Debate Is Fueled on When Humans Became Human

On the biggest steps in early human evolution scientists are in agreement. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs.

They were flaking crude stone tools by 2.5 million years ago. Then some of them spread from Africa into Asia and Europe after two million years ago.

With somewhat less certainty, most scientists think that people who look like us — anatomically modern Homo sapiens — evolved by at least 130,000 years ago from ancestors who had remained in Africa. Their brain had reached today's size. They, too, moved out of Africa and eventually replaced nonmodern human species, notably the Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, and Homo erectus, typified by Java Man and Peking Man fossils in the Far East.

But agreement breaks down completely on the question of when, where and how these anatomically modern humans began to manifest creative and symbolic thinking. That is, when did they become fully human in behavior as well as body? When, and where, was human culture born?

"It's the hot issue, and we all have different positions," said Dr. John E. Yellen, an archaeologist with the National Science Foundation.

For much of the last century, archaeologists thought that modern behavior flowered relatively recently, 40,000 years ago, and only after Homo sapiens had pushed into Europe. They based their theory of a "creative explosion" on evidence like the magnificent cave paintings in Lascaux and Chauvet.

But some rebellious researchers suspected that this theory was a relic of a time when their discipline was ruled by Eurocentrism. Archaeologists, the rebels contended, were simply not looking for earlier creativity in the right places.

Several recent discoveries in Africa and the Middle East are providing the first physical evidence to support an older, more gradual evolution of modern behavior, one not centered in Europe. But other scientists, beyond acknowledging a few early sparks in Africa, remain unswayed. One prominent researcher is putting forward a new hypothesis of genetic change to explain a more recent and abrupt appearance of creativity.

The debate has never been so intense over what archaeologists see as the dawn of human culture.

"Europe is a little peninsula that happens to have a large amount of spectacular archaeology," said Dr. Clive Gamble, director of the Center for the Archaeology of Human Origins at the University of Southampton in England. "But the European grip of having all the evidence is beginning to slip. We're finding wonderful new evidence in Africa and other places. And in the last two or three years, this has changed and widened the debate over modern human behavior."

The uncertainty and confusion over the origin of modern cultural behavior stem from what appears to be a great time lag between the point when the species first looked modern and when it acted modern. Perhaps the first modern Homo sapiens emerged with a capacity for modern creativity, but it remained latent until needed for survival.

"The earliest Homo sapiens probably had the cognitive capability to invent Sputnik," said Dr. Sally McBrearty, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut. "But they didn't yet have the history of invention or a need for those things."

Perhaps the need arose gradually in response to stresses of new social conditions, environmental change or competition from nonmodern human species. Or perhaps the capacity for modern behavior came late, a result of some as yet undetected genetic transformation.

Dr. Mary C. Stiner, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona, said those contrasting views, or variations of them, could be reduced to this single question: "Was there some fundamental shift in brain wiring or some change in conditions of life?"

The foremost proponent of the traditional theory that human creativity appeared suddenly and mainly in Europe is Dr. Richard G. Klein, a Stanford archaeologist. He describes his reasoning in a new book, "The Dawn of Creativity," written with Blake Edgar and being published next month by John Wiley.

"Arguably, the `dawn' was the most significant prehistoric event that archaeologists will ever detect," the authors write. "Before it, human anatomical and behavioral change proceeded very slowly, more or less hand in hand. Afterward, the human form remained remarkably stable, while behavioral change accelerated dramatically. In the space of less than 40,000 years, ever more closely packed cultural `revolutions' have taken humanity from the status of a relatively rare large mammal to something more like a geologic force."

In that view, 40,000 years ago was the turning point in human creativity, when modern Homo sapiens arrived in Europe and left the first unambiguous artifacts of abstract and symbolic thought. They were making more advanced tools, burying their dead with ceremony and expressing a new kind of self-awareness with beads and pendants for body ornamentation and in finely wrought figurines of the female form. As time passed, they projected on cave walls something of their lives and minds in splendid paintings of deer, horses and wild bulls.

As an explanation for this apparently abrupt flowering of creativity, Dr. Klein has proposed a neurological hypothesis. About 50,000 years ago, he contends, a chance genetic mutation in effect rewired the brain in some critical way, possibly allowing for a significant advance in speech. The origin of human speech is another of evolution's mysteries. Improved communications at this time, in his view, could have enabled people "to conceive and model complex natural and social circumstances" and thus give them "the fully modern ability to invent and manipulate culture."

Although this transformation, with the genetic change leading to the behavioral change, occurred in Africa, Dr. Klein writes, it allowed "human populations to colonize new and challenging environments."

are vanishingly rare.

Well if not directly called parasite, the outcome is the same.

The center for bioethical reform

Not a primary source but references are listed.

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Let's see. You post an article. Complain when someone responds who disagrees with you. Set out to ridicule them all the while giggling with your freeper buddies.

His article had nothing to do with creationism. Some FReepers go crazy when they come across a thread that might have anything to do with evolution. Then they try to hijack those threads and turn them into crevo debate threads.

Go away. If you don't want to actually discuss the material on the thread, don't come to it, and then leave some intellectual droppings behind before wandering off to another thread. Add something interesting, criticize the thread based on its content, but don't just mouth a party line "evolution equals bad, me no think there evidence for evolution," it's obnoxious.

Maybe I should go onto all the religious threads I can find, and post things like "The religion has more holes than a dozen doughnuts and, not surprisingly, a biased, evangelical news source rambles on like Christianity is fact. No, Christianity is a lame theory without sufficient historical evidence that contradicts scientific observation throughout human history." Or maybe I shouldn't. Because it would be obnoxious.

