Bipedal – The Savanna Theory


See also parts two and three.

There are many hypotheses about the fact that humans walk on two legs. We aren’t the only ones to do so. Birds are bipedal, that is they have only two feet. Many dinosaurs were bipedal, for instance the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the velociraptors. Fossils of the earliest dinosaurs are from small predators with two legs. Birds are believed to have descended from at least one line of bipedal dinosaurs. But amongst mammals humans are with only a few who regularly get around on two feet.

Other mammals include the giant pangolin, an anteater. When it’s down on all fours it carries most of its weight on its hind legs, and it often walks upright, using its tail for balance. Also in this group are the macropods, meaning animals with big feet. These are the kangaroos, wallabies and other hoppers. Other mammals use limited forms of bipedalism while using their front paws, for example rats and beavers. Some do it to better view their surroundings, like ground squirrels and meerkats. Some antelopes and deer stand on their hind legs to feed from trees.

Although we have a lot of company, no other mammal has specialized its bipedal locomotion to the degree of our upright stride. Our feet can’t grasp things like those of our primate cousins. Our legs are so long and our arms so short that we can’t walk on all fours with any efficiency. Our spines, pelvises, knees and ankles are best adapted for an upright striding gait.

So, how did we get this way? Any explanation for how we diverged from our primate cousins has to account for a lot of obvious differences between us and them. Our closest relatives among Earth’s other animals are the primates – that’s all the monkeys, lemurs, gibbons, apes and so on. Among the primates, the other apes are most like us – orangutans, gorillas, gibbons and chimpanzees. Our closest relatives of all are the other great apes – orangs, gorillas and chimps – none of which is primarily bipedal. The gibbons are classified as lesser apes. Although they are more similar to us than, say, a trout, there are obvious differences between us and our ape relatives. While we move on the ground on two long, straight legs, the others show more quadrupedal locomotion, having longer arms and shorter legs. We have longer, stronger thumbs and shorter, straighter fingers. We have larger brains relative to our body mass. We have much less hair than the rest of the great apes.

There have been many suggestions for our uniqueness, with wildly varying levels of plausibility. It’s likely that no single explanation can account for it on its own. The most widely held consensus is the Savanna Theory, which holds that we developed bipedal locomotion to deal with the grassland, or Savanna, that was spreading about that time. Before about seven or eight million years ago all of the great apes lived in a great forest that covered much of the equatorial and sub-equatorial Earth. Then there was a change in the climate. It got drier and the forest began to recede, with patches of grassland growing between the trees. While the other great apes continued with their traditional lifestyle as forest dwellers, the Savanna Theory holds that our ancestors began to exploit both the old habitat in the trees and the new opportunities in the grass. That’s when our forebears and those of the chimpanzees split from a common ancestor and evolved in different directions. As our ancestors had to move farther between clumps of trees as their forest was shrinking, an upright posture would have helped in many ways. It would improve their view in tall grass. It would reduce the amount of their skin exposed to the sun. It would get their heads above the hot boundary layer near the ground, helping them stay cooler. Also for cooling out there under the blazing sun, they lost their body hair. In addition, they might have used their hind limbs for standing and walking more as they used their hands for carrying things across open ground.

Some other advantages came from this adaptation. It provides a better posture for feeding from trees while standing on the ground. Being upright makes wading in water easier and safer. Our long, strong thumbs and short, straight fingers evolved as we swung in the trees less. Other great apes have curved fingers which facilitate hanging from branches. The unique anatomy of our hands makes them stronger and more versatile in a wider range of activities. Our larger brains are partly the result of a positive feedback loop between our nimble hands and a growing intelligence. As our greater dexterity improved our diet, our better brains improved our abilities.

The question of human bipedalism holds an unspoken assumption that we evolved the trait while the rest of the apes didn’t. We may have to examine that assumption. To this day large primates like orangutans walk upright on their tree branches. Their knee joints are so similar to ours that we’d have to say that they evolved for an upright stance. It’s an adaptation that shows up in the fossil record twenty-one million years ago, long before our ancestors were walking on the ground. There’s a growing suspicion that other primates like gorillas and chimpanzees evolved their quadrupedal locomotion on the ground while our forebears stuck with the bipedalism learned in the trees. Maybe we should be asking why they did that instead.

