Search This Blog

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Human evolution


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human evolution is the evolutionary process leading up to the appearance of anatomically modern humans. The topic usually covers the evolutionary history of primates, in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of hominids (or "great apes") rather than studying the evolutionary history that led to primates. The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[1]

Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[2] The family Hominidae diverged from the Hylobatidae (Gibbon) family 15-20 million years ago, and around 14 million years ago, the Ponginae (orangutans) diverged from the Hominidae family.[3] Bipedalism is the basic adaption of the Hominin line, and the earliest bipedal Hominin is considered to be either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin, with Ardipithecus, a full bipedal, coming somewhat later. Either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may be the last shared ancestor between chimps and humans. The early bipedals eventually evolved into the australopithecines, and later into the genus Homo.

The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago;[4] the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3.[5] This increase in human brain size is equivalent to every generation having an additional 125,000 neurons more than their parents. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis.[6][7][8][9][10]

Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.[11][12] Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species.[13][14][15] Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[16] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[17] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[18]

History of study


Fossil Hominid Evolution Display at The Museum of Osteology, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

Before Darwin

The word homo, the name of the biological genus to which humans belong, is Latin for "human". It was chosen originally by Carolus Linnaeus in his classification system. The word "human" is from the Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo. The Latin "homo" derives from the Indo-European root *dhghem, or "earth".[19] Linnaeus and other scientists of his time also considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of humans based on morphological and anatomical similarities.

Darwin

The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent became clear only after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in which he argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin's book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".

The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen. Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. However, many of Darwin's early supporters (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell) did not initially agree that the origin of the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could be explained by natural selection, though this later changed. Darwin applied the theory of evolution and sexual selection to humans when he published The Descent of Man in 1871.[20]

First fossils

A major problem at that time was the lack of fossil intermediaries. Neanderthal remains were discovered in a limestone quarry in 1856, three years before the publication of the Origin of the Species, and Neanderthal fossils had been discovered in Gibraltar even earlier, but it was originally claimed that these were human remains of a creature suffering some kind of illness.[citation needed]
Despite the 1891 discovery by Eugène Dubois of what is now called Homo erectus at Trinil, Java, it was only in the 1920s when such fossils were discovered in Africa, that intermediate species began to accumulate.[citation needed] In 1925, Raymond Dart described Australopithecus africanus.[citation needed] The type specimen was the Taung Child, an Australopithecine infant which was discovered in a cave. The child's remains were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the brain.

Although the brain was small (410 cm3), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.

The East African fossils


Louis Leakey examining skulls from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.

During the 1960s and 1970s, hundreds of fossils were found, particularly in East Africa in the regions of the Olduvai gorge and Lake Turkana. The driving force in the East African researches was the Leakey family, with Louis Leakey and his wife Mary Leakey, and later their son Richard and daughter in-law Meave being among the most successful fossil hunters and palaeoanthropologists. From the fossil beds of Olduvai and Lake Turkana they amassed fossils of australopithecines, early Homo and even Homo erectus.

These finds cemented Africa as the cradle of humankind. In the 1980s, Ethiopia emerged as the new hot spot of palaeoanthropology as "Lucy", the most complete fossil member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, was found by Donald Johanson in Hadar in the desertic Middle Awash region of northern Ethiopia. This area would be the location of many new hominin fossils, particularly those uncovered by the teams of Tim White in the 1990s, such as Ardipithecus ramidus.

The genetic revolution

The genetic revolution in studies of human evolution started when Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson measured the strength of immunological cross-reactions of blood serum albumin between pairs of creatures, including humans and African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas).[21] The strength of the reaction could be expressed numerically as an immunological distance, which was in turn proportional to the number of amino acid differences between homologous proteins in different species. By constructing a calibration curve of the ID of species' pairs with known divergence times in the fossil record, the data could be used as a molecular clock to estimate the times of divergence of pairs with poorer or unknown fossil records.

In their seminal 1967 paper in Science, Sarich and Wilson estimated the divergence time of humans and apes as four to five million years ago,[21] at a time when standard interpretations of the fossil record gave this divergence as at least 10 to as much as 30 million years. Subsequent fossil discoveries, notably Lucy, and reinterpretation of older fossil materials, notably Ramapithecus, showed the younger estimates to be correct and validated the albumin method.

Progress in DNA sequencing, specifically mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and then Y-chromosome DNA advanced the understanding of human origins.[22][23][24] Application of the molecular clock principle revolutionized the study of molecular evolution.

On the basis of a separation from the orangutan between 10 and 20 million years ago, earlier studies of the molecular clock suggested that there were about 76 mutations per generation that they did not inherit from their parents. Using this evidence confirmed the separation (above). However, a 2012 study of 78 children and their parents in Iceland, suggests a mutation rate of only 36 mutations per generation extending the separation between to an earlier period before 7 million years ago (mya). Furthermore, research with wild 226 offspring of chimp populations in 8 locations, suggests that on average chimps reproduce when they are 26.5 years old. Based upon this number it suggests the separation from chimps occurred between 7 to 13 million years ago. This would suggest that Ardipithecus (4.5 mya, Orrorin 6 mya and Sahelanthropus 7 mya may have in fact been on the Hominin lineage, suggesting that the separation may have even occurred outside the African Rift Valley region.

Furthermore analysis of the two species' genes in 2006 provides evidence that after human ancestors had started to diverge from chimps, interspecies mating between "proto-human" and "proto-chimps" nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:
A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding... A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes.
The research suggests:
There were in fact two splits between the human and chimp lineages, with the first being followed by interbreeding between the two populations and then a second split. The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who nonetheless are "treating the new genetic data seriously".[25]

The quest for the earliest hominin

In the 1990s, several teams of paleoanthropologists were working throughout Africa looking for evidence of the earliest divergence of the Hominin lineage from the great apes. In 1994, Meave Leakey discovered Australopithecus anamensis. The find was overshadowed by Tim White's 1995 discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus, which pushed back the fossil record to 4.2 million years ago.
In 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut discovered in the Tugen Hills of Kenya a 6-million-year-old bipedal hominin which they named Orrorin tugenensis. And in 2001, a team led by Michel Brunet discovered the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis which was dated as 7.2 million years ago, and which Brunet argued was a bipedal, and therefore a hominid.

Human dispersal

Map with arrows emanating from Africa, across Eurasia, to Australia and the Americas.
A model of human migration, based from divergence of the mitochondrial DNA (which indicates the matrilineage).[26] Timescale (kya) indicated by colours.
Trellis of intermingling populations for the last two million years.
A "trellis" (as Wolpoff called it) that emphasizes back-and-forth gene flow among geographic regions.[27]

Different models for the beginning of the present human species.

Anthropologists in the 1980s were divided regarding some details of reproductive barriers and migratory dispersals of the Homo genus. Subsequently, genetics has been used to investigate and resolve these issues. According to the Sahara pump theory evidence suggests that genus Homo have migrated out of Africa at least three times (e.g. Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens).