A little bit of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

And when did the wolf become the dog?

When man engineer the dog.....Our Golden Retriever was a line derived from the wolf, due to selective breeding. There really isn't much wolf in him.

What I said about God's imprint upon man being what distinguishes man from the rest of the animal kingdom has nothing to do with differentiation within a species (canine or otherwise). The failure to see man as created by God in His image, and the failure to recognize that this is what separates man from the rest of the animals, results, ultimately, in man being considered to be just another animal. The consequence of that is that men will then act like animals....which unfortunately are the stories that dominate the front pages of our newspapers.

Push it back to 70,000 years and we have the Tuva eruption and a possible explanation for the evolution of real thinking as a tool for survival.

I agree. Apparantly that was a cataclysmic event that would have killed off- what?- most of "humanity" at that point. The ones that survived an event of that magnitude would have been a)just plain lucky and b)"the sharpest knives in the drawer".

It would be the genetic jump they're looking for simply by loading the gene pool from the deep end- so to speak. It would favor those groups and individuals who were not only brighter but able to apply their wit toward their immediate well being (and possibly also put darwinistic pressure on planning for the future).

"A scientist can tell you how night turns into day, but he can never take the wonder away." -- Paul Stookey

Evolution in and of itself is a faith system. The most knowledgeable (and honest) evolutionists will admit that there are too many gaps in evolutionary theory, and "leaps of faith" are necessary to hold it together. Many of the so-called "proofs" of evolution are simply interpretations of evidence based on preconceptions (i.e., "bias"). Evolution isn't true science, because it cannot be subjected to the scientific principle (experimentation, and arriving at predictable results). In this sense it's a pseudo-science.

In "Sphere," author Michael Crichton wrote, "...What we call 'science' actually consists of a rather arbitrary conception of the universe..." And Leo Tolstoy once wrote, "According to science, you are a randomly united lump of something." That's neither a very satisfying answer, nor is it correct.

Add something interesting, criticize the thread based on its content, but don't just mouth a party line "evolution equals bad, me no think there evidence for evolution," it's obnoxious.

Since you have been on FR for a whole day, I will give you some advice. Take the time to actually read what someone posts before spouting off. My comments are directed at the extreme lameness of this troll post. I did not comment on the merits of the theory of evolution.

However, your post is not without purpose. You have succeeded in helping me make my point. Your cute "me no think" retort is a perfect example of the level of discourse these types of threads generate. Argument for argument's sake is petty and childish.

About 50,000 years ago, he contends, a chance genetic mutation in effect rewired the brain in some critical way, possibly allowing for a significant advance in speech. The origin of human speech is another of evolution's mysteries. Improved communications at this time, in his view, could have enabled people "to conceive and model complex natural and social circumstances" and thus give them "the fully modern ability to invent and manipulate culture."

If I can translate this, "The guys who could talk, picked up all the chicks."

I can see that this would lead to an explosion of individuals with increasingly modern speech. (Ooo baby, your eyes look like twin pools of liquid silver in the moonlight...)

The ones that survived an event of that magnitude would have been a)just plain lucky and b)"the sharpest knives in the drawer".

The first condition I understand, but what special skill would enable one to survive an unplanned catastrophe? Unless it was something like the dumb ones heard the rumblings and went to investigate and the smart ones left for high ground.

Food and shelter would not have been a problem. Think of all of the coconuts on the ground and the gratis lean-tos available for the occupancy. Well, maybe with all the spare time given the free food and shelter, the proto-humans would have had mucho time on their hands. In order to keep the inevitable fights due to boredom in check, the hootenanny would have been invented. With all the hooten-and-hollerin going on more food on the hoof would have been attracted and the cycle would build on itself. Thus small change by small change the proto-human would turn into the civilized beast he is today.

Most criminals believe in God.

You forgot to cite your source for this statement.....Also, define "God." The Islamic suicide bomber says he believes in God too, but I think the question is either debatable, or the god he believes in is really Satan.

Seriously, I think you've missed my point. I don't expect you to accept the notion of God. I'm not trying to convince anyone (just as you've failed to convince me that Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, post-neo-Darwinism, are to accepted as THE explanation of the origin of species). The question put at the head of this thread was "When did humans become human?" I'm looking at the basic question, and I'm looking at it philosphically.

Science doesn't even have a compelling definitiion of "human," let alone being able to pinpoint when precursors of "humans" crossed the line to become "human." Science falls back on definitions that depend on things like "being biped," or using tools, or organizing into social units, or having an opposing thumb. But other animal groups can qualify under those kind of definitions.

My point is that when it comes to defining what distinguishes human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom, science neither has the ability, nor the definitional bases, to attempt an answer. And if, indeed, mankind was created especially by a Creator, and he placed something of his own essence within human beings, then we are foolish to attempt to define man by any other terms. The scientist says, "Well, the proposition of 'God' cannot be proved or disproved by science, so we cannot consider such a question." Fair enough. But every definition that secular, humanistic science tries to place on man has been inadequate. According to science, we're really no better than the dog, or the cat, or even the mold on your bread. That's a rather stark understanding of man's place in the scheme of things. Not only does it undermine the whole idea of the uniqueness of man, but it undermines the whole concept of values. Left to science alone, man is on a road that leads only to despair, because other than trying to define systems and processes, science answers no questions of significance such as "What is man? Why is man here? And what is man's purpose?"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.