What sets humans apart from the great apes? The ability to survive the cold.
Humans are an African primate. Darwin inferred that Africa was the cradle of mankind because it was the land of our closest relatives: the great apes. All living hominoids, including us, evolved in the tropics, and with the exception of modern humans, no living hominoid is capable of surviving the cold. Gorillas, bonobos and chimps all live in Africa and orangutans, gibbons and siamangs live in southeast Asia.
Apes first appear in the fossil record 25 million years ago in sub-Saharan Africa, so the hominoid body has had tens of millions of years to become perfectly, exquisitely, well-suited to tropical life, so any hominoid that dared to leave Africa and face the bitter cold of the ice age, needed to be incredibly adaptable to survive an environment so opposite of what his ancestors spent 25 million years specializing in. It’s likely that such rapid adaptation could not occur until the hominoid brain reached a certain size, giving us a high capacity to learn, invent, and create culture.
This was the transition from ape to man. Indeed the ability to survive the freezing cold seems to be what separates humans from the apes. For centuries people have speculated about a giant bipedal ape surviving in the Pacific Northwest, but the fact that sasquatch is just a myth further shows that apes can’t survive the cold.
When in our evolutionary history did we become smart enough to do so?
“Humans” first entered Europe 1.8 million years ago, but there’s no evidence we were smart enough to survive Northern Europe until 780,000 years ago, when the climate was similar to today’s southern Scandinavia, and it’s only within the last 40,000 years that humans have proved able to survive the arctic.
Of course even once humans evolved the intelligence to survive the cold, some could survive it more efficiently than others, and as commenters MeLo and Phil78 have pointed out, competition may have been the decisive variable. But competition may have been especially intense precisely because it was cold and thus there were fewer natural resources, while in the tropics, selection pressures were more relaxed because there was less need for shelter and more food to go around.
A 2010 article in the guardian describes archaeologist Brian Fagan’s view that Neanderthals lacked the cognitive ability to adapt to the cold as creatively as modern humans:
This meant, says Fagan, that we learned to use local materials – antler, bone and ivory – in ways Neanderthals simply could not imagine. In one case, this resulted in “one of the most revolutionary inventions in history: the eyed needle, fashioned from a sliver of bone or ivory,” he adds. While Neanderthals shivered in rags in winter, humans used vegetable fibres and needles – created by using stone awls – to make close-fitting, layered clothing and parkas: the survival of the snuggest, in short..
In 2012, paleoanthropologist Rick Potts said:
Whenever glacial habitats invaded Europe and Asia, it appears that the Neanderthals moved south, into Iberia and the Italian peninsula, to take advantage of the warmer places. Overall, their bodies show evidence of cold adaptation. Yet during one cold period, when the Neanderthals retreated, populations of Homo sapiens began to infiltrate the cold regions. How could they do this, especially since these populations were dispersing from tropical Africa? The difference is that these early populations of our species had developed the ability to invent new tools, like sewing needles that were useful in producing warm, body-hugging clothing.
In a 2013 article in the BBC, Oxford university professor Robin Dunbar is quoted as saying the following about Neanderthals:
They were very, very smart, but not quite in the same league as Homo Sapiens. That difference might have been enough to tip the balance when things were beginning to get tough at the end of the last ice age
In 2014 paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London told National Geographic how much harder it was for humans to survive in freezing Eurasia compared to warm Africa:
If temperatures drop 5-10 degrees in Africa, you’re not going to die; there may be changes in rainfall and desert and forest and so forth, but that temperature drop probably won’t kill you.
In Britain, or Siberia, these populations were constantly under pressure. When it was really cold, they were surviving in pockets in the south—in the Iberian Peninsula, the Italian peninsula, the Balkans, maybe in India and Southeast Asia. All the area to the north would empty of people. Then when it warms up, people would start to expand north and grow their numbers. But often they only had 3,000 years before the temperature dropped all the way back again. So I think it is the climate that was shutting down the diversity of those populations; they couldn’t maintain large numbers because of the climate wearing them down.
In March 2015, Chris Stringer told Oxford university that when the ice age got really bad, all humans in Britain simply died out (see 17:20 mark of the Oxford podcast) and Britain had to be recolonized.
And as I noted back in July, The BBC wrote in 2016:
…Neanderthals, with their shorter and stockier bodies, were actually better adapted to Europe’s colder weather than modern humans. They came to Europe long before we did, while modern humans spent most of their history in tropical African temperatures. Paradoxically, the fact that Neanderthals were better adapted to the cold may also have contributed to their downfall.
If that sounds like a contradiction, to some extent it is.
Modern humans have leaner bodies, which were much more vulnerable to the cold. As a result, our ancestors were forced to make additional technological advances. “We developed better clothing to compensate, which ultimately gave us the edge when the climate got extremely cold [about] 30,000 years ago,”…
Pumpkin Person 
“Of course even once humans evolved the intelligence to survive the cold, some could survive it more efficiently than others, and as commenters MeLo and Phil78 have pointed, out competition may have been the decisive variable. But competition may have been especially intense precisely because it was cold and thus there were fewer natural resources, while in the tropics, selection pressures were more relaxed because there was less need for shelter and more food to go around.”
Yeah, this is where I’m drawing the line. The competition from migration had more to do with the new resources and territory to compete for rather than the role of temperature, a point I made using a study when you requested evidence of initial differences in africa/eurasian competition differences.
Regarding selection pressures being more “lax”, how so? Given the pattern of climate shifting in the green Sahara stages from dry to warm, affecting vegetation as well as bodies of water, that’s not exactly out done by cold temperature’s challenges by mere novelty alone especially since they were likely in the presence of other hominids to compete with them.
Third, for your comment on shelter and resources I’m going to need actual ecological sources on those traits characterizing African climates and that effecting traditional habitation.
I would also like to add that, oddly enough citing Potts, he actually proposed that the pressure I stated above actually prepared Humans in Africa towards being able to be able to be so versatile, to begin with. Again, consistent with climatic variation being more significant than temperature.
