3 ms·

For me, gets really fascinating towards the last part. How he relates human anatomy to the domestication. Large eyes, smaller face etc.

by pklee 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago
Yes, it is a fascinating interview. However, it's bugging me how they talk about humans evolving from chimpanzees. That's just bullshit. We have common ancestors, sure. But it's not like chimpanzees closely resemble those ancestors, any more than we do. And for that matter, I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's very misleading to focus on chimpanzees.
- robbrown451 8y ago
  "I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos." Of course, long before. Bonobos are often considered chimpanzees, just not "common chimpanzees." (From Wikipedia: "Taxonomically, these two ape species are collectively termed panins; however, both species are more commonly referred to collectively using the generalized term chimpanzees, or chimps.") They are very close relatives, both members of the genus Pan. They can interbreed, but don't tend to in the wild because the croc-infested Congo River separates them. If you only vaguely remember that important detail, you probably don't have enough knowledge to say it is "just bullshit" that we came from chimpanzees. None of us do, actually. Many think the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans was probably similar enough to a modern chimp to be classified as a chimp. Richard Wrangham was actually a big proponent of this view, see his mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_... "Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the genus Pan and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior." You can disagree with him, but given that we don't have a fossil of the most recent common ancestor, it's mostly speculation. (and in many ways it is not a scientific question, but a semantic one) Also, if you think a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species, think of the polar bear and brown bear. The brown bear still occupies a similar ecological niche as to the common ancestor, while the polar bear occupies a very different one. In fact, the common ancestor WAS a brown bear.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    It's not just semantics. What we have are bones and teeth. I don't believe that we know anything about the social behavior of the CHLCA species. Whether it was more like common chimpanzees, or more like bonobos. So the bit about parallel evolution of social behavior in bonobos and humans is highly speculative, at best. And FWIW, I didn't argue that "a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species". I argue that some stuff -- where we have no data -- is unknown. Maybe similar, maybe different. We just don't know. Edit: Upon reflection, maybe we do. Bonobos being really an isolated subspecies. But TFA doesn't explain that. I do like the idea that humans have domesticated themselves, in any case. A lot of it is neoteny. Speciation through arrested development. So if only the childlike survive, that's going to select for it.
- ncmncm 8y ago
  We don't know how much chimpanzees resemble our common ancestor, but we do know that H. sap. resembles it very little. The most rational estimate would be that it was quite a lot like the chimpanzee today -- same environment, same brain size, same diet. So it cannot be far off the mark to suggest we evolved from something remarkably chimpanzee-like.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Sure, chimpanzee-like. But like common chimpanzees, or like bonobos? The fact that bonobos split fairly recently, following habitat isolation, implies that the common ancestor was more like common chimpanzees. And that, as TFA argues, self-domestication occurred independently in the human and bonobo lines. But I'm not aware of any paleontological support for that. And I can't quite imagine what such evidence would look like.
    - ncmncm 8y ago
      The enormously broader range of the common chimpanzee (until recently) argues for its more basal character. New evidence could overturn that, but I won't be holding my breath waiting on it.

For me, gets really fascinating towards the last part. How he relates human anatomy to the domestication. Large eyes, smaller face etc.

by pklee 8y ago

For me, gets really fascinating towards the last part. How he relates human anatomy to the domestication. Large eyes, smaller face etc.

mirimir 8y ago

Yes, it is a fascinating interview. However, it's bugging me how they talk about humans evolving from chimpanzees. That's just bullshit. We have common ancestors, sure. But it's not like chimpanzees closely resemble those ancestors, any more than we do. And for that matter, I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's very misleading to focus on chimpanzees.

robbrown451 8y ago
"I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos." Of course, long before. Bonobos are often considered chimpanzees, just not "common chimpanzees." (From Wikipedia: "Taxonomically, these two ape species are collectively termed panins; however, both species are more commonly referred to collectively using the generalized term chimpanzees, or chimps.") They are very close relatives, both members of the genus Pan. They can interbreed, but don't tend to in the wild because the croc-infested Congo River separates them. If you only vaguely remember that important detail, you probably don't have enough knowledge to say it is "just bullshit" that we came from chimpanzees. None of us do, actually. Many think the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans was probably similar enough to a modern chimp to be classified as a chimp. Richard Wrangham was actually a big proponent of this view, see his mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_... "Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the genus Pan and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior." You can disagree with him, but given that we don't have a fossil of the most recent common ancestor, it's mostly speculation. (and in many ways it is not a scientific question, but a semantic one) Also, if you think a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species, think of the polar bear and brown bear. The brown bear still occupies a similar ecological niche as to the common ancestor, while the polar bear occupies a very different one. In fact, the common ancestor WAS a brown bear.
- mirimir 8y ago
  It's not just semantics. What we have are bones and teeth. I don't believe that we know anything about the social behavior of the CHLCA species. Whether it was more like common chimpanzees, or more like bonobos. So the bit about parallel evolution of social behavior in bonobos and humans is highly speculative, at best. And FWIW, I didn't argue that "a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species". I argue that some stuff -- where we have no data -- is unknown. Maybe similar, maybe different. We just don't know. Edit: Upon reflection, maybe we do. Bonobos being really an isolated subspecies. But TFA doesn't explain that. I do like the idea that humans have domesticated themselves, in any case. A lot of it is neoteny. Speciation through arrested development. So if only the childlike survive, that's going to select for it.
ncmncm 8y ago
We don't know how much chimpanzees resemble our common ancestor, but we do know that H. sap. resembles it very little. The most rational estimate would be that it was quite a lot like the chimpanzee today -- same environment, same brain size, same diet. So it cannot be far off the mark to suggest we evolved from something remarkably chimpanzee-like.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Sure, chimpanzee-like. But like common chimpanzees, or like bonobos? The fact that bonobos split fairly recently, following habitat isolation, implies that the common ancestor was more like common chimpanzees. And that, as TFA argues, self-domestication occurred independently in the human and bonobo lines. But I'm not aware of any paleontological support for that. And I can't quite imagine what such evidence would look like.
  - ncmncm 8y ago
    The enormously broader range of the common chimpanzee (until recently) argues for its more basal character. New evidence could overturn that, but I won't be holding my breath waiting on it.