DOCSLIB.ORG

Study Guide - Linguistics 4 Unit 2: the Origins and Evolution of Language

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study Guide - Linguistics 4 Unit 2: the Origins and Evolution of Language Study Guide - Linguistics 4 Unit 2: The Origins and Evolution of Language I. History of the study: 1) 1866 - topic banned by the Linguistics Society of Paris 2) late 19th century – Jespersen’s summary of 5 theories (CEL pg. 291) 3) 1981 "Roots of Language" by Bickerton 4) 1990s - became hot topic in many different fields, including linguistics, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cognitive neuroscience, etc. II. Dimensions of the Debate 1) Linguistics and Cognitive Science a) Nativism VS Empiricism b) Domain specificity VS General cognition 2) Evolutionary Biology a) Saltation VS Gradualism b) Possibility of Exaptation 3) Anthropology a) Out of Africa VS Multiregionalism 4) Evolution of Language - what's the driving force? a) Mental Representation VS Communication 5) Discontinuity Paradox/Problem a) Qualitative VS Quantitative III. Hominid Evolution (handout) --> changes in anatomy, culture (tool use), etc.. 1) Ardipithecines: a) Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (oldest fossil found) - dated as 5.2 -5.8 MYA - size of chimp ~ 4ft tall - bipedal much of the time; also arboreal - not great hunters; mostly fibre diet b) Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus - dated as 4.4 MYA - probably bipedal 2) Australopithecines a) Australopithecus anamensis - dated as 4.07 ~ 4.17 MYA - sexually dimorphic (male being significantly larger) - clearly bipedal, but also arboreal b) Australopithecus afarensis - dated as 3-4 MYA - most famous specimen “Lucy” à ~3.2 MYA; 3’6 tall - sexually dimorphic - clearly bipedal with ape-like torso; curve arms and legs (arboreal) c) Australopithecus africanus - dated as 2.5 MYA - only found in South Africa - diet included meat (indicated from the different chemical makeup of - bones)probably the only ones that looked like modern humans d) Australopithecus robustus - dated as 1.5 – 2 MYA - known as the “Robust Australopithecines” - our “weird cousins” with strange heads e) Australopithecus boisei - dated as 1.7 – 1.8 MYA - with huge jaws (i.e. massive chewing) & distorted facial features - teeth rearrangement might have affected ficial features, which might have effected skulls’ shapes (important to vocal tract theory) f) Australopithecus garhi - dated as 2.9 MYA - descended from A. afarensis - less than 5 ft tall with ape-like braincase - long forearms and long legs (may still be climbing trees) - found near cut-in marked bones à possible 1st evidence of tool use (no tools found though) 3) Homo genus a) Homo habilis - dated as 2.5 MYA - under 5 ft tall with larger brains than australopithecines - with primitive stone tools - named “habilis” à “handy man” b) Homo erectus - dated as 2 MYA (evolved from H. habilis) - including “Java man” & “Peking man” (found in Indonesia and China) - 1st species to appear out of Africa (i.e. indication of migration) - ~ 5’6 tall with human like body - no sign of arboreal abilities; indication of meat diet - marked increase of brain size (1/2 to 1/3 smaller than modern humans) - changes in thoracic vertebrae in late H. erectus à w/ breathing control c) Neanderthals (Europe) - discovered in Valley of Neander (Germany) - 2 studies showed no DNA overlap with modern humans - fossil of a 4 yr old (reading) in Portugal with hybrid characteristics of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens à evidence of intermarriage - large brains, with diff. hand, nasal, and ear anatomy - with human like hyoid bone and hypoglossal canal size - many stone tools; primarily carnivorous and cannibalistic - had clothings; ritual burials; took care of elderly - unclear about cognitive ability (lived in food-full environment) IV. Genetically Based Theories 1) Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) a) nativism b) domain specificity c) human language vs. animal communication - qualitative differences 2) Chomskian linguists - nativism, domain specificity, saltation, out of Africa a) extreme view - denies empiricism b) moderate view (Pinker) - gradualism is plausible 3) Pinker's criteria for a trait to be selected for: (driven by communicative ability) a) heritable and show genetic variation b) intermediate stages of development c) each step enhances reproductive abilities of speakers d) sufficient evolutionary time 4) Evidence a) brain damage studies b) KE family V. The Vocal Tract Theory 1) Differences between human's, hominids', & primates' vocal tract 2) Philip Lieberman's theory a) communicative ability as driving force of evolution b) nativist to phonetic ability (focus); empirialist to grammar c) gradualism for human vocal tract 3) Evidence a) Anatomical abilities (not necessarily neural) i) All mammalian vocal tracts can produce alveolars: [t], [d], [s], [n] ii) primate vocal tracts can produce bilabials: [p], [b], [m] iii) human vocal tracts can produce quantal sounds: [a] [i] [u] [k] [g] [] 4) Problems a) reproductive advantages? b) 2 languages without quantal sounds c) softer diet drives change of skull & teeth VI. The Bioprogram Theory 1) Derek Bickerton a) nativism: - innately programmed; humans born with language