I would also like to add that, oddly enough citing Potts, he actually proposed that the pressure I stated above actually prepared Humans in Africa towards being able to be able to be so versatile, to begin with. Again, consistent with climatic variation being more significant than temperature.
Yes, but he provided no theoretical reason for doing so. He just assumed that since modern humans evolved in Africa, and modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals, then Africa must have selected more for adaptability than Eurasia. It would have been one thing if he had predicted modern human superiority based on his theory, but merely rationalizing it post-hoc is not compelling, especially since modern humans lost to Neanderthals 100,000 years ago and only surpassed them after 45,000 years ago. It’s possible they evolved their superiority outside of Africa.
“Yes, but he provided no theoretical reason for doing so.”
Yes he did, otherwise why did you refer to him in the past.
“He just assumed that since modern humans evolved in Africa, and modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals, then Africa must have selected more for adaptability than Eurasia. It would have been one thing if he had predicted modern human superiority based on his theory, but merely rationalizing it post-hoc is not compelling, especially since modern humans lost to Neanderthals 100,000 years ago and only surpassed them after 45,000 years ago. It’s possible they evolved their superiority outside of Africa.”
Except he did provide actual framework and references that you have quoted yourself as “unpredictability”, and was found to be in part consistent with other models of climatic variability showing clear links with brain size. Reread our discussion if you have forgotten.
Second, you are aware that his theory explains the very differentiation between human and Neanderthals in regards to specialization, and potentitally even the multiple OOA prior to Humans.
I’m aware of Rick Potts’s theory in general, and have endorsed it, but here’s his exact quote on modern humans vs Neanderthals:
The difference is that these early populations of our species had developed the ability to invent new tools, like sewing needles that were useful in producing warm, body-hugging clothing. Preserved beads and stones suggest that they, but not the Neanderthals, maintained social networks over vast areas. My guess is that in Africa, Homo sapiens evolved better ways of adjusting to the arid-moist fluctuations—the key to adaptability—than the Neanderthals did to the cold-warm fluctuations in their part of the world. There are a lot of scientists interested in testing these ideas with new fossil and archaeological evidence.
His theory is that climate fluctuation selected for our ability to adapt, and he admits there was fluctuation in both Europe (cold to warm) and in Africa (arid to moist), yet just arbitrarily declares the African fluctuation to have been more selective. This strikes me as just a post-hoc rationalization. If Neanderthals had been more adaptable than modern humans, he could just as easily have argued the opposite and been just as consistent with his theory.
Regarding 100,000 years ago, that was because of neanderthal cold adapted bodies could withstand the cold better than humans at that point during the climate shift in the Levant as I’ve said before.
Secondly, that gap would be approximately 55k which would lead to the onset of new toolkits within Africa at that time to reflect new adaptation.
“Firstly among the artifacts of Africa, archeologists found they could differentiate and classify those of less than 50,000 years into many different categories, such as projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades, and drilling and piercing tools. These new stone-tool types have been described as being distinctly differentiated from each other; each tool had a specific purpose. The invaders, commonly referred to as the Cro-Magnons, left many sophisticated stone tools, carved and engraved pieces on bone, ivory and antler, cave paintings and Venus figurines.[4][5][6]”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic#Changes_in_climate_and_geography
The link also mentioned Harpoon and fishing tools, similar to how Jm8 described the Ishango finds in central Africa.
Regarding 100,000 years ago, that was because of neanderthal cold adapted bodies could withstand the cold better than humans at that point during the climate shift in the Levant as I’ve said before.
Secondly, that gap would be approximately 55k which would lead to the onset of new toolkits within Africa at that time to reflect new adaptation.
An alternatively theory is they simply weren’t genetically smart enough to enter Europe and compete with Neanderthals until they had at least 15,000 years of exposure to the ice age.
Checked, the advancement you describe seems to coincide with modernity, and though I have argued it as a more complex matter than typically argued, the sense of it that we are discussing is already agreed upon to have originated in Africa and have aided Cro-magnons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Africa
“I’m aware of Rick Potts’s theory in general, and have endorsed it, but here’s his exact quote modern humans vs Neanderthals:
‘The difference is that these early populations of our species had developed the ability to invent new tools, like sewing needles that were useful in producing warm, body-hugging clothing. Preserved beads and stones suggest that they, but not the Neanderthals, maintained social networks over vast areas. My guess is that in Africa, Homo sapiens evolved better ways of adjusting to the arid-moist fluctuations—the key to adaptability—than the Neanderthals did to the cold-warm fluctuations in their part of the world. There are a lot of scientists interested in testing these ideas with new fossil and archaeological evidence.’
His theory is that climate fluctuation selected for our ability to adapt, and he admits there was fluctuation in both Europe (cold to warm) and in Africa (arid to moist), yet just arbitrarily declares the African fluctuation to have been more selective. This strikes me as just a post-hoc rationalization. If Neanderthals had been more adaptable than modern humans, he could just as easily have argued the opposite and been just as consistent with his theory.”
Except that Neanderthal’s adaptability, as I’ve explained before was due to their physiology at that point and time giving them the edge, the change in Human that he describes that place at 50k and shows clear roots and development in Africa not observed to the same independent development in Neanderthals, so it is not “arbitrary” if you actually look up behavioral modernity pertaining to Africa.
Further it is not “post hoc” when archaeology and paleoclimate actually pinpoint that nature of where and when these developments occur, which is not unique of Potts at all.
It’s post-hoc to say the climate fluctuations in Africa explain why modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals when Neanderthals had arguably greater climate fluctuations to cope with.
You’re also ignoring the behavioral modernity of Neanderthals making glue more than 100,000 years before Africans were able to do so.
For an archaeological guide, see Jm8 on the clear differences in Human and Neanderthal adaptation and significant technological developments.
“An alternatively theory is they simply weren’t genetically smart enough to enter Europe and compete with Neanderthals until they had at least 15,000 years of exposure to the ice age.”
Except it wasn;t a onesided competition between neanderthals and Human overall in the area. Second there contact was dubious as well.