The Out-of-Africa model proposed that modern H. sapiens speciated in Africa recently (approx. 200,000 years ago) and the subsequent migration through Eurasia resulted in nearly complete replacement of other Homo species. This model has been developed by Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews.[28][29] In contrast, the multiregional hypothesis proposed that Homo genus contained only a single interconnected population as it does today (not separate species), and that its evolution took place worldwide continuously over the last couple million years. This model was proposed in 1988 by Milford H. Wolpoff.[30][31]

Sequencing mtDNA and Y-DNA sampled from a wide range of indigenous populations revealed ancestral information relating to both male and female genetic heritage.[32] Aligned in genetic tree differences were interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin.[33] Analyses have shown a greater diversity of DNA patterns throughout Africa, consistent with the idea that Africa is the ancestral home of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.[34]

Out of Africa has gained support from research using female mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the male Y chromosome. After analysing genealogy trees constructed using 133 types of mtDNA, researchers concluded that all were descended from a female African progenitor, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. Out of Africa is also supported by the fact that mitochondrial genetic diversity is highest among African populations.[35]

A broad study of African genetic diversity, headed by Sarah Tishkoff, found the San people had the greatest genetic diversity among the 113 distinct populations sampled, making them one of 14 "ancestral population clusters". The research also located the origin of modern human migration in south-western Africa, near the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.[36] The fossil evidence was insufficient for Richard Leakey to resolve this debate.[37] Studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent African origin.[38] Evidence from autosomal DNA also predominantly supports a Recent African origin. However evidence for archaic admixture in modern humans had been suggested by some studies.[39]

Recent sequencing of Neanderthal[40] and Denisovan[41] genomes shows that some admixture occurred. Modern humans outside Africa have 2-4% Neanderthal alleles in their genome, and some Melanesians have an additional 4-6% of Denisovan alleles. These new results do not contradict the Out of Africa model, except in its strictest interpretation. After recovery from a genetic bottleneck that might be due to the Toba supervolcano catastrophe, a fairly small group left Africa and briefly interbred with Neanderthals, probably in the middle-east or even North Africa before their departure. Their still predominantly African descendants spread to populate the world. A fraction in turn interbred with Denisovans, probably in south-east Asia, before populating Melanesia.[42] HLA haplotypes of Neanderthal and Denisova origin have been identified in modern Eurasian and Oceanian populations.[15]

There are still differing theories on whether there was a single exodus or several. A multiple dispersal model involves the Southern Dispersal theory,[43] which has gained support in recent years from genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence. In this theory, there was a coastal dispersal of modern humans from the Horn of Africa around 70,000 years ago. This group helped to populate Southeast Asia and Oceania, explaining the discovery of early human sites in these areas much earlier than those in the Levant.[43]

A second wave of humans may have dispersed across the Sinai peninsula into Asia, resulting in the bulk of human population for Eurasia. This second group possibly possessed a more sophisticated tool technology and was less dependent on coastal food sources than the original group. Much of the evidence for the first group's expansion would have been destroyed by the rising sea levels at the end of each glacial maximum.[43] The multiple dispersal model is contradicted by studies indicating that the populations of Eurasia and the populations of Southeast Asia and Oceania are all descended from the same mitochondrial DNA lineages, which support a single migration out of Africa that gave rise to all non-African populations.[44]

Anatomical changes


The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor.

Human evolution is characterized by a number of morphological, developmental, physiological, and behavioral changes that have taken place since the split between the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. The most significant of these adaptations are bipedalism, increased brain size, lengthened ontogeny (gestation and infancy), and decreased sexual dimorphism. The relationship between these changes is the subject of ongoing debate.[45][page needed] Other significant morphological changes included the evolution of a power and precision grip, a change first occurring in H. erectus.[46]

Bipedalism

Bipedalism is the basic adaption of the Hominin line and is considered the main cause behind a suite of skeletal changes shared by all bipedal hominins. The earliest bipedal Hominin is considered to be either Sahelanthropus[47] or Orrorin, with Ardipithecus, a full bipedal, coming somewhat later. The knuckle-walkers, the gorilla and chimpanzee, diverged around the same time, and either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may be our last shared ancestor.[citation needed]

The early bipedals eventually evolved into the australopithecines and later the genus Homo. There are several theories of the adaptation value of bipedalism. It is possible that bipedalism was favored because it freed up the hands for reaching and carrying food, saved energy during locomotion,[48] enabled long distance running and hunting, enhanced field of vision and helped avoid hyperthermia by reducing the surface area exposed to direct sun; all this mainly for thriving in the new grassland type environment rather than the previous forest type.[23][49] A new study provides support for the hypothesis that walking on two legs, or bipedalism, evolved because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking.[50][51]

Anatomically the evolution of bipedalism has been accompanied by a large number of skeletal changes, not just to the legs and pelvis, but also to the vertebral column, feet and ankles, and skull.[52] The femur evolved into a slightly more angular position to move the center of gravity toward the geometric center of the body. The knee and ankle joints became increasingly robust to better support increased weight. To support the increased weight on each vertebra in the upright position, the human vertebral column became S-shaped and the lumbar vertebrae became shorter and wider. In the feet the big toe moved into alignment with the other toes to help in forward locomotion. The arms and forearms shortened relative to the legs making it easier to run. The foramen magnum migrated under the skull and more anterior.[53]

The most significant changes are in the pelvic region, where the long downward facing iliac blade was shortened and became wide as a requirement for keeping the center of gravity stable while walking;[48] bipedal hominids have a shorter but broad, bowl-like pelvis due to this. A drawback is that the birth canal of these apes is smaller than regular knuckle-walking apes, though there has been a widening of it in comparison to that of australopithecine and modern humans, permitting the passage of newborns due to the increase in cranial size but this is limited to the upper portion, since further increase can hinder normal bipedal movement.[54]

The shortening of the pelvis and smaller birth canal evolved as a requirement for bipedalism and had significant effects on the process of human birth which is much more difficult in modern humans than in other primates. During human birth, because of the variation in size of the pelvic region, the fetal head must be in a transverse position (compared to the mother) during entry into the birth canal and rotate about 90 degrees upon exit.[55] The smaller size of the birth canal became an obstacle when the brain size began to increase in early humans, prompted a shorter gestation period and the reason why humans give birth to immature offspring, who are unable to walk much before 12 months and have greater neoteny, compared to other primates, who are motile at a much earlier age.[49] The increased brain growth after birth and the increased dependency of children on mothers had a big effect upon the female reproductive cycle,[citation needed] and the more frequent appearance of monogamous relationships in humans when compared with other hominids. Delayed human sexual maturity also led to the evolution of menopause with one explanation saying that elderly women could better pass on their genes by taking care of their daughter's offspring, as compared to having more of their own.[56]

Encephalization

The human species developed a much larger brain than that of other primates – typically 1,330  cm3 in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.[57] The pattern of encephalization started with Homo habilis, which at approximately 600  cm3 had a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees, and continued with Homo erectus (800–1,100  cm3), reaching a maximum in Neanderthals with an average size of (1,200–1,900  cm3), larger even than Homo sapiens. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony) and allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans.
However, the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes may be even more significant than differences in size.[58][59][60][61]

The increase in volume over time has affected areas within the brain unequally – the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, as has the prefrontal cortex which has been related to complex decision-making and moderating social behavior.[57] Encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet,[62][63] or with the development of cooking,[64] and it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased necessity for solving social problems as human society became more complex. The human brain was able to expand because of the changes in the morphology of smaller mandibles and mandible muscle attachments to the skull into allowing more room for the brain to grow.[65]

The increase in volume of the neocortex also included a rapid increase in size of the cerebellum. Traditionally the cerebellum has been associated with a paleocerebellum and archicerebellum as well as a neocerebellum. Its function has also traditionally been associated with balance, fine motor control but more recently speech and cognition. The great apes including humans and its antecessors had a more pronounced development of the cerebellum relative to the neocortex than other primates. It has been suggested that because of its function of sensory-motor control and assisting in learning complex muscular action sequences, the cerebellum may have underpinned the evolution of human's technological adaptations including the preadaptation of speech.[66][67][68][69]

Sexual dimorphism

The reduced degree of sexual dimorphism is visible primarily in the reduction of the male canine tooth relative to other ape species (except gibbons) and reduced brow ridges and general robustness of males. Another important physiological change related to sexuality in humans was the evolution of hidden estrus. Humans and bonobos are the only apes in which the female is fertile year round and in which no special signals of fertility are produced by the body (such as genital swelling during estrus).
Nonetheless, humans retain a degree of sexual dimorphism in the distribution of body hair and subcutaneous fat, and in the overall size, males being around 15% larger than females. These changes taken together have been interpreted as a result of an increased emphasis on pair bonding as a possible solution to the requirement for increased parental investment due to the prolonged infancy of offspring.

