Monthly Archives: January 2015

Oldowan choppers dating to 1.7 million years ago, from Melka Kunture, Ethiopia.

Its widely understood that human genetics can influence culture, but increasingly, the idea that culture can also affect genetics is gaining ground. The theory of gene-culture coevolution suggests that the cultural practices we adopt change the costs and benefits of having certain genes, explains Catharine Cross, a researcher at the University of St Andrews. A gene that is advantageous under one cultural practice is not necessarily advantageous under another.

For example, yam cultivation in West Africa led to deforestation and an increase in standing water, which creates a breeding ground for mosquitoes and malaria. This meant that yam farmers with a particular genetic resistance to malaria were more likely to survive than farmers with susceptibility to malaria. Yam farmers in the region have been found to have a higher incidence of this genetic trait than nearby groupseven speakers of the same languagewho farm other crops.

A recent study published in Nature Communications has suggested that stone tool-making practices among the ancestors of modern humans may have put evolutionary pressure on individuals who werent very good at communicating, helping to select for the genes that would become involved in language.The study found that the use of verbal teaching, compared to learning by imitation, significantly improved the quality and speed production of stone tools. This suggests that individuals with gestural or verbal communication skills could have learned to make tools faster and better, giving them an advantage over individuals who could only imitate.

The researchers tested the difference in performance by using transmission chains, a method similar to the childrens game of telephone. The person who starts a chain passes on information to the next person, who then passes that information along, all the way down the chain. This can provide insight into how information changes when it is passed through generations of people.

In this case, the information being passed down the chain was the technique of creating Oldowan stone tools. These were the first stone tools to appear in the fossil record, approximately 2.5 million years ago, and were the predominant technology for approximately 700,000 years until more advanced Acheulean stone tools started to appear.

The first person in each chain was an experimenter skilled in the Oldowan method of hammering sharp flakes of flint off a central core. This person could pass information down the transmission chain in one of five ways. The first method, pure imitation, involved the teacher simply making the tools while the first participant watched, with no interaction.Three of the five transmission methods involved some sort of interaction: basic teaching, which allowed the teacher to slow their movements down or shape the participants grip; gestural teaching, which added in gestures; or verbal teaching, which allowed normal speech.Finally, the fifth method allowed the participant no contact at all with the teacherrather, they had to work out how to make the tools just by looking at examples produced by the teacher.

After a short learning period, the participant was required to pass on their new skills to the next participant in the chain using the same transmission method. Participants were paid more if they and their pupils produced more, higher-quality tools, so there was a strong motivation to learn and teach well. Each learning condition had six transmission chains, with 184 participants overall.

The results indicated that learning through teaching, rather than reverse engineering or imitation, had a marked influence on the results. Participants who experienced active instruction from their teachers produced more, better quality flakes at a higher speed, with fewer mistakes. Unsurprisingly, verbal instruction produced the best results, followed by gestural instruction and then basic teaching.

The results are important, write the researchers, because they help us to understand the language could have played inhuman ancestors during the period when Oldowan tools were in use. Its unlikely that Oldowan tools would have remained unchanged for 700,000 years if language had already emerged, they write. Thissuggests that imitation, which doesn't transmit information as efficiently, helped to maintain this long period of stasis. However, it also seems that individuals with better communicative abilities may have had better success at tool-making, contributing to the pressures that led to the evolution of language, and more advanced Acheulean tools.

Visit link:
Tool-making may have made language genes more useful

There's a good reason why wolves became human companions long before domestic breeding turned them into everything from Great Danes to poodles, scientists in Vienna say.

They wanted to be our friends because underneath that furry hide they were a lot like us.

For several years, researchers at Vienna's University of Veterinary Medicine have been studying wolves that have been raised in captivity just like domesticated dogs, to see how they differ from the canine pets that are in so many of our homes. They have even established the Clever Dog Lab and the Wolf Science Center.

In a study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, researchers Friederike Range and Zsofia Viranyi offer their "Canine Cooperation Hypothesis."

According to the hypothesis, ancient wolves already possessed at least three social skills that made them suitable for human companionship: They were tolerant, attentive and cooperative.

Just like dogs.

And they were very social, running in packs, just like humans.

In the latest in a series of experiments, the researchers found that wolves can learn if a human has food, where it is stashed, and even if the human is just fooling.

If the human hid it behind a shed, the wolf went right to it, apparently because it had observed the human's actions. Dogs that participated in the same experiment were more likely to sniff their way to the food, not relying as much on their powers of observation.

Getty Images

See the original post:
Why Wolves Became Dogs