Primer on Human Origins
Theories of Evolution - The various theories of evolution and human origins.
The Evidence - The material evidence related to evolution.
The Future - Broader issues related to human origins, cosmology and the future of our little species.
1
Evolution: Pattern & Process
“Evolution is the name we give both to patterns of change in the forms of life we observe, and to the process of natural selection that produces these patterns.”
-- Philip Gingerich 2001
2 "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history"
3
Modern Synthesis
4 Mutation
Lepus tempermentalis
Evolution Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 5
Process of Natural Selection
Population with variation
Differential Reproduction Selective Filter
Inheritance of useful traits
Evolution Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 6 Genetic Drift
25% 75% 6% 94% random walk simulation
Evolution Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 7
Fitness Landscape local vs Optimal adaptations
Evolution Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 8 9
Humans are Primates
10 Body Size Diversity
Grey Mouse Lemur Microcebus murinus ~ 70 g
Gorilla Gorilla gorilla > 100 kg
11
Overview of Primates Order Primates prosimians NW monkeys OW monkeys apes and humans
12 Distinguishing Characteristics of Primates
13
Grasping Hands and Feet
14 Nails not claws
15
Hind Limb Locomotion
16 Reduced Olfaction
17
Enhanced Vision
18 Unspecialized molars
19
High Parental Investment
20 Big Brains (encephalization)
21
Overview of Primates Order Primates prosimians Prosimii NW monkeys OW monkeys Anthropoidea apes and humans
22 23
Hominoids Gorilla Human Gibbon Orangutan Bonobo Siamang Chimpanzee
24 HOMINOID FEATURES
• Distributed through Africa and SE Asia (except humans) • No tails • Dental formula 2123 • Y5 cusp pattern on the lower molars • Sexually dimorphic (except Hylobatidae)
25
Geological Timescale
26 Early Mammals
Morganucodon
Balanger’s tree-shrew
27
Cenezoic Age of Mammals
28 Primates Timeline
29
Living Great Apes Orangutan Gorilla Human Chimpanzee
6-8 Ma
Molecular and anatomical The last common ancestor data support a sister group of chimps and humans lived relationship between humans sometime between 6-8 Ma. and chimpanzees. 30 Humans Chimpanzees
1
2
3
4 ?
5
6
7 Last Common Ancestor
31
Humans Chimpanzees
1
2
3
4 ?
5
6
7 Last Common Ancestor
32 33
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 7
statements are usually so complex that they cannot be directly compared and evaluated; in effect, the ability of the storyteller becomes as important Hominin as content in determining the plausi- bility of the whole.31 None of this is to suggest, of course, that trees and sce- narios should be eschewed: a lifetime Adaptations of cladograms would, after all, be te- dious indeed. But it does emphasize that when formulating phylogenetic hypotheses it is important to start with the simple before moving on to the complex. Any phylogenetic tree should be based on a cladogram, and any scenario on a tree; in this way, it is possible to see on what basis the more complex hypotheses have been formu- lated, even if they are not directly test- Scavenging/Hunting able themselves.
Tool Use In the last quarter- century the language of cladistics has quite successfully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot avoid the impression Megadonty that its underlying philosophy has been less thoroughly absorbed.
