Anthropologist Richard Wrangham on the emergence of homo sapiens
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
I find this line rather interesting. I feel like there's a whole ball of wax that can be discussed here regarding human observation and the categorization of behaviors based on our understanding of virtue, right/wrong, and ethics.
"domestication syndrome is a byproduct of changes to the NCC migration pattern" in the development of the neural crest. In this scenario, Seratonin inhibits the Negative Valence System, in turn giving domesticated hominids a longer window of time to collect social information to determine how to apply aggression towards other animals.
NCC migration patterns are also suspected to change facial characteristics, part of neural crest development, that are observed in domesticated animals: hair, ears, mouth, teeth, etc.
However, it's bugging me how they talk about humans evolving from chimpanzees. That's just bullshit. We have common ancestors, sure. But it's not like chimpanzees closely resemble those ancestors, any more than we do.
And for that matter, I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's very misleading to focus on chimpanzees.
Of course, long before. Bonobos are often considered chimpanzees, just not "common chimpanzees." (From Wikipedia: "Taxonomically, these two ape species are collectively termed panins; however, both species are more commonly referred to collectively using the generalized term chimpanzees, or chimps.")
They are very close relatives, both members of the genus Pan. They can interbreed, but don't tend to in the wild because the croc-infested Congo River separates them.
If you only vaguely remember that important detail, you probably don't have enough knowledge to say it is "just bullshit" that we came from chimpanzees. None of us do, actually. Many think the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans was probably similar enough to a modern chimp to be classified as a chimp. Richard Wrangham was actually a big proponent of this view, see his mention here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_...
"Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the genus Pan and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior."
You can disagree with him, but given that we don't have a fossil of the most recent common ancestor, it's mostly speculation. (and in many ways it is not a scientific question, but a semantic one)
Also, if you think a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species, think of the polar bear and brown bear. The brown bear still occupies a similar ecological niche as to the common ancestor, while the polar bear occupies a very different one. In fact, the common ancestor WAS a brown bear.
And FWIW, I didn't argue that "a common ancestor of two species is always going to be equally similar to each of the two species". I argue that some stuff -- where we have no data -- is unknown. Maybe similar, maybe different. We just don't know.
Edit: Upon reflection, maybe we do. Bonobos being really an isolated subspecies. But TFA doesn't explain that.
I do like the idea that humans have domesticated themselves, in any case. A lot of it is neoteny. Speciation through arrested development. So if only the childlike survive, that's going to select for it.
The most rational estimate would be that it was quite a lot like the chimpanzee today -- same environment, same brain size, same diet. So it cannot be far off the mark to suggest we evolved from something remarkably chimpanzee-like.
The fact that bonobos split fairly recently, following habitat isolation, implies that the common ancestor was more like common chimpanzees. And that, as TFA argues, self-domestication occurred independently in the human and bonobo lines.
But I'm not aware of any paleontological support for that. And I can't quite imagine what such evidence would look like.
Immature neanderthals didn't have protruding chins, and neanderthals were not our principal ancestors. But our actual adult ancestors did have bigger teeth and heavier bones than we do, like Neanderthals, and immature ones of them were more like us.
They would better have said "cavemen" than "Neanderthals", but they would have been beat up for that too. I just appreciated them allowing Wrangham lots of column-inches to touch on a broad range of surprising observations.