the very idea that evolutionary novel values correlates to novel ideas in culture is fascinating and might shed some light on our futures. the problem of course is that we still do not understand correctly what is intelligence. | More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds. |
“Evolutionarily novel” preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are “evolutionarily familiar.” |
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel. Read more at www.physorg.com |
This is a fascinating and quite fresh view on a possibly groundbreaking view on the evolution of the human specie.
“Cooked food does many familiar things,” he observes. “It makes our food safer, creates rich and delicious tastes and reduces spoilage. Heating can allow us to open, cut or mash tough foods. But none of these advantages is as important as a little-appreciated aspect: cooking increases the amount of energy our bodies obtain from food.” (emphasis mine) Human beings are not obviously equipped to be nature’s gladiators. We have no claws, no armor. That we eat meat seems surprising, because we are not made for chewing it uncooked in the wild. Our jaws are weak; our teeth are blunt; our mouths are small. That thing below our noses? It truly is a pie hole. |
The title of Mr. Wrangham’s new book — “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human” — sounds a bit touchy-feely. Perhaps, you think, he has written a meditation on hearth and fellow feeling and s’mores. He has not. “Catching Fire” is a plain-spoken and thoroughly gripping scientific essay that presents nothing less than a new theory of human evolution, one he calls “the cooking hypothesis,” one that Darwin (among others) simply missed. Read more at www.nytimes.com |
a very worthwhile read. go the site to read all of it. with some of the points I agree implicitly, others to my mind are under-represented. No. 1 “Evolution is the external and visible manifestation of the differential survival of alternative replicators.”
|
No. 2 Cooperation came about through evolution.
|
No. 3 Selfishness is the principal factor in evolution.
|
No. 4 Group selection is only a theoretical possibility. |
No. 5 Hamilton’s rule shows how altruism is spread genetically.
|
No. 6 The study of animal behaviours gives a good picture of evolutionary theory.
|
No. 7Alarm calls are motivated by selfishness.
|
No. 8 Members of the same species are competing for the same resources. |
No. 9 Gene selection is a valid concept. |
No.10 Genes build organisms for the preservation of genes.
|
No. 11 Selfish gene theory is a legitimate way of looking at evolution. |
No. 12 “Selfishness beats altruism within groups, altruistic groups beat selfish groups.”
|
as I see it,there is no danger that humanity will divide, however speciation is an option that need be considered seriously WE ARE on the brink of technological breakthroughs that could augment our mental powers beyond recognition. It will soon be possible to boost human brainpower with electronic “plug-ins” or even by genetic enhancement. What will this mean for the future of humanity? |
This was the theme of a recent Neuroscience in Context meeting in Berlin, Germany, where anthropologists, technologists, neurologists, archaeologists and philosophers met to consider the implications of this next stage of human brain development. Would it widen the gulf between the world’s haves and have-nots - and perhaps even lead to a distinct and dominant species with unmatchable powers of intellect? |
Malafouris also believes such augmentation is the next logical stage in human development. “If we accept that tool use was part of the reason we came to develop language, then why should we perceive neuro-engineering as a threat rather than as the new stone industry of the 21st century?” Read more at www.newscientist.com |
“Human culture seems to have gone way beyond what such a law of gravity might allow”
a fascinating post, worthwhile your time of reading Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection. His paper provides a framework for thinking about how culture and environment constrain varieties to stay true to type and also how changes enable varieties to stray indefinitely from the original type. |
| It is now well established that language
cannot follow just any old rules. Linguists a few decades back thought there
was no limit to the variety of language, but research has since identified a
number of formal constraints that mark boundaries. Language can work within
those borders, but not cross them. The trouble with those borders is
understanding what these constraints mean psychologically and neurologically.
There must be some reason beyond the formal rules for why these constraints
existed. We hardly know how to think about these matters, let alone explain
them. A letter in the most recent issue of Nature reminds me, however,
that clues are coming in from, of all places, songbirds.Read more at www.babelsdawn.com |
“Cooperation is a form of goodness, but how prevalent is it in nature?”
also: “Altruism was seen as a problem because no place could be found for it in the established theoretical foundation of evolution. But instead of asking what’s wrong with the theory they took the incredible step of asking; what’s wrong with altruism?”
Interesting and very well written, go read it Altruism has had a lot of bad press in recent times. It’s been used, abused, manipulated and misunderstood. Let’s look at some background. |
It all began with a paper submitted by WD Hamilton in 1964 in which he put forward a view of altruism that was packaged into a concept called inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness became the bedrock of selfish gene theory, because it was assumed that it solved “the problem” of altruism, a problem that had to be solved for evolution-as-selfishness to get off the ground. But it led to unforeseen problems of its own. |
The extent to which inclusive fitness (the proposition that altruism is spread by genetic descent,) this house of cards, has come to be perceived as an edifice of substance is quite astounding. So imposing has it become that even those who dispute its significance do not dispute its right to a place at the table, and have even taken on some of its rhetoric. Read more at www.scientificblogging.com |
| Researchers in the field of synthetic biology are still a long way from being able to assemble living cells from scratch in the laboratory. But according to biochemist David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, their efforts are yielding clues to the mystery of how life began on Earth. |
Deamer has been investigating the origin of life for more than 20 years, focusing on the molecular self-assembly processes that led to the first “protocells” nearly 4 billion years ago. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago, he will discuss evolution, biochemistry, and the origin of cellular life. His presentation is part of a symposium on evolution organized by Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. |
| According to Deamer, life began with complex systems of molecules that came together through the self-assembly of nonliving componentsSee more at www.physorg.com |
| People commonly assume that our species has evolved very little since prehistoric times. Yet new studies using genetic information from populations around the globe suggest that the pace of human evolution increased with the advent of agriculture and cities. |
| If we are still evolving, what might our species look like in a millennium should we survive whatever environmental and social surprises are in store for us? Speculation ranges from the hopeful to the dystopian. |
| When you ask for opinions about what future humans might look like, you typically get one of two answers. Some people trot out the old science-fiction vision of a big-brained human with a high forehead and higher intellect. Others say humans are no longer evolving physically”that technology has put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection and that evolution is now purely cultural. |
| Let the battle of the thermostat begin. Now that the evenings have grown dark
and chilly, most people have switched on their central heating. But many are
keeping the temperature low to save on fuel bills, which are expected to
rise by 42 per cent this year. Home heating can spark fierce disagreement in
couples. Some people sneakily crank up the thermostat when their partners
aren’t looking; others wear woolly hats and gloves indoors as an
ostentatious protest at the temperature of the room.
|
Some people, it seems, feel the cold more than others. But why is this and is
there anything we can do about it?
Research is emerging to suggest that our biological thermostats are set to
slightly different levels. We all feel the cold to different degrees,
depending on our gender, fitness, age, diet, how much sleep we have, and
even the company we keep.
Tropical past is cause of cold feet |
The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice. ‘Who are YOU?’ said the Caterpillar. This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, ‘I ” I hardly know, sir, just at present.’
The answer might seem simple, even trivial: name, rank, serial number, family connections, occupation, and so forth. But there is more to the caterpillar’s contemptuous question than meets the eye, for biologists no less than for a philosophically inclined insect. Who are we? It turns out that the business of being a “self” is more fraught than cultural tradition and subjective experience tell us |
| The deepest, most private recesses of our genome might seem, if not sacrosanct, at least the inner sanctum of our “selves.” |
| But consider this: More than four times as much space in the human genome is occupied by “endogenous retroviruses”See more at chronicle.com |
|