In the last quarter-century the lan- guage of cladistics has quite success- fully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot avoid the im- Orrorin tugenensis (ca 6 Ma) pression that its underlying philoso- Bipedality Figure 3. Hominid phylogenetic tree based on the cladogram shown in Figure 2. Everyone phy has been less thoroughly ab- will be unhappy with at least some aspects of it, illustrating how much still remains to be sorbed. Still, the effect has been, at done inSahelanthropus the basic systematics of the hominid tchadensis fossil record. Modified (ca from7 Ma) Tattersall.1 least in34 some quarters, to refocus at- tention upon morphology. And al- tionary relationships postulated (i.e., and indeed the information contained though (myth to the contrary) cladis- ancestor-descendant, or separate de- in a single cladogram may be trans- tics in itself has little directly to do scent from the same ancestor). In pa- lated into a variety of trees.31 with the recognition of the basic units leontology, trees will also factor in Even more interesting and informa- of systematic analysis–rather, it is geological age. But while a tree is thus tive than the tree, but at the same time concerned with determining the rela- inherently more interesting than a cla- yet farther from testability, is the sce- tionships among taxa—its arrival in dogram, it is also less testable (be- nario, which adds to the mix every- paleoanthropology has been accom- cause it is impossible to prove or dis- thing you know about adaptation, panied by the realization that our per- prove a specific kind of relationship); ecology, and so forth. The resulting ceptions of the human biological past Piltdown Man HOAX
“discovered” in 1912 in Sussex England’s Piltdown Quarry
Large brain with hominoid (Orangutan mandible)
Fit the expectation of a large brain matched with primitive teeth and jaw
35
Earliest Hominins
36 Bipedalism
Austral.
Homo Pan
Pan Austral. Homo 37
AustralopithecusARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 7 statements are usually so complex that they cannot be directly compared and evaluated; in effect, the ability of the storyteller becomes as important as content in determining the plausi- bility of the whole.31 None of this is to suggest, of course, that trees and sce- narios should be eschewed: a lifetime of cladograms would, after all, be te- dious indeed. But it does emphasize that when formulating phylogenetic hypotheses it is important to start with the simple before moving on to the complex. Any phylogenetic tree should be based on a cladogram, and any scenario on a tree; in this way, it is possible to see on what basis the more complex hypotheses have been formu- lated, even if they are not directly test- Au. africanus able themselves.
In the last quarter- century the language of cladistics has quite successfully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot avoid the impression that its underlying Au. afarensis philosophy has been less thoroughly absorbed.
In the last quarter-century the lan- Au. anamensis guage of cladistics has quite success- fully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot38 avoid the im- pression that its underlying philoso- Figure 3. Hominid phylogenetic tree based on the cladogram shown in Figure 2. Everyone phy has been less thoroughly ab- will be unhappy with at least some aspects of it, illustrating how much still remains to be sorbed. Still, the effect has been, at done in the basic systematics of the hominid fossil record. Modified from Tattersall.1 least in some quarters, to refocus at- tention upon morphology. And al- tionary relationships postulated (i.e., and indeed the information contained though (myth to the contrary) cladis- ancestor-descendant, or separate de- in a single cladogram may be trans- tics in itself has little directly to do scent from the same ancestor). In pa- lated into a variety of trees.31 with the recognition of the basic units leontology, trees will also factor in Even more interesting and informa- of systematic analysis–rather, it is geological age. But while a tree is thus tive than the tree, but at the same time concerned with determining the rela- inherently more interesting than a cla- yet farther from testability, is the sce- tionships among taxa—its arrival in dogram, it is also less testable (be- nario, which adds to the mix every- paleoanthropology has been accom- cause it is impossible to prove or dis- thing you know about adaptation, panied by the realization that our per- prove a specific kind of relationship); ecology, and so forth. The resulting ceptions of the human biological past ParanthropusARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 7 statements are usually so complex that they cannot be directly compared and evaluated; in effect, the ability of the storyteller becomes as important as content in determining the plausi- bility of the whole.31 None of this is to suggest, of course, that trees and sce- narios should be eschewed: a lifetime of cladograms would, after all, be te- dious indeed. But it does emphasize that when formulating phylogenetic hypotheses it is important to start with the simple before moving on to the complex. Any phylogenetic tree should be based on a cladogram, and any scenario on a tree; in this way, it is possible to see on what basis the more complex hypotheses have been formu- lated, even if they are not directly test- P. boisei able themselves. P. robustus
