Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Human Origins - Hybrids
Human Origins - Hybrids
Are we hybrids?
Retirado de
http://www.macroevolution.net/humanorigins.html#.UhOiDby5fMx
(acesso em 20/08/2013)
people from even considering the possibility that humans might be of hybrid origin.
This assertion is absolutely false though I have in fact heard lots of people make
it. For instance, in reviewing the reports I collected for my book on hybridization in
birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006),
which documents some 4,000 different kinds of hybrid crosses among birds, I found
that those crosses producing partially fertile hybrids are about eight times as
common as crosses known to produce sterile ones. The usual result is a reduction
in fertility, not absolute sterility. My current work documenting hybridization among
mammals shows that partially fertile natural hybrids are common, too, in Class
Mammalia. And yet, it seems most people base their ideas of hybrids on the
common mule (horse x ass), which is an exceptionally sterile hybrid, and not at all
representative of hybrids as a whole.
I should, perhaps, also mention that
differences in parental chromosome
counts, even rather large ones, do not
preclude the production of fertile hybrids.
Sequence data. And I must now emphasize a fact that I, as a geneticist, find
somewhat disappointing: With nucleotide sequence data, it can be very difficult to
identify later-generation backcross hybrids derived from several repeated
generations of backcrossing (for a full explanation of this fact, see the green
sidebar at far right). Instead, as is the case with other later-generation backcross
hybrids, the most revealing data is of an anatomical and/or physiological nature.
And this is exactly the kind of hybrid that it looks like we are -- that is, it appears
that humans are the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to the
chimpanzee.
Human infertility. Another observation that appears significant in connection with
the hypothesis under consideration is that it has been well known for decades that
human sperm is abnormal in comparison with that of the typical mammal. Human
spermatozoa are not of one uniform type as in the vast majority of all other types
of animals. Moreover, human sperm is not merely abnormal in appearance a high
percentage of human spermatozoa are actually dysfunctional. These and other facts
demonstrate that human fertility is low in comparison with that of other mammals
(for detailed documentation of this fact see the article Evidence of Human
Infertility). Infertility and sperm abnormalities are characteristic of hybrids. So this
finding suggests that it's reasonable to suppose, at least for the sake of argument,
that humans might be of hybrid origin. It is also consistent with the idea that the
hybridization in question was between two rather distinct and genetically
incompatible types of animals, that is, it
A personal endorsement:
was a distant cross.
"As a clinician and scientist with medical
First they posit a particular type of organism as similar to the putative hybrid (in
the present case, this organism is the chimpanzee). They then list traits
distinguishing the hybrid from the
A reader's comment:
hypothesized parent, and this list of
distinguishing traits will describe the
"Hi, I'm stunned, amazed, and converted."
second parent. A detailed analysis of
such a triad will often establish the parentage of the hybrid. The traits in question in
such studies are generally anatomical, not genetic. DNA evidence is used in only a
very small percentage of such identifications (and even then, rarely in efforts to
identify backcross hybrids), and yet firm conclusions can generally be reached.
So in the specific case of humans, if the two assumptions made thus far are correct
(i.e., (1) that humans actually are hybrids, and (2) that the chimpanzee actually is
one of our two parents), then a list of traits distinguishing human beings from
chimpanzees should describe the other parent involved in the cross. And by
applying this sort of methodology, I have in fact succeeded in narrowing things
down to a particular candidate. That is, I looked up every human distinction that I
could find and, so long as it was cited by an expert (physical anthropologist,
anatomist, etc), I put it on a list. And that list, which includes many, many traits
(see the lengthy table on the right-hand side of the next page), consistently
describes a particular animal. Keep reading and I'll explain.
And why might one suppose that humans are backcross hybrids of the sort just
described? Well, the most obvious reason is that humans are highly similar to
chimpanzees at the genetic level, closer than they are to any other animal. If we
were descended from F hybrids without any backcrossing we would be about
halfway, genetically speaking, between chimpanzees and whatever organism was
the other parent. But we're not. Genetically, we're close to chimpanzees, and yet
we have many physical traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees. This exactly fits
the backcross hypothesis.
Moreover, in mammalian hybrid crosses, the male hybrids are usually more sterile
than are the females. In a commercial context, this fact means that livestock
breeders typically backcross F hybrids of the fertile sex back to one parent or the
other. They do not, as a rule, produce new breeds by breeding the first cross
hybrids among themselves. Often, even after a backcross, only the females are
fertile among the resulting hybrids. So repeated backcrossing is typical. Commonly
there are two or more generations of backcrossing before fertile hybrids of both
sexes are obtained and the new breed can be maintained via matings among the
hybrids themselves. More backcrossing tends to be necessary in cases where the
parents participating in the original cross are more distantly related.