template - children with corrupted input can fill in the gaps to create language b) protolanguage VS language - Protolanguage: no grammar but with symbolic references - Language: with both grammar and symbolic references 2) Evidence a) pidgins & creoles (handout with examples from Hawaiian creoles) b) Nicaraguan Sign language (from reading and in class videos) VII. Gesture-based Theories (readings & slide show) 1) Story: language evolved from manual gestures, then to vocalizations 2) Satisfies Pinker’s criteria 3) Animals à iconic & indexical only, cuz symbolic reference was tough writing systems à all found as iconic first, then became more arbiturary 4) Directionality à started as iconic and indexical, then became grammaticized (w/ intermediate stages): a) hearing adults suppressing speech (i.e. in favor of gestures) b) deaf children acquiring signs directing towards objects c) captive apes w/ manual gestures (the zoo gorillas: son having affair with girl à with the suppressed calls, while using gestures to direct her to different positions) d) food, sex, social relations all serve as driving force for having gestures in communication 5) Examples from readings: a) emotion expressed thru gestures (similarties between infants & chimps) b) deaf people throughout the world have invented sign languages (innate) c) ancestors w/ advantages of communicating silently (during hunting) d) primates w/ better cortical control over hand movements than vocalization e) bipedalism as result of using hands for communication (adaptation) f) Iverson's observation of blind people’s use of gestures (nativism) 3) Gestures to vocalization: a) vocalization w/ advantages of talking at dark, freeing hands (gradual) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Homo Habilis
    COMMENT SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41 The foot of the apeman that palaeo­ ‘handy man’, anthropologists had been Homo habilis. recovering in southern Africa since the 1920s. This, the thinking went, was replaced by the taller, larger-brained Homo erectus from Asia, which spread to Europe and evolved into Nean­ derthals, which evolved into Homo sapiens. But what lay between the australopiths and H. erectus, the first known human? BETTING ON AFRICA Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop­ LIBRARY PICTURE EVANS MUSEUM/MARY HISTORY NATURAL ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that this is where he would find the earliest stone- tool makers, who he assumed would belong to our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our human ancestors also originated in Africa. In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect­ ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years before he announced the new human species. Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field­ work was no picnic in the park. Water was often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn to share Olduvai with all of the wild animals that lived there, lions included.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Evolution: a Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H
    PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Human Evolution: A Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H. Smith HUMAN EVOLUTION: A PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE F.H. Smith Department of Anthropology, Loyola University Chicago, USA Keywords: Human evolution, Miocene apes, Sahelanthropus, australopithecines, Australopithecus afarensis, cladogenesis, robust australopithecines, early Homo, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Australopithecus africanus/Australopithecus garhi, mitochondrial DNA, homology, Neandertals, modern human origins, African Transitional Group. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Reconstructing Biological History: The Relationship of Humans and Apes 3. The Human Fossil Record: Basal Hominins 4. The Earliest Definite Hominins: The Australopithecines 5. Early Australopithecines as Primitive Humans 6. The Australopithecine Radiation 7. Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo 8. Explaining Early Hominin Evolution: Controversy and the Documentation- Explanation Controversy 9. Early Homo erectus in East Africa and the Initial Radiation of Homo 10. After Homo erectus: The Middle Range of the Evolution of the Genus Homo 11. Neandertals and Late Archaics from Africa and Asia: The Hominin World before Modernity 12. The Origin of Modern Humans 13. Closing Perspective Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary UNESCO – EOLSS The basic course of human biological history is well represented by the existing fossil record, although there is considerable debate on the details of that history. This review details both what is firmly understood (first echelon issues) and what is contentious concerning humanSAMPLE evolution. Most of the coCHAPTERSntention actually concerns the details (second echelon issues) of human evolution rather than the fundamental issues. For example, both anatomical and molecular evidence on living (extant) hominoids (apes and humans) suggests the close relationship of African great apes and humans (hominins). That relationship is demonstrated by the existing hominoid fossil record, including that of early hominins.