“Current fossil evidence shows that only early modern humans were present in the Levant between 130,000-80,000 BP, and re-appear again after the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition, around 47,000-40,000 BP. Only Neanderthal fossils appear in the intervening period, 75,000-47,000 BP. Bar-Yosef (1988) has suggested that the rapid onset of glacial conditions around 75,000 BP caused Neanderthal populations to migrate south from montane western Asia into the Levant corridor.Far from displaying a “transitional” population, the early modern human fossils from the Levant seen to possess Neanderthal affinities (Skhul and Qafzeh) date to before the first occurrence of Neanderthal fossils in this region while human fossils from adjacent parts of Northeast Africa, such as Tamrasa Hill I, that are contemporaneous with Levantine Neanderthals preserve no trace of Neanderthal morphology (Vermeersch et al. 1998). Then, around 45,000-35,000 BP, Neanderthal fossils cease to occur in the Levant at exactly the point when Upper Paleolithic industries first appear in Israeli and Lebanese cave sites (Bar-Yosef 1996). By 30,000 BP, Neanderthals continued to practice Middle Paleolithic adaptations in a few isolated refuges, such as southern Spain and western Asia. Shortly thereafter, Neanderthals became extinct, replaced by Upper Paleolithic modern humans.”
http://www.athenapub.com/8shea1.htm
I would like to add that, though recent research shows that the two were more contemporaneous in the area than once thought, climate shifting have been the far more convincing contributors in major numbers as they increase in neanderthals coincided with climate period favoring larger numbers to migrate there.
https://earth-pages.co.uk/2015/02/03/human-neanderthal-cohabitation-of-the-levant/
“It’s post-hoc to say the climate fluctuations in Africa explain why modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals when Neanderthals had arguably greater climate fluctuations to cope with.”
You agued that it was post hoc merely assuming it was the african environment to do so when other archaeology backs it up.
“You’re also ignoring the behavioral modernity of Neanderthals making glue more than 100,000 years before Africans were able to do so.”
That’s like focusing on gunpowder in China and ignoring the industrial revolution in Europe to follow.
This meager point is exactly why I referred to Jm8.
You agued that it was post hoc merely assuming it was the african environment to do so when other archaeology backs it up.
I don’t have a problem with Potts saying that modern humans (even when still in Africa) were more adaptable than Neanderthals. He might be right, but I was criticising the EXPLANATION he gave for their alleged superiority (climate fluctuation) because climate fluctuation was extreme in Eurasia at the time too.
Even if I concede that modern humans were superior before leaving Africa, there could be non-climatic reasons for their superiority like larger population size allowing more mutations or large populations allowing more cultural innovation.
Second, what makes you suspect that the warm to cold fluctuations were greater by there measures? Given that Neanderthal occupied an extreme climate the variation is, of course, going to be more limited than the various dry and wet periods in the African Savannah.
Second, what makes you suspect that the warm to cold fluctuations were greater by there measures? Given that Neanderthal occupied an extreme climate the variation is, of course, going to be more limited than the various dry and wet periods in the African Savannah.
“As well as a relationship between a cooling earth and growing skulls, the researchers report that where the skulls were found matters, too, because the further you get from the Equator, the more varied the weather becomes.“
More on the glue topic, I realized in my previous comment that the topic was more complex than thought but the foundation of Cromagnon’s abilities has been found to be due to African adaptations.
And in regards to their extinction in the Levant, as I said, that was due climatic reasons rather than direct competition. the Replacement of the majority of Neanderthals in the area took place long after humans were extinct by 80-75k.
More on the glue topic, I realized in my previous comment that the topic was more complex than thought but the foundation of Cromagnon’s abilities has been found to be due to African adaptations.
The foundation may have occurred in Africa, but that doesn’t prove significant progress didn’t occur outside of Africa.
And in regards to their extinction in the Levant, as I said, that was due climatic reasons rather than direct competition.
Greg Cochran seems to disagree with you. He sees our failures in the Levant as evidence that we couldn’t outcompete Neanderthals at that time:
Modern humans in the Levant (Qafzeh/Shkul) ran into Neanderthals back in the Eemian – but they didn’t win then : later Neanderthals seem to have reoccupied that area, and moderns don’t seem to have developed the ability to displace Neanderthals until much later, some 50-60,000 years after their original contact with Neanderthals.
“The foundation may have occurred in Africa, but that doesn’t prove significant progress didn’t occur outside of Africa.”
Yet the actual foundation of the Sophistication, that made the differences, is contended to be in Africa due to the roots of the Aterian.
Cochrans quote doesn’t refute with my statements. He was describing the ability of humans at that time to displace Neanderthals, that’s different from what directly caused their extinction which wasn’t competition.
His quote also doesn’t go indepth with the actual history of Human and Neanderthal Migration in the Area, my source do.
As for your point on Season Variation, I’ve already highlighted in a previous discussion that North East Africa Aridity was the cause, the low temperatures of Eurasia.
The OOA even t in the first is likely to have been driven by that final push.
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ancient-humans-left-africa-escape-drying-climate
Second, it has been found that the flucuations of the Glacial period, in comparison, had more limited effect.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7623/full/nature19365.html
Cochrans quote doesn’t refute with my statements. He was describing the ability of humans at that time to displace Neanderthals, that’s different from what directly caused their extinction which wasn’t competition.
His point is that modern humans were NOT more advanced than Neanderthals until the last 50,000 years
As for your point on Season Variation, I’ve already highlighted in a previous discussion that North East Africa Aridity
Rick Potts theory is that climate variability is what caused human adaptability to evolve, so unless you have a source showing Africa was more climatically variable than Eurasia during the last half-million years, and preferably in the last 100,000 years, his theory can not explain why modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals.
*the low temperatures of Eurasia.
“I don’t have a problem with Potts saying that modern humans (even when still in Africa) were more adaptable than Neanderthals. He might be right, but I was criticising the EXPLANATION he gave for their alleged superiority (climate fluctuation) because climate fluctuation was extreme in Eurasia at the time too.”