Traits distinguishing humans from other primates
this way, they cannot produce fertile hybrids. This rule is, however, only a
generalization. While such differences do tend to have an adverse effect on the
fertility of hybrid offspring, it is also true that many different types of crosses in
which the parents differ in chromosome counts produce hybrids that capable
themselves of producing offspring.
Another suggestive fact, probably known to the reader, is the frequent use
of pigs in the surgical treatment of human beings. Pig heart valves are used to
replace those of human coronary patients. Pig skin is used in the treatment of
human burn victims. Serious efforts are now underway to transplant kidneys and
other organs from pigs into human beings. Why are pigs suited for such
purposes? Why not goats, dogs, or bears animals that, in terms of taxonomic
classification, are no more distantly related to human beings than pigs? (In
subsequent sections, these issues are considered in detail.)
God did not place pigs and humans in different taxonomic orders.
Taxonomists did. A great deal of evidence (read a discussion of this topic) exists
to suggest that taxonomists are, in no way, infallible. Our ideas concerning the
proper categorization of animals are shaped by bias and tradition to such an
extent that it would be rash to reject, solely on taxonomic grounds, the feasibility
of such a cross.
It might seem unlikely that a pig and a chimpanzee would chose to mate,
but their behavior patterns and reproductive anatomy do, in fact, make them
compatible (this topic is considered in detail in a subsequent section). It is, of
course, a well-established fact that animals sometimes attempt to mate with
individuals that are unlike themselves, even in a natural setting, and that many
of these crosses successfully produce hybrid offspring.
Accepted theory, which assumes that humans have been gradually shaped
by natural selection for traits favorable to reproduction, does not begin to account
for the relative infertility of human beings in comparison with nonhuman primates
and other types of animals (see previous section). How would natural selection
ever produce abnormal, dysfunctional spermatozoa? On the other hand, the idea
that humans are descended from a hybrid cross especially a relatively distant
cross provides a clear explanation for Homo's puzzling and persistent fertility
problems.
a survival standpoint. Why is it seen, then, the world over in Homo? In both human
beings and pigs, during the early stages of development, the upper lip is cleft,
though I have not been able to find any evidence of such a cleft in the embryos of
any nonhuman primate. As development continues, this cleft usually closes in
humans, but persists in pigs.12 The human philtrum is a visible residue of this
primordial split lip. In those human beings where this split never closes, the
condition is known as cleft lip, a common birth defect. The frequent occurrence of
cleft lip in humans is hard to explain if it is assumed that we are closely related only
to primates. If the assumption, however, is that human beings are derived from a
pig-chimpanzee cross, this finding becomes far more understandable.
Similar thinking explains the shortness of the human upper lip (distance between
mouth opening and nostrils). Why has our upper lip become shorter and thicker in
the course of evolution? All apes have upper lips much longer than those of
humans,13but a pig's upper lip is so short that it is scarcely more than an
appendage of the snout.14 Morris15 makes much of the fact that human lips are
covered on their exterior surface by glabrous (i.e., absolutely hairless) mucous
membrane:
Like the earlobes and the protruding nose, the lips of our species are a unique feature, not found
elsewhere in the primates. Of course, all primates have lips, but not turned inside-out like ours. A
chimpanzee can protrude and turn back its lips in an exaggerated pout, exposing as it does so the
mucous membrane that normally lies concealed inside the mouth. But the lips are only briefly held
in this posture before the animal reverts to its normal 'thin-lipped' face. We on the other hand, have
permanently everted, rolled-back lips.
He goes on to suggest that our peculiar lips are the product of "sexual selection."
But other explanations are conceivable: In describing the skin of pigs, Getty16 states
that "there are no true glabrous surfaces other than the labial borders," which are
composed of red mucous membrane.
In reference to human earlobes, Morris
Some disagreement exists in the
observes that "anatomists have often
literature over the question whether
referred to them as meaningless
earlobes are present in apes. Sonntag
appendages, or `useless fatty excrescences.'
says they are not seen in the
chimpanzee (533.8,86), but Schultz
By some they are explained away as
(495.65,146) claims they are
`remnants' of the time when we had big
sometimes found in the African apes
ears. But if we look to other primate species
and even in certain monkeys.
we find that they do not possess fleshy
earlobes. It seems that, far from being a remnant, they are something new." 17
Perhaps, however, they are really something old on a new face. Sisson describes
the lower portion of a pig's ear as "strongly convex below, forming a prominence
somewhat analogous to the lobule of the human ear."18
Darwinian tubercle
(Darwin, 1871)
Primatologist Adolph Schultz (1973), however, flatly contradicts Darwin, saying that
"clearly pointed ears, commonly called `satyr ears,' are among monkeys typical for
only macaques and baboons and do not occur in any hominoids [great apes], not
even in the early stages of development. There is no justification, therefore, to
interpret the occasional `Darwinian tubercles' on human ears as an atavistic
manifestation of ancestral pointed ears."20 But Schultz has not, perhaps, taken into
consideration the pointed ears of swine.
