Culture skews human evolution

Mar 12, 2009
‘Our bodies are not that well-designed for the world we have created,’ said anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman. He illustrated it with this drawing. Photograph by Kris Snibbe/Harvard News Office

(PhysOrg.com) -- The rise of agriculture 10,000 years ago meant the end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for which human beings had been optimized by millions of years of evolution and the beginning of an era where culture encourages habits unhealthy for us and for the world around, with uncertain evolutionary outcomes.

“Our bodies are not that well designed for the world we have created,” said anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman.

Lieberman spoke March 5 in the third of the Harvard Museum of Natural History’s (HMNH) “Evolution Matters” lecture series. His talk, called “Survival of the Fleetest, Smartest or Fattest?” reviewed the evolutionary trends that led to modern humans and discussed the cultural reasons for some of today’s major health ills, such as obesity and diabetes.

Lieberman, who was introduced by HMNH Executive Director Elisabeth Werby, said the four most significant events in human history were our separation from apes; the of the , shared by modern humans, Neanderthals, and ; and the separation of our species, Homo sapiens, from our with other Homo species.

The final event, Lieberman said, was a cultural one, not an evolutionary one. The beginnings of agriculture 10,000 years ago created lasting change that led to modern society and our modern way of life.

Farming culture allowed human women to give birth more frequently, spurring population growth. It also led to the spread of disease, as humans were in close contact with a variety of , such as chickens, pigs, and cows, providing an environment in which animal viruses could pass into humans. It also led to the protection of people who physically might not survive in a hunter-gatherer society, and the rise of conditions and ailments such as myopia and diabetes.

The result, Lieberman said, is a cultural buffering of evolution’s harsh rule of “survival of the fittest” that may be leading to the “dysevolution” of Homo sapiens.

Though scientific opinion varies on whether evolution is still acting on humans, Lieberman said it probably is, pointing to relatively recent developments of lactose tolerance in adults — allowing them to consume dairy products long after weaning — and of pale skins in those from northern climates.

To understand the roots of “dysevolution,” one must understand where humans came from, Lieberman said. Descended from a common ancestor with chimpanzees between 6 million and 8 million years ago, early primitive humans like Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus were very chimplike but walked upright. Lieberman traced this adaptation to climate change, namely a planetary cooling that transformed large tracts of thick jungle to open woodlands where walking would be a more efficient form of locomotion than either the climbing or knuckle-walking at which chimps excel.

The next change, Lieberman said, was driven by an additional cooling, which led to further thinning of the forests and the rise of savannah. From these changes arose the genus Homo between 2 million and 3 million years ago. Early human ancestors evolved different adaptations to survive on the savannah, with an Australopithecus species becoming adapted to large amounts of low-quality food, as evidenced by their large teeth.

The Homo genus evolved a different way of life, adapting for high-quality, high-energy foods, and becoming good at running in the heat of the day to engage in “persistence hunting” to run down exhausted prey species.

The first Homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago and may have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, Lieberman said, and continued to invent new tools and technology, spreading out of Africa to Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world. We were smart, inventive, highly mobile endurance athletes who cooked our food to get more energy from it. We were also relatively fast breeders when compared with other apes, with a baby every three years.

These evolutionary solutions were successful, Lieberman said, but energy intensive. The problem today, Lieberman said, is that humanity’s “gas guzzling” strategies, which enabled them to survive on the African savannah and expand around the world, aren’t always helpful in an era with ready fast food, sugar-rich snacks, and steadily decreasing demand for physical exertion.

“Obviously, they stood us in good stead until the very recent past,” Lieberman said.

Since we can’t will ourselves to evolve so that we don’t crave high-energy foods, Lieberman said we should instead encourage our inner hunter-gatherer by requiring more physical activity of our kids in schools, raising gasoline taxes to discourage driving, outlawing fast food, and restricting access to elevators, escalators, and moving sidewalks to force us to walk more.

“We need to think more like Darwin and act more like hunter-gatherers,” Lieberman said.

Provided by Harvard University (news : web)

Explore further: A clear, molecular view of how human color vision evolved

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Humans hot, sweaty, natural-born runners

Apr 16, 2007

Hairless, clawless, and largely weaponless, ancient humans used the unlikely combination of sweatiness and relentlessness to gain the upper hand over their faster, stronger, generally more dangerous animal prey, Harvard Anthropology ...

The 'spread of our species'

Nov 08, 2005

Modern humans arrival in South Asia may have led to demise of indigenous populations. In a major new development in human evolutionary studies, researchers from the University of Cambridge argue that the dispersal of m ...