Other changes

A number of other changes have also characterized the evolution of humans, among them an increased importance on vision rather than smell; a smaller gut; loss of body hair; evolution of sweat glands; a change in the shape of the dental arcade from being u-shaped to being parabolic; development of a chin (found in Homo sapiens alone), development of styloid processes; development of a descended larynx.

Evidence

The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution is based comes from many fields of natural science. The main sources of knowledge about the evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the development of genetics beginning in the 1970s, DNA analysis has come to occupy a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, particularly paleoanthropology which focuses on the study of human prehistory.[70]

Evidence from molecular biology


Family tree showing the extant hominoids: humans (genus Homo), chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan), gorillas (genus Gorilla), orangutans (genus Pongo), and gibbons (four genera of the family Hylobatidae: Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus, and Symphalangus). All except gibbons are hominids.

The closest living relatives of humans are bonobos and chimpanzees (both genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla).[71] With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of the similarity between their DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[71][72][73] By using the technique called the molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and orangutans (genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas followed by the chimpanzees and bonobos. The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4-8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.[3][74][75]

Genetic evidence has also been employed to resolve the question of whether there was any gene flow between early modern humans and Neanderthals, and to enhance our understanding of the early human migration patterns and splitting dates. By comparing the parts of the genome that are not under natural selection and which therefore accumulate mutations at a fairly steady rate, it is possible to reconstruct a genetic tree incorporating the entire human species since the last shared ancestor.

Each time a certain mutation (Single-nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation. By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 200,000 years ago.

Genetics

Human evolutionary genetics studies how one human genome differs from the other, the evolutionary past that gave rise to it, and its current effects. Differences between genomes have anthropological, medical and forensic implications and applications. Genetic data can provide important insight into human evolution.

Evidence from the fossil record


Replica of fossil skull of Homo habilis. Fossil number KNM ER 1813, found at Koobi Fora, Kenya.

Replica of fossil skull of Homo ergaster (African Homo erectus). Fossil number Khm-Heu 3733 discovered in 1975 in Kenya.

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[76] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.

The question of the relationship between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved. From these early species, the australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago and diverged into robust (also called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi) probably went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo. The australopithecine species that is best represented in the fossil record is Australopithecus afarensis with more than one hundred fossil individuals represented, found from Northern Ethiopia (such as the famous "Lucy"), to Kenya, and South Africa. Fossils of robust australopithecines such as A. robustus (or alternatively Paranthropus robustus) and A./P. boisei are particularly abundant in South Africa at sites such as Kromdraai and Swartkrans, and around Lake Turkana in Kenya.

The earliest member of the genus Homo is Homo habilis which evolved around 2.8 million years ago.[77] Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of the use of stone tools. They developed the oldowan lithic technology, named after the Olduvai gorge in which the first specimens were found. Some scientists consider Homo rudolfensis, a larger bodied group of fossils with similar morphology to the original H. habilis fossils, to be a separate species while others consider them to be part of H. habilis—simply representing species internal variation, or perhaps even sexual dimorphism. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as an adaptation to terrestrial living.

During the next million years, a process of encephalization began and, with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and this species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools.

The earliest transitional fossils between H. ergaster/erectus and Archaic H. sapiens are from Africa, such as Homo rhodesiensis, but seemingly transitional forms were also found at Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of African H. erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia; later fossils from Skhul in Israel and Southern Europe begin around 90,000 years ago.

As modern humans spread out from Africa, they encountered other hominins such as Homo neanderthalensis and the so-called Denisovans, who may have evolved from populations of Homo erectus that had left Africa around 2 million years ago. The nature of interaction between early humans and these sister species has been a long-standing source of controversy, the question being whether humans replaced these earlier species or whether they were in fact similar enough to interbreed, in which case these earlier populations may have contributed genetic material to modern humans.[78][79]

This migration out of Africa is estimated to have begun about 70,000 years BP and modern humans subsequently spread globally, replacing earlier hominins either through competition or hybridization. They inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas by at least 14,500 years BP.[80]

Before Homo

For evolutionary history before primates, see Evolution of mammals, Evolutionary history of life, and Timeline of human evolution.

Early evolution of primates

Evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 65 million years.[81] The oldest known primate-like mammal species,[82] the Plesiadapis, came from North America, but they were widespread in Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.
David Begun[83] concluded that early primates flourished in Eurasia and that a lineage leading to the African apes and humans, including Dryopithecus, migrated south from Europe or Western Asia into Africa. The surviving tropical population of primates, which is seen most completely in the upper Eocene and lowermost Oligocene fossil beds of the Faiyum depression southwest of Cairo, gave rise to all living species—lemurs of Madagascar, lorises of Southeast Asia, galagos or "bush babies" of Africa, and the anthropoids: platyrrhine or New World monkeys, catarrhines or Old World monkeys, and the great apes, including humans.

The earliest known catarrhine is Kamoyapithecus from uppermost Oligocene at Eragaleit in the northern Kenya Rift Valley, dated to 24 million years ago.[84] Its ancestry is thought to be species related to Aegyptopithecus, Propliopithecus, and Parapithecus from the Fayum, at around 35 million years ago.[85] In 2010, Saadanius was described as a close relative of the last common ancestor of the crown catarrhines, and tentatively dated to 29–28 million years ago, helping to fill an 11-million-year gap in the fossil record.[86]

Reconstructed tailless Proconsul skeleton

In the early Miocene, about 22 million years ago, the many kinds of arboreally adapted primitive catarrhines from East Africa suggest a long history of prior diversification. Fossils at 20 million years ago include fragments attributed to Victoriapithecus, the earliest Old World Monkey. Among the genera thought to be in the ape lineage leading up to 13 million years ago are Proconsul, Rangwapithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius, Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, all from East Africa.

The presence of other generalized non-cercopithecids of middle Miocene age from sites far distant—Otavipithecus from cave deposits in Namibia, and Pierolapithecus and Dryopithecus from France, Spain and Austria—is evidence of a wide diversity of forms across Africa and the Mediterranean basin during the relatively warm and equable climatic regimes of the early and middle Miocene. The youngest of the Miocene hominoids, Oreopithecus, is from coal beds in Italy that have been dated to 9 million years ago.

Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae) diverged from Great Apes some 18-12 million years ago, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) diverged from the other Great Apes at about 12 million years; there are no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so-far-unknown South East Asian hominoid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey, dated to around 10 million years ago.[48]

Divergence of the human clade from other great apes


A reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis (National Museum of Natural History)

Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics). The fossil record of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias probably contribute to this problem.

Other hominins likely adapted to the drier environments outside the equatorial belt, along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago. There is very little fossil evidence for the split of the hominin lineage from the lineages of gorillas and chimpanzees. The earliest fossils that have been argued to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus.

Genus Australopithecus

The Australopithecus genus evolved in eastern Africa around 4 million years ago before spreading throughout the continent and eventually becoming extinct 2 million years ago. During this time period various forms of australopiths existed, including Australopithecus anamensis, A. afarensis, A. sediba, and A. africanus. There is still some debate amongst academics whether certain African hominid species of this time, such as A. robustus and A. boisei, constitute members of the same genus; if so, they would be considered to be A. robust australopiths whilst the others would be considered A. gracile australopiths. However, if these species do indeed constitute their own genus, then they may be given their own name, the Paranthropus.

Genus Homo


One current view of the temporal and geographical distribution of hominid populations[87] Other interpretations differ mainly in the taxonomy and geographical distribution of hominid species.

A reconstruction of Homo habilis

Skulls of
1. Gorilla 2. Australopithecus 3. Homo erectus 4. Neanderthal (La Chapelle aux Saints) 5. Steinheim Skull 6. modern Homo sapiens. Notice the decreasing prognathism and thickness of the brow ridge, and the increasing size of the forehead.

Homo sapiens is the only extant species of its genus, Homo. While some other, extinct Homo species might have been ancestors of Homo sapiens, many were likely our "cousins", having speciated away from our ancestral line.[88][89] There is not yet a consensus as to which of these groups should count as separate species and which as subspecies. In some cases this is due to the dearth of fossils, in other cases it is due to the slight differences used to classify species in the Homo genus.[89] The Sahara pump theory (describing an occasionally passable "wet" Sahara Desert) provides one possible explanation of the early variation in the genus Homo.