Swine have prominent eyebrow hair. On the brows of the chimpanzee fetus it is
possible to discern a region of light-colored bumps following a pattern similar to
that of the human eyebrow. Adult apes,
According to Schummer et al.
however, have no eyebrow hair.21 On their
(503.3,497), "The eyebrows [of the
eyelids, pigs have luxuriant eyelashes,
domestic pig] are formed by 2 to 3
thicker even than those of human beings. In
rows of prominent tactile hairs formed
at the base of the upper eyelid; there
many pigs these cilia, as anatomists term
are more than 40 in all and they are up
them, are so thick that the animal seems to
to 8 cm long. They form into bundles,
be wearing false eyelashes. But apes
especially at the medial angle of the
scarcely have eyelashes at all, despite the
eye."
apparent survival value of this feature. Also,
pongids have prominent brow ridges while pigs and most humans do not. If we
choose to explain the development of human eyelashes and eyebrows in terms of
natural selection, we must wonder why apes, which have existed at least as long as
any hominid, have failed to acquire them. Perhaps their heavy brow ridges
sufficiently protected their eyes, but if such is the case, why did not brow ridges
also suffice for Homo? What was the pressing need that caused Homo to substitute
tufts of hair for ridges of bone?
Dermal Characteristics
That humans lack the hair cover of nonhuman primates is an accepted fact. "It is
this single factor that constitutes the chief difference between human skin and the
skin of other mammals" (Montagna22). Some writers say that the hair coat of a
chimpanzee is "sparse." But if "sparse" describes chimpanzee pelage, then "naked"
accurately describes the skin of human beings. Any human who even approached
the hairiness of other primates would be considered abnormal. Pigs, however, are a
different case. Many domestic pig breeds have skin just as naked as human skin. As
Cena et al. (101.9,521) observe, "Hair densities [of animal coats] range from the
sparse residual covering on man and the pig with 10-100 hairs per cm, to [the]
dense coats of species such as the fox and rabbit with about 4,000 per cm." In
wild Sus scrofa, according to Haltenorth, the density of hair coverage varies from
"sparse to thick," depending on the specimen or variety in question.23 For example,
the hair of the modern day wild variety of Sus scrofa present in Sudan (S. s.
senaarensis) is quite sparse.24
Other primates do not have the long mane
of hair that tops the head of an unshorn
human, nor do they have beards. Haltenorth
notes that in some varieties of Sus scrofa,
manes are found on the neck and back
("Ncken-/Rckenmhne"), beards on the
cheeks ("Wangenbart"), and shocks of hair
on the forehead and atop the head ("Stirn-/scheitelschopf"). He also says that the
last of these three traits is found, among pigs, in Sus alone.25 A prehistoric painting
of a pig found in Altamira Cave in northern Spain depicts an animal with a beard
and thick hair atop its head (pictures). Sus barbatus, an extant pig native to
southeast Asia (which forms fertile hybrids of both sexes in crosses with S. scrofa)
has little hair on its body, but does have a very thick and bushy beard.26
Panniculus adiposus. In an article on the evolution of human skin, renowned
cutaneous comparative anatomist William Montagna notes that, "Together with the
loss of a furry cover, human skin acquired a hypodermal fatty layer (panniculus
adiposus) which is considerably thicker than that found in other primates, or
mammals for that matter. This is not to say that only man has a fat skin, but a thick
fatty layer is as characteristic an attribute of human skin as it is of pig skin."27
Similarly, Dyce et al. (160.1,742) note that there is a "well developed fat deposit
present almost everywhere in the subcutis." Primatologist F. W. Jones also noted
this fat layer:
"The peculiar relation of the skin to the underlying superficial fascia is a very real distinction [of
human beings], familiar to everyone who has repeatedly skinned both human subjects and any
other members of the primates. The bed of subcutaneous fat adherent to the skin, so conspicuous in
man, is possibly related to his apparent hair reduction; though it is difficult to see why, if no other
factor is invoked, there should be such a basal difference between man and the chimpanzee." 28
this respect, human skin is more similar to pig skin than to that of nonhuman
primates: "Actually, the vascularity of the skin of most nonhuman primates is
essentially similar to that of other furred animals" (Montagna 34). In particular,
Baccaredda-Boy,35as well as Moretti and Farris,36 found that the skin of chimpanzees
differs from that of human beings in having numerous large, superficial vessels
(i.e., direct cutaneous arteries).