And I retorted with the clear differences in development between humans and Neanderthals, showing that the African developments gave way to the innovation highlighted.
Their role in competition with Neanderthals is a moot point because you have already shown studies that Population sizes were most likely contributors and that it was an assimilation process, the only point by Jm8 being that Human developments were regardless more complex and varied.
“Even if I concede that modern humans were superior before leaving Africa, there could be non-climatic reasons for their superiority like larger population size allowing more mutations or large populations allowing more cultural innovation.”
Already explained population dynamics being a weak explanation, that is without selective forces strong enough to make traits for innovation necessary (most of which were for certain lifestyles and tasks which wouldn’t depend simply on “variation” of the population itself) the variation in the population would just only conform to as much as it necessary.
For instance, if an environment desired a particular range of CC for instance, the result would be just that and would only shift with shifts along with it.
So without the right demands, you are left with both a small population and a large population at standstills.
Already explained population dynamics being a weak explanation, that is without selective forces strong enough to make traits for innovation necessary (most of which were for certain lifestyles and tasks which wouldn’t depend simply on “variation” of the population itself) the variation in the population would just only conform to as much as it necessary.
Weak selection in a big population can trump strong selection in a small population. A genius might have had a much greater fitness advantage in Eurasia than in Africa, but he still has a big fitness advantage in Africa, and he wasn’t even born in Eurasia because of their small population, thus Africa would have evolved faster. Every animal breeder knows you need big populations from which to select because large numbers favour the odds of desired mutations occurring by chance. Why do you think people pool lottery tickets?
Meant to say *NOT the low temperature of Eurasia.
“His point is that modern humans were NOT more advanced than Neanderthals until the last 50,000 years.”
In Terms od adapting to the cold, that would be correct.
“Rick Potts theory is that climate variability is what cause human adaptability to evolve, so unless you have a source showing Africa was more climatically variable than Eurasia during the last half-million years, his theory can not explain why modern humans were more adaptable than Neanderthals.”
And my point, and Potts, was that it was linked specifically with dry and cooling periods which initiated Dispersals. From Potts himself, clear links in Brain Size, tools, and migrations being linked with Savannah expansion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235245619_Evolution_and_Climate_Variability
Further, see my comment on neanderthals versus Humans in terms of brain composition. I’ll reply to your point on Orbital volume later.
His point is that modern humans were NOT more advanced than Neanderthals until the last 50,000 years.”
In Terms od adapting to the cold, that would be correct.
So you agree modern humans could not adapt to the cold better than Neanderthals until 50,000 years ago, yet you still insist modern humans were smarter than Neanderthals from the beginning?
“Weaker selection in a big population can trump strong selection in a small population. A genius might have had a much greater fitness advantage in Eurasia than in Africa, but he still has a big fitness advantage in Africa, and he wasn’t even born in Eurasia because of their small population, thus Africa would have evolved faster. Every animal breeder knows you need big populations from which to select because large numbers favour the odds of desired mutations occurring by chance. Why do you think people pool lottery tickets?”
You, oddly, are talking about fitness in a single time frame and environment rather than not focusing on the overall optimal phenotype within an environment selects to actually model change through time.
Your model only talks about relative success in each environment of a “genius”, rather than explaining how the frequencies of geniuses would increase over time when typically an environment has an optimal range unless change occurs.
In the case of animal breeders, again, the signficance of breeding is influenced by the actions of the breeder itself.
In regards to Africa versus Europe, here’s how it would play out. You would theoretically need a high demand for neanderthals in the context of Brain size for instance, yet due to the strong selection it results in a population with few unique mutations and thus change occurs slowly from that selection.
In Africa, selection is weaker in the presence of larger variation but, due to said weaker demands, that would hinder the real advantage a larger brain hominid would have over a smaller-brained member.
Also, in terms of genetic diversity, that’s actual question by Neanderthals.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/08/11/rewriting-history-study-suggests-robust-neanderthal-population/
Their overall population is guessed to be large but their population density itself was small, as regionally neanderthals were fairly distinct.
On the differences in climate selection, it’s tracking with archaeology in Africa and comparisons with Neanderthals.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution
“So you agree modern humans could not adapt to the cold better than Neanderthals until 50,000 years ago, yet you still insist modern humans were smarter than Neanderthals from the beginning?”
No, what I would agree that Humans by that time may’ve not been smart enough to adapt to the cold TO MAKE UP for their disadvantageous physiology.
That’s like saying they were dumber than polar bears had early AMH were placed in the artic.
No, what I would agree that Humans by that time may’ve not been smart enough to adapt to the cold TO MAKE UP for their disadvantageous physiology.
That’s like saying they were dumber than polar bears had early AMH were placed in the artic.
I 100% agree that Neanderthals required less intelligence than modern humans to adapt to the cold since they already had physical adaptations, but my question is what, in your view, was the difference between later modern humans who could and those early modern humans who could not outadapt Neanderthals in the cold? Intelligence, culture, body build? Cochran seems to think the difference was intelligence.
It likely was intelligence as their existed certain archaic features still present in them.
If you read the link on Potts and climatic variation, it noted that around 200=300k was when you begin to have major fluctuations in climate, and by 130k Humans were likely still adapting to the fluctuation on their end.
And if You read my PDF on on Australians and Human Modernity, evidence for clothing goes back around 80-70k in South Africa during cold phases, and in north Africa during the early ice age. This coincides with Global fluctuations in climate and temperature.
Had these being longer as a standard climate, and at the root of their divergence from Neanderthals, had they been with Neanderthals, then they would simply adapted to the cold with changes in physiology as Neanderthals did. However, due to being sudden and only temporary, not being worth the effort of physiology change, clothing would’ve been the solution.
Okay, so if climate change within Africa raised modern human intelligence, it logically follows that the climate change of migrating from warm Africa to freezing Eurasia raised their intelligence yet again.
Climate change is climate change. It’s doesn’t matter if it changes in situ or if it changes because you migrate.
