30, 139–150 Aegean, 29–30, 74–76, 116, 119, 121–122, 134–135, 148, 213, implications for earliest settlement of Europe, 220–221, 261, 283, 305, 316 187–210 Aizanoi, 221 Mountains, 69, 187 Akçeşme, 214, 223–224 and neighbouring regions, 229–261 Aktaş, 214, 217 Peninsula, 51, 70, 74, 119, 134, 150, 187, 201, 208 Alluvial plain, 125, 314 Southern, 3, 12, 47, 275 Alykes, 270, 272 Bañolas mandible, 28 Amărăști, 176–177, 181 Basalt, 201, 217–218, 220, 284 Anatolia (Asia Minor), 3, 79–80, 308–310 Basins, 51, 74, 99, 119, 139, 213, 281, 303 Central (Region), 128, 132, 134, 213, 217–218, 220, 223, 313 Anagni, 306 Eastern (Region), 217 Apennine, 310, 314 and hominin dispersals, 213–225 Beni Fouda, 307 North, 120 Čačak-Kraljevo, 140 Southeastern (Region), 215, 217, 220, 223 Carpathian, 51, 148 west, 119, 121 Denizli, 83 Anatomically modern human, 23, 36, 41, 44, 46, 55–56, 62, 70, 72, evolution on archaeological distributions, 313–317 76, 95, 111, 153, 165–166, 229 Grevena, 269, 272 Apidima, 4, 7–8, 11–12, 96, 310–311 Kalloni, 121–122 Apolakkia, 270–271 Megalopolis, 9, 12, 134–135, 298 Apollonia, 74, 270, 273, 276–277, 286–287 Mygdonia, 12, 273 Arago, 10, 25, 29, 56, 59, 87–90, 149, 312 Niš, 139, 146 Archaeological pattern, 303, 305 Pannonian, 15, 23, 319 Areopolis, 97 Thessalian, 310 Asprochaliko, 95, 148, 238–239, 253, 260 Venosa, 306 Assimilation model, 162 Belen Tepe, 221–222, 225 Atapuerca, 28, 276, 285, 287, 312, 318 Benkovski, 187, 205–209, 309 Sima de los Huesos, 27–29, 304, 306–307 BH-1.
  • Mimicry, Saltational Evolution, and the Crossing of Fitness Valleys

    Mimicry, Saltational Evolution, and the Crossing of Fitness Valleys

    CHAPTER 16 Mimicry, Saltational Evolution, and the Crossing of Fitness Valleys Olof Leimar, Birgitta S. Tullberg, and James Mallet 16.1 Introduction saltationism. In terms of Adaptive Landscapes, if the mimic-to-be resides on one adaptive peak and The relative contribution of gradual and saltational the model on another, mimicry evolves in a single change to evolution has been debated ever since mutational leap, and the issue of natural selection Darwin (1859) emphasized gradualism in his the- only enters through the constraint that the peak ory of evolution by natural selection. The phe- jumped to should be higher than the starting peak. nomenon of mimicry was an important example This would apply both to Müllerian mimicry, where in this debate. In mimicry evolution, members of the starting point is an aposematic species, and to a population or species become similar in appear- Batesian mimicry, where the starting adaptive peak ance to an aposematic model species and thereby of the palatable mimic-to-be is determined by func- gain increased protection from predation. The num- tions other than aposematism, for instance crypsis ber of steps in the approach to mimicry could be or other protective coloration, like flash coloration few or many and their sizes either large or small. (Cott 1940; Ruxton et al. 2004), or partner choice. In 1915, Punnett published an influential book on In response to claims like those by Punnett (1915), mimicry in butterflies, in which he summed up and as part of his efforts to unify gradualism and his strong opposition to gradualistic accounts of Mendelian genetics, Fisher (1927, 1930) presented mimicry evolution.
  • The Mysterious Phylogeny of Gigantopithecus

    The Mysterious Phylogeny of Gigantopithecus

    Kimberly Nail Department ofAnthropology University ofTennessee - Knoxville The Mysterious Phylogeny of Gigantopithecus Perhaps the most questionable attribute given to Gigantopithecus is its taxonomic and phylogenetic placement in the superfamily Hominoidea. In 1935 von Koenigswald made the first discovery ofa lower molar at an apothecary in Hong Kong. In a mess of"dragon teeth" von Koenigswald saw a tooth that looked remarkably primate-like and purchased it; this tooth would later be one offour looked at by a skeptical friend, Franz Weidenreich. It was this tooth that von Koenigswald originally used to name the species Gigantopithecus blacki. Researchers have only four mandibles and thousands ofteeth which they use to reconstruct not only the existence ofthis primate, but its size and phylogeny as well. Many objections have been raised to the past phylogenetic relationship proposed by Weidenreich, Woo, and von Koenigswald that Gigantopithecus was a forerunner to the hominid line. Some suggest that researchers might be jumping the gun on the size attributed to Gigantopithecus (estimated between 10 and 12 feet tall); this size has perpetuated the idea that somehow Gigantopithecus is still roaming the Himalayas today as Bigfoot. Many researchers have shunned the Bigfoot theory and focused on the causes of the animals extinction. It is my intention to explain the theories ofthe past and why many researchers currently disagree with them. It will be necessary to explain how the researchers conducted their experiments and came to their conclusions as well. The Research The first anthropologist to encounter Gigantopithecus was von Koenigswald who happened upon them in a Hong Kong apothecary selling "dragon teeth." Due to their large size one may not even have thought that they belonged to any sort ofprimate, however von Koenigswald knew better because ofthe markings on the molar.
  • The Origin of Historical Kinds in Biology and Culture Günter P. Wagne