    [Show full text]
  • Paranthropus Boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Research Biological Sciences Fall 11-28-2007 Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A. Wood George Washington University Paul J. Constantino Biological Sciences, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Wood B and Constantino P. Paranthropus boisei: Fifty years of evidence and analysis. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 50:106-132. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 50:106–132 (2007) Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard Wood* and Paul Constantino Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 KEY WORDS Paranthropus; boisei; aethiopicus; human evolution; Africa ABSTRACT Paranthropus boisei is a hominin taxon ers can trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric var- with a distinctive cranial and dental morphology. Its iables across hundreds of thousands of years. This pa- hypodigm has been recovered from sites with good per is a detailed1 review of half a century’s worth of fos- stratigraphic and chronological control, and for some sil evidence and analysis of P. boi se i and traces how morphological regions, such as the mandible and the both its evolutionary history and our understanding of mandibular dentition, the samples are not only rela- its evolutionary history have evolved during the past tively well dated, but they are, by paleontological 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Lieberman 2001E.Pdf
    news and views Another face in our family tree Daniel E. Lieberman The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago. ntil a few years ago, the evolutionary history of our species was thought to be Ureasonably straightforward. Only three diverse groups of hominins — species more closely related to humans than to chim- panzees — were known, namely Australo- pithecus, Paranthropus and Homo, the genus to which humans belong. Of these, Paran- MUSEUMS OF KENYA NATIONAL thropus and Homo were presumed to have evolved between two and three million years ago1,2 from an early species in the genus Australopithecus, most likely A. afarensis, made famous by the fossil Lucy. But lately, confusion has been sown in the human evolutionary tree. The discovery of three new australopithecine species — A. anamensis3, A. garhi 4 and A. bahrelghazali5, in Kenya, Ethiopia and Chad, respectively — showed that genus to be more diverse and Figure 1 Two fossil skulls from early hominin species. Left, KNM-WT 40000. This newly discovered widespread than had been thought. Then fossil is described by Leakey et al.8. It is judged to represent a new species, Kenyanthropus platyops. there was the finding of another, as yet poorly Right, KNM-ER 1470. This skull was formerly attributed to Homo rudolfensis1, but might best be understood, genus of early hominin, Ardi- reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus — the two skulls share many similarities, such as the flatness pithecus, which is dated to 4.4 million years of the face and the shape of the brow.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Affinities of Homo Naledi with Other Plio
    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2017) 89(3 Suppl.): 2199-2207 (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160841 www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal Morphological affinities ofHomo naledi with other Plio- Pleistocene hominins: a phenetic approach WALTER A. NEVES1, DANILO V. BERNARDO2 and IVAN PANTALEONI1 1Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Laboratório de Estudos Evolutivos e Ecológicos Humanos, Rua do Matão, 277, sala 218, Cidade Universitária, 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil 2Instituto de Ciências Humanas e da Informação, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Laboratório de Estudos em Antropologia Biológica, Bioarqueologia e Evolução Humana, Área de Arqueologia e Antropologia, Av. Itália, Km 8, Carreiros, 96203-000 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil Manuscript received on December 2, 2016; accepted for publication on February 21, 2017 ABSTRACT Recent fossil material found in Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, was initially described as a new species of genus Homo, namely Homo naledi. The original study of this new material has pointed to a close proximity with Homo erectus. More recent investigations have, to some extent, confirmed this assignment. Here we present a phenetic analysis based on dentocranial metric variables through Principal Components Analysis and Cluster Analysis based on these fossils and other Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Our results concur that the Dinaledi fossil hominins pertain to genus Homo. However, in our case, their nearest neighbors are Homo habilis and Australopithecus sediba. We suggest that Homo naledi is in fact a South African version of Homo habilis, and not a new species.