Based on archaeological and paleontological evidence, it has been possible to infer, to some extent, the ancient dietary practices of various Homo species and to study the role of diet in physical and behavioral evolution within Homo.[90][91][92][93][94]

According to the Toba catastrophe theory to which some anthropologists and archeologists subscribe, the supereruption of Lake Toba on Sumatra island in Indonesia roughly 70,000 years ago had global consequences,[95] killing most humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck that affected the genetic inheritance of all humans today.[96]

H. habilis and H. gautengensis

Homo habilis lived from about 2.8[97] to 1.4 Ma. Homo habilis evolved in South and East Africa in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene, 2.5–2 Ma, when it diverged from the australopithecines. Homo habilis had smaller molars and larger brains than the australopithecines, and made tools from stone and perhaps animal bones. One of the first known hominids, it was nicknamed 'handy man' by discoverer Louis Leakey due to its association with stone tools. Some scientists have proposed moving this species out of Homo and into Australopithecus due to the morphology of its skeleton being more adapted to living on trees rather than to moving on two legs like Homo sapiens.[98]

In May 2010, a new species, Homo gautengensis was discovered in South Africa. [99]

H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus

These are proposed species names for fossils from about 1.9–1.6 Ma, whose relation to Homo habilis is not yet clear.
  • Homo rudolfensis refers to a single, incomplete skull from Kenya. Scientists have suggested that this was another Homo habilis, but this has not been confirmed.[100]
  • Homo georgicus, from Georgia, may be an intermediate form between Homo habilis and Homo erectus,[101] or a sub-species of Homo erectus.[102]

H. ergaster and H. erectus

The first fossils of Homo erectus were discovered by Dutch physician Eugene Dubois in 1891 on the Indonesian island of Java. He originally named the material Pithecanthropus erectus based on its morphology, which he considered to be intermediate between that of humans and apes.[103] Homo erectus lived from about 1.8 Ma to about 70,000 years ago (which would indicate that they were probably wiped out by the Toba catastrophe; however, Homo floresiensis survived it). Often the early phase, from 1.8 to 1.25 Ma, is considered to be a separate species, Homo ergaster, or it is seen as a subspecies of Homo erectus, Homo erectus ergaster.

In the early Pleistocene, 1.5–1 Ma, in Africa some populations of Homo habilis are thought to have evolved larger brains and made more elaborate stone tools; these differences and others are sufficient for anthropologists to classify them as a new species, Homo erectus.[104] This was made possible by the evolution of locking knees and a different location of the foramen magnum (the hole in the skull where the spine enters). They may have used fire to cook their meat.

A famous example of Homo erectus is Peking Man; others were found in Asia (notably in Indonesia), Africa, and Europe. Many paleoanthropologists now use the term Homo ergaster for the non-Asian forms of this group, and reserve Homo erectus only for those fossils that are found in Asia and meet certain skeletal and dental requirements which differ slightly from H. ergaster.

H. cepranensis and H. antecessor

These are proposed as species that may be intermediate between H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis.

H. heidelbergensis


Reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis which may be the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.

H. heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man) lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo sapiens paleohungaricus.[108]

H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium

  • H. rhodesiensis, estimated to be 300,000–125,000 years old. Most current researchers place Rhodesian Man within the group of Homo heidelbergensis, though other designations such as Archaic Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have been proposed.
  • In February 2006 a fossil, the Gawis cranium, was found which might possibly be a species intermediate between H. erectus and H. sapiens or one of many evolutionary dead ends. The skull from Gawis, Ethiopia, is believed to be 500,000–250,000 years old. Only summary details are known, and the finders have not yet released a peer-reviewed study. Gawis man's facial features suggest its being either an intermediate species or an example of a "Bodo man" female.[109]

Neanderthal and Denisovan

Dermoplastic reconstruction of a Neanderthal

H. neanderthalensis, alternatively designated as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis,[110] lived in Europe and Asia from 400,000[111] to about 30,000 years ago. Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[112][113][114] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[115]

Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[115] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned.[116][117] Neanderthals and homo sapiens could have co-existed in Europe for as long as 10,000 years, during which human populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals, possibly outcompeting them by sheer numerical strength.[118]

In 2008, archaeologists working at the site of Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia uncovered a small bone fragment from the fifth finger of a juvenile member of Denisovans.[119] Artifacts, including a bracelet, excavated in the cave at the same level were carbon dated to around 40,000 BP. As DNA had survived in the fossil fragment due to the cool climate of the Denisova Cave, both mtDNA and nuclear genomic DNA were sequenced.[13][120]

While the divergence point of the mtDNA was unexpectedly deep in time,[121] the full genomic sequence suggested the Denisovans belonged to the same lineage as Neanderthals, with the two diverging shortly after their line split from that lineage giving rise to modern humans.[13] Modern humans are known to have overlapped with Neanderthals in Europe for more than 10,000 years, and the discovery raises the possibility that Neanderthals, modern humans and the Denisova hominin may have co-existed. The existence of this distant branch creates a much more complex picture of humankind during the Late Pleistocene than previously thought.[120][122] Evidence has also been found that as much as 6% of the genomes of some modern Melanesians derive from Denisovans, indicating limited interbreeding in Southeast Asia.[123][124]

Alleles thought to have originated in Neanderthal and the Denisova hominin have been identified at several genetic loci in the genomes of modern humans outside of Africa. HLA types from Denisovans and Neanderthal represent more than half the HLA alleles of modern Eurasians,[15] indicating strong positive selection for these introgressed alleles.

H. floresiensis

Restoration model of Homo floresiensis

H. floresiensis, which lived from approximately 100,000 to 12,000 before present, has been nicknamed hobbit for its small size, possibly a result of insular dwarfism.[125] H. floresiensis is intriguing both for its size and its age, being an example of a recent species of the genus Homo that exhibits derived traits not shared with modern humans. In other words, H. floresiensis shares a common ancestor with modern humans, but split from the modern human lineage and followed a distinct evolutionary path. The main find was a skeleton believed to be a woman of about 30 years of age. Found in 2003 it has been dated to approximately 18,000 years old. The living woman was estimated to be one meter in height, with a brain volume of just 380 cm3 (considered small for a chimpanzee and less than a third of the H. sapiens average of 1400 cm3).[citation needed]

However, there is an ongoing debate over whether H. floresiensis is indeed a separate species.[126] Some scientists hold that H. floresiensis was a modern H. sapiens with pathological dwarfism.[127] This hypothesis is supported in part, because some modern humans who live on Flores, the island where the skeleton was found, are pygmies. This, coupled with pathological dwarfism, could possibly create a hobbit-like human. The other major attack on H. floresiensis is that it was found with tools only associated with H. sapiens.[127]

The hypothesis of pathological dwarfism, however, fails to explain additional anatomical features that are unlike those of modern humans (diseased or not) but much like those of ancient members of our genus. Aside from cranial features, these features include the form of bones in the wrist, forearm, shoulder, knees, and feet. Additionally, this hypothesis fails to explain the find of multiple examples of individuals with these same characteristics, indicating they were common to a large population, and not limited to one individual.

H. sapiens

H. sapiens (the adjective sapiens is Latin for "wise" or "intelligent") have lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present. Between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in skull expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. A subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred to as the recent single origin or Out of Africa theory. Current evidence does not preclude some multiregional evolution or some admixture of the migrant H. sapiens with existing Homo populations. This is a hotly debated area of paleoanthropology.
Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[128][129][130] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes.