In the last quarter- century the language of cladistics has quite successfully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot avoid the impression that its underlying philosophy has been less thoroughly absorbed. P. aethiopicus In the last quarter-century the lan- guage of cladistics has quite success- fully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot39 avoid the im- pression that its underlying philoso- Figure 3. Hominid phylogenetic tree based on the cladogram shown in Figure 2. Everyone phy has been less thoroughly ab- will be unhappy with at least some aspects of it, illustrating how much still remains to be sorbed. Still, the effect has been, at done in the basic systematics of the hominid fossil record. Modified from Tattersall.1 least in some quarters, to refocus at- tention upon morphology. And al- tionary relationships postulated (i.e., and indeed the information contained though (myth to the contrary) cladis- ancestor-descendant, or separate de- in a single cladogram may be trans- tics in itself has little directly to do scent from the same ancestor). In pa- lated into a variety of trees.31 with the recognition of the basic units leontology, trees will also factor in Even more interesting and informa- of systematic analysis–rather, it is geological age. But while a tree is thus tive than the tree, but at the same time concerned with determining the rela- inherently more interesting than a cla- yet farther from testability, is the sce- tionships among taxa—its arrival in dogram, it is also less testable (be- nario, which adds to the mix every- paleoanthropology has been accom- cause it is impossible to prove or dis- thing you know about adaptation, panied by the realization that our per- prove a specific kind of relationship); ecology, and so forth. The resulting ceptions of the human biological past
40 Early ARTICLESHomo Evolutionary Anthropology 7 statements are usually so complex that they cannot be directly compared and evaluated; in effect, the ability of the storyteller becomes as important as content in determining the plausi- bility of the whole.31 None of this is to suggest, of course, that trees and sce- narios should be eschewed: a lifetime of cladograms would, after all, be te- dious indeed. But it does emphasize that when formulating phylogenetic hypotheses it is important to start with the simple before moving on to the complex. Any phylogenetic tree H. ergaster should be based on a cladogram, and any scenario on a tree; in this way, it is possible to see on what basis the more complex hypotheses have been formu- lated, even if they are not directly test- able themselves.
In the last quarter- century the language of cladistics has quite successfully penetrated paleoanthropology, H. rudolfensis although one cannot avoid the impression that its underlying philosophy has been less thoroughly absorbed.
In the last quarter-century the lan- H. habilis guage of cladistics has quite success- fully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot41 avoid the im- pression that its underlying philoso- Figure 3. Hominid phylogenetic tree based on the cladogram shown in Figure 2. Everyone phy has been less thoroughly ab- will be unhappy with at least some aspects of it, illustrating how much still remains to be sorbed. Still, the effect has been, at done in the basic systematics of the hominid fossil record. Modified from Tattersall.1 least in some quarters, to refocus at- tention upon morphology. And al- tionary relationships postulated (i.e., and indeed the information contained though (myth to the contrary) cladis- ancestor-descendant, or separate de- in a single cladogram may be trans- tics in itself has little directly to do scent from the same ancestor). In pa- lated into a variety of trees.31 with the recognition of the basic units leontology, trees will also factor in Even more interesting and informa- of systematic analysis–rather, it is geological age. But while a tree is thus tive than the tree, but at the same time concerned with determining the rela- inherently more interesting than a cla- yet farther from testability, is the sce- tionships among taxa—its arrival in dogram, it is also less testable (be- nario, which adds to the mix every- paleoanthropology has been accom- cause it is impossible to prove or dis- thing you know about adaptation, panied by the realization that our per- prove a specific kind of relationship); ecology, and so forth. The resulting ceptions of the human biological past Lithics Olduwan tools (Mode 1) Acheulean tools (Mode 2)
42 Expensive Tissue Hypothesis
43
Later HomoARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 7 statements are usually so complex that they cannot be directly compared and evaluated; in effect, the ability of the storyteller becomes as important as content in determining the plausi- bility of the whole.31 None of this is to suggest, of course, that trees and sce- narios should be eschewed: a lifetime of cladograms would, after all, be te- dious indeed. But it does emphasize that when formulating phylogenetic hypotheses it is important to start with the simple before moving on to the complex. Any phylogenetic tree should be based on a cladogram, and any scenario on a tree; in this way, it is possible to see on what basis the more complex hypotheses have been formu- lated, even if they are not directly test- Neanderthals able themselves.