The problem however becomes when you don’t account for the effect of migration itself.
Explain
See my original comment.
This comment?:
Yeah, this is where I’m drawing the line. The competition from migration had more to do with the new resources and territory to compete for rather than the role of temperature, a point I made using a study when you requested evidence of initial differences in africa/eurasian competition differences.
Yes, and said study went into the non climatic implications of a group migrating and the causes of that form of competition itself. Secondarily, I included social competition of African erectus listed as another factor along with climatic variation from another study.
Yeah, this is where I’m drawing the line. The competition from migration had more to do with the new resources and territory to compete for rather than the role of temperature,
But temperature affects how many resources there are to go around. If many edible plants are covered in snow and ice, that limits the food supply causing more competition for what little food is left.
If it’s so cold you need a cave, fire wood, and animals skins to keep warm, the creates competition for such resources.
Regarding selection pressures being more “lax”, how so? Given the pattern of climate shifting in the green Sahara stages from dry to warm, affecting vegetation as well as bodies of water, that’s not exactly out done by cold temperature’s challenges by mere novelty alone especially since they were likely in the presence of other hominids to compete with them.
But given the fact that Neanderthals went extinct just 5000 years after the arrival of modern humans suggests there was not enough resources for two species to co-exist in Europe for even a short amount of time, even though the Neanderthal population was extremely small.
“But temperature affects how many resources there are to go around. If many edible plants are covered in snow and ice, that limits the food supply causing more completion for what little food is left.
If it’s so cold you need a cave, fire wood, and animals skins to keep warm, the creates competition for such resources.”
You know what also affects resources? The presence of another hominid species as well as different bands among themselves that formed during the migration competing in that limit area.
And again, reread what I’ve outlined in the previous comment section from the study.
“But given the fact that Neanderthals went extinct just 5000 years after the arrival of modern humans suggests there was not enough resources for two species to co-exist in Europe for even a short amount of time, even though the Neanderthal population was extremely small.”
I’m not sure how you inferred from my comment that paleolithic Europe was Plentiful seeing how I was talking about the contemporaneous state of Africa. Seeing how those other hominids went extinct in Africa, what does that tell you?
An example would be Iwo Eleru, which would be similar to AMH from the Levant who lived as long as the Red deer People despite suggestively older traits.
I wonder where does this fit in:
”https://www.google.co.in/search?q=monkeys+bathing+in+hot+springs+japan&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTtOqTzfnWAhVKN48KHevUC60QsAQIJA”
or maybe there we no hot natural hot srpings in europe and other places where neanderthal were due to the ice age?
But they’re not hominoids. Humans are the only extant hominoid that can survive the cold.
Still it begs the question as to why Humans are special in regards to encephalization, when other animals including primates adapt to the cold by other means besides pure behavioral adaptability. Resource allocation and even climatic variability fail to explain this phenomenon.
Still it begs the question as to why Humans are special in regards to encephalization
Neanderthals were pretty special too.
In regards to their Visual cortex, yes, but not the Frontal cortex as humans are.
In regards to their Visual cortex, yes, but not the Frontal cortex as humans are.
Nobody knows how large Neanderthal visual cortex was. They’re speculating based on orbital volume, which I’m guessing is an incredibly weak proxy.
It’s not a weak proxy but it’s not perfect either and that’s exactly my point. Neanderthals and homo sapiens grew incredibly large brains. So it can’t be resource allocation.
“Nobody knows how large Neanderthal visual cortex was. They’re speculating based on orbital volume, which I’m guessing is an incredibly weak proxy.”
Then you would pretty much leave the neanderthal with nothing seeing how it would be pretty meager left with it’s less developed frontal lobe.
Regardless, it’s not a “weak proxy”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836230/
Plus it would be a given that visual ability would be higher relative to Humans given it’s much larger proportions of the occiput.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/13/from-neanderthal-skull-to-neanderthal-brain/
No need to speculate.
Regardless, it’s not a “weak proxy”.
Actually it is.
In humans, orbital volume is only moderately correlated with eyeball size and eyeball size is only moderately correlated with visual cortex size, so the expected correlation between orbital volume and visual cortex size is likely small. Of course even small correlations can have big effects at the extremes, and Neanderthals were extreme in orbital volume. I’ll have to crunch the numbers.
Actually the study shows a 0.33 correlation between orbital volume and visual cortex in their human sample. Not a strong correlation but better than I thought.
My guess is that EQ may be tied to energy demands, one of the strongest influence of the brain in respect to the body, and the need for slower development to support large brain babies along with pre-mature birth as EQ is a trait of neotony.
Functionally, I guess it may also be tied to the plasticity of the brain. Though in actuality, it adjusted scaling methods, I’ve read that human aren’t that unique in regards to what to expect from EQ.
“Actually the study shows a 0.33 correlation between orbital volume and visual cortex in their human sample. Not a strong correlation but better than I thought.”
And the study also says how the results are likely underestimated for various reasons.
“Nonetheless, the strength of the relationship between eyeball and orbital volumes presented here is likely to be an underestimate, for a number of reasons. Firstly, although an updated version of the same software as Chau and colleagues (2004) and the same procedure for measuring orbital volume was used in this study, the MRI scans available were not optimised for orbital and ocular tissue measurements. Since the 1000 Functional Connectome scans were taken in order to study the brain, they were T1-weighted, which allows particularly clear differentiation of white matter and grey matter, whereas T2-weighted images are optimal for delineating the eye (Chau et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2006). Moreover, T1-weighted images show fluid and bones as the same shade (dark/black) meaning that the true extent of the orbit was difficult to ascertain and delineation of the region of interest depended on the external boundary of orbital fat (white), which may not always necessarily follow the orbital walls perfectly.
Secondly, since these scans were not optimised for imaging the eye/orbit region, the quality was variable and resulted in 49 of the available 89 scans requiring “reconstruction” of the eyeball border in some slices in order to measure eyeball volume, reducing measurement accuracy and necessitating removal from the analyses presented here. In combination, these factors likely gave rise to measurement error, thus artificially inflating the unexplained variance in the relationship between orbital and eye volume. Nonetheless, the relationship remained significant. If such error could be eradicated, the relationship would be even stronger.”
