fuck yeah anthropology

typewritertea: Gombe chimpanzee Fanni cradles her newborn,...

Tue, 15 May 2012 21:45:10 -0400

typewritertea:

Gombe chimpanzee Fanni cradles her newborn, Fax.

Gombe National Park

via: The Jane Goodall Institute

Chimpanzees’ Table Manners Vary by Group

Tue, 15 May 2012 21:32:10 -0400

Chimpanzees’ Table Manners Vary by Group:

A study of chimpanzees in Ivory Coast found that different groups have different preferences for cracking open nuts.

nathanielstuart: The remains of what has been described as a...

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:00:40 -0400

nathanielstuart:

The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.

The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.

Lost city could rewrite history | BBC

Hard-Wired Hypocrisy in Our Divided Minds

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:31:02 -0400

Hard-Wired Hypocrisy in Our Divided Minds

Mark Pagel: How language transformed humanity | Video on TED.com

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:41:39 -0400

Mark Pagel: How language transformed humanity | Video on TED.com

primatewin: Now, I know I’m posting a few too many cutesie...

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:06:47 -0400

primatewin:

Now, I know I’m posting a few too many cutesie photos, but JUST LOOK AT THOSE EYES.

Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:15:16 -0400

Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes:

youmightfindyourself:

Evolution is a theory about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance. Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about “by chance.” They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution. One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to “Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments”), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are “good enough” to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don’t cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington’s disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of “progress” doesn’t make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure “progress” is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant’s perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider’s it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human’s, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.

Individual organisms can evolve during a single lifespan. Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve. Changes in an individual over the course of its lifetime may be developmental (e.g., a male bird growing more colorful plumage as it reaches sexual maturity) or may be caused by how the environment affects an organism (e.g., a bird losing feathers because it is infected with many parasites); however, these shifts are not caused by changes in its genes. While it would be handy if there were a way for environmental changes to cause adaptive changes in our genes — who wouldn’t want a gene for malaria resistance to come along with a vacation to Mozambique? — evolution just doesn’t work that way. New gene variants (i.e., alleles) are produced by random mutation, and over the course of many generations, natural selection may favor advantageous variants, causing them to become more common in the population.

Evolution only occurs slowly and gradually. Evolution occurs slowly and gradually, but it can also occur rapidly. We have many examples of slow and steady evolution — for example, the gradual evolution of whales from their land-dwelling, mammalian ancestors, as documented in the fossil record. But we also know of many cases in which evolution has occurred rapidly.

Similarly, we can observe rapid evolution going on around us all the time. Over the past 50 years, we’ve observed squirrels evolve new breeding times in response to climate change, a fish species evolve resistance to toxins dumped into the Hudson River, and a host of microbes evolve resistance to new drugs we’ve developed. Many different factors can foster rapid evolution — small population size, short generation time, big shifts in environmental conditions — and the evidence makes it clear that this has happened many times. To learn more about the pace of evolution, visit Evolution 101. To learn more about rapid evolution in response to human-caused changes in the environment, visit our news story on climate change , our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution of fish size in response to our fishing practices.

Because evolution is slow, humans cannot influence it. As described in the misconception about evolutionary rates above, evolution sometimes occurs quickly. And since humans often cause major changes in the environment, we are frequently the instigators of evolution in other organisms.

Genetic drift only occurs in small populations. Genetic drift has a larger effect on small populations, but the process occurs in all populations — large or small. Genetic drift occurs because, due to chance, the individuals that reproduce may not exactly represent the genetic makeup of the whole population. For example, in one generation of a population of captive mice, brown-furred individuals may reproduce more than white-furred individuals, causing the gene version that codes for brown fur to increase in the population — not because it improves survival, just because of chance. The same process occurs in large populations: some individuals may get lucky and leave many copies of their genes in the next generation, while others may be unlucky and leave few copies. This causes the frequencies of different gene versions to “drift” from generation to generation. However, in large populations, the changes in gene frequency from generation to generation tend to be small, while in smaller populations, those shifts may be much larger. Whether its impact is large or small, genetic drift occurs all the time, in all populations. It’s also important to keep in mind that genetic drift may act at the same time as other mechanisms of evolution, like natural selection and migration. To learn more about genetic drift, visit Evolution 101. To learn more about population size as it relates to genetic drift, visit this advanced article.

Humans are not currently evolving. Humans are now able to modify our environments with technology. We have invented medical treatments, agricultural practices, and economic structures that significantly alter the challenges to reproduction and survival faced by modern humans. So, for example, because we can now treat diabetes with insulin, the gene versions that contribute to juvenile diabetes are no longer strongly selected against in developed countries. Some have argued that such technological advances mean that we’ve opted out of the evolutionary game and set ourselves beyond the reach of natural selection — essentially, that we’ve stopped evolving. However, this is not the case. Humans still face challenges to survival and reproduction, just not the same ones that we did 20,000 years ago. The direction, but not the fact of our evolution has changed. For example, modern humans living in densely populated areas face greater risks of epidemic diseases than did our hunter-gatherer ancestors (who did not come into close contact with so many people on a daily basis) — and this situation favors the spread of gene versions that protect against these diseases.

Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone. Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried — and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well — but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life — which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves.

"Neither the bonds of blood nor those of language alone make a nationality. It is rather the..."

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:38:07 -0400

“Neither the bonds of blood nor those of language alone make a nationality. It is rather the community of emotional life that rises from our everyday habits, from the forms of our thoughts, feelings, and actions, which constitute the medium in which every individual can unfold freely his activities.”

