scholarly journals The Human Mandible and the Origins of Speech

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Daegling
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Food Preparation ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Mandibular Bone ◽  
Evolution And Development ◽  
Cortical Hypertrophy ◽  
Skeletal Robusticity

Among the unique traits of human mandibles is the finding of relatively greater utilization of cortical bone with respect to other hominoids. The functional significance of this trait is not plausibly linked to masticatory demands given the diminution of the masticatory musculature in human evolution and the behavioral universal of extraoral food preparation in recent humans. Similarly, the presence of more mandibular bone is not a correlated effect of systemic skeletal robusticity, since gracilization of the skeleton is a feature diagnostic of modern humans. The mandibular symphysis in modern humans is manifested as the chin, and it is here where cortical bone hypertrophy is most pronounced. The potential covariation between the expression of the chin and bone hypertrophy is explored in an attempt to clarify their respective biomechanical roles. Current developments in skeletal biomechanics implicate low magnitude, high frequency strains in bone hypertrophy. The physiology of speech production likely produces strains in mandibular bone of greater frequency and lesser magnitude than those associated with mastication. Consequently, language acquisition plausibly accounts for cortical hypertrophy in modern human mandibles. Its role in the evolution and development of the chin is less clear.

scholarly journals Something old, something borrowed: Admixture and adaptation in human evolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dannemann ◽  
Fernando Racimo
Keyword(s):  
Human Evolution ◽  
Ancient Dna ◽  
Gene Pool ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Functional Assays ◽  
Over Time

Almost a decade ago, the sequencing of ancient DNA from archaic humans - Neanderthals and Denisovans - revealed that modern and archaic humans interbred at least twice during the Pleistocene. The field of human paleogenomics has now turned its attention towards understanding the nature of this genetic legacy in the gene pool of present-day humans. What exactly did modern humans obtain from interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans? Were introgressed genetic material beneficial, neutral or maladaptive? Can differences in phenotypes among present-day human populations be explained by archaic human introgression? These questions are of prime importance for our understanding of recent human evolution, but will require careful computational modeling and extensive functional assays before they can be answered in full. Here, we review the recent literature characterizing introgressed DNA and the likely biological consequences for their modern human carriers. We focus particularly on archaic human haplotypes that were beneficial to modern humans as they expanded across the globe, and on ways to understand how populations harboring these haplotypes evolved over time.

scholarly journals Something old, something borrowed: Admixture and adaptation in human evolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dannemann ◽  
Fernando Racimo
Keyword(s):  
Human Evolution ◽  
Ancient Dna ◽  
Gene Pool ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Functional Assays ◽  
Over Time

Almost a decade ago, the sequencing of ancient DNA from archaic humans - Neanderthals and Denisovans - revealed that modern and archaic humans interbred at least twice during the Pleistocene. The field of human paleogenomics has now turned its attention towards understanding the nature of this genetic legacy in the gene pool of present-day humans. What exactly did modern humans obtain from interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans? Were introgressed genetic material beneficial, neutral or maladaptive? Can differences in phenotypes among present-day human populations be explained by archaic human introgression? These questions are of prime importance for our understanding of recent human evolution, but will require careful computational modeling and extensive functional assays before they can be answered in full. Here, we review the recent literature characterizing introgressed DNA and the likely biological consequences for their modern human carriers. We focus particularly on archaic human haplotypes that were beneficial to modern humans as they expanded across the globe, and on ways to understand how populations harboring these haplotypes evolved over time.

Human Evolution

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Wood
Keyword(s):  
Human Evolution ◽  
Great Apes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trace Fossils ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Molecular Evidence ◽  
Prehistoric Archaeology ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
The Family ◽  
And Behavior

The study of human evolution involves (1) understanding the evolutionary context and the circumstances surrounding the origin of the branch of the Tree of Life (technically referred to as a clade) whose only extant taxon is modern humans, (2) recognizing the extinct species that are more closely related to modern humans than to the closest living apes (i.e., chimpanzees and bonobos), (3) reconstructing the morphology and behavior of those species, (4) determining how they are related to each other and to modern humans, (5) investigating the factors and influences that shaped their evolution, and (6) reconstructing the origin(s) of modern human anatomy and behavior. The study of the fossil evidence for human evolution is traditionally referred to as hominid paleontology, which reflected the then-prevailing conventional wisdom that the differences between modern humans and the great apes were profound enough to merit being recognized at the level of the family, with modern humans in the family Hominidae, and the great apes in the family Pongidae. But the molecular evidence is consistent with a particularly close relationship between Homo sapiens (the formal Linnaean name for modern humans) and two of the great apes, chimpanzees and bonobos. In the light of this compelling evidence, many researchers use the tribe (the taxonomic category below the level of the family and above the level of the genus) Hominini to accommodate the species and genera more closely related to modern humans than to chimpanzees and bonobos. So, in the new terminology the study of the human fossil record should be referred to as hominin paleontology. The study of the artifacts (e.g., stone and bone tools, drawn and carved images, early structures, evidence of decoration, etc.) made in prehistoric times is called prehistoric archaeology. In the United States the combined study of hominin paleontology and prehistoric archaeology is called paleoanthropology, human prehistory, or just prehistory—this article focuses on hominin paleontology. The data available for reconstructing human evolutionary history are genetic (from molecules) and phenotypic (from true and trace fossils). Genetic data include information about modern-human genetic variation that allows researchers to reconstruct the relatively recent migration of modern humans, plus ancient DNA that so far has been recovered from modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the fossils from a site in Spain called the Sima de los Huesos. Phenotypic evidence, which is divided into macroscopic and microscopic, can be gathered from the surface of true fossils (i.e., bones and teeth) as well as from their internal structure. The latter can be accessed nondestructively by using imaging techniques or destructively by making sections of bones and teeth. The trace fossils that are most relevant for human evolution are footprints such as the c. 3.6-million-year-old hominin footprint trails from Laetoli in Tanzania.