H. sapiens idaltu, from Ethiopia, is an extinct sub-species from about 160,000 years ago.
Comparative table of Homo species
Species Lived when Ma Lived where Adult height Adult mass Cranial capacity (cm³) Fossil record Discovery / publication of name
Denisova hominin 0.04 Russia 1 site 2010
H. antecessor 1.2 – 0.8 Spain 175 cm (5 ft 9 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 1,000 2 sites 1997
Penghu 1 0.25 – 0.2 Taiwan 1 individual pre-2008/2015
H. cepranensis 0.9 – 0.35 Italy 1,000 1 skull cap 1994/2003
H. erectus 1.9 – 0.07 Africa, Eurasia (Java, China, India, Caucasus) 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) 60 kg (130 lb) 850 (early) – 1,100 (late) Many 1891/1892
H. ergaster 1.9 – 1.4 Eastern and Southern Africa 700–850 Many 1975
H. floresiensis 0.10 – 0.012 Indonesia 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) 25 kg (55 lb) 400 7 individuals 2003/2004
H. gautengensis >2 – 0.6 South Africa 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) 1 individual 2010/2010
H. habilis 2.8 – 1.4 Africa 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) 33–55 kg (73–121 lb) 510–660 Many 1960/1964
H. heidelbergensis 0.6 – 0.35 Europe, Africa, China 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 1,100–1,400 Many 1908
H. neanderthalensis 0.35 – 0.04 Europe, Western Asia 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) 55–70 kg (121–154 lb) (heavily built) 1,200–1,900 Many (1829)/1864
H. rhodesiensis 0.3 – 0.12 Zambia 1,300 Very few 1921
H. rudolfensis 1.9 Kenya 700 2 sites 1972/1986
Red Deer Cave people 0.0145–0.0115 China Very few 2012
H. sapiens idaltu 0.16 – 0.15 Ethiopia 1,450 3 craniums 1997/2003
H. sapiens
(modern humans)
0.2 – present Worldwide 150 - 190 cm (4 ft 7 in - 6 ft 3 in) 50–100 kg (110–220 lb) 950–1,800 Still living —/1758

Hominin species distributed through time edit
Homo Australopithecus Ardipithecus Paranthropus Homo sapiens Homo neandertalensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo erectus Paranthropus robustus Paranthropus boisei Paranthropus aethiopicus Homo ergaster Homo habilis Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus bahrelghazali Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus anamensis Orrorin tugenensis Sahelanthropus Pleistocene Pliocene Miocene

Use of tools


"A sharp rock", an Oldowan pebble tool, the most basic of human stone tools

The harnessing of fire was a pivotal milestone in human history.

Acheulean hand-axes from Kent. Homo erectus flint work. The types shown are (clockwise from top) cordate, ficron and ovate.

Venus of Willendorf, an example of Paleolithic art, dated 24-26,000 years ago
 The use of tools has been interpreted as a sign of intelligence, and it has been theorized that tool use may have stimulated certain aspects of human evolution, especially the continued expansion of the human brain. Paleontology has yet to explain the expansion of this organ over millions of years despite being extremely demanding in terms of energy consumption. The brain of a modern human consumes about 13 watts (260 kilocalories per day), a fifth of body's total energy consumption.[131] Increased tool use would allow hunting for energy-rich meat products, and would enable processing more energy-rich plant products. Researchers have suggested that early hominids were thus under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity to create and use tools.[132]

Precisely when early humans started to use tools is difficult to determine, because the more primitive these tools are (for example, sharp-edged stones) the more difficult it is to decide whether they are natural objects or human artifacts. There is some evidence that the australopithecines (4 Ma) may have used broken bones as tools, but this is debated.[133]

It should be noted that many species make and use tools, but it is the human genus that dominates the areas of making and using more complex tools. The oldest known tools are the "Oldowan stone tools" from Ethiopia, 2.5-2.6 million years old. A Homo fossil was found near some Oldowan tools, and its age was noted at 2.3 million years old, suggesting that maybe the Homo species did indeed create and use these tools. It is a possibility but does not yet represent solid evidence.[134] Third metacarpal styloid process enables the hand bone to lock into the wrist bones, allowing for greater amounts of pressure to be applied to the wrist and hand from a grasping thumb and fingers. It allows humans the dexterity and strength to make and use complex tools. This unique anatomical feature separates humans from apes and other nonhuman primates, and is not seen in human fossils older than 1.8 million years.[135]

Bernard Wood noted that "Paranthropus" co-existed with the early Homo species in the area of the "Oldowan Industrial Complex" over roughly the same span of time. Although there is no direct evidence which identifies Paranthropus as the tool makers, their anatomy lends to indirect evidence of their capabilities in this area. Most paleoanthropologists agree that the early "Homo" species were indeed responsible for most of the Oldowan tools found. They argue that when most of the Oldowan tools were found in association with human fossils, Homo was always present, but Paranthropus was not.[134]

In 1994 Randall Susman used the anatomy of opposable thumbs as the basis for his argument that both the Homo and Paranthropus species were toolmakers. He compared bones and muscles of human and chimpanzee thumbs, finding that humans have 3 muscles which are lacking in chimpanzees. Humans also have thicker metacarpals with broader heads, allowing more precise grasping than the chimpanzee hand can perform. Susman posited that modern anatomy of the human thumb is an evolutionary response to the requirements associated with making and handling tools and that both species were indeed toolmakers.[134]

Stone tools

Stone tools are first attested around 2.6 Ma, when H. habilis in Eastern Africa used so-called pebble tools, choppers made out of round pebbles that had been split by simple strikes.[136] This marks the beginning of the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age; its end is taken to be the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago. The Paleolithic is subdivided into the Lower Paleolithic (Early Stone Age, ending around 350,000–300,000 years ago), the Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age, until 50,000–30,000 years ago), and the Upper Paleolithic.

The period from 700,000–300,000 years ago is also known as the Acheulean, when H. ergaster (or erectus) made large stone hand axes out of flint and quartzite, at first quite rough (Early Acheulian), later "retouched" by additional, more subtle strikes at the sides of the flakes. After 350,000 BP (Before Present) the more refined so-called Levallois technique was developed, a series of consecutive strikes, by which scrapers, slicers ("racloirs"), needles, and flattened needles were made.[136] Finally, after about 50,000 BP, ever more refined and specialized flint tools were made by the Neanderthals and the immigrant Cro-Magnons (knives, blades, skimmers). In this period they also started to make tools out of bone.

Transition to behavioral modernity

Until about 50,000–40,000 years ago the use of stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise. Each phase (H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalensis) started at a higher level than the previous one, but after each phase started, further development was slow. Currently paleoanthropologists are debating whether these Homo species possessed some or many of the cultural and behavioral traits associated with modern humans such as language, complex symbolic thinking, technological creativity etc. It seems that they were culturally conservative maintaining simple technologies and foraging patterns over very long periods.
Around 50,000 BP modern human culture started to evolve more rapidly. The transition to behavioral modernity has been characterized as a Eurasian "Great Leap Forward",[137] or as the "Upper Palaeolithic Revolution",[138] because of the sudden appearance of distinctive signs of modern behavior in the archaeological record. Some scholars consider the transition to have been more gradual, with some features already appearing among Archaic African Homo sapiens around 200,000 years ago.[139][140]

Modern humans started burying their dead, using animal hides to make clothing, hunting with more sophisticated techniques (such as using trapping pits or driving animals off cliffs), and engaging in cave painting.[141] As human culture advanced, different populations of humans introduced novelty to existing technologies: artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles show signs of variation among different populations of humans, something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50,000 BP. Typically, H. neanderthalensis populations do not vary in their technologies.

