Migration: An engine for social change
In today's Nature, Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd argue that migration is an engine of social change because the movement of people into societies that offer a better way of life is a more powerful driver of cultural evolution than conflict and conquest (pay-access only, sorry!):
As cultural evolutionists interested in how societies change over the long term, we have thought a lot about migration, but only recently tumbled to an obvious idea: migration has a profound effect on how societies evolve culturally because it is selective. People move to societies that provide a more attractive way of life and, all other things being equal, this process spreads ideas and institutions that promote economic efficiency, social order and equality.
Jacobs et al ‘08 – Ages for the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa: Implications for Human Behavior and Dispersal
In today's Science, Jacobs et al discuss Ages for the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa: Implications for Human Behavior and Dispersal:
The expansion of modern human populations in Africa 80,000 to 60,000 years ago and their initial exodus out of Africa have been tentatively linked to two phases of technological and behavioral innovation within the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa—the Still Bay and Howieson's Poort industries—that are associated with early evidence for symbols and personal ornaments.
Establishing the correct sequence of events, however, has been hampered by inadequate chronologies. We report ages for nine sites from varied climatic and ecological zones across southern Africa that show that both industries were short-lived (5000 years or less), separated by about 7000 years, and coeval with genetic estimates of population expansion and exit times.
Comparison with climatic records shows that these bursts of innovative behavior cannot be explained by environmental factors alone.
Darwin’s impact on our place in the world
As part of the 150th anniversary celebrations of a certain Charles Darwin, Radio New Zealand is getting a whole bunch of New Zealand scientists to give public lectures about Darwin's impact on our place in the world. They're recording them, broadcasting them over the radio, and you can listen to them on the internet here (the first two are online already).
Lecture 1 - Darwin and the Evolution of an Idea (Professor Lloyd Spencer Davis, University of Otago)
In the last 2000 years there has been one idea, above all else, that has altered the way we view the world and our place in it. That idea is evolution by natural selection and the originator of the idea was Charles Darwin
Lecture 2 - The Evolution of Biological Complexity (Professor Paul Rainey FRSNZ, Massey University).
Professor Rainey paints a picture of life's evolution from the perspective of major evolutionary transitions, including that from solitary organisms to societies.
Lecture 3. The Principle of Evolution: Absolute Simplicity (Professor David Penny CNZM FRSNZ, Research Director, Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Massey University)
Can we find anything in biology that is not understandable, or not explainable, by the things we can observe and measure in the present? Evolution is, by far, the simplest possible way of understanding ourselves, our past, and our future.
Lecture 4. The fossil record (Professor Alan Cooper, Director, Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, The University of Adelaide)
How should we interpret what the fossil record tells us about evolution - both in general, and with regard to how New Zealand has ended up as it is today?
5. Evolutionary Psychology (Professor Russell Gray, The University of Auckland)
Attempts to explain human behaviour in evolutionary terms have a mixed history. Today, crude social Darwinian and socio-biological explanations are increasingly being replaced by richer, more complex theories.
6. The Storytelling Ape: Evolution, Art, Story, Culture (Professor Brian Boyd, The University of Auckland)
Brian Boyd will focus on art, perhaps the feature of human behavior that might seem to have least to do with a struggle for existence. Can biology explain why art (music, dance, visual art, storytelling and verse) is a human universal? Why do we so compulsively invent and engage with stories we know to be untrue?
I know it’s not a real word, but…
Funner. Impactful. Blowiest. Territorialism. Multifunctionality. Dialoguey. Dancey. Thrifting. Chillaxing. Anonymized. Interestinger. Wackaloon. Updatelette. Noirish. Huger. Domainless. Delegator. Photocentric. Relationshippy. Bestest. Zoomable.
What do all these words have in common? Someone, somewhere, is using them with a disclaimer like "I know it's not a real word..."
A Look at Linguistic Evolution
In today's, Evolution: Education and Outreach, Anastasia Thanukos takes A Look at Linguistic Evolution:
Anyone who has ever tackled a Shakespeare play knows that English has changed substantially in the 400 years since Elizabeth I ruled England. In fact, Elizabethan English can seem like a completely different language from the one we speak today. Just try describing your mood with the Shakespearean terms allicholly and tetchy—you are more likely to get confused looks than sympathy for being unhappy and irritable. Four hundred years from now, English speakers will likely feel the same way about the language we speak today. Unless you are keeping up with the latest additions to the Oxford English Dictionary, you might already be behind the times: Do you know if you would be eligible to participate in a girlcott? Or whether you would want a job as a helmer? Or when it would be appropriate to wear a jandal?
The full-text is available at the EEO website here.
The Singing Cavemen
....and the award for the stupidest science story I've seen in months goes to LiveScience.com for "Cave Men Loved to Sing", in which we're told that our cave-dwelling ancestors used echo-location:
With only dull light available from a torch, which couldn't be carried into very narrow passages, the ancient hunters had to use their voices like sonar to explore the crooks and crannies of a newfound cave, Reznikoff explained.
"When acting in a cave in conditions similar to prehistoric ones ... the surroundings a few meters ahead are almost completely dark," he said, adding that "since sound reaches much farther than reduced light, especially in irregular surroundings, the only possibility and security is to explore the cave with the voice and its echoing effects."
This work is good, because... "(some work was done in past years and combined with the latest findings)". A scientific paper being based off previous findings... Fancy that.
The conclusions? -
Because Paleolithic humans had a deep connection with the melodic properties that helped them navigate in a cave, they likely celebrated the unique acoustics by singing in conjunction with their painting sessions.
Does human culture evolve via natural selection, as our genes do?
Paul Ehrlich talks about his recent study of Polynesian canoes, and whether human culture evolves via natural selection:
Biologists have a pretty good idea of both how flies become resistant to DDT and how humans and primates have diverged over time. That's because the mechanism underlying these processes is the same. Using evolution we can understand how organisms generally change their stores of genetic information (DNA and RNA), alter their observable characteristics, and diversify.