Fossil shows human growth at least 160,000 years ago

Mar 13, 2007

With an innovative combination of a novel application of synchrotron imaging, high-resolution microtomography, and developmental analysis, the team reconstructed tooth growth and determined the age at death ...

New evidence debunks 'stupid' Neanderthal myth

Aug 26, 2008

Research by UK and American scientists has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors (Homo sapiens). The research ...

Recommended for you

Contrasting views of kin selection assessed

Dec 17, 2014

In an article to be published in the January issue of BioScience, two philosophers tackle one of the most divisive arguments in modern biology: the value of the theory of "kin selection."

Microbiome may have shaped early human populations

Dec 16, 2014

We humans have an exceptional age structure compared to other animals: Our children remain dependent on their parents for an unusually long period and our elderly live an extremely long time after they have ...

DNA sheds light on why largest lemurs disappeared

Dec 16, 2014

Ancient DNA extracted from the bones and teeth of giant lemurs that lived thousands of years ago in Madagascar may help explain why the giant lemurs went extinct. It also explains what factors make some surviving ...

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LuckyBrandon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2009
"Lieberman said we should instead encourage our inner hunter-gatherer by requiring more physical activity of our kids in schools, raising gasoline taxes to discourage driving, outlawing fast food, and restricting access to elevators, escalators, and moving sidewalks to force us to walk more."

This has got to be a joke. Only an IDIOT would suggest such a thing.
Ok gotta go on my 30 mile walk to work this morning...phhh...moron...
Robnarc
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2009
To coin the phrase 'dysevolution' is to misunderstand the theory of evoltion. In this case the bulk of evolutionary pressures Homo Sapiens is subject to have shifted from a natural environment source to a societal source. We have not been struggling to survive in a natural world, but within human society. The pressures are far more direct.
orgata
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2009
With the population of todays world, there is no way we can go back to a hunter-gatherer life because this would most properly cause other species to go extinct if we had 7 billion humans out there hunting for food. This is why i feel that farming stsrted, because even 10,000 years ago our ancestors must of realised that we were starting to over populate the areas, so other methods had to be brought in to feed the rising human population.
HenisDov
not rated yet Mar 14, 2009
"Culture skews human evolution". 2009 Passe Mantra.
http://www.physor...530.html

"...(there is a) cultural buffering of evolution%u2019s harsh rule of %u201Csurvival of the fittest%u201D that may be leading to the %u201Cdysevolution%u201D of Homo sapiens.

- This is a confused concept-comprehension of evolution. Genetic evolution does not occur in accordance with an evolution rule-law, and it is not a result of survival of the fittest. Genetic evolution, i.e. changes in expressions of genes, are mostly not random and are not the source of evolution but the consequences of cultural evolution, i.e. of evolved survival patterns. First evolves the culture of the organism, i.e. its pattern of assessing of/reaction to its circumstances, then the organism's cultural pattern impacts the genes-genome and consequently the genes change their expressions.


Dov Henis
http://blog.360.y...Q--?cq=1
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-sc...page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2009
Genetic evolution does not occur in accordance with an evolution rule-law,


Not a law, a process.

Genetic evolution, i.e. changes in expressions of genes,


Horse manure. Genetic evolution is due to changes in the genome by mutations of various kinds and selection by the environment acting on the expression of the genetic data. Whether the environmental changes are due to culture or non-cultural effects.

First evolves the culture of the organism


Only for organisms that have cultural adaptations.

then the organism's cultural pattern impacts the genes-genome and consequently the genes change their expressions


Are you sure you wanted that to sound Lamarkian?

Change in the genome is initiated by largely random changes and then shaped by death or failure to reproduce due to interactions with the environment and often just plain luck as in founder effects.

Ethelred
croghan27
not rated yet Jun 17, 2009
ethelred .... you beat me to that comment about Lanark ... (save I would have omitted the 'horse shit') ....

I wish someone more familiar with the study would post an explaination/rationalization/refutation of that observation.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2009
The result, Lieberman said, is a cultural buffering of evolution%u2019s harsh rule of %u201Csurvival of the fittest%u201D that may be leading to the %u201Cdysevolution%u201D of Homo sapiens.


The problem there is the concept of the survival of the fittest. That is not evolution. Its shorthand for evolution by people that don't quite have the hang of the idea.

Evolution is the name or tag we use to talk about a process of change. An inevitable process. It can't be buffered, at least without genetic engineering. As long as there are mutations and death before successful reproduction there will be evolution by the process of natural selection.

Perhaps Lieberman understands all this and was just taking linguistic shortcuts. Our culture is part of our environment. We not only evolve to adapt to the non-human parts of our environment we also adapt to the human parts. Sexual selection would be the oldest form of cultural adaptation and it effects non-humans as well.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.

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.