Also, again, the noted Occipital proportions of neanderthals support a larger need for the visual cortex.
“Neanderthals and homo sapiens grew incredibly large brains. So it can’t be resource allocation.”
I remembered EQ being tied to sociality among mammals.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21582.full
I think in the context of Homo, it a fairly good proxy until you get in between the differences between humans and Neanderthals, then the actual formation of the frontal lobe likely causes the difference.
I don’t think neanderthals went extinct.
I think they fucked homo-sapiens and had lots of kids. Nordics have 7% of their DNA today.
It’s probably just that there were overwhelmingly more homo-sapiens than neanderthal, whom had very small populations, so they their DNA was diluted and they were absorbed into the homo-sapiens gene pool, in the same way a half-breed becomes a quadroon then an octoroon.
Nordics literally look like neanderthals. Most other Caucasians are a lot more gracile, not stocky with big brows.
”This was the transition from ape to man. Indeed the ability to survive the freezing cold seems to be what separates humans from the apes. ”
So how explain hominid evolution from apes IN intertropical environments or before hominid adventures out of tropics*
Just a theory:
I think AMH arose in africa and not in europe or asia was because of the presence of more ‘kinds’ of earlier humanoids in africa at that time compared to humanoids in europe or asia. And these more kinds of humanoid tribes could have had more kinds of intellect. So they must created and passed on different kinds of ideas to each other….using which they could have created better tools/objects than their contemporaries at that time in europe and asia. They also could have interbred with each other and so more kinds of intellect genes accumulated in each others descendants and this must have continued for generations among the african humanoids…which would have lead to AMH arising in africa first instead of other places. And as this process continued….they eventually became smart enough to take over europe and asia by defeating neanderthals, denisovans.
PP,
I just saw you said something similar above in this very thread itself. I just read that comment now.
And this AMH who took over europe/asia was furthur sharpened by the cold which the AMH who stayed in africa and the AMH who migrated to india/australia didnt have the benefit of. Neanderthals and denosivans were also sharpened by the cold but didnt have the sheer variety of ideas and intelligence genes the AMH in africa had. So a combination of diverse ideas+ diverse (intellect) genes won over cold adaptation at that time, but later the combination of diverse ideas+ diverse genes+ cold adoptation won over the diverse genes+diverse ideas combo in modern times.
Z, I agree. I think despite selection pressures being greater in Eurasia, the sheer genetic and cultural diversity of Africa allowed it to evolve faster at first, but once that diversity had spread out of Africa by 60,000 years ago, evolutionary “progress” shifted to Eurasia because of its intense selection pressures.
PP,
So you think the main encephalization factor in Africa huge genetic variation?
I’m saying if African modern humans were smarter than neanderthals, despite experiencing less natural selection, they likely had more genetic variety from which nature could select.
A little natural selection can go along way if it has a lot to select from, while a ton of natural selection can hit a brick wall if the population has no variety. This was Richard Lynn’s explanation for why arctic people have mediocre IQs despite living in the extreme cold. I’m simply applying the same logic to Neanderthals vs Africans
But what makes you think Neanderthals were experiencing more natural selection? I’ve already cited evidence that predation risk has more of an effect than resource allocation on biodemographics.
In fact population bottlenecks produce more recessive mutations like increased intelligence.
But what makes you think Neanderthals were experiencing more natural selection?
Well I think whatever natural selection they were experiencing was more correlated with IQ, because they were in a more novel environment than modern humans who remained in the ancestral environment of Africa.
In fact population bottlenecks produce more recessive mutations like increased intelligence
Where is there more likely to be a one in a million IQ? In a population of a hundred people or in a population of a million people?
“Well I think whatever natural selection they were experiencing was more correlated with IQ, because they were in a more novel environment than modern humans who remained in the ancestral environment of Africa.”
Yet, as far as we can tell, brain size aside their frontal lobe was barely much different in proportions compared to erectus.
“Where is there more likely to be a one in a million IQ? In a population of a hundred people or in a population of a million people?”
Not only does this misses the point of bottlenecks, large population size actually correlates to language evolution. Thus social interaction from their larger population was a force in of itself and likely contributory to our brain proportions.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/2097.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/37/13606.full
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/323671
Same with Physiology as well, in regards to social competition.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736035/
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.689.8668&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00566.x/abstract
Africa just had more populations at that time so just as the dumbest populations likely lived in Africa, the smarter at one (modern humans) likely lived there too. It doesn’t mean africa was more cognitively demanding.
Yet the problem that I’ve explained is that genetic variation by a large population is just that, a larger distribution.
Without some sort of cognitive demand resulting in *mean traits as you would compare African Homo Sapiens skull, the wealth of the iq variation is essentially meaningless in terms of how Homo sapiens changed in Africa.
With all that said, you failed to actually reiterate your issue with melo and bottlenecks as well as the evidence of population size itself being an actual selective factor in human neural evolution.
Yet the problem that I’ve explained is that genetic variation by a large population is just that, a larger distribution.
Without some sort of cognitive demand resulting in *mean traits as you would compare African Homo Sapiens skull, the wealth of the iq variation is essentially meaningless in terms of how Homo sapiens changed in Africa.
Not denying there was cognitive selection in Africa, just denying that cognitive selection pressures in Africa were necessarily greater or even as great as those Neanderthals faced. Just because Neanderthals were allegedly dumber doesn’t prove their environments were less cognitively selective, because other variables, besides selection pressures, influence evolution.
With all that said, you failed to actually reiterate your issue with melo and bottlenecks
Yes Melo’s mentioned this to me before, but I’m not sure if he means that small populations have a higher mutation rate, or if they merely have a higher mutation load.
as well as the evidence of population size itself being an actual selective factor in human neural evolution.
