Analogies to apes leading us on the wrong track

Reading the papers on Ardipithecus ramidus which just came out in Science one of the take-home points that jumps out at me is that extant apes may be very misleading analogs to extinct hominins. Here is Owen Lovejoy:

In retrospect, clues to this vast divide between the evolutionary trajectories of African apes and hominids have always been present. Apes are largely inept at walking upright. They exhibit reproductive behavior and anatomy profoundly unlike those of humans. African ape males have retained (or evolved, see below) a massive SCC and exhibit little or no direct investment in their offspring (their reproductive strategies rely primarily on varying forms of male-to-male agonism). Although they excel at some cognitive tasks, they perform at levels qualitatively similar to those of some extraordinary birds...and mammals...The great apes are an isolated, uniquely specialized relict species surviving today only by their occupation of forest refugia...Even their gut structure differs substantially from that of humans....

Many key human specializations are related to our reproductive physiology and anatomy; human reproduction is as extraordinary as our dentition, locomotion, and encephalization...Although it remains possible that such uniqueness emerged only during the Pleistocene, this is less likely in light of Ardipithecus, which shows very early evidence of a major social transformation...Moreover, it is the modern African apes that are most derived in many characters, whereas those which are specialized in human evolution (SCC elimination, bipedality) are now known to have been present near the origin of our clade. Our massive brains are obviously a Pleistocene development, but they are also probably sequelae to other major shifts now more fully recorded in the earlier fossil record. It is therefore possible, even likely, that many physiologies and soft tissue features that do not fossilize may have also evolved early in hominid evolution. If so, why were these characters exaptive to our advanced cognition and singular demographic success?

In other words, the common ancestor of chimpanzees & humans (which Ardipithecus ramidus may be in the line of) might have resembled humans in gross morphology, and perhaps social structure & behavior, more than chimpanzees. This is not totally counterintuitive, chimpanzees are relatively specialized frugivores. By contrast Homo erectus had already spread out across Eurasia and Africa, indicating a level of generality in adaptation and lifestyle. If Lovejoy and his fellow travelers are correct, books such as Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence are far less plausible by the analogies they draw, and Franz De Waal's body of work should be viewed with much more skepticism in terms of the generalizations that he, as a primatologist focusing on great apes, can make about the human condition. A similar problem has cropped up in using modern hunter-gatherer populations as analogs with ancient hunter-gatherer populations. Naturally the groups which managed to remain hunter-gatherers down to the present time are not likely to be a random and representative sample of pre-modern hunter-gatherers (e.g., they tend to inhabit extremely marginal territory). Compare the peoples of the Kalahari with social structures of the Pacific Northwest tribes.

Citation: Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus,
C. Owen Lovejoy (2 October 2009) Science 326 (5949), 74. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1175834]


More like this

A few days ago I pointed to a paper, Stature, Mortality, and Life History among Indigenous Populations of the Andaman Islands, 1871-1986. It looks at the specific case of the Andaman Islanders to explore the general phenomenon of "pygmy" populations, especially among "Negritos." The Andaman…
Grand evolutionary dramas about human origins capture our imagination and the stories provide context as to how we view ourselves. They are the scientific version of creation myths. However, unlike Adam and Eve being fashioned in the garden or humanity being vomited up by the giant Mbombo (as the…
A few weeks ago I posted on a paper, Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe's First Farmers.Another one is out in the same vein, Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians: The driving force behind the…
There may need to be a significant revision in the recent description of one of humanity's oldest ancestors. Ardipithecus ramidus (or "Ardi" for short), the 4.4 million year old hominid fossil discovery, has been a godsend to paleoanthropologists (pun intended). But one of the key researchers has…

That's fascinating. Neither the issue with apes nor the issue with modern hunter-gatherers had ever occurred to me before. It seems like one of those things where once you say it it has a "well, duh" sort of reaction to it even though one would be very unlikely to realize it one's own. (If that makes any sense)

I'm with Joshua -- this is one of those posts where there is a single clear idea explained in a way that it will always in the future be obvious to me but that I hadn't realized before. Nice. Thanks.

might have resembled humans in gross morphology, and perhaps social structure & behavior, more than chimpanzees

In other words, at least one branch of that family may have neurologically devolved into chimpanzees:

This is assuming you believe higher cognition and other human traits (e.g. bipedalism) tend to covary.

asdf commented

In other words, at least one branch of that family may have neurologically devolved into chimpanzees:

The "de" in "devolved" is strange usage. What these findings appear to show is that the human line went one way and the chimp line went another way. Both evolved.

asdf went on

This is assuming you believe higher cognition and other human traits (e.g. bipedalism) tend to covary.

The brain size data don't seem to support that covariation. The Ardipithecus fossil appears to show that bipedalism was on the way well before any substantial increase in brain size, as do the Australopithecus data, particularly the Laetoli footprints, which show essentially fully developed bipedalism in critters of the vintage of A. afarensis, about 700 Ky later than Ardipithecus.