Do you believe in behavioural modernity?

[Anomalocaris]

I get that it's an observation, however it seems fanciful that all of a sudden we acted as fully sapient beings 50,000 years ago.

Why do you suppose homo sapient 50,000 years ago were "all of sudden" " fully sapient"?

There is evidence to suggests that some specific humans genes which are thought to be influential in elements of human behavior continues to be under very strong selective pressure, and has exhibited rapid evolution just in the last 6,000 years.

Within the last 50,000 years there is also evidence that homo sapiens on the whole have show morphological tendency towards skull gracilization (thinning of skull and delication of facial bones) and accompanying behavioral tendency towards delayed onset of behavioral maturization which in other animals, such as dogs, wolfs, foxes, and chimps, have been shown to be a genetically driven and associated behavior development loosely termed "tameness" and "domesticability".

In other words, behaviorally we are genetically still evolving towards greater tameness, as well as delayed transition from infantile and adulescent to adult behavior, and the genes which control these probably also exhibit itself in changes to our skeletal morphology.

[Minimalist]

And from the news, today...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...124441.htm

May 10, 2013 — A recent Baylor University research study has shed new light on the diet and food acquisition strategies of some the earliest human ancestors in Africa.

Beginning around two million years ago, early stone tool-making humans, known scientifically as Oldowan hominin, started to exhibit a number of physiological and ecological adaptations that required greater daily energy expenditures, including an increase in brain and body size, heavier investment in their offspring and significant home-range expansion. Demonstrating how these early humans acquired the extra energy they needed to sustain these shifts has been the subject of much debate among researchers.

A recent study led by Joseph Ferraro, Ph.D., assistant professor of anthropology at Baylor, offers new insight in this debate with a wealth of archaeological evidence from the two million-year-old site of Kanjera South (KJS), Kenya. The study's findings were recently published in PLOS One.

"Considered in total, this study provides important early archaeological evidence for meat eating, hunting and scavenging behaviors -cornerstone adaptations that likely facilitated brain expansion in human evolution, movement of hominins out of Africa and into Eurasia, as well as important shifts in our social behavior, anatomy and physiology," Ferraro said.

This will piss off the vegans, though. Oh well....can't make everyone happy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Similarly, replicating something so smooth as one of those spears isn't as easy as one might imagine..I did mention that I had dremels and calipers and a bench vise and still failed..initially, right? That was 5 years or so ago, I still make them (Im into atlatls and cho-ko-nu now......)but, I did start to use some of the "purpose built" tools we find at sites (assumedly purpose built, that is) and I can make a passable dart or spear.....I still have to use the modern gear to get something akin to the level of quality in the artifacts.

It really does take time, even if we reference ritualization - the ritual has to be memorized..and specifically if it's a ritual involving workmanship whatever part of the ritual is not directly related to production simply becomes and added obstacle (additional to the production of the object-that's laying aside that just because something becomes ritualized that doesn't mean the ritual makes it any easier, one is left to wonder whether or not any ritual involved might have entailed infusing the item with the right kind of spirits..and whether or not the items that got the wrong kind of spirits were discrded...and whether or not this has any connection to the reality of the items operability as a tool - or if it was just some asshole hopped up on mushrooms sprinkling dust and shitcanning industry at random). Really, really put yourself in these peoples place. You know that douche boss you had that never seemed to do anything but hinder your ability to get anything done? Any reason to assume that this guy didn't exist then?

[Minimalist]

And from the news, today...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...124441.htm

May 10, 2013 — A recent Baylor University research study has shed new light on the diet and food acquisition strategies of some the earliest human ancestors in Africa.

Beginning around two million years ago, early stone tool-making humans, known scientifically as Oldowan hominin, started to exhibit a number of physiological and ecological adaptations that required greater daily energy expenditures, including an increase in brain and body size, heavier investment in their offspring and significant home-range expansion. Demonstrating how these early humans acquired the extra energy they needed to sustain these shifts has been the subject of much debate among researchers.

A recent study led by Joseph Ferraro, Ph.D., assistant professor of anthropology at Baylor, offers new insight in this debate with a wealth of archaeological evidence from the two million-year-old site of Kanjera South (KJS), Kenya. The study's findings were recently published in PLOS One.