In the last quarter- century the language of cladistics has quite successfully penetrated paleoanthropology, H. heidelbergensis although one cannot avoid the impression that its underlying philosophy has been less thoroughly absorbed.
In the last quarter-century the lan- H. erectus guage of cladistics has quite success- fully penetrated paleoanthropology, although one cannot44 avoid the im- pression that its underlying philoso- Figure 3. Hominid phylogenetic tree based on the cladogram shown in Figure 2. Everyone phy has been less thoroughly ab- will be unhappy with at least some aspects of it, illustrating how much still remains to be sorbed. Still, the effect has been, at done in the basic systematics of the hominid fossil record. Modified from Tattersall.1 least in some quarters, to refocus at- tention upon morphology. And al- tionary relationships postulated (i.e., and indeed the information contained though (myth to the contrary) cladis- ancestor-descendant, or separate de- in a single cladogram may be trans- tics in itself has little directly to do scent from the same ancestor). In pa- lated into a variety of trees.31 with the recognition of the basic units leontology, trees will also factor in Even more interesting and informa- of systematic analysis–rather, it is geological age. But while a tree is thus tive than the tree, but at the same time concerned with determining the rela- inherently more interesting than a cla- yet farther from testability, is the sce- tionships among taxa—its arrival in dogram, it is also less testable (be- nario, which adds to the mix every- paleoanthropology has been accom- cause it is impossible to prove or dis- thing you know about adaptation, panied by the realization that our per- prove a specific kind of relationship); ecology, and so forth. The resulting ceptions of the human biological past Features of AMHS Shanidar, neanderthal Qafzeh IX AMHS
45
Upper Paleolithic
47
Neanderthal mtDNA
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 09 48 Mitochondrial DNA
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 09 49
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 09 50 Genetic Diversity
Human populations have low genetic variability (e.g. as compared to Chimpanzees)
The greatest genetic diversity is in Africa
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 09 51
Evol. Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 52 Evol. Primer Rel. & Sci. 2010 53
Primate Life History and Intelligence
54 Life History Trade-Offs
r selected species K selected species precocial altricial reproduce earlier reproduce later smaller body size large body size smaller brains larger brains shorter gestation longer gestation larger litters smaller litters higher mortality rates lower mortality rates shorter life spans longer life spans
55
What Monkeys Know
Detailed knowledge of edible plants and their distribution.
Mental mapping
Unique predator identification
Social Knowledge
56 57
58 Devolution
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 07 59
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 07 60 61
DIK-1
Awash River
62 63
64 DIK-1-1a 65
7 1 3 6 7
2 4
5
7 1 2 4 3 6 5
66 67
“Selam”
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
"light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history"
88 Australopithecus afarensis
89
Humans are a part of the natural world
The natural world is capable of producing something as wonderous as us.
90 Humans are a part of the natural world
The natural world is capable of producing something as wonderous as us.