- Franz Boas, 1928, Anthropology and Modern Life (via fuckyeahanthrotheory)

scipsy: Esckeletons is a site to learn about human and...

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:09:39 -0400

scipsy:

Esckeletons is a site to learn about human and non-human primates skeletons.

New monkey species discovered in Amazon | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:55:18 -0400

New monkey species discovered in Amazon | MNN - Mother Nature Network

jtotheizzoe: Female Orgasm Remains an Evolutionary...

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:52:47 -0400

jtotheizzoe:

Female Orgasm Remains an Evolutionary Mystery

Scientists just can’t quite seem to put their finger on this one …

New research suggests that it might just be an evolutionary byproduct of sharing genes with males, like why we guys have nipples. Of course, it’s a hell of a lot more fun than most evolutionary byproducts (say, the appendix). More details at the link up there.

Unlike male orgasm, which is found across the primate spectrum, female orgasm has skipped some species. (Lady gibbons, for example, are out of luck.) In humans, men are far more likely to experience orgasm than women, of whom one in 10 don’t ever experience it.

That imbalance runs contrary to traditional explanations of female orgasm: that it strengthens bonds between mates and thus improves the care received by their children, or that the ability to elicit orgasm indicates a male’s virility, or that underlying physiological processes somehow improve reproductive success.

After all, if female orgasms are an important evolutionary adaptation, they should be easier to attain. Also perplexing is that many women require clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, not penetrative action. If female orgasms were meant to encourage sex, the opposite ought to be true.

(via Wired Science)

Facial expressions get head start in the womb

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:54:27 -0400

Facial expressions get head start in the womb

New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry - NYTimes.com

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:35:05 -0400

New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry - NYTimes.com

rhamphotheca: Humans Mated Regularly With Mysterious Extinct...

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:02:56 -0400

rhamphotheca:

Humans Mated Regularly With Mysterious Extinct Relatives in Africa?!

by Charles Q Choi

Our species may have bred with a now extinct lineage of humanity before leaving Africa, scientists say.

Although we modern humans are now the only surviving lineage of humanity, others once roamed the Earth, making their way out of Africa before our species did, including the familiar Neanderthals in West Asia and Europe and the newfound Denisovans in East Asia. Genetic analysis of fossils of these extinct lineages has revealed they once interbred with modern humans, unions that may have endowed our lineage with mutations that protected them as we began expanding across the world about 65,000 yeas ago.

Now researchers analyzing the human genome find evidence that our species hybridized with a hitherto unknown human lineage even before leaving Africa, with approximately 2 percent of contemporary African DNA perhaps coming from this lineage. In comparison, recent estimates suggest that Neanderthal DNA makes up 1 percent to 4 percent of modern Eurasian genomes and Denisovan DNA makes up 4 percent to 6 percent of modern Melanesian genomes…

(read more: Live Science) (Image: NASA/JPL-CalTech)

"To the chimp cages, and let the rest of us clothed and talking people visit the zoo. Those..."

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:26:25 -0400

“To the chimp cages, and let the rest of us clothed and talking people visit the zoo. Those speechless caged people would be seen for what we all really are: a chimp that has little hair and walks upright. A zoologist from outer space would immediately classify us as just a third species of chimpanzee, along with the pygmy chimp of Zaire and the common chimp of the rest of tropical Africa.
Molecular genetic studies over the last half-a-dozen years have shown that we continue to share over ninety-eight per cent of our genes with the other two chimps. The overall genetic distance between us and chimps is even smaller than the distance between such closely related bird species as red-eyed and white-eyed vireos, or willow warblers and chiffchaffs. So we still carry most of our old biological baggage with us. Since Darwin’s time, fossilized bones of hundreds of creatures variously intermediate between apes and modern humans have been discovered, making it impossible for a reasonable person to deny the overwhelming evidence. What once seemed absurd - our evolution from apes - actually happened.”

- Jared Diamond (The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal)

Ernest Cline: Dance, Monkeys, Dance!!!

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 02:59:20 -0400

Ernest Cline: Dance, Monkeys, Dance!!!

skepttv: Supercooperators Evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak...

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:04:34 -0400

skepttv:

Supercooperators

Evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak and author Roger Highfield explain how cooperation and altruism fit into the larger evolutionary puzzle. Chaired by Jonathan Rowson.

via josecamoessilva:

Morning video lecture, from the RSA (not animation this time): Supercooperators.

Description: Evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak and author Roger Highfield explain how cooperation and altruism fit into the larger evolutionary puzzle. Economists and psychologists have worked on this problem for a while.

anthrocuriosities: Thoughts within thoughts make us human: The...

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 01:10:04 -0400

anthrocuriosities:

Thoughts within thoughts make us human: The Recursive Mind.

fyeahgreatapes: fuckyeahorangutans: (via savetheorangutan)

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:28:07 -0400

fyeahgreatapes:

fuckyeahorangutans:

(via savetheorangutan)

zeitgeistmovement: Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another...

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:29:55 -0400

zeitgeistmovement:

Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate?

Dr. Robert Sapolsky discusses his work as professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University and as a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. His enviable gift for storytelling led the New York Times to print, “If you crossed Jane Goodall with a borscht-belt comedian, she might have written a book like A Primate’s Memoir.” Dr. Sapolsky’s account of his early years as a field biologist. He is sure to dazzle and delight with tales of what it means to be human.