Human Evolution

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by the_gelf

How interesting, we are more closely related to a bonobo than a chimp is Perhaps that explains our rampant homosexuality

Huh

[the_gelf]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Explanation and data source needed.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Homos...rs-71153.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

Summary: acceptance and/or participation in homosexual behaviour plays an essential part in bonobo society.


On a side note, the term "pygmy chimp" is now a less accurate term for the bonobo due to the outcome of the bonobo sequencing

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by the_gelf

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Homos...rs-71153.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

Summary: acceptance and/or participation in homosexual behaviour plays an essential part in bonobo society.


On a side note, the term "pygmy chimp" is now a less accurate term for the bonobo due to the outcome of the bonobo sequencing

I think you missed my point. The literature shows bonobos, like humans, show an across the board increase in recreational sex, [not just homosexual behaviour] compared to other apes. I was not disputing their active sex lives.

[the_gelf]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

I think you missed my point. The literature shows bonobos, like humans, show an across the board increase in recreational sex, [not just homosexual behaviour] compared to other apes. I was not disputing their active sex lives.

Oh, that comment was to allay the credibility demons. I know that you know, the sources were just for those who haven't. And according to the video i linked, bonobos will have sex almost all the time, guilt free :D

[Glob]

Originally Posted by the_gelf

How interesting, we are more closely related to a bonobo than a chimp is

Just to clarify, the study suggest this is only true for about 3% of the genome.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Glob

Just to clarify, the study suggest this is only true for about 3% of the genome.

More than that, GRN expression patterns can produce significant phenotype variation in organisms with very similar genomes, within species, even between individuals of the same species. Even between males and females, such as in dung beetle horn expression, which is both sexually dimorphic, AND contingent on inputs from the insulin pathway. Less food [sugar], smaller horns, IF you are a male.

[Glob]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

More than that, GRN expression patterns can produce significant phenotype variation in organisms with very similar genomes, within species, even between individuals of the same species. Even between males and females, such as in dung beetle horn expression, which is both sexually dimorphic, AND contingent on inputs from the insulin pathway. Less food [sugar], smaller horns, IF you are a male.

Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why modern phylogenetics relies so heavily on molecular data. That is, organisms that appear not to be closely related based on their phenotypes may in fact be closely related (and vice versa in the case of cryptic species).

The point I was trying to make was simply that a human is not more closely related to a bonobo than a chimpanzee is, and the paper you cited makes this pretty clear.

[the_gelf]

Originally Posted by Glob

Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why modern phylogenetics relies so heavily on molecular data. That is, organisms that appear not to be closely related based on their phenotypes may in fact be closely related (and vice versa in the case of cryptic species).

The point I was trying to make was simply that a human is not more closely related to a bonobo than a chimpanzee is, and the paper you cited makes this pretty clear.

How the hell did i miss the three percent part

[Darwinsbulldog]

http://www.nature.com/news/pottery-s...irying-1.10863

North Africans may have been making yoghurt 7,000 years ago.

+ Free podcast.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Lombard, M. and M. N. Haidle (2012). "Thinking a Bow-and-arrow Set: Cognitive Implications of Middle Stone Age Bow and Stone-tipped Arrow Technology." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(02): 237-264.

For various reasons increased effort has recently been made to detect the early use of mechanically-projected weaponry in the archaeological record, but little effort has yet been made to investigate explicitly what these tool sets could indicate about human cognitive evolution. Based on recent evidence for the use of bow-and-arrow technology during the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa by 64 kya, we use the method of generating and analysing cognigrams and effective chains to explore thought-and-action sequences associated with this technology. We show that, when isolated, neither the production of a simple bow, nor that of a stone-tipped arrow, can be reasonably interpreted to indicate tool behaviour that is cognitively more complex than the composite artefacts produced by Neanderthals or archaic modern Homo. On the other hand, as soon as a bow-and-arrow set is used as an effective group of tools, a novel cognitive development is expressed in technological symbiosis, i.e. the ability to conceptualize a set of separate, yet inter-dependent tools. Such complementary tool sets are able to unleash new properties of a tool, inconceivable without the active, simultaneous manipulation of another tool. Consequently, flexibility regarding decision-making and taking action is amplified. The archaeological evidence for such amplified conceptual and technological modularization implies a range of cognitive and behavioural complexity and flexibility that is basic to human behaviour today.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...5977431200025X

Complex Thinking Behind the Bow and Arrow


It may look simple, but it is a highly complex tool: a Bushman’s bow from Botswana. (Credit: Image courtesy of Universitaet Tübingen)

ScienceDaily (June 25, 2012) — University of Tübingen and South African researchers have revealed sophisticated design and technology developed by early humans.
The bow and arrow have long been regarded as a possible indicator of culture in prehistoric times. Bows and arrows appear to have been in use for some 64,000 years, given evidence from South Africa. Until recently, their significance in human cognitive ability was unclear. Now two researchers have been able to decode the conceptual foundations of the bow and arrow. The results of the study, by Miriam Haidle of the Heidelberg Academy's ROCEEH project (sponsored by the Senckenberg Research Institute) and the University of Tübingen and Marlize Lombard of the University of Johannesburg, appear in the latest edition of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal.
Using archaeological finds and ethnological parallels, the two researchers reconstructed the steps needed to make a bow and arrows. These are complimentary tools -- separate, but developed interdependently. The bow is the controlling element, while the arrows can be used more flexibly and are interchangeable. About 2.5 million years ago, humans first used tools to make other tools then to make tools assembled from different parts to make a unit with particular qualities, such as wooden spears with stone spearheads (ca. 200,000-300,000 years ago.) The bow and arrow and other complementary tool sets made it possible for prehistoric humans to greatly increase the flexibility of their reactions.
There are many basic complementary tool sets: needle and thread, fishing rod and line, hammer and chisel. The bow and arrow are a particularly complex example. The reconstruction of the technique shows that no less than ten different tools are needed to manufacture a simple bow and arrows with foreshafts. It takes 22 raw materials and three semi-finished goods (binding materials, multi-component glue) and five production phases to make a bow, and further steps to make the arrows to go with it. The study was able to show a high level of complexity in the use of tools at an early stage in the history of homo sapiens.
The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities project "The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans" (ROCEEH) incorporates archaeologists, paleoanthropologists, palaeobiologists and geographers, working together to find out where the first humans arose, where they moved to in Africa and Eurasia, and why. The project covers the time between three million years ago and the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago. The focus is on when, where, and in what form a changing climate, evolution and cultural development of early humans enabled them to expand the behavioral niche of a large primate within Africa and to find new roles outside of Africa. The University of Tübingen and the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt have been cooperating on this 20-year Heidelberg Academy project since 2008.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0625064620.htm