Among concrete examples of Modern human behavior, anthropologists include specialization of tools, use of jewellery and images (such as cave drawings), organization of living space, rituals (for example, burials with grave gifts), specialized hunting techniques, exploration of less hospitable geographical areas, and barter trade networks. Debate continues as to whether a "revolution" led to modern humans ("the big bang of human consciousness"), or whether the evolution was more gradual.[142]

Recent and current human evolution

Natural selection occurs in modern human populations. For example, the population which is at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127 V versus non-immune alleles. The frequency of this genetic variant is due to the survival of immune persons.[143][144] Other reported evolutionary trends in other populations include a lengthening of the reproductive period, reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure.[145]

It has been argued that human evolution has accelerated since the development of agriculture and civilization some 10,000 years ago. It is claimed that this has resulted in substantial genetic differences between different current human populations.[146] Lactase persistence is an example of such recent evolution. Recent human evolution seems largely however to have been confined to genetic resistance to some infectious disease, which have appeared in human populations by crossing the species barrier from domesticated animals.[147] Without a selection pressure or opportunity for speciation, such as geographic isolation, recent human evolution has been predominantly subject to genetic drift.[citation needed]

Species list

This list is in chronological order across the page by genus.

Evolution of human intelligence


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution of human intelligence refers to a set of theories that attempt to explain how human intelligence has evolved. These theories are closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the emergence of human language.

The timeline of human evolution spans approximately 7 million years,[1] from the separation of the Pan genus until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. The first 3 million years of this timeline concern Sahelanthropus, the following 2 million concern Australopithecus and the final 2 million span the history of actual human species (the Paleolithic).

Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are apparent in great apes although in less sophisticated forms than found in humans.

History

Hominidae


Chimpanzee mother and baby

The great apes show considerable abilities for cognition and empathy.

Chimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence.[2]

In one study, young chimpanzees outperformed human college students in tasks requiring remembering numbers.[3] This claim was refuted in a later study after it was noted that the chimpanzees had received extensive practice with the task while the students were evaluated on their first attempt. When human subjects were given time to practice, they substantially outperformed the young chimps.[4] Chimpanzees are capable of empathy.

Homininae

Around 10 million years ago, the Earth's climate entered a cooler and drier phase, which led eventually to the Quaternary glaciation beginning some 2.6 million years ago. One consequence of this was that the north African tropical forest began to retreat, being replaced first by open grasslands and eventually by desert (the modern Sahara). As their environment changed from continuous forest to patches of forest separated by expanses of grassland, some primates adapted to a partly or fully ground-dwelling life. Here they were exposed to predators, such as the big cats, from whom they had previously been safe.

These environmental pressures caused selection to favor bipedalism: walking on hind legs. This gave the Homininae's eyes greater elevation, the ability to see approaching danger further off, and a more efficient means of locomotion (see main article for details).[citation needed] It also freed the forelimbs (arms) from the task of walking and made the hands available for tasks such as gathering food. At some point the bipedal primates developed handedness, giving them the ability to pick up sticks, bones and stones and use them as weapons, or as tools for tasks such as killing smaller animals, cracking nuts, or cutting up carcasses. In other words, these primates developed the use of primitive technology. Bipedal tool-using primates form the Hominina subtribe, of which the earliest species, such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, date to about 7 to 5 million years ago.

From about 5 million years ago, the Hominin brain began to develop rapidly in both size and differentiation of function.[why?]

There has been a gradual increase in brain volume as humans progressed along the timeline of evolution (see Homininae), starting from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis up to 1500 cm3 in Homo neanderthalensis. Thus, in general there's a correlation between brain volume and intelligence. However, modern Homo sapiens have a brain volume slightly smaller (1250 cm3) than neanderthals, and the Flores hominids (Homo floresiensis), nicknamed hobbits, had a cranial capacity of about 380 cm3 (considered small for a chimpanzee) about a third of that of H. erectus. It is proposed that they evolved from H. erectus as a case of insular dwarfism. With their three times smaller brain the Flores hominids apparently used fire and made tools as sophisticated as those of their ancestor H.erectus. In this case, it seems that for intelligence, the structure of the brain is more important than its volume.

Homo

By 2.4 million years ago Homo habilis had appeared in East Africa: the first known human species, and the first known to make stone tools.

The use of tools conferred a crucial evolutionary advantage, and required a larger and more sophisticated brain to co-ordinate the fine hand movements required for this task. The evolution of a larger brain created a problem for early humans, however. A larger brain requires a larger skull, and thus requires the female to have a wider birth canal for the newborn's larger skull to pass through. But if the female's birth canal grew too wide, her pelvis would be so wide that she would lose the ability to run, which was a necessary skill 2 million years ago.[citation needed]

The solution to this was to give birth at an early stage of fetal development, before the skull grew too large to pass through the birth canal. This adaptation enabled the human brain to continue to grow, but it imposed a new discipline. The need to care for helpless infants for long periods of time forced humans to become less mobile[citation needed]. Human bands increasingly stayed in one place for long periods, so that females could care for infants, while males hunted food and fought with other bands that competed for food sources[citation needed]. As a result, humans became even more dependent on tool-making to compete with other animals and other humans, and relied less on body size and strength[citation needed].

About 200,000 years ago Europe and the Middle East were colonized by Neanderthal man, extinct by 20,000 years ago following the appearance of modern humans in the region from 40,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens


Middle Stone Age bifacial points, engraved ochre and bone tools from the c. 75,000 year old M1 & M2 phases at Blombos cave.

"The Lion Man," found in the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave of Germany's Swabian Alb and dated to 32,000 years ago, is associated with the Aurignacian culture and is the oldest known anthropomorphic animal figurine in the world.
Quaternary extinction event Quaternary extinction event Holocene extinction Holocene extinction Yellowstone Caldera Yellowstone Caldera Toba catastrophe theory Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo antecessor Homo sapiens Homo habilis Homo georgicus Homo ergaster Homo erectus Homo (genus) Homo (genus)
Dates approximate, consult articles for details
(From 2000000 BC till 2013 AD in (partial) exponential notation)
See also: Java Man (-1.75e+06), Yuanmou Man (-1.75e+06 : -0.73e+06),
Lantian Man (-1.7e+06), Nanjing Man (- 0.6e+06), Tautavel Man (- 0.5e+06),
Peking Man (- 0.4e+06), Solo Man (- 0.4e+06), and Peștera cu Oase (- 0.378e+05)

Homo sapiens intelligence

Around 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens first appears in East Africa. It is unclear to what extent these early modern humans had developed language, music, religion etc. They spread throughout Africa over the following approximately 50,000 years.[citation needed]
According to proponents of the Toba catastrophe theory, the climate in non-tropical regions of the earth experienced a sudden freezing about 70,000 years ago, because of a huge explosion of the Toba volcano that filled the atmosphere with volcanic ash for several years. This reduced the human population to less than 10,000 breeding pairs in equatorial Africa, from which all modern humans are descended. Being unprepared for the sudden change in climate, the survivors were those intelligent enough to invent new tools and ways of keeping warm and finding new sources of food (for example, adapting to ocean fishing based on prior fishing skills used in lakes and streams that became frozen).[citation needed]

Around 80–100,000 years ago, three main lines of Homo sapiens diverged, bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L1 (mtDNA) / A (Y-DNA) colonizing Southern Africa (the ancestors of the Khoisan/Capoid peoples), bearers of haplogroup L2 (mtDNA) / B (Y-DNA) settling Central and West Africa (the ancestors of Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples), while the bearers of haplogroup L3 remained in East Africa.[citation needed]

The "Great Leap Forward" leading to full behavioral modernity sets in only after this separation. Rapidly increasing sophistication in tool-making and behaviour is apparent from about 80,000 years ago, and the migration out of Africa follows towards the very end of the Middle Paleolithic, some 60,000 years ago. Fully modern behaviour, including figurative art, music, self-ornamentation, trade, burial rites etc. is evident by 30,000 years ago. The oldest unequivocal examples of prehistoric art date to this period, the Aurignacian and the Gravettian periods of prehistoric Europe, such as the Venus figurines and cave painting (Chauvet Cave) and the earliest musical instruments (the bone pipe of Geissenklösterle, Germany, dated to about 36,000 years ago).[5]

Models

Social brain hypothesis

The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups.[6][7] Some of the behaviors associated with living in large groups include reciprocal altruism, deception and coalition formation. These group dynamics relate to Theory of Mind or the ability to understand the thoughts and emotions of others, though Dunbar himself admits in the same book that it is not the flocking itself that causes intelligence to evolve (as shown by ruminants).[8]