    [Show full text]
  • Difference Between Paranthropus and Australopithecus Key Difference - Paranthropus Vs Australopithecus
    Difference Between Paranthropus and Australopithecus www.differencebetween.com Key Difference - Paranthropus vs Australopithecus Hominidae is a taxonomic family of primates whose members are known as great apes or hominids. This taxonomic group included the ancient extinct hominins such as Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo group including modern man. The Paranthropus is described as a genus of extinct hominins. They were also known as “robust australopithecines”. They were bipedal and found to be descended from “gracile australopithecines”. And they probably had lived 2.7 million years ago. They are subdivided further into Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus robustus and Paranthropus boisei. Australopithecus is also an extinct genus of hominins which is broadly categorized into several groups like Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Australopithecus deyiremeda, Australopithecus garhi and Australopithecus sediba. They lived in the region of the African continent in Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs (more accurately 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago). The key difference between Paranthropus and Australopithecus is, Paranthropus had larger braincase (cranium) than the Australopithecus while Australopithecus braincase (cranium) was smaller than Paranthropus as well as the Homo genus. What is Paranthropus? Paranthropus is a genus of extinct hominins. They were bipedal and had lived 2.7 million years ago. Most of the species of Paranthropus had a brain which was 40% in size of that of a modern man. They were well-muscled species and roughly 1.3 m in height. The genus Paranthropus is characterized by robust craniodental anatomy, gorilla-like a sagittal cranial crest, broad grinding herbivorous teeth and strong muscles of mastication. The Paranthropus were lacking the transverse cranial crests in the skulls which can be found in the modern gorillas.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the 'Homo' Genus
    MONOGRAPH Mètode Science StudieS Journal (2017). University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.8.9308 Article received: 02/12/2016, accepted: 27/03/2017. EVOLUTION OF THE ‘HOMO’ GENUS NEW MYSTERIES AND PERSPECTIVES JORDI AGUSTÍ This work reviews the main questions surrounding the evolution of the genus Homo, such as its origin, the problem of variability in Homo erectus and the impact of palaeogenomics. A consensus has not yet been reached regarding which Australopithecus candidate gave rise to the first representatives assignable to Homo and this discussion even affects the recognition of the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis species. Regarding the variability of the first palaeodemes assigned to Homo, the discovery of the Dmanisi site in Georgia called into question some of the criteria used until now to distinguish between species like H. erectus or H. ergaster. Finally, the emergence of palaeogenomics has provided evidence that the flow of genetic material between old hominin populations was wider than expected. Keywords: palaeogenomics, Homo genus, hominins, variability, Dmanisi. In recent years, our concept of the origin and this species differs from H. rudolfensis in some evolution of our genus has been shaken by different secondary characteristics and in its smaller cranial findings that, far from responding to the problems capacity, although some researchers believe that that arose at the end of the twentieth century, have Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis correspond to reopened debates and forced us to reconsider models the same species. that had been considered valid Until the mid-1970s, there for decades. Some of these was a clear Australopithecine questions remain open because candidate to occupy the «THE FIRST the fossils that could give us position of our genus’ ancestor, the answer are still missing.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing Human Evolution: Achievements, Challenges, and Opportunities
    Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities Bernard Wood1 George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 This contribution reviews the evidence that has resolved the can then be used as the equivalent of a null hypothesis when branching structure of the higher primate part of the tree of life considering where to place newly discovered fossil great ape taxa. and the substantial body of fossil evidence for human evolution. It considers some of the problems faced by those who try to interpret The Human Fossil Record. The fossil record of the human clade the taxonomy and systematics of the human fossil record. How do consists of fossil evidence for modern humans plus that of all ex- you to tell an early human taxon from one in a closely related clade? tinct taxa that are hypothesized to be more closely related to How do you determine the number of taxa represented in the modern humans than to any other living taxon. Not so long ago human clade? How can homoplasy be recognized and factored into nearly all researchers were comfortable with according the human attempts to recover phylogeny? clade the status of a family, the Hominidae, with the nonhuman extant great apes (i.e., chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and history | hominin orangutans) placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. But given the abundant evidence for a closer relationship between Pan and his contribution begins by considering two achievements rele- Homo than between Pan and Gorilla (see above), many research- Tvant to reconstructing human evolution: resolving the branch- ers have concluded that the human clade should be distinguished ing structure of the higher primate part of the tree of life and the beneath the level of the family in the Linnaean hierarchy.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY VERSION 1 COLLEGE of the CANYONS COLLEGE Physical Anthropology
    ANTH 101 PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY VERSION 1 COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS COLLEGE Physical Anthropology An Open Educational Resources Publication by Taft College Authored and compiled by Sarah Etheredge Editor: Trudi Radtke Version 2 2019 1 | Physical Anthropology – College of the Canyons Acknowledgements We would like to extend appreciation to the following people and organizations for allowing this textbook to be created: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Chancellor Dianne G. Van Hook Santa Clarita Community College District College of the Canyons Distance Learning Office Written & Compiled by: Sarah Etheredge Special Thank You to Editor Trudi Radtke for formatting, readability, and aesthetics. Disclaimer: “The contents of this (insert type of publication; e.g., report, flyer, etc.) were developed under the Title V grant from the Department of Education (Award #P031S140092). However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.” *Unless otherwise noted, the content in this textbook is licensed under CC BY 4.0 2 | Physical Anthropology – College of the Canyons Table of Contents Physical Anthropology .................................................................................................................................. 1 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Surprise! a New Hominin Fossil Changes … Almost Nothing!