    The Origin of Historical Kinds in Biology and Culture Günter P. Wagne

    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 24 April 2019 doi:10.20944/preprints201904.0266.v1 Extending the Explanatory Scope of Evolutionary Theory: The Origin of Historical Kinds in Biology and Culture Günter P. Wagner and Gary Tomlinson Yale University Abstract Since its inception, evolutionary theory has experienced a number of extensions. The most important of these took the forms of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), embracing genetics and population biology in the early 20th century, and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) of the last thirty years, embracing, among other factors, non-genetic forms of inheritance. While we appreciate the motivation for this recent extension, we argue that it does not go far enough, since it restricts itself to widening explanations of adaptation by adding mechanisms of inheritance and variation. A more thoroughgoing extension is needed, one that widens the explanatory scope of evolutionary theory. In addition to adaptation and its various mechanisms, evolutionary theory must recognize as a distinct intellectual challenge the origin of what we call “historical kinds.” Under historical kinds we include any process that acquires a quasi-independent and traceable lineage-history in biological and cultural evolution. We develop the notion of a historical kind in a series of paradigmatic exemplars, from genes and homologues to rituals and music, and we propose a preliminary characterization. Keywords: historical individuals, extended evolutionary synthesis, evolutionary innovation, culture 1. Introduction For the last several decades, a set of concerns has exerted increasing pressure on the modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) of the mid-twentieth century, with the goal of widening the explanatory powers of evolutionary theory.
  • Soft Inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

    Soft Inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

    Genetics and Molecular Biology, 31, 2, 389-395 (2008) Copyright © 2008, Sociedade Brasileira de Genética. Printed in Brazil www.sbg.org.br Review Article Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Eva Jablonka1 and Marion J. Lamb2 1The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 211 Fernwood, Clarence Road, London, United Kingdom. Abstract This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has domi- nated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology. Key words: epigenetic inheritance, hereditary variation, Lamarckism, macroevolution, microevolution. Received: March 18, 2008; Accepted: March 19, 2008. Introduction 1. Heredity occurs through the transmission of germ- There are winds of change in evolutionary biology, line genes.
  • A Unique Middle Miocene European Hominoid and the Origins of the Great Ape and Human Clade Salvador Moya` -Sola` A,1, David M

    A Unique Middle Miocene European Hominoid and the Origins of the Great Ape and Human Clade Salvador Moya` -Sola` A,1, David M

    A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade Salvador Moya` -Sola` a,1, David M. Albab,c, Sergio Alme´ cijac, Isaac Casanovas-Vilarc, Meike Ko¨ hlera, Soledad De Esteban-Trivignoc, Josep M. Roblesc,d, Jordi Galindoc, and Josep Fortunyc aInstitucio´Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avanc¸ats at Institut Catala`de Paleontologia (ICP) and Unitat d’Antropologia Biolo`gica (Dipartimento de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal, i Ecologia), Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Edifici ICP, Campus de Bellaterra s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain; bDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita`degli Studi di Firenze, Via G. La Pira 4, 50121 Florence, Italy; cInstitut Catala`de Paleontologia, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Edifici ICP, Campus de Bellaterra s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain; and dFOSSILIA Serveis Paleontolo`gics i Geolo`gics, S.L. c/ Jaume I nu´m 87, 1er 5a, 08470 Sant Celoni, Barcelona, Spain Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved March 4, 2009 (received for review November 20, 2008) The great ape and human clade (Primates: Hominidae) currently sediments by the diggers and bulldozers. After 6 years of includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. fieldwork, 150 fossiliferous localities have been sampled from the When, where, and from which taxon hominids evolved are among 300-m-thick local stratigraphic series of ACM, which spans an the most exciting questions yet to be resolved. Within the Afro- interval of 1 million years (Ϸ12.5–11.3 Ma, Late Aragonian, pithecidae, the Kenyapithecinae (Kenyapithecini ؉ Equatorini) Middle Miocene).
  • Evolution of Nervous Systems and Brains 2

    Evolution of Nervous Systems and Brains 2

    Evolution of Nervous Systems and Brains 2 Gerhard Roth and Ursula Dicke The modern theory of biological evolution, as estab- drift”) is incomplete; they point to a number of other lished by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and perhaps equally important mechanisms such as in the middle of the nineteenth century, is based on (i) neutral gene evolution without natural selection, three interrelated facts: (i) phylogeny – the common (ii) mass extinctions wiping out up to 90 % of existing history of organisms on earth stretching back over 3.5 species (such as the Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, and billion years, (ii) evolution in a narrow sense – Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinctions) and (iii) genetic modi fi cations of organisms during phylogeny and and epigenetic-developmental (“ evo - devo ”) self-canal- underlying mechanisms, and (iii) speciation – the ization of evolutionary processes [ 2 ] . It remains uncer- process by which new species arise during phylogeny. tain as to which of these possible processes principally Regarding the phylogeny, it is now commonly accepted drive the evolution of nervous systems and brains. that all organisms on Earth are derived from a com- mon ancestor or an ancestral gene pool, while contro- versies have remained since the time of Darwin and 2.1 Reconstruction of the Evolution Wallace about the major mechanisms underlying the of Nervous Systems and Brains observed modi fi cations during phylogeny (cf . [1 ] ). The prevalent view of neodarwinism (or better In most cases, the reconstruction of the evolution of “new” or “modern evolutionary synthesis”) is charac- nervous systems and brains cannot be based on fossil- terized by the assumption that evolutionary changes ized material, since their soft tissues decompose, but are caused by a combination of two major processes, has to make use of the distribution of neural traits in (i) heritable variation of individual genomes within a extant species.