"Considered in total, this study provides important early archaeological evidence for meat eating, hunting and scavenging behaviors -cornerstone adaptations that likely facilitated brain expansion in human evolution, movement of hominins out of Africa and into Eurasia, as well as important shifts in our social behavior, anatomy and physiology," Ferraro said.

This will piss off the vegans, though. Oh well....can't make everyone happy.

Why do you suppose homo sapient 50,000 years ago were "all of sudden" " fully sapient"?

One could argue that we have many today who are not fully "sapient." I call them "FOX News viewers."

[dazzn]

It's been long established by paleoanthropologists that homo habilis ate meat to a greater degree than the australopithecenes did. and that they formed perhaps the basic rudiments of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

That said, I think most vegans know we are designed to eat meat, but contend we don't need it to survive. This may be true in itself, however any vegan who asserts we didn't evolve eating meat is a fool lol..

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we don't -need- it to survive (long enough, anyway), no omnivore does...but I'm not looking to "just survive" and neither, apparently, were these early hominids...they were looking to motherfucking eat, eh?

[Angrboda]

It really does take time, even if we reference ritualization - the ritual has to be memorized..and specifically if it's a ritual involving workmanship whatever part of the ritual is not directly related to production simply becomes and added obstacle (additional to the production of the object-that's laying aside that just because something becomes ritualized that doesn't mean the ritual makes it any easier, one is left to wonder whether or not any ritual involved might have entailed infusing the item with the right kind of spirits..and whether or not the items that got the wrong kind of spirits were discrded...and whether or not this has any connection to the reality of the items operability as a tool - or if it was just some asshole hopped up on mushrooms sprinkling dust and shitcanning industry at random). Really, really put yourself in these peoples place. You know that douche boss you had that never seemed to do anything but hinder your ability to get anything done? Any reason to assume that this guy didn't exist then?

For a substantial part of history, the apprentice system was how complex skills were passed on. (Ignoring intra-familial education for the moment.) This emphasizes experience based knowledge (intuition) and tacit knowledge (knowing-how rather than knowing-that). It's only been in recent ages that explicit knowledge, "knowing-that", has superceded tacit knowledge and experience, and then only among the very elite (e.g. the monastic system and the church). Moreover, differential reproduction which correlates with differential fitness is a part of the model, so there is no need to explain the convergence on positive mutations to the neglect of negative mutations or even spandrels. Evolution works in the biological realm, I don't see why it is such a hard sell in the realm of culture, memes, and technology. I'm told that we couldn't build a World War II era battleship today if we wanted to do so, because the technology was only partially explicit; much of it was implicit, and that knowledge was lost; implicit knowledge doesn't provide the instrumental basis for self-conscious refinement of a technology. It may not be true of battleships, but there are countless historical examples of where it is relevant. Thomas Edison tried 10,000 different filament compositions and designs before finding the right one. He didn't design his light bulb from explicit knowledge of the properties of things. All that's necessary is change, provided by an inbuilt desire to explore and experiment, along with cultural transmission via strong intra-familial and intra-species social behaviors, and selective pressures. Incremental change with selective pressures works. I think you're underestimating its power.

(An interesting example in reverse is that the gothic churches of the high middle ages often incorporated ratios that corresponded to ratios represented in the bible in its stories. Some church architects copied the same layouts in order to replicate the symbolic significance associated with those ratios. However, there's a danger in that the physical properties of structures and structural components do not always scale linearly, so some churches that attempted to recreate the same ratios on a larger scale ended up causing the structures to be flawed in terms of the mechanical engineering. There are churches in Europe still standing with enormous cracks in major structures and that are only able to continue existing by being buttressed by modern technology such as steel bands and girders. Explicit design of artifactual innovation is very recent.)

[The Grand Nudger]

For a substantial part of history, the apprentice system was how complex skills were passed on. (Ignoring intra-familial education for the moment.) This emphasizes experience based knowledge (intuition) and tacit knowledge (knowing-how rather than knowing-that).

Which takes time, and is dependent upon not one but two people being free to do this as a "profession" if you will - something that isn't really a part of the narrative we currently hold about people in this time period, the dominant paradigm. They were better at things and had more time to get better at them than we supposed.

