Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Early humans domesticated themselves, new genetic evidence suggests

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    152
    Sex
    Location
    Missouri, U.S.
    Ethnicity
    Colonial American
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152 >L2>BY34131
    mtDNA (M)
    J1b1a1a

    United States of America Scotland England Netherlands

    Early humans domesticated themselves, new genetic evidence suggests

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...dence-suggests

    When humans started to tame dogs, cats, sheep, and cattle, they may have continued a tradition that started with a completely different animal: us. A new study—citing genetic evidence from a disorder that in some ways mirrors elements of domestication—suggests modern humans domesticated themselves after they split from their extinct relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans, approximately 600,000 years ago.

    “The study is incredibly impressive,” says Richard Wrangham, a biological anthropologist at Harvard University who was not involved in the new work. It’s “a really beautiful test,” he adds, of the long-standing idea that humans look so different from our primate ancestors precisely because we have become domesticated.
    ...

    As for why humans might have become domesticated in the first place, hypotheses abound. Wrangham favors the idea that as early people formed cooperative societies, evolutionary pressures favored mates whose features were less “alpha,” or aggressive. “There was active selection, for the very first time, against the bullies and the genes that favored their aggression,” he adds. But so far, “Humans are the only species that have managed this.”

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to PLogan For This Useful Post:

     Ariel90 (12-05-2019),  Cascio (12-06-2019),  eastara (12-05-2019),  Hando (12-07-2019),  Kellebel (12-16-2019),  Megalophias (12-05-2019),  Michał (12-07-2019),  Nino90 (12-09-2019),  oz (12-05-2019),  parastais (12-06-2019),  Saosis (12-05-2019),  VillaOptima (12-06-2019)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,080
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Interesting.. I was always under impression that more aggressive men would be having more offspring than less aggressive ones. Or that more aggressive tribes would dominate less aggressive ones in history.

    But maybe the most aggressive ones get killed sooner and less aggressive ones take most women and procreate

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-07-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    502
    Sex
    Location
    Haifa
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & Slavic
    Nationality
    Israel & Russia
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1b - S17250
    mtDNA (M)
    R0a4
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b5a

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Russian Federation Serbia Montenegro
    This article is popular and looks like all the speaches of authors were really simplified.
    Yes, modern humans live in groups and rely heavily on cooperation between individs, but that is not that uncommon for the mammals. It can happen that for the last hundred thousands of years natural selection indeed favoured less agressive individs, but anyway. Bullies are quite common in groups of kids/teenagers, this means that genetic variants that support this type of behaviour were not filtered out by natural selection.
    Words like self-domestication might sound impressive, but, I guess, do not really mean something special and important, if we talk about human evolution compared to evolution of other species. I guess this happened with many spieces, on some stage of their evolution history natural selection favoured less agressive individs with some juvenile traits during adulthood.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to artemv For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-07-2019),  palamede (12-07-2019)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,168
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T-P322 (T1a2b1)
    mtDNA (M)
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Interesting.. I was always under impression that more aggressive men would be having more offspring than less aggressive ones. Or that more aggressive tribes would dominate less aggressive ones in history.

    But maybe the most aggressive ones get killed sooner and less aggressive ones take most women and procreate
    It depends a lot on what is going on.
    If mere aggression and bulk were the most important things, then maybe we would all be Neanderthals.

    It turned out that in order to kill big game, you had to work together in a group.
    Aggression towards the animal might have been good, but you also had to work together to kill it.
    And if you shared the meat too unevenly, you would have to catch your own next time and that would result in fewer offspring.
    Language was also important in arranging and coordinating hunting.
    And planning ability, which is human, but maybe some had more than others.

    If increasing these properties happened to coincide with modifying others, then they would have been modified.

    Growing grain is seen as a time when a sense of land property arrived, together with rewards for those who were acquisitive, aggression is again seen as positive by some.
    But for most of history small farmers had only one or two ploughing animals - they had to borrow some from one or more neighbours.
    Harvesting, ditching and drainage / irrigation similarly often required help from others.
    Some of these could be arranged through family ties, but they still involved cooperation.

    In Australia and USA we have been immersed in the story of the lone frontiersman and his family.
    But even there there are activities requiring cooperation - defence for one.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     palamede (12-12-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    391
    Sex
    Omitted

    Puerto Rico Cuba
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Interesting.. I was always under impression that more aggressive men would be having more offspring than less aggressive ones. Or that more aggressive tribes would dominate less aggressive ones in history.

    But maybe the most aggressive ones get killed sooner and less aggressive ones take most women and procreate
    Yes, that's more or less what they say (press article):

    The specific genes studied are known as ‘BAZ1B’, which is said to be highly influential on human facial expressions and is the gene that allows dogs to make their eyes expressive in a way wolves cannot.

    Mutations in BAZ1B that are linked to parts of the brain for controlling facial expression were absent from the Neanderthal and Denisovan samples.

    However, it is thought that selected breeding patterns of some Neanderthals led to the BAZ1B gene and could have contributed to Homo sapiens developing distinctively expressive faces.

    The researchers concluded from this that humans were selecting mates with “I probably won’t kill you” facial expressions more commonly than their ancestors.

    This then led to the prominence of the gene mutation in Homo sapiens.
    Yet in most species smiling is not important, so maybe they rely on other cues to detect aggressiveness or they don't care at all (in general, animals are more rude when it comes to sex).

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Milkyway For This Useful Post:

     palamede (12-13-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 161
    Last Post: 09-08-2019, 10:50 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2018, 08:44 PM
  3. MALAY ORIGINS: Evidence Suggests Otherwise
    By shazou in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-07-2018, 02:27 PM
  4. Genetic evidence of assortative mating in humans
    By paoloferrari in forum Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-2017, 09:37 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2016, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •