The neanderthals buried their deads

the neanderthals buried their deads before the arrival of modern humans, according to an international team of arqueologists who had made a 13 year study of the remains founded in southeast France. “This discovery doesn´t just prove the existance of buried traditions amog neanderthals in west Europe, but also reveals a cognitive capacity relatively sophisticated for their production´´, explains William Rendu, principal author of the study.

Why are the teenagers as they are? There is an anthropological explanation for that!

Why behave the teenagers taking a good deal of risks? Do they have any special reason for that?

Maybe,  all those special behaviours have an anthropological explanation.  But it is just an hypothesis…

Have a look:

Thanks to scientific research we know that in the period between 12 and 25 years, our brains experience a  massive reorganization (in this period there is not growth at all).

In addition, one of the most important issues connected to the special brain of the teenagers is that it is able to adapt successfully to a good deal of environments and situations, and they are prepared to abandon the security of their home and be able to survive in the complicated outer world.

On the other hand, we have to take into account the natural selection. This process doesn´t allow “not-beneficial” characteristics. So, if the youth is a period of collection of those “bad” characteristics, how have they overcome the natural selection?

In fact, there are not  “not-beneficial” features, since the aim of those actions is to look for different and new experiences and taking those kind of risks is essential in order to evolve.

Moreover,  for young people, it´s important to have a motivation or a reward because that´s why they behave in a different way, as depending on that prize they will decide if it is worth it the effort or not, so, if they will take a risk or not. However,  if there is not a reward, the teenagers don´t use some areas of the brain which are responsible for: the efficiency, detect mistakes, plan and maintain the concentration,… whereas the adult people activate these mechanisms in an automatic way.  

So, the difference between the adults and the teenagers is that, young people take more risks, and the reason for that is that they appreciate more the “prize”.

To sum up, focusing on the evolution, we should take into account that thanks to that special characteristic of taking risks, human being is currently what it is, as if some “teenagers” some million years ago didn´t want to look for new experiences, we wouldn´t be here right now…

The evolution from primitive hominids to humans and the subsequent conquest of the world, was done by teenagers. So, even if the people tend to think just the opposite, we must accept that they have powerful  minds!

 

For further information: http://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/2011/10/04/hermosos_cerebros.html?_page=2

Founded in Atapuerca the oldest human DNA of the world

It has been founded in “La Sima de los Huesos” in Atapuerca(Burgos, Spain) the oldest remain of DNA in the world. The discovery team was formed by Spanish and German scientists and they used a new technique, thanks to this they had sequenced almost the complete DNA from a human fossil.

Before this technique exists they couldn’t use DNA from fossils but DNA founded in frozen ground.

Researchers sequenced the genome (from a femur) and compared it with the closest species and having that into account they have estimate that the fossil is 400 000 years old.

Surprisingly the complexity of the fossil´s genome  is much more than the expected for the antiquity of the remains (the Pleistocene).

 

For further information: http://www.cadenaser.com/sociedad/articulo/encuentran-atapuerca-adn-humano-antiguo-mundo/csrcsrpor/20131204csrcsrsoc_9/Tes?id_rss=14092012-Ser-rs-1-Fb

The last “sign up” of Del Bosque is 500.000 years old, and cames from Burgos

The codirector of the arqueological deposits of Sierra de Atapuerca, in Burgos, lead to know yesterday the reconstruction of a foot, which belongs to an hominid who lived half milion years ago.

The presentation of the founding enjoyed the presence of the national teams trainer Vicente Del Bosque.

” It is a unique remain, which stills in a superb conservation condition” explains Asuaga emotionated. ” There is not a photo like this in the hole prehistory” he added. The foot was the lower right extremity of a Homo Heilderbergensis, 1´73 metres height. ” There is not another one in all the register of human evolution until the neanderthals” Asuaga detailed.

REFERENCE:

El Correo digital

Bippity, Boppity a single gene change and …Boo!

Talking about evolution we have had a lot of different hypothesis. How does evolution happen? How do we change? Why do(o did???) we evolve??

Currently, we know “THE WHY”, and that evolution is a mixture of genetic mutation and natural selection, but even if we are sure about the mechanism we are not sure about it´s speed. Even if we moved aside  the saltationism theory and it was the gradualist one which was solidified,  now we find that it may not be as easy as choosing betwen both therories.

“Natura non facit saltum” or nature does not take leaps was one of Darwin´s usual statements, but now there´s an evidence that individual genetic changes can have unbelievable effects in organism, moreover, simple gene changes could have more value than piled small changes.

Recent studies in Stanford University, in California, by David Kingsley, have some evidences to support this hypothesis. These studies have shown that for example in plants a single gene lesions could have a lot of morphological effects and still be viable (they think it could even improve the fitness, but they haven’t prove it). There is also the evidence in three spined stickleback (Gasterous aculeatus) in which Kingsley found a quantitative trait loci(which is a loci that controls a lot of traits), which is responsible for two thirds of all the variatons in pelvic spine length.

In conclusion,people who supported saltationism may not be  as wrong as we could think. But anyway, even if these changes could seen spectacular to us, they´re not as drastic and  sudden as saltationism supporting people could though.

Inspired by: “Revenge of the hopeful monster” wich was published in Nature.(Vol 463|18 February 2010) Tanguy Chouard

 

Primate origins: a vexing question in anthropology

It is really difficult to guess how the primate origins happened, as the fossil record for the transition from non-primate to is quite limited. That´s why most of the proves that we have nowadays are based on the different physical and behavioral features of the living primates. Thus, the speculation and the guess work are essential in this specific question.
However, taking into account the most influential hypotheses, it is possible to state that early primates acquired their own characteristics due to their special way of tending to behave inside the environment. Moreover, they will improve their condition in the habitat changing these characteristics, taking advantage of the natural selection that they are suffering.
As I have already mentioned, the fossil record was very limited, and it is thought that the behavior of current primates is not even similar to the one of the ancient ones.
However, Joseph Orkin and Herman Pontzer published an article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in which they used gray squirrels so as to achieve new consequences of the origins of the primates:
*Taking into account the Angiosperm Coevolution Hypothesis” (Sussman, 1991) the result might be that primate like characteristics are a result of feeding and moving in a special way in the terminal branches of trees.

