Intelligence in Nature - Jeremy Narby [80]
Â
P. 73: OCTOPUSES
Linden (2002) writes: âThe one characteristic the octopus shares with a number of intelligent animals is the need to seek a wide variety of foods in varied and concealed placesâ (p. 47) He adds: âIf we think about octopus snubs, octopus anger, and octopus raids on neighboring tanks, we have to start thinking afresh about the relationship of brain size to intelligence and about different types of intelligence, as well as the forces that make one animal more intelligent than another. Thatâs not a bad thing. The riddle of the octopus may or may not lead to a new approach to animal intelligence, but it is certainly worth ponderingâ (p. 54).
Â
P. 74: FUNDAMENTAL COMMONALITIES BETWEEN NEMATODES AND HUMANS
Wade (1997) writes about nematode C. elegans: âAnother surprise has been the closeness of its genetic kinship to humans. Most of the human genes being discovered turn out to have counterpart genes in the worm, ones so similar in chemical structure that they must have evolved from the same parent DNA in the distant common ancestor of both worms and humans. Even after all these eons, the closeness is real enough that in several cases biologists have been able to insert the human version of a gene in place of the wormâs own copy. C. elegans gets along just fine with its human replacement partâ (p. B9).
Â
P. 76: HUMAN ORIGINS
Wilford (2003) writes: âThe discovery of the oldest near-modern human remains, announced Wednesday, is considered a major step in establishing the time and place for the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiensâprobably about 150,000 years ago, as genetic studies have suggested, in Africaâ (p. 1). Stringer (2003) writes: âThere are two broad theories about the origins of H. sapiens. A few researchers still support a version of the âmultiregionalâ hypothesis, arguing that the anatomical features of modern humans arose in geographically widespread hominid populations throughout the Pleistocene epoch (which lasted from around 1.8 million to some 12,000 years ago). But most now espouse a version of the âout of Africaâ model, although there are differences of opinion over the complexity of the processes of origin and dispersal, and over the amount of mixing that might subsequently have occurred with archaic (nonmodern) humans outside Africa. Within Africa, uncertainties still surround the mode of modern human evolutionâwhether it proceeded in a gradual and steady manner or in fits and startsâ (p. 692). Kuper (1994) writes: âAustralopithecus had brain volumes ranging from 375ml. to about 485ml. In Homo habilis, the mean volume was about 750ml. From Homo erectus on there was a gradual growth of brain volume from some 800 ml. to the average of modern Homo sapiens, which is about 1,400 ml.â (p. 24).
Â
P. 77: NEANDERTHALS AND HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS
Fagan (1990) writes: âThe Neanderthals had broad shoulders and very powerfully developed upper arm musculature, much more powerful than that of Homo sapiens sapiens. Their fingers were identical in form to modern ones, but Neanderthal thumbs were capable of exerting exceptional force during normal grips. In contrast, early anatomically modern humans had much less powerful grips. The same difference in robusticity is found in the lower limbs. Compared with modern humans, Neanderthals had much more sturdy leg bones and powerful knees, which enabled them to generate considerable force around the kneeâ¦This robustness was an important part of the Neanderthalsâs biological adaptation. It enabled them to generate and sustain more strength and habitually higher levels of activity than most modern humans. However, maintaining such a body was costly in terms of energy, an important consideration for hunter-gatherer populations that, like most groups of people, were close to the limits of their energy resourcesâ (p. 80). Hoffecker (2002) writes: âThere is