    Surprise! A New Hominin Fossil Changes … Almost Nothing! Author: Andrew J Petto Thanks to Louise S Mead for comments and suggestions Overview: This lesson combines the basic principles of constructing and understanding phylogenetic trees and applies these skills to interpreting the impact of new fossil discoveries. Lesson Concepts: Evolutionary trees are based on the characters of the organisms that we are studying. Branches of the tree are drawn based on changes in those characters in groups of related organisms. Each branch must include all the descendants of a common ancestor defined as the first to incorporate changes in the characters that define the branch. Discoveries of new fossils add data to these trees. Background: Whenever a new fossil is discovered — especially a hominin fossil — headlines often trumpet that the new species completely changes our understanding of human evolution. In reality, such a monumental change in our understanding is quite rare. This activity focuses on a discovery of a hominin fossil that had a few surprising characteristics that did not fit easily into existing models of human evolution. Its name, Australopithecus garhi, is derived from the word meaning “surprise” in the native language spoken in the region where it was found. This activity demonstrates that, even with its unexpected combination of traits, A garhi, did not change our basic understanding of the history of the hominin lineage, though it did enrich our models. Grade Range: This document is intended to provide background information and and examples for teachers preparing to teach about human evolution, evolutionary modeling, or evolutionary relationships (also called “Classification”) in the middle and high school grades.
    [Show full text]
  • Origine De L'homme
    Origine de l’Homme L3VT Année scolaire 2020-2021 Paris VII (Diderot) Par Jean-Luc Voisin [email protected] http://jeanlucvoisin.free.fr REMARQUES *Ce document correspond au support du cours de Novembre sur l’origine de l’Homme pour la L3 de Paris VII (Diderot). *Le français et l’orthographe sont donc parfois aléatoires. *Les tableaux et figures appelés dans le texte se trouvent dans le polycopié téléchargeable sur ce site (http://jeanlucvoisin.free.fr). 1 Origine de l’Homme L’histoire des primates est longue et complexe. En effet, les plus vieux primates connus sans ambiguïté sont des Adapidés datant de l’Yprésien (base de l’Éocène, -55 Ma). La diversité actuelle des primates est importante, mais très différentes de ce qu’elle a pu être par le passé. Par exemple, les Hominoïdes (qui regroupent les grands singes et les hommes, voir la figure 4) qui constituaient un des groupes dominants de Primates en termes de diversité est actuellement très pauvres (7 genres pour 27 espèces). En revanche, les Cercopithecoïdes sont en pleine radiation évolutive depuis le Pléistocène ce qui se traduit par une diversité spécifique importante (23 genres et 159 espèces). L’histoire de la lignée humaine est très récente (elle commence il y a moins de 10 Ma, à la fin du Pliocène) mais elle aussi très complexe. En effet, nous connaissons, depuis le début des années 2000, des Primates dont chacun peut, potentiellement, être l’ancêtre commun à l’homme et au chimpanzé. De même, l’histoire des formes pré-humaines (Australopithèque, Paranthropes, etc.) devient de plus en plus complexe au fur et à mesure des découvertes de nouvelles espèces.
    [Show full text]