But, there is an exception as gray squirrels are known to feed in the terminal branches, and they don’t have primate like characteristics.
However, taking into account behavioral issues, there are not differences between primates and gray squirrels.

So, as a consequence of this, it is possible to state that primate like morphology is not an essential condition so as to exploit the terminal branches of the trees. Moreover, something else must have been acting so that they evolve in the unique primate-like characteristics.

*If we consider the Visual Predation Hypothesis: “… the use of terminal branches is not enough to result in a primate-like morphology; however, exclusive use of a fine-branch milieu may result in stronger selective gradients and could favor the evolution of primate like morphology…”

So, even if it is not the most essential factor to get that characteristics, that condition is favored.

On the other hand, we might know that gray squirrels can exploit a wide range of habitats; for instance, terminal branches, large branches, the ground… And, as a consequence of this diversity, they get a more generalized morphology. But, this diversity doesn’t occur in primates…
To sum up, Orkin and Pontzer did not “solve” the mystery of primate origins, even if they add more and interesting data to this topic.

SO, AT THE END, WE DON’T KNOW THE ORIGINS OF PRIMATES, BUT MAYBE WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN THIS FIELD, AND…
YOU COULD BE THE ONE SOLVING THIS VEXING QUESTION OF THE ANTHROPOLOGY!

References:

“ Gray Squirrels and Primate Origins”
Elliott Forsythe 2011
Popular Anthropology Magazine 2011 Vol2 No4

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TOPIC EXPLAINED IN THE TEXT ABOVE ? OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER HYPOTHESIS TO EXPLAIN THIS MYSTERY OF THE ANTHROPOLOGY?

“Nothing in bio…

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” Dobzhansky

Are you a liar?

As our blog name shows, WHY is almost always an important question, and even more when we talk about anthropology…

Therefore, even if people tends to think that being a liar is a skill which is connected to people´s personality, there are some compelling evidences that demonstrate that this fact (the one of being a liar, or just cheating)  has an anthropological explanation. Thus, your main doubt or question might be: WHY?

A long time ago, humans started to communicate with the rest of the individuals of their same specie in a verbal way, moving aside the rest of the means of communication; for instance, facial expressions, body contact, eye and hand movements…

As a consequence of that change, during these hundreds of years, the verbal communication has become our most reliable communicating way, or not?

Why are we hesitating about verbal communication´s reliability?

If we take into account our personal experience, we might have become aware that our way of getting on with our friends or just with any other person which lives all over the world demands trust. So, we must trust other people´s words…

When we achieve that kind of thinking, we may ask ourselves? Do we really want to trust what they are telling us? We wonder if that effort is worth it…

However, I would like to point out this sentence  “…people lie, and, more importantly, we know they lie…” . This is an interesting issue that in my opinion we should keep in mind, since the human being has (at least, currently) the necessary ability to detect deception.

Moreover, even if people tends to think that humans are the only ones with this special skill, they would be surprised with the results of recent research reported in the International Journal of Primatology: “…Primates are both deceptive and perceptive of deception…”

Furthermore… “…Apart from humans, primates also have this special skill! : “More importantly, it suggests that humans are not unique in our ability to pick up on these liars and disregard their verbal signals.”…”

As a result, we should also notice that this fact would have some effects, as natural selection has taken part in the evolution of this ability. Indeed, the animals that can detect deceivers will be more successful because they will be aware if the signals of the other individuals are true or not. Thus, if they take advantage of this talent, they will have the chance of obtaining the most valuable resources.

So…

Think and reflect on all the effects that just telling a little fib could have…

 

References:

Elliott Forsythe

2012

“ Liars, Cheats, and Frauds in Primatological Perspective”

Popular Anthropology Magazine 2012 Vol3 No1

Is God a watchmaker?

When we study Physical Anthropology we will realize that it is not a subject, it is a handful of questions, a never ending list of questions. But the main question is, Why?

What is a human? What makes human a human? How do we get all this(* that surround us)?(what is this?) and obviously:

àWhy are we here?

Since humans had the ability for reasoning they had try to get an explanation for all these questions. All the religions, myths and ever some pseudo sciences tried to offer a way to explain or understand something that we can`t still explain at all.

However, after Lamarck and Darwin  theories drived people to think in a different way. And seemed that these theories marked a turning point in our thougts, but this but this had not happen, we continued finding out new theories that try to come back with these questions by other ways, one of those, the intelligent design.

Intelligent design is a kind of creationism theory which takes in account the complexity of the human being

 “A watch had to have been made by a watchmaker” Paley

As we can read in the quote, Reverend Paley tried to explain the complexity of making life, because, by analogy, life is much more complex than a watch.

The main idea is that the complexity of living structure, biochemical reactions and psychological processes  cannot been explained by natural evolution.

Usually, they argue the irreductible complexity, the fact that been so complex the evolutionary processes we could not have arisen them step by step.

So, is this a possibility? Could some supernatural force have made everything around us?

I really don’t know (even if it is difficult to believe it) if it is true, as anyone. Anyway, even if that is true, how could we explain the existence of that supernatural force?, we avoid the question of why and how are we here, but we still have another important question, Why/how is that super natural force there? (And an extra question, how did it make us?)