Dunbar argues that when the size of a social group increases, the number of different relationships in the group may increase by orders of magnitude. Chimpanzees live in groups of about 50 individuals whereas humans typically have a social circle of about 150 people, which is also the typical size of social communities in small societies and personal social networks;[9] this number is now referred to as Dunbar's number. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the success of groups is dependent on their size at foundation, with groupings of around 150 being particularly successful, potentially reflecting the fact that communities of this size strike a balance between the minimum size of effective functionality and the maximum size for creating a sense of commitment to the community.[10] According to the social brain hypothesis, when hominids started living in large groups, selection favored greater intelligence. As evidence, Dunbar cites a relationship between neocortex size and group size of various mammals.[8] However, meerkats have far more social relationships than their small brain capacity would suggest. Another hypothesis is that it is actually intelligence that causes social relationships to become more complex, because intelligent individuals are more difficult to learn to know.[11]

There are also studies that show that Dunbar's number is not the upper limit of the number of social relationships in humans either.[12][13]

Social exchange theory

Other studies suggest that social exchange between individuals is a vital adaptation to the human brain, going as far to say that the human mind could be equipped with a neurocognitive system specialized for reasoning about social change.Social Exchange is a vital adaptation that evolved in social species and has become exceptionally specialized in humans.This adaption will develop by natural selection when two parties can make themselves better off than they were before by exchanging things one party values less for things the other party values for more. However, selection will only pressure social exchange when both parties are receiving mutual benefits from their relative situation; if one party cheats the other by receiving a benefit while the other is harmed, then selection will stop. Consequently, the existence of cheaters—those who fail to deliver fair benefits—threatens the evolution of exchange. Using evolutionary game theory, it has been shown that adaptations for social exchange can be favored and stably maintained by natural selection, but only if they include design features that enable them to detect cheaters, and cause them to channel future exchanges to reciprocators and away from cheaters. Thus, humans use social contracts to lay the benefits and losses each party will be receiving (if you accept benefit B from me, then you must satisfy my requirement R). Humans have evolved an advanced cheater detection system, equipped with proprietary problem-solving strategies that evolved to match the recurrent features of their corresponding problem domains. Not only do humans need to determine that the contract was violated, but also if the violation was intentionally done. Therefore, systems are specialized to detect contract violations that imply intentional cheating. [14]

Sexual selection

This model is proposed by Geoffrey Miller who argues that human intelligence is unnecessarily sophisticated for the needs of hunter-gatherers to survive. He argues that the manifestations of intelligence such as language, music and art did not evolve because of their utilitarian value to the survival of ancient hominids. Rather, intelligence may have been a fitness indicator. Hominids would have been selected for greater intelligence as a proxy for healthy genes and a positive feedback loop of sexual selection would have led to the evolution of human intelligence in a relatively short period.[15]
A sexual selection theory must explain why both sexes are intelligent. In many species, only males have impressive ornaments and show-off behavior. Sexual selection is also thought to be able to act on both males and females in species that are at least partially monogamous.[16] With complete monogamy, there is assortative mating for sexually selected traits. This means that less attractive individuals will find other less attractive individuals to mate with. If attractive traits are good fitness indicators, this means that sexual selection increases the genetic load of the offspring of unattractive individuals. Without sexual selection, an unattractive individual might find a superior mate with few deleterious mutations, and have healthy children that are likely to survive. With sexual selection, an unattractive individual is more likely to have access only to an inferior mate who is likely to pass on many deleterious mutations to their joint offspring, who are then less likely to survive.[15]

Sexual selection is often thought to be a likely explanation for other female-specific human traits, for example breasts and buttocks far larger in proportion to total body size than those found in related species of ape.[15] It is often assumed that if breasts and buttocks of such large size were necessary for functions such as suckling infants, they would be found in other species. Growing human brains require more nutrition than brains of related species of ape. Human males find human female breasts attractive, in agreement with sexual selection acting on human females.

Sexual selection for intelligence and judging ability can act on indicators of success, such as highly visible displays of wealth (cattle, farmland, servants, etc.). It is possible that for females to successfully judge male intelligence, they must be intelligent themselves. This could explain why despite the absence of clear differences in intelligence between males and females on average, there are clear differences between male and female propensities to display their intelligence in ostentatious forms.[15]

Ecological dominance-social competition model

A predominant model describing the evolution of human intelligence is ecological dominance-social competition (EDSC),[17] explained by Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary and Carol V. Ward based mainly on work by Richard D. Alexander. According to the model, human intelligence was able to evolve to significant levels because of the combination of increasing domination over habitat and increasing importance of social interactions. As a result the primary selective pressure for increasing human intelligence shifted from learning to master the natural world to competition for dominance among members or groups of its own species.

As advancement, survival and reproduction within an increasing complex social structure favored ever more advanced social skills, communication of concepts through increasingly complex language patterns ensued. Since competition had shifted bit by bit from controlling "nature" to influencing other humans, it became of relevance to outmaneuver other members of the group seeking leadership or acceptance, by means of more advanced social skills. A more social and communicative person would be more easily selected.

Intelligence dependent on brain size

Human intelligence is developed to an extreme level that is not necessarily adaptive in an evolutionary sense. Firstly, larger-headed babies are more difficult to give birth to and large brains are costly in terms of nutrient and oxygen requirements.[18] Thus the direct adaptive benefit of human intelligence is questionable at least in modern societies, while it is difficult to study in prehistoric societies. Since 2005, scientists have been evaluating genomic data on gene variants thought to influence head size, and have found no evidence that those genes are under strong selective pressure in current human populations.[19] The trait of head size has become generally fixed in modern human beings.[20]

Intelligence as a disease resistance sign

A recent study[21] argues that human cleverness is simply selected within the context of sexual selection as an honest signal of genetic resistance against parasites and pathogens. The number of people living with cognitive abilities seriously damaged by childhood infections is high; estimated in hundreds of millions. Even more people live with moderate mental damages, such as inability to complete difficult tasks, that are not classified as ‘diseases’ by medical standards, may still be considered as inferior mates by potential sexual partners. Pathogens currently playing a major role in this global challenge against human cognitive capabilities include viral infections like meningitis, protists like Toxoplasma and Plasmodium, and animal parasites like intestinal worms and schistosomes.[22]

Thus, widespread, virulent, and archaic infections are greatly involved in natural selection for cognitive abilities. People infected with parasites may have brain damage and obvious maladaptive behavior in addition to visible signs of disease. Smarter people can more skillfully learn to distinguish safe non-polluted water and food from unsafe kinds and learn to distinguish mosquito infested areas from safe areas. Smarter people can more skillfully find and develop safe food sources and living environments. Given this situation, preference for smarter child-bearing/rearing partners increases the chance that their descendants will inherit the best resistance alleles, not only for immune system resistance to disease, but also smarter brains for learning skills in avoiding disease and selecting nutritious food. When people search for mates based on their success, wealth, reputation, disease-free body appearance, or psychological traits such as benevolence or confidence; the effect is to select for superior intelligence that results in superior disease resistance.

Group selection

Group selection theory contends that organism characteristics that provide benefits to a group (clan, tribe, or larger population) can evolve despite individual disadvantages such as those cited above. The group benefits of intelligence (including language, the ability to communicate between individuals, the ability to teach others, and other cooperative aspects) have apparent utility in increasing the survival potential of a group.

Nutritional status

Higher cognitive functioning develops better in an environment with adequate nutrition,[23] and diets deficient in iron, zinc, protein, iodine, B vitamins, omega 3 fatty acids, magnesium and other nutrients can result in lower intelligence[24][25] either in the mother during pregnancy or in the child during development. While these inputs did not have an effect on the evolution of intelligence they do govern its expression. A higher intelligence could be a signal that an individual comes from and lives in a physical and social environment where nutrition levels are high, whereas a lower intelligence could imply a child (and/or the child's mother) comes from a physical and social environment where nutritional levels are low. Previc[26] emphasizes the contribution of nutritional factors, especially meat and shellfish consumption, to elevations of dopaminergic activity in the brain, which may have been responsible for the evolution of human intelligence since dopamine is crucial to working memory, cognitive shifting, abstract, distant concepts, and other hallmarks of advanced intelligence.

