Researchers: Our new theory is that humans domesticated themselves

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

humans vs. Neanderthals, dogs vs. wolves/PLOS ONE

Human ‘self-domestication’ is a hypothesis that states that among the driving forces of human evolution, humans selected their companions depending on who had a more pro-social behavior. Researchers have found new genetic evidence for this evolutionary process.

Human ‘self-domestication’ is a hypothesis that states that among the driving forces of human evolution, humans selected their companions depending on who had a more pro-social behavior. Researchers from a team of the UB led by Cedric Boeckx, ICREA professor at the Department of Catalan Philology and General Linguistics and member of the Institute of Complex Systems of the University of Barcelona (UBICS), found out new genetic evidence for this evolutionary process.

The study, published in the science journal PLOS ONE, compared the genomes of modern humans to those of several domesticated species and their wild animal type, in order to look for overlapping genes that were associated with domestication traits, such as docility or a gracile physiognomy. The results showed a statistically significant number of genes associated with domestication which overlapped between domestic animals and modern humans, but not with their wild equals, like Neanderthals.

According to the researchers, these results reinforce the human self-domestication hypothesis and “help to shed light on one aspect that makes us human, our social instinct.”

But how do we know Neanderthals lacked a social instinct? Is there any good reason to believe so?

“One reason that made scientists claim that humans are self-domesticated lied within our behavior: modern humans are docile and tolerant, like domesticated species, our cooperative abilities and pro-social behaviour are key features of our modern cognition,” says Cedric Boeckx. “The second reason is that modern humans, when compared to Neanderthals, present a more gracile phenotype that resembles the one seen in domesticates when compared to their wild-type cousins,” added the expert. Paper. (public access) – Constantina Theofanopoulou, Simone Gastaldon, Thomas O’Rourke, Bridget D. Samuels, Angela Messner, Pedro Tiago Martins, Francesco Delogu, Saleh Alamri, Cedric Boeckx. Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics. PLOS ONE, 2017; 12 (10): e0185306 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185306 More.

So if modern humans are less heavy-set than Neanderthals, they are more social? What about all the recent research that is narrowing the supposed differences between Neanderthal ancestors and other ancestors of the current human race?

The idea that humans domesticated ourselves makes no sense. We think what we are is domestic. So, presumably, do wolves. What is the standard, apart from loss of bone mass, against which the claim is measured?

See also: Max Planck Institute: Neanderthals thought like we do. So what’s with the theistic evolutionists insisting that Neanderthals are a different species? How come they are going to the wall for Darwin when no one else is?

and

Making human brain evolution look gradual by ignoring enough data… Unless, of course, evolutionary biology isn’t really a science anymore. More a form of Darwinian storytelling where the preferred narrative is chosen…

Comments

Since Neanderthals are central to this argument from Darwinists, it is interesting to point out just how wrong Darwinists have been in the past in their presuppositions about the supposed 'sociability' of Neanderthals (or lack thereof) since they were first discovered:
Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 3 - Chapter 3 "Homo neanderthalensis") 2-10-2018 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2OOt2qFdu4&index=3&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
bornagain77

So if modern humans are less heavy-set than Neanderthals, they are more social?
Well, that and they behave more socially. Bob O'H

This isn’t a new theory. The theory that much of human evolution has been neotenous (which is what’s alluded to here) has been mainstream for about a century. https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Neoteny_in_humans.htm Neoteny is commonly seen in domesticated animals, and it has long been believed that something like this occurred with humans (in this case perhaps as a result of sexual selection). Adults dogs, for instance, physically resemble puppies far more than adult wolves. They also continue to behave much more like puppies; they never quite “grow up.” What’s new here is that apparently genetic evidence further backs the theory. (And that apparently Neanderthals were not as neotenous as other groups of humans.)
So if modern humans are less heavy-set than Neanderthals, they are more social?
No, this is probably alluding to the fossil and archaeological evidence suggesting that they lived in very small groups (compared to, say, the Cro-Magnons). The small groups also didn’t seem to do much trading with each other. Recent genetic evidence also suggests very little genetic variation compared to other groups of humans, suggesting a lot of in-breeding. If Neanderthals were less social, it may partly be a result of them being less neotenous. goodusername

> humans selected their companions depending on who had a more pro-social behavior. That's how I selected my mate. And, consider this: That first glare from your mother-in-law, and you domesticate real quick! EDTA

polistra at 1: If government funds it and/or science journals publish it, it can't be phrenology. Darwinism greatly simplified decision-making. News

Isn't this good old phrenology? Judging personality by skull shape? polistra

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply