
Anthropologist Richard Wrangham on the emergence of homo sapiens - jocoda
http://www.spiegel.de/international/interview-with-anthropologist-richard-wrangham-a-1259252.html
======
himynameisdom
> It would seem inhuman not to recognize that some of the chimpanzees'
> behaviors are deeply unpleasant. And is aggression evil? Yes, I think so, at
> least when it involves physical violence that is inflicting pain. Violence
> is the opposite of virtue. I think that a major object of human endeavor and
> societal ambition should be to reduce violence.

I find this line rather interesting. I feel like there's a whole ball of wax
that can be discussed here regarding human observation and the categorization
of behaviors based on our understanding of virtue, right/wrong, and ethics.

------
jonmc12
[https://kevinbinz.com/2019/02/17/domestication/](https://kevinbinz.com/2019/02/17/domestication/)
\- this article points out the "mild neurocristopathy hypothesis" to explain
gradual removal of aggression during domestication.

"domestication syndrome is a byproduct of changes to the NCC migration
pattern" in the development of the neural crest. In this scenario, Seratonin
inhibits the Negative Valence System, in turn giving domesticated hominids a
longer window of time to collect social information to determine how to apply
aggression towards other animals.

NCC migration patterns are also suspected to change facial characteristics,
part of neural crest development, that are observed in domesticated animals:
hair, ears, mouth, teeth, etc.

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

~~~
mirimir
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
"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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor)

"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
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.

------
a0-prw
"DER SPIEGEL: ... in other words, dogs resemble wolf pups, just as we resemble
Neanderthals who never reached adulthood?" ... that is a spectacular
misunderstanding.

~~~
ncmncm
Let's say "metaphorical".

Immature neanderthals didn't have protruding chins, and neanderthals were not
our principal ancestors. But our actual adult ancestors did have bigger teeth
and heavier bones than we do, like Neanderthals, and immature ones of them
were more like us.

They would better have said "cavemen" than "Neanderthals", but they would have
been beat up for that too. I just appreciated them allowing Wrangham lots of
column-inches to touch on a broad range of surprising observations.

------
stratigos
a speculative, linear-reductionist rant... interesting read nonetheless