91
Upper Paleolithic Revolution
Cro Magnon
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 08 92 Mechanics of Bipedalism
adducted big toe
93
94 Homo habilis
OH 24 KNM ER 1813
95
Homo ergaster
East Lake Turkana Cranial capacity ca 800 cc
Thick cranial vault
Moderate brow ridge KNM-ER-3733 Olduwan lithics
Homo ergaster from Dminisi Georgia, 1.8 Ma 97
Atapuerca
Atapuerca 5
98 Homo erectus
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo ergaster
99
Asian Homo erectus
Cranial capacity ca 900 cc
Thick cranial vault
Sagittal keel
Heavy brow ridge
No chin Zhoukoudian 100 East Asian Homo heidelbergensis
Dali ca 200 Ka China ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 08 101
Neanderthal Characteristics
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 08 102 Homo floresiensis
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Spring 08 103
Levantine Fossils
Amud Qafzeh 9
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 08 104 Earliest AMHS
Herto
ANT 301 Introduction to Physical Anthropology Summer 08 105
Hominin Diversity
ca 1979 2008 106 Sahelanthropus tchadensis ca 7 Ma
Koro Toro Site in Chad
107
Orrorin tugenensis ca 6 Ma Tugen Hills Kenya
108 Australpithecines
Australopithecus: A. anamensis A. afarensis A. africanus A. garhi Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus P. robustus P. boisei Kenyanthropus platyops
109
The Theory of Evolution
The process of evolution as seen in:
1.The fossil record 2.Biogeography 3.Genetics 4.Developmental Biology 5.Comparative Anatomy all support the theory of evolution by natural selection along with other evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift.
110 What Monkeys Know
Unique predator identification.
Third-party relationships
Kinship relationships
Dominance hierarchies
111
112 Reciprocal Altruism
frequent interaction record keeping limit support to reciprocators
113
Simple Phylogeny
Homo sapiens
Homo erectus (ca 1.8 Ma) Paranthropus boisei (ca 1.8-1.0 Ma) Homo habilis Paranthropus robustus (ca 1.8) (ca 2 Ma)
Au. africanus (ca 2.6 Ma)
Australopithecus afarensis (ca 3.5 - 2.9 Ma)
114 (not so) Simple Phylogeny Homo sapiens Homo neanderthalensis Homo heidelbergesis
Homo erectus (ca 1.8 Ma) Homo ergaster Paranthropus boisei (ca 1.8-1.0 Ma) Homo habilis Paranthropus robustus (ca 1.8) (ca 2 Ma) Paranthropus aethiopicus (ca 2 Ma) Homo rudolfensis Au. africanus (ca 2.6 Ma) Au. garhi (ca 2.5 Ma) Kenyanthropus platyops (ca 3.5 Ma) Au. bahrelghazali (ca 3 Ma) Australopithecus afarensis (ca 3.5 - 2.9 Ma) Australopithecus anamensis (ca 4 Ma) Ardipithecus ramidus (ca 4.4 Ma) Ardipithecus kadabba (ca 5.6 Ma) Orrorin tugenensis (ca 6 Ma) Sahalanthropus tchadensis (ca 7 Ma)
115
Hominoid Phylogeny
Molecular data (DNA sequence and DNA-DNA hybridization) consistently point to a Pan as the sister group to Homo
116 Siamang
Gibbon
Orangutan
Gorilla
Human
Chimpanzee
Bonobo 118 117 Nicholas Steno 1638 - 1686
Anatomist who worked for the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II
Principle of original horizontality and superposition
119
Alfred Russel Wallace 1823 - 1913
Co-Discoverer of Natural Selection
120 Brain Size
121
Australopithecus africanus South Africa (Taung, Sterkfontein and others) ca 3 to 2.2 Ma
Taung 122 P. robustus
SK 46
123
OH 5 “Zinj” Paranthropus boisei
124 P. robustus
KNM ER 406
125
P. robustus
126 Comparision
Au. afarensis Au. aethiopicus Au. boisei
127
Strapping Youth
KNM-WT-15000
12 year-old male 1.6 m tall (5 ft. 4 in) adult stature approx. 1.9 m (6 ft.)
128 Strapping Youth
KNM-WT-15000
12 year-old male 1.6 m tall (5 ft. 4 in) adult stature approx. 1.9 m (6 ft.)
129
Homo ergaster
East Lake Turkana
KNM-ER-3733
130 Homo rudolfensis
KNM ER 1470
131
How Many Species?
KNM ER 1470 KNM ER 1813 Homo rudolfensis Homo habilis
132 Homologous Structures
133
134 135
136 137
Modern Synthesis
138 Evolutionary rates
139