scholarly journals Something old, something borrowed: Admixture and adaptation in human evolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dannemann ◽  
Fernando Racimo
Keyword(s):  
Human Evolution ◽  
Ancient Dna ◽  
Gene Pool ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Functional Assays ◽  
Over Time

Almost a decade ago, the sequencing of ancient DNA from archaic humans - Neanderthals and Denisovans - revealed that modern and archaic humans interbred at least twice during the Pleistocene. The field of human paleogenomics has now turned its attention towards understanding the nature of this genetic legacy in the gene pool of present-day humans. What exactly did modern humans obtain from interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans? Were introgressed genetic material beneficial, neutral or maladaptive? Can differences in phenotypes among present-day human populations be explained by archaic human introgression? These questions are of prime importance for our understanding of recent human evolution, but will require careful computational modeling and extensive functional assays before they can be answered in full. Here, we review the recent literature characterizing introgressed DNA and the likely biological consequences for their modern human carriers. We focus particularly on archaic human haplotypes that were beneficial to modern humans as they expanded across the globe, and on ways to understand how populations harboring these haplotypes evolved over time.

scholarly journals A catalog of single nucleotide changes distinguishing modern humans from archaic hominins

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kuhlwilm ◽  
Cedric Boeckx
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Molecular Basis ◽  
Experimental Validation ◽  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Brain Growth ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Single Nucleotide ◽  
The Past ◽  
Complex Phenotypes

AbstractThroughout the past decade, studying ancient genomes provided unique insights into human prehistory, and differences between modern humans and other branches like Neanderthals can enrich our understanding of the molecular basis of unique modern human traits. Modern human variation and the interactions between different hominin lineages are now well studied, making it reasonable to go beyond fixed changes and explore changes that are observed at high frequency in present-day humans. Here, we identify 571 genes with non-synonymous changes at high frequency. We suggest that molecular mechanisms in cell division and networks affecting cellular features of neurons were prominently modified by these changes. Complex phenotypes in brain growth trajectory and cognitive traits are likely influenced by these networks and other changes presented here. We propose that at least some of these changes contributed to uniquely human traits, and should be prioritized for experimental validation.

2. Finding our place

2019 ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Bernard Wood
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Biology ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Common Ancestor ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Origins ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

When did the process of using reason to try and understand human origins begin, and how did it develop? When was the scientific method first applied to the study of human evolution? ‘Finding our place’ begins by reviewing the history of how first philosophers and then scientists came to realize that modern humans are part of the natural world. It then explains why, using advances in molecular biology, scientists think chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to modern humans than they are to gorillas, and why they think the common ancestor of the chimpanzee/bonobo and modern human clades lived between six and eight million years ago.

Has Australia backdated the Human Revolution?

Antiquity ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 73 (282) ◽  
pp. 876-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Stringer
Keyword(s):  
Human Evolution ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Origins ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Modern Human Origins ◽  
South Wales

Australia has usually played a supporting role in the story of human evolution — regarded as a place at the edge of the inhabited world where modern humans arrived relatively late and then remained largely isolated from subsequent developments. However, new dates for a human burial at Mungo, New South Wales (Thorne et al. 1999) may not only force revision of views about the peopling of Australia, but also have a wider impact on ideas about modern human origins.

Clash of signs: Putting bilingualism back into language evolution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Language Evolution ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Alarm Calls ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
The Real ◽  
Multiple Languages

Research and thinking into the cognitive aspects of language evolution has usually attempted to account for how the capacity for learning even one modern human language developed. Bilingualism has perhaps been thought of as something to think about only once the ‘real’ puzzle of monolingualism is solved, but this would assume in turn (and without evidence) that bilingualism evolved after monolingualism. All typically-developing children (and adults) are capable of learning multiple languages, and the majority of modern humans are at least bilingual. In this paper I ask whether by skipping bilingualism out of language evolution we have missed a trick. I propose that exposure to synonymous signs, such as food and alarm calls, are a necessary precondition for the abstracting away of sound from referent. In support of this possibility is evidence that modern day bilingual children are better at breaking this ‘word magic’ spell. More generally, language evolution should be viewed through the lens of bilingualism, as this is the end state we are attempting to explain.

scholarly journals Information about Human Evolution: An Analysis of News Published in Communication Media in Spanish between 2015 and 2017

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Jon Ander Garibi ◽  
Alvaro Antón ◽  
José Domingo Villarroel
Keyword(s):  
Digital Media ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Print Media ◽  
Biological Evolution ◽  
Knowledge Dissemination ◽  
Communication Media ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Scientific Journalism

The present study examines a sample of 220 pieces of news related to human evolution, written in Spanish and published over a period of two years, both in digital and print media. The aim of this study is to assess the rigor and coherence of the information in the news in our sample with scientific knowledge on the theory of evolution. To this end, errors and the incorrect use of concepts related to biological evolution are identified, classified according to criteria resulting from the review of previous studies, and finally, the frequency of errors identified in news published in print media is compared with that identified in digital media. The results presented allow us to highlight the significantly high frequency of errors in the news analyzed and the most frequent error categories. Results are discussed within the frame of the important role that scientific journalism plays in the processes of knowledge dissemination, in this case, related to human evolution.

scholarly journals Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry

Nature ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 592 (7853) ◽  
pp. 253-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateja Hajdinjak ◽  
Fabrizio Mafessoni ◽  
Laurits Skov ◽  
Benjamin Vernot ◽  
Alexander Hübner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family History ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Late Pleistocene ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Human Migration ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Modern Humans ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
Genome Wide Data

AbstractModern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1–5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document