Flexible problem solving

The statement that such high intelligence "lack survival value", which is used by believers in social intelligence and sexual selection, invariably assumes a stable environment. If climate change is factored in, however, the evolution of human intelligence can be perfectly explained by flexible problem solving during those climate changes.[citation needed] For example, solving the problem of catching fish when freshwater streams freeze and the only available fish are in nearby unfrozen seawater. However, such a theory must also account for the apparent uniqueness of human levels of intelligence, which can be explained by free hands that allows for efficient manipulation of the environment such as carrying things and inventing and using handmade tools, which gives intelligence a practical survival value that can be selected by evolution.[27][page needed]

Behavioral modernity



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Upper paleolithic, 16,000 years old, cave painting from Lascaux cave in France

Pliocene (before Homo)
Lower Paleolithic (c. 2.6 Ma–300 ka)
Oldowan (2.6–1.8 Ma)
Acheulean (1.7–0.1 Ma)
Clactonian (0.3–0.2 Ma)
Middle Paleolithic (300–45 ka)
Mousterian (300–40 ka)
Aterian (82 ka)
Upper Paleolithic (40–10 ka)
Baradostian (36 ka)
Châtelperronian (45-40 ka)
Aurignacian (38–29 ka)
Gravettian (29–22 ka)
Solutrean (21–17 ka)
Magdalenian (18–10 ka)
Hamburg (15 ka)
Ahrensburg (13 ka)
Swiderian (10 ka)

Behavioral modernity is a term used in anthropology, archeology and sociology to refer to a set of traits that distinguish present day humans and their recent ancestors from both other living primates and other extinct hominid lineages. It is the point at which Homo sapiens began to demonstrate an ability to use complex symbolic thought and express cultural creativity. These developments are often thought to be associated with the origin of language.[1] Elements of behavioral modernity include finely made tools, fishing, long-distance sharing or exchange among groups, self-ornamentation, figurative art, games, music, cooking and burial.

There are two main theories regarding when modern human behavior emerged.[2] One theory holds that behavioral modernity occurred as a sudden event some 50 kya (50,000 years ago) in prehistory, possibly as a result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.[3] Proponents of this theory refer to this event as the Great Leap Forward[4] or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.

The second theory holds that there was never any single technological or cognitive revolution. Proponents of this view argue that modern human behavior is the result of the gradual accumulation of knowledge, skills and culture occurring over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.[5]

Definition

Modern human behavior is observed in cultural universals which are the key elements shared by all groups of people throughout the history of humanity. Examples of elements that may be considered cultural universals are language, religion, art, dance, singing, music, myth, cooking, games, and jokes. While some of these traits distinguish Homo sapiens from other species in their degree of articulation in language based culture, some have analogues in animal ethology.

There is also an important distinction to be made between when humans developed the ability to invent, in contrast to developing the ability to adopt, modern human behavior. As a modern analogy, there is no shortage of musicians in the world trying to compose new and original music, but only a handful every year that successfully manage to compose lasting world wide hit songs; yet essentially all of the other aspiring composer musicians can almost trivially learn to play those hit songs once they've heard them (with analogous undertakings in literature, art, science and technology etc.). A dramatic and sudden increase in complexity of human behavior is thus fully plausible even if significantly less than 1% of humanity developed the genetic ability to "invent", provided that the remaining 99% had no significant problems with "adopting" those inventions. There is potentially an evolutionary abyss between inventing and adopting; for instance, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster produced with little advancement essentially the same sharpened stone tools for over a million years, but there is no scientific evidence at hand that could prove that they were incapable of producing composite stone tools, such as spears, if shown how to do so.

It is thus not established if the early Homo sapiens had the genetic requirements to be able to adopt modern human behavior, such as religious beliefs, through cultural interaction. If indeed the early Homo sapiens had the ability to learn modern human behavior, once invented by other groups, there is no geographic restriction where modern behavior originated. However, if the early Homo sapiens hypothetically were genetically inhibited from adopting modern human behaviors, since cultural universals are found in all cultures including some of the most isolated indigenous groups, these traits must have evolved or have been invented in Africa prior to the exodus.[6][7][8][9]

Classic archaeologically accessible evidence of behavioral modernity includes:
A more terse definition of the evidence is the behavioral B's: blades, beads, burials, bone toolmaking, and beauty.[10]

Timing

Whether modern behavior emerged as a single event or gradually is the subject of vigorous debate.

Great leap forward


Middle Stone Age bifacial points, engraved ochre and bone tools from the c. 75 - 80,000 year old M1 & M2 phases at Blombos cave[citation needed](Staged photo - not as they were found)

Most advocates of this theory argue that the great leap forward occurred sometime between 50-40 kya in Africa or Europe, or perhaps simultaneously throughout the occupied world. (Some argue for an earlier date and a slower radiation, urging evidence for advanced tool-making (e.g., pyrolithic and bone tools) and abstract designs at Blombos Cave and other sites along the South African coast by at least 80 kya.,[1] see continuity hypothesis, below.) Great leap forward advocates argue that humans who lived before the leap were behaviorally primitive, indistinguishable from other later extinct hominids such as the Neanderthals or Homo erectus. Proponents of this view base their evidence on the abundance of complex artifacts, such as artwork and bone tools of the Upper Paleolithic, that appear in the fossil record after 50 kya.[11] They argue that such artifacts are absent from the fossil record from before 50 kya, indicating that earlier hominids lacked the cognitive skills required to invent such artifacts.

Jared Diamond states that humans of the Acheulean and Mousterian cultures lived in an apparent stasis, experiencing little cultural change. This was followed by a sudden flowering of fine toolmaking, sophisticated weaponry, sculpture, cave painting, body ornaments, and long-distance trade.[12] Humans also expanded into hitherto uninhabited environments, such as Australia and Northern Eurasia.[12]

According to this model, the emergence of behaviorally modern humans postdates the emergence of anatomically modern humans by over 100 ky.

Continuity hypothesis


Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from the 75,000 year old levels at Blombos Cave; a) claimed to be apertures made with bone tools

Proponents of the continuity hypothesis hold that no single genetic or biological change is responsible for the appearance of modern behavior. They contend that modern human behavior is the result of sociocultural and sociobiological evolution occurring over hundreds of thousands of years. They further dispute that anatomical modernity predates behavioral modernity, stating that changes in human anatomy and behavioral changes occurred stepwise.[5]

Continuity theorists base their assertions on evidence of aspects of modern behavior that can be seen in the Middle Stone Age (approximately 250-50 kya) at a number of sites in Africa and the Levant. For example, a possible burial at Qafzeh is Middle Stone Age (MSA) having been dated to 90 kya. The usage of pigment is noted at several MSA sites in Africa dating back more than 100 kya. At Pinnacle Point cave, Marean's team found evidence that tool makers may have understood the process of careful heating needed for converting silcrete into an easily flaked form 73 kya, and possibly more than 164 kya. Prior to this, it was widely believed that earliest known use of this technology was in Europe 25 kya.[13][14]

Also, the Schöningen spears and their correlation of finds are evidence of complex technological skills already 300.000 years ago and are the first obvious proof for an active (big game) hunt. A successful hunt for quickly fleeing gregarious animals without sophisticated hunting strategies, a complex social structure and developed forms of communication (language ability) is unlikely. H. heidelbergensis already had intellectual and cognitive skills like anticipatory planning, thinking and acting that so far have only been attributed to modern man.[15][16]

Some continuity theorists also argue that the rapid pace of cultural evolution during the Upper Paleolithic transition may have been triggered by adverse environmental conditions such as aridity arising from glacial maxima.[1]

Streaming algorithm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_algorithm ...