It's only been in recent ages that explicit knowledge, "knowing-that", has superceded tacit knowledge and experience, and then only among the very elite (e.g. the monastic system and the church).

No argument there, for all I know the proper shape and size was explained as a function of the fairy imparted in the working - if it was explained or understood at all. But regardless, they knew what worked, and again this takes time.

Moreover, differential reproduction which correlates with differential fitness is a part of the model, so there is no need to explain the convergence on positive mutations to the neglect of negative mutations or even spandrels. Evolution works in the biological realm, I don't see why it is such a hard sell in the realm of culture, memes, and technology.

I wouldn't call it a hard sell, but I'd mention that specifically in the area of technology there are some pretty crucial differences that can alter the landscape drastically either in favor of or against any given tech that don't have any correlarys in modern synthesis. Evolutionary biology, for example, doesn't hold preconceived notions that inhibit the adoption or modification of a new or existing "technology". Evolution does not have a conscious or directive force as it's driving mechanism.

I'm told that we couldn't build a World War II era battleship today if we wanted to do so, because the technology was only partially explicit; much of it was implicit, and that knowledge was lost; implicit knowledge doesn't provide the instrumental basis for self-conscious refinement of a technology.

If it's maintained in continuity it has the potential to. The knowledge being lost (if it was, or was accurately described in this way) is what robs it of this potentiality.

It may not be true of battleships, but there are countless historical examples of where it is relevant. Thomas Edison tried 10,000 different filament compositions and designs before finding the right one. He didn't design his light bulb from explicit knowledge of the properties of things.

We don't assume that this was how wooden darts arose either, in this case also we assume trial and error.

All that's necessary is change, provided by an inbuilt desire to explore and experiment, along with cultural transmission via strong intra-familial and intra-species social behaviors, and selective pressures. Incremental change with selective pressures works. I think you're underestimating its power.

No, not at all, but I think we may be having a discussion about the same object from two entirely separate angles, or two different discussions converging on the same object after reading this. A good discussion, by the way.

(An interesting example in reverse is that the gothic churches of the high middle ages often incorporated ratios that corresponded to ratios represented in the bible in its stories. Some church architects copied the same layouts in order to replicate the symbolic significance associated with those ratios. However, there's a danger in that the physical properties of structures and structural components do not always scale linearly, so some churches that attempted to recreate the same ratios on a larger scale ended up causing the structures to be flawed in terms of the mechanical engineering. There are churches in Europe still standing with enormous cracks in major structures and that are only able to continue existing by being buttressed by modern technology such as steel bands and girders. Explicit design of artifactual innovation is very recent.)

But the effort in production of those same objects and all that it entailed, and someone with the knowledge to arrange for that -by whatever means it was garnered- is not.

My point is a simple one, it isn't actually easy to make even that simple wooden dart, any process added to that would have made it more difficult, not less difficult - if it didn't directly relate to the production of the object. To learn a difficult skill, or to faithfully replicate something happened upon by accident (either way you approach it) you're starting to leave the territory of the current paradigm about who these people where, what they could accomplish, and how they spent their time. The idea even that a dart or javelin is a "simple technology" is shaky, simple to whom? Care to take a crack at manufacturing or utilizing this simple technology yourself? I did, just sharing my experience. It may be that I just didn't have a knack for it though, that somebody else is just naturally much better at it - but why would we expect those knacks to just continue appearing in the same populations over and over and over for generations? A spear design or shape, or set of practices is not a biologically inheritable trait (as far as I;m aware) - and that's where the comparison to evolution breaks down.

[Whateverist]

I agree that the idea that we as a species ever became anything all at once seems unlikely. If we are in transition toward sapience it is hard to see what the driving force will be to get it done. Natural selection no longer favors sapience. In fact breeding is much greater for humans with less education and a lower standard of living. It will be interesting to see to what degree cultural evolution and deliberate attempts at education can serve as an engine for that change. I wouldn't expect too much.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another point I wanted to mention, directed at Apo, is that the spears we're talking about aren't spears manufactured by homo sapiens, but likely by an ancestor. I don;t know if you'd considered or caught that - if you had, my bad, but if you hadn;t, might change your perspective.