12
   

AS A SPECIES, WE ARE EVOLVING SMALLER BRAINS

 
 
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 05:21 am
Its not all bad news, even though we are dumbing down by about 10% (based upon shrinkage in the parts of the brain that center higher reasoning and information processing), we actually are able to do problem solving better as we increase reliance on "team strategies". Heres an article from 1/2/11NPR magazine.

Quote:
January 2, 2011
When it comes to brain size, bigger doesn't always mean better. As humans continue to evolve, scientists say our brains are actually getting smaller.

The downsizing of human brains is an evolutionary fact that took science writer Kathleen McAuliffe by surprise.

"I said, 'What? I thought it was getting bigger!'" she tells NPR's Jacki Lyden. That was the story up to 20,000 years ago, she learned. Then, the brains of our ancestors reversed course and started getting smaller — and they've been shrinking ever since.

Cro-Magnon man, who lived in Europe 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, had the biggest brains of any human species. In comparison, today's human brain is about 10 percent smaller. It's a chunk of brain matter "roughly equivalent to a tennis ball in size," McAuliffe says.

The experts aren't sure about the implications of this evolutionary trend. Some think it might be a dumbing-down process. One cognitive scientist, David Geary, argues that as human society grows increasingly complex, individuals don't need to be as intelligent in order to survive and reproduce.

But not all researchers are so pessimistic. Brian Hare, an anthropologist at the Duke University Institute for Brain Sciences, thinks the decrease in brain size is actually an evolutionary advantage.

The Domesticated Brain

"A smaller brain is the signature of selection against aggression," Hare tells Lyden. "Another way to say that is an increase in tolerance."

Hare says when a population selects against aggression, they can be considered to be domesticated. And for a variety of domesticated animals like apes, dogs or turkeys, you can see certain physical characteristics emerge. Among these traits are a lighter and more slender skeleton, a flattened forehead — and decreased brain size.

Hare's studies focus on chimpanzees and bonobos. In evolutionary terms, they are much like humans, but are physically quite different from one another. Bonobos have smaller brains than chimpanzees — and are also much less aggressive.

While both have the cognitive ability to solve a given puzzle, Hare says, chimpanzees are much less likely to accomplish it if it involves teamwork. Not so with bonobos.

"If the food is quite sparse and it's not easy to share, [bonobos] can solve the problem," Hare says. "Chimpanzees, in that same context — where there's not much food and it's not easy to share — they just refuse to work together. They can't solve the problem, even though they know how."

Hare does admit that the shrinking human brain could signal an evolutionary dumbing-down, but more important is what the phenomenon tells us about ourselves. Comparing our evolution to that of other animals enriches our understanding of the human condition.

"The nice thing about studying animals and human nature," Hare says, "is that it helps us design or think of some strategies that deal with our darker sides."
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 05:36 am
@farmerman,
Have they noticed any difference between the sexes or are we all shrinking at the same rate.
I don't like the idea of being classed as domesticated livestock. moo
But I'll take the lesser aggression, yes please, thank you.

There seems to be an awful lot of big brains at A2K.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 05:41 am
@eurocelticyankee,
I think you are confusing big brains with big heads.

No, the NPR article wasnt specific and I dont have the gumption to follow it up in any technical literature. Whenever I read population studies or statistics involved, I always start drifting off to sleep. Ill wait for the movie.

Still, its a neat premise for a sci fi book no" . I recall MOAT OF THE GODS (forgot who rote it). The premise was the evolution of two separate subspecies of humans , one real smart, and the other more like a bunch of teenagers loaded with hormones and itching for fights.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 06:06 am
@farmerman,
Was that "The Mote in gods eye" which I've never read, but reading
a summary of it, I think I would like to read it.

Big heads, yea, but big aggressive brains too.

Big Bitchy Brains.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:36 am
I knew something was going on up there. This might account for my growing dumbness. Crying or Very sad Help!
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:44 am
@Roberta,
Look on the bright side, at least you have SOMETHING going
on Up There.
Lot of folks seem to have nothing at all going on up there. Just a
vacuum void of all reason and thought.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:14 am
@farmerman,
In order for it to be called "evolution" doesn't it have to be a result of selection resulting in a differential proportion of alleles within a population?

I can believe that brains are getting smaller, but is it happening due to selection or is it a result of natural tendency for brains to decrease in size based on existing genetics rather than selection mechanisms.