That’s a brief look at some of the features of the Savanna Theory. Next time we’ll look at another explanation, the Aquatic Ape Theory.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Comeuppance and Placebo


Humans have an instinct for comeuppance. It’s in the striatum, the part of the brain that processes rewards. So, getting revenge or giving punishment is strongly associated with personal reward. No wonder we relish it so. It is a delicious delight for us to see a selfish scoundrel being caught and made to pay. We chortle. We wriggle with glee. Our striata are on the job.

Experiments reveal that the intensity of the emotions we feel when someone gets their comeuppance is directly related to the amount of activity in the brain’s reward center. The higher the activity, the more intense the reward we experience and the more earnestly we’re willing to apply revenge and punishment. Now that’s a strong instinct.

The question arises, what evolutionary advantage do we gain from the ability to spot scoundrels and the urge to punish them? Such a specific trait as the comeuppance instinct probably wouldn’t have become so strong if it didn’t benefit us in some way. Since it’s a social instinct, having to do with our interactions with other humans in social situations, and not one of the more personal instincts like survival or procreation, it most likely exists to serve our social well-being. Selfish cads can be harmful to the community. Catching and punishing them can be good for the clan. Humans are social animals, dependent on their clans, so personal success is strongly tied to group success. This could be one reason why the comeuppance instinct is so widespread.

It might also explain why public punishments like the stocks or the gallows draw such crowds.

Not only can the brain make us feel good by giving us psychological rewards, it can also ease our pain without the benefit of medication. This so-called placebo effect has been known for a long time. It has been hailed as the power of mind over matter and scorned as superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

Experiments have demonstrated that the placebo effect is real. Subjects who were treated with an inert but supposedly potent pain killing cream before receiving painful but harmless electric shocks reported experiencing less pain than did control subjects. Brain scans showed that the placebo-receiving subjects had decreased activity in the pain processing regions of their brains. The placebo effect doesn’t decrease the body’s ability to sense pain, but it does affect how the brain treats it.

In an amusing twist, people are now exploring ways to emulate the placebo effect with drugs. One big drawback is that test subjects who receive the placebo in clinical trials are reporting not only the expected effects of the drug, but also its possible side-effects. Test subjects have had to withdraw from trials because of the severity of the side-effects of the placebo they were given.

Comeuppance and placebos – two ways our reality is mediated by our minds.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cave Art – Part Three

Tap for larger image


See also parts one, two and four.

The study of cave art continues to produce new revelations. For example, Suzanne Villeneuve of the University of Victoria has recently shown that the best paintings, the ones demonstrating the most skill, tend to be in places where the most people could see them. That would be in the larger galleries with the best surfaces for both working and viewing. A striking example is a cow painted high on a wall in the Lascaux caves in France. Up close, where the artist would have been working, the proportions of the cow look wrong. It’s too tall. From down on the floor, though, it looks normal. This shows that the artist painted it with the viewers in mind. Meanwhile, the less skilled artists had their work relegated to more obscure areas.

The paintings have naturally attracted the most interest. Their beauty and excellence make them the obvious point of the exercise. No one paid much attention to the smaller marks that were seen in the caves. Of course scholars made a note of them. Like good scientists they recorded everything. But before Genevieve von Petzinger, also of the University of Victoria, no one gathered all these records together for comparison. She decided to make it her masters project. She brought together all the records of signs found in 146 cave sites in France, covering a period from thirty-five thousand to ten thousand years ago. The results were rewarding. There is a continuity of the same signs appearing in many different sites over thousands of years.

The signs include simple lines, angles, zig-zags, dots, circles, squares, triangles and other basic, easily reproduced forms. The whole set amounts to twenty-six, and subsets of the same marks are found in the French caves as well as at sites in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Australia. Their existence, their persistence over time and their widespread ubiquity seem to indicate that they were more than incidental doodles. They would seem to be evidence that people were using symbols to express ideas long before the first examples of pictographic writing five thousand years ago. While most of the cave symbols appear individually, some are in groupings, a tantalizing suggestion that they were put together to convey a new idea.

Evidence suggests that the symbols were well established by at least thirty thousand years ago, rather than later, so it’s easy to assume that the people were using them before they migrated to Europe. Before now there was a consensus that humans had a cognitive and creative explosion about then, but these new findings will probably push that back, perhaps to a hundred thousand years or even further.

As with the paintings themselves, the meanings of these symbols might never be known, but they can still tell us something. Our ancestors were recording their thoughts long before we thought they were.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 6 Comments