That might be a good alternative theory for why bigger populations seem to have higher IQs. As Melo has mentioned, group size is correlated with brain size in primates. I think that’s because the larger the group, the more Theories of mind you have to keep track of to navigate the group politics.
“Not denying there was cognitive selection in Africa, just denying that cognitive selection pressures in Africa were necessarily greater or even as great as those Neanderthals faced.”
Yet I’ve explain how, in reference to their frontal lobe, population size itself would be a higher selection pressure for Sapien cognitive ability.
“Just because Neanderthals were allegedly dumber doesn’t prove their environments were less cognitively selective, because other variables, besides selection pressures, influence evolution.”
Then you would have to somehow prove directly that their selection pressures were greater with a guide for selection pressures of “intelligence” reviewed in primates or hominids, outline those respective traits with each population to support your conclusion.
In that regard, me and Melo are ahead.
“Yes Melo’s mentioned this to me before, but I’m not sure if he means that small populations have a higher mutation rate, or if they merely have a higher mutation load.”
Given his phrasing, more likely that latter.
“That might be a good alternative theory for why bigger populations seem to have higher IQs. As Melo has mentioned, group size is correlated with brain size in primates. I think that’s because the larger the group, the more Theories of mind you have to keep track of to navigate the group politics.”
Try a basic idea that’s actually argued in science on the matter, seeing how it accounts to brain proportions which are the biggest influences in skulls difference between Humans and Neanderthals.
Then you would have to somehow prove directly that their selection pressures were greater with a guide for selection pressures of “intelligence” reviewed in primates or hominids, outline those respective traits with each population to support your conclusion.
The fact that there’s a virtually perfect correlation between population IQ and population skin color is extremely strong evidence that cold climates selected for intelligence, and is also consistent Rick Potts’s climate change theory (since migrating from the tropics to the cold is climate change).
But population size may have been a secondary selection pressure.
There is nothing novel about a colder environment. Africa was not one climate the entire time. And my point on mutation load was that bottlenecks from new environments have a higher selection on recessive alleles like intelligence because of inbreeding. Meaning the jump in IQ when moving into Eurasia was more likely to do with novelty itself not an increase in difficulty. Increased intelligence was a side effect, which is why blue eyes and blonde hair are associated with it, which is also why Europeans are closer to Africans. East Asian intelligence is from selection European intelligence is from genetic drift.
As I’ve shown resource allocation. Has a lower selective power than predation risk at least in primates. So as I said before why are humans special? This means resource allocation is not a suitable explanatory factor for encephalization. The same could be said for predation risk, at some point humans became apex predators. Behavioral adaptability came before our transition to Eurasia, in fact RR had an entire article on the physical adaptations the cold selected for, again why are humans special? Why didn’t we just get hairy? Like Japanese macacue? or short and wide like neanderthals? How could resource allocation and predation risk still present a challenge to homo erectus/heidelbergensis? The solution is simple assnd elegant, competition, and not just any competition, human competition reinforced by human cooperation.
There is nothing novel about a colder environment.
Of course there is. For the first time in 25 million years the ancestors of Eurasians were moving to environments where no ape could possibly survive. It doesn’t get much more novel than that.
And my point on mutation load was that bottlenecks from new environments have a higher selection on recessive alleles like intelligence because of inbreeding. Meaning the jump in IQ when moving into Eurasia was more likely to do with novelty itself not an increase in difficulty. Increased intelligence was a side effect, which is why blue eyes and blonde hair are associated with it, which is also why Europeans are closer to Africans. East Asian intelligence is from selection European intelligence is from genetic drift.
I think what you’re saying is rare mutations spread faster in a small population which is true, and that in a small population, a particular new genotype can dominate because of luck (genetic drift) and you think that’s what happened with IQ. It’s possible but given the well known evolutionary correlation between environmental novelty and increased encephalization, I think it’s more likely that once we moved to a novel environment that our bodies weren’t built for, innovative problem solvers had a large fitness advantage.
As I’ve shown resource allocation. Has a lower selective power than predation risk at least in primates. So as I said before why are humans special? This means resource allocation is not a suitable explanatory factor for encephalization. The same could be said for predation risk, at some point humans became apex predators. Behavioral adaptability came before our transition to Eurasia, in fact RR had an entire article on the physical adaptations the cold selected for, again why are humans special? Why didn’t we just get hairy? Like Japanese macacue? or short and wide like neanderthals?
Any environmental problem can be solved in a variety of different ways, and whichever way proves most effective is what gets selected for. By the time humans left Africa 60,000 years ago, our brains were our greatest strength, so brain power is what was selected for. But that doesn’t mean our bodies didn’t also endure selection.
How could resource allocation and predation risk still present a challenge to homo erectus/heidelbergensis?
What presented a challenge for them when they migrated North was not freezing to death. Evidence suggests humans only mastered the use of fire 350,000 years ago.
The solution is simple assnd elegant, competition, and not just any competition, human competition reinforced by human cooperation.
A good solution needs explanatory power. How does that explain racial differences in IQ?
“The fact that there’s a virtually perfect correlation between population IQ and population skin color is extremely strong evidence that cold climates selected for intelligence, and is also consistent Rick Pott’s climate change theory (since migrating from the tropics to the cold is climate change).”
Except RR explains, using Jensen, of how useless the finding was.
Second, Potts theory was based on climate fluctuations back and forth, not just change 1 shift towards climate change.
“Of course there is. For the first time in 25 million years the ancestors of Eurasians were moving to environments where no ape could possibly survive. It doesn’t get much more novel than that.”
Yet the Macaque did.
“And my point on mutation load was that bottlenecks from new environments have a higher selection on recessive alleles like intelligence because of inbreeding. Meaning the jump in IQ when moving into Eurasia was more likely to do with novelty itself not an increase in difficulty. Increased intelligence was a side effect, which is why blue eyes and blonde hair are associated with it, which is also why Europeans are closer to Africans. East Asian intelligence is from selection European intelligence is from genetic drift.