For example, maybe the tendency for brains to decrease in size was always there, but previously it was superseded by the "selection" of larger brains for survival purposes, and now that survival has been assured the selection for increase has been removed and the natural tendency has taken precedence again.
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:16 am
@eurocelticyankee,
Euro, Let me make sure I understand you. (Remember, I'm getting dumber as I write.) Getting dumber is better than starting out dumb? Can you miss what you never had? I miss being smart. Sigh. I can remember when I had a functioning brain.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:36 am
@Roberta,
Me thinks you still have a functioning brain & a functioning
sense of humour.
No, how can you miss what you never had if you never had it to miss.
Me thinks there's a nostalgic melancholy in the air about you today,
your just having a lazy day.
Bounce back ability, tomorrows another day. Wink
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:57 am
@rosborne979,
The argument was that its a selection mechanism. As cooperation and specialization takes over the needs of the population, the resukts has been a stedy measurabke decrease of brain size.
Evolution doesnt always involve genes, there are many macro scale evolutionary "side effects" that ride along .
Im wornering whethere these arent merely some manifestation of neotony where the traits of the immature species is retained through life. Maybe brain shrinkeage is one of those associated traits.
Did you read that segment re bonobos> They can be seen to accomplish a task that bigger braoined (and solitary) chimps cant even fathom.
EVOLUTION often starts with some trait that is acted upon immediately and the fixation and selective benefit of these traits come later , only as it is successfully passed through the population.
I always compare such a trait to the growth of bigger and more efficient chest cavities and lungs of the Sherpa people. If they stay in the Himalayas, they become more and more adapted and if we come back in 10 million years there may be other traits that "ride" along with the chest cavity genes (one is certainly the HOX a;lleles)
George
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 09:01 am
This reminds me of an interesting article I read in The Boston Globe about
"Group Intelligence". The MIT Sloan School of Management conducted a
study on the performance of teams in respect to the intelligence of the
individual members of the team. The research seems to show that "group
intelligence" doesn't depend very much on the average intelligence of the
members of the group or on the most intelligent member of the group.

What seems to be the biggest contributor to "Group Intelligence" is how
well the group's members are at sensing and responding to other people's
emotions. And when you have a group with an overbearing leader who
dominates discussion, the group won't do as well as they would by taking
turns speaking.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 09:05 am
@George,
Thats why the group dynamics of "soshe" tricks like MYERS _BRIGGS is efffective in nudging group dynamics.

On another tack, heres a popular article about the genetics control of the sherpa condition

Quote:
Recent research shows that Tibetans, who have lived isolated in these high altitudes for thousands of years, enjoy a genetic variation that keeps their hemoglobin levels in a normal range. A variation of EPAS1, a gene that is sometimes associated with increased athleticism, causes an enzymatic change in the way oxygen binds to blood and is transported around the body. Compared to lowland Chinese, Tibetans thrive in high altitude—they do not suffer from chronic altitude sickness and their children are born with normal weight.

"It makes them super athletes at altitude, without a doubt," says Ken Kamler, a surgeon, author of Surviving the Extremes and an editorial advisor to Popular Mechanics. "I've been on climbs with these guys, and I'm maybe a foot taller than some of them, and they carry loads on their backs that I can't even lift off the ground, and they will carry them way faster than I'm climbing with a much lighter load."

Even with rigorous training, a person from sea level will almost always lag behind the Sherpas at altitude, Kamler says. "They climb steadily and rapidly to the point where they are getting, and then they wait," he says. "These guys are obviously different from us."

The EPAS1 found in Tibetans is the fastest example of human adaptation ever recorded—in 3000 years, the frequency of the gene grew from 10 percent to 90 percent in Tibetans, says Rasmus Nielsen, an evolutionary biologist at University of California–Berkeley. To put that time frame in perspective, lactose tolerance in humans, a trait that about 80 percent of Europeans have, developed over a 7500-year period. "The interesting thing to think about is that a lot of people would have had to die in that period for the allele frequency to change like that," Nielsen says—making it one of the clearest examples of natural selection in humans.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:29 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The argument was that its a selection mechanism. As cooperation and specialization takes over the needs of the population, the resukts has been a stedy measurabke decrease of brain size.

I guess I don't see the evidence to support that this is a result of "selection" in any form. It's one thing to observe that something is changing, it's another to claim that you know the root cause.

farmerman wrote:
Im wornering whethere these arent merely some manifestation of neotony where the traits of the immature species is retained through life. Maybe brain shrinkeage is one of those associated traits.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. They will need to devise an experiment to differentiate between this effect and some form of selection.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:39 am
@George,
Huh, that's cool. Makes sense of course but good to see the science of it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:39 am
When I first read this, I thought it was an indication of improved connections and better use of available ''technology''.

Smaller, more efficient, computers. Smaller, more efficient, brains. We use our brains better, less wasted space between important bits ... that sort of thing.

It seemed like a no-brainer to me Cool
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 12:11 pm
We are evolving bigger waistlines, fatter ass's & amazingly the male of the
species is growing bigger boobs without having to pay for them, jealous ladies.
It's a topsy- turvy world. Confused
Now we find out our brains are shrinking, what next. Noooooooo. Wink
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 12:53 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
They will need to devise an experiment to differentiate between this effect and some form of selection.


? Im not sure Im even on the same track with you here. "Neotony" IS a mode of adaptation , whether irs "Natural slection" Im not sure.
I think weve questioned and rebutted and sur rebutted several threads back that evolution is adaptive or it is not. Im of an opinion that it is adaptive.

Im not buying things like genetic drift as a "chance"mechanism unless it is a mechanism for adaptation of a specific popultion that crosses niches.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 12:54 pm
@ehBeth,
its dumming down, plain and simple. We are the eloi
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 01:17 pm
@farmerman,
You must watch the movie IDIOCRACY . President Comacho is an example of the shrinking corpus.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 01:24 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

AS A SPECIES, WE ARE EVOLVING SMALLER BRAINS

Funny, now that you say that, I have noticed that when I wear a cap, it's sitting looser on my head. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » AS A SPECIES, WE ARE EVOLVING SMALLER BRAINS
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 05:24:34