Natural Selection and the Human Skull

Mar 18, 2008

New research led by UC Davis anthropologist Tim Weaver adds to the evidence that chance, rather than natural selection, best explains why the skulls of modern humans and ancient Neanderthals evolved differently. The findings may alter how anthropologists think about human evolution.

Weaver's study appears in the March 17 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It builds on findings from a study he and his colleagues published last year in the Journal of Human Evolution, in which the team compared cranial measurements of 2,524 modern human skulls and 20 Neanderthal specimens.

Natural Selection and the Human Skull
The approximate locations of the cranial measurements used in the analyses are superimposed as red lines on lateral (A), anterior (B), and inferior (C) views of a human cranium. (National Academy of Sciences, PNAS (Copyright 2008))

The researchers concluded that random genetic change, or genetic drift, most likely account for the cranial differences.

In their new study, Weaver and his colleagues crunched their fossil data using sophisticated mathematical models -- and calculated that Neanderthals and modern humans split about 370,000 years ago. The estimate is very close to estimates derived by other researchers who have dated the split based on clues from ancient Neanderthal and modern-day human DNA sequences.

The close correlation of the two estimates -- one based on studying bones, one based on studying genes -- demonstrates that the fossil record and analyses of DNA sequences give a consistent picture of human evolution during this time period.

"A take-home message may be that we should reconsider the idea that all morphological (physical) changes are due to natural selection, and instead consider that some of them may be due to genetic drift," Weaver said. "This may have interesting implications for our understanding of human evolution."

Weaver conducted the research with Charles Roseman, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Chris Stringer, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London.

Source: UC Davis

Explore further: Chemical spill had 'no impact on health': Costa Rica

Related Stories

Many uses in researching quantum dots

9 hours ago

It's easier to dissolve a sugar cube in a glass of water by crushing the cube first, because the numerous tiny particles cover more surface area in the water than the cube itself. In a way, the same principle applies to the ...

What works and doesn't in disaster health response

May 01, 2015

On Saturday, April 24 2015, a major (Magnitude 7.8) earthquake hit Nepal shortly after midday. Long-expected by seismologists, this large earthquake has left many of the older structures in this mountainous and economica ...

Training pig skin cells for neural development

May 01, 2015

A pig's skin cells may hold the key to new treatments and cures for devastating human neurological diseases. Researchers from the University of Georgia's Regenerative Bioscience Center have discovered a process ...

Recommended for you

Researchers shine light on origin of bioluminescence

7 hours ago

In the mountains of Virginia, millipedes have bright yellow and black colors to warn enemies that they are toxic and not worth eating. Their cousins in California convey this warning in a very different way—by ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AJW
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2008
Natural selection does produce "all"
change. The "genetic drift" defines
natual selection precision or said
another way, 'It is the measure of
environmental tolerance.'

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.