|
|
Re: Tools and Brain Expansion
Ania Lian (ania@CLTR.UQ.OZ.AU)
Fri, 24 Feb 1995 13:23:11 +1000
On Thu, 23 Feb 1995, SS51000 wrote:
> causal. Therefore I think of a threshold not of brain size, but of tool
> dependency: at some point our ancestors became dependent enough on tool
> use that bipedalism and canine reduction--and brain expansion and
> symbolization--all were subject to growing selective pressure. I think
> it of utmost importance that only the Darwinian theory, which puts tools
> in the role of prime mover, allows explanation of all these hominid
> trends at once.
so, you are saying that
Hominids developed dependence on tools. In order to make the tools
better (?) they developed conceptualisation. Conceptualisation of the
"better", or "more efficient" helped in language development and
consequently in brain enlargement, maybe. Our accidentally efficient (from
our human point of view) form of the speech organs helped to develop a
complex language and thus helped to conceptualise things in the way we do
and to the degree that we do.
I still cannot see why we could not do all this with big teeth, though...
Maybe physically big teeth do not go with the structure of a bigger human
skull? Or we enriched our diet with protein and fats from things other than
meet which was difficult to rely on on a regular basis, like milk?,
nuts? or what???? Diet richer in fat (?) and maybe smaller, mor eslender
body did not require that much of chewing. Maybe the smaller body was
just genetical lottery which worked for us so far and maye not as well
for the Neanderthal??
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ania lian
|