“I think what you’re saying is rare mutations spread faster in a small population which is true, and that in a small population, a particular new genotype can dominate because of luck (genetic drift) and you think that’s what happened with IQ. It’s possible but given the well known evolutionary correlation between environmental novelty and increased encephalization, I think it’s more likely that once we moved to a novel environment that our bodies weren’t built for, innovative problem solvers had a large fitness advantage.”
Actually he’s saying it has to due with inbreeding selection on recessive alleles, not luck.
“As I’ve shown resource allocation. Has a lower selective power than predation risk at least in primates. So as I said before why are humans special? This means resource allocation is not a suitable explanatory factor for encephalization. The same could be said for predation risk, at some point humans became apex predators. Behavioral adaptability came before our transition to Eurasia, in fact RR had an entire article on the physical adaptations the cold selected for, again why are humans special? Why didn’t we just get hairy? Like Japanese macacue? or short and wide like neanderthals?
“Any environmental problem can be solved in a variety of different ways, and whichever way proves most effective is what gets selected for. By the time humans left Africa 60,000 years ago, our brains were our greatest strength, so brain power is what was selected for. But that doesn’t mean our bodies didn’t also endure selection.”
See my Australian study which actually goes into detail on the actual nature of modern behavior diversification during the OOA migrations.
“What presented a challenge for them when they migrated North was not freezing to death. Evidence suggests humans only mastered the use of fire 350,000 years ago.”
Except for evidence, such as cooking suggest it was much older than that as RR has repeatedly shown. Further you accuse Jm8’s sources of Afrocentrism yet you got your from an Israeli site using it for obvious reasons?
Nice consistency.
“A good solution needs explanatory power. How does that explain racial differences in IQ?”
Lets see, obvious differences in their environments based on a variety of factors to causes competition such and migration history, population metrics, and resources that would obviously differ by race. I’ve answered this before.
To PP:
Such a late date for fire use really does not seem remotely plausible.
Evidence for early control of fire goes back at least to erectus (the—regular an routine—cooking of food was a big part of what drove human physical/cranial/neurological evolution from that stage (if fire had not been mastered by then, we would likely have essentially stayed quite ape-like much longer—or rather stayed for longer as very primitive pre or early erectus-like proto-hominids, somewhat along the lines of homo habilis).
“Recent findings support that the earliest known controlled use of fire took place in Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, 1.0 Mya.”
Then it is found frequently associated with hominids in the heidelbergensis and antesessor lineages
and with far flung branches of (later) erectus (and members of the heidelbergensis lineage) all over the world where hominids lived with little contact with each other. It clearly did not diffuse from Israel to all extant hominids in the world after ca. 350 ka BC (especially since the first dates are much older).
Fire use is certainly found in all hominids descended from heidelbergensis (such as all sapiens and neanderthals), indicating that it goes back at least to their common ancestor in Africa. it is also found in hominids all over Asia, Africa and Europe (associated with Chinese erectus ca. 460,000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#Asia_2
“The Cave of Hearths in South Africa has burn deposits, which date from 700,000 to 200,000 BP, as do various other sites such as Montagu Cave (200,000 to 58,000 BP) ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#Africa
Fire use is certainly found in all hominids descended from heidelbergensis (such as all sapiens and neanderthals), indicating that it goes back at least to their common ancestor in Africa.
“Humans” certainly have been exploiting fire for about a million years, but I don’t think we’ve been making fire that long. Among Neanderthals it was found that they only used fire when it was warm, even though they needed it most when it was cold. This suggests they didn’t know how to make fire themselves but could only collect the fire that occurred naturally. This also may explain their extreme prognathism, since large jaws were needed to chew raw meat. The fact that even today, Northern Eurasians have less prognathism than tropical populations may even suggest that not all modern human groups mastered fire equally.
This suggests they didn’t know how to make fire themselves but could only collect the fire that occurred naturally.
“This also may explain their extreme prognathism, since large jaws were needed to chew raw meat.”
Except, like humans, their prognathism for hominid standards is very weak.
“The fact that even today, Northern Eurasians have less prognathism than tropical populations may even suggest that not all modern human groups mastered fire equally.”
Except that you are making this assumption on top of another assumption, which in of itself would rely on the concept that human have comparable diets in which cooking would be the deciding factor in how robust their mouth would be.
The major differences among racial groups based on prognathism, orbit shape, and similar morphological traits of the skull related to function are based in the Neolithic, likely associated with the eating of softer foods.
Click to access Michael_Masters.pdf
To PP,
The problem then becomes explaining the low latitude examples of Modernity comparable to those of higher latitudes.
file:///home/chronos/u-847e6ebc289f3c7306363eddb5674a7c1bf47af1/Downloads/10916-12715-2-PB.pdf
It has been shown to occur in Africa Australia, with the ancient population possessing the skills but it was just occurred during the cases that they needed.
What made Cromagnon appears as an explosion wasn’t necessarily some increase selection but, due to the higher need of clothing which has been shown to be a skill developed during the colder periods in Northern and Southern Africa, this translated to more common clothing being combined with previous decorations usually adorned on the body, thus modernity is more visable in Northern climate’s archaeological sites.
Can pumpkin do a post on what is the highest IQ hair style?
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-S8lZDeGiLV4%2FVwXRbpM4daI%2FAAAAAAAAwTU%2FX4mMTx-BWRoqgBJaCVUhrYiCnWqggDjww%2Fs1600%2Fbeinart.jpg&f=1
Very honest person in my opinion.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftheresurgent.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2Fdavid_duke.jpg&f=1
Not honest. Looks evil.
lmao why do you do this
She looks evil for you*
PP,
Update on the evidence for humans in America 130,000 years ago
http://www.evoanth.net/2017/10/19/130000-first-americans-disproven/
I found it pretty weak as a “disproving” article due to it’s lack of distinction among possible hominid toolkits based on the proposed candidates.
The most likely one, Asian Erectus, wasn’t directly compared under it’s biggest flaw category who likely didn’t have as complex of a culture.
I do agree with the alternatives that in regards to how the fractures were made however.
A passable skepticism piece at best.