incredible. When white pigs are exposed to high temperatures, the skin flushes pink
with blood (even in the absence of sunlight) as it does in light-skinned human
beings under similar conditions.41
Fleas. Perhaps this difference between our
cutaneous vasculature and that of our primate
kin accounts for another human distinction:
"Ironically," writes Nicole Duplaix, "man is
unique among the primates in having fleas."42
More than 2,400 distinct types of fleas have
been treated as species or subspecies.43
Parasites are usually rather specific in their
Human flea, Pulex irritans
choice of host. Fewer than twenty of these
2,400 types will readily bite human beings.44 Foremost among those that feed on
Homo sapiens is the human flea, Pulex irritans, but we are not the only suitable
hosts for this species. According to Bennett,
Newton's law of cooling states that the
"Pulex irritans, the human flea, breeds freely
in hog-house litter and may become a
serious pest of swine."45
The panniculus adiposus replaces hair as an
insulating layer in human beings and pigs.
According to Beckett (63.8,2),
The pig increases or decreases the amount of heat lost by varying the blood flow in the [skin's]
capillary bed If all blood flow to the outer body parts were stopped, the thermal resistance
between the body cavity or muscle tissue and skin surface would approximately equal the
resistance of the fat layer plus the resistance of the hair and skin. To the extent that a pig is able to
direct a sizable flow of blood through the skin and region just below the skin, the fat layer is bypassed and thermal resistance is at a minimum.
In the figure above, notice that the musculocutaneous arteries pass through the
cutaneous fat. This perforated fat layer constitutes an insulating mechanism that
can respond quickly to ambient temperature, a characteristic that hair lacks.
Dilation of the musculocutaneous arteries in response to heat increases blood flow
to the skin. This increase in circulation can raise skin surface temperature to a level
almost as high as that within the body, thus increasing the rate at which heat is lost
to the environment.b In cool environments, constriction of these arteries reduces
skin temperature and, consequently, the rate at which body heat is lost to the
atmosphere because the fat layer can then serve as an insulating blanket.
Possession of a panniculus adiposus allows
adjustment to changes in ambient
temperature on a moment-to-moment basis
a clear advantage in the temperate zones
where much of the human race has made its
home, because these regions are much more
subject to sudden, extreme shifts in temperature than those close to the equator.
Nonhuman primates and other furred animals do not have the option of adjusting
their skin temperature. Because their skin is not insulated from the rest of the body
by a layer of fat, its temperature must remain near that of the flesh beneath it.
Pig skin is separated from the inner body by a thick fat layer, and it can cool to an
extreme degree. Fat, not hair, is the primary insulating barrier.47 Alaskan swine can
withstand sub-zero temperatures by cooling their skin to as little as 9 C (at an
ambient temperature of -10 C) without suffering tissue damage.48 Acclimatized
human beings, too, can reduce skin temperature to about 10 C without injury.49
This mode of insulation is completely different from that of nonhuman primates,
more like that seen in certain aquatic mammals (e.g., seal, walrus). With the
exception of the pig, it seems that no other land animal has this form of insulation.
More than a naked ape, Homo is a variably insulated naked ape. In hot
environments human beings (and pigs) can the increase circulation of warm blood
to the skin and raise temperatures almost to the level of body core temperature,
thus maximizing heat loss to the surrounding air. If weather turns cold, they can
restrict cutaneous circulation, cooling the skin to such a degree that heat loss is
significantly reduced. This ability is especially apparent in fat50or acclimatized
individuals.51 Although a cultural advance, the invention of clothing, made it
possible for Homo to inhabit cool regions formerly off-limits to primates, a biological
advance, in the form of a new insulation system, has increased the human ability to
withstand the sudden temperature variations found in those regions.
Besides being a good insulator, human skin
If skin has any hair whatsoever (scalp,
is surprisingly thick. "The epidermis over our
forearm, belly) dermatologists refer to
general body surface ["hairy skin" see note
it as "hairy skin." Hairy skin in humans,
at right] is substantially thicker than that of
then, is the skin covering most of the
body, the general body surface. Other
other primates: the horny layer [stratum
regions, that are absolutely hairless
corneum] can be peeled off intact as a
(lips, palms, soles) are called
diaphanous but tough membrane that can be
"glabrous."
used for experimental purposes The
epidermis in the hairy skin on nonhuman primates, mostly like that of any other
furred mammal, is relatively thin, with a relatively thin horny layer" (Montagna 52).
Pigs, though, have a thick epidermis and
Another quotation from Montagna
stratum corneum, thicker even than that of
(360.3,13): "Elastic fibers are
human beings.53
numerous everywhere [in pig skin]. In
The elasticity of our skin is also unusual.
"Whereas the skin of the great apes and that
of some of the simian primates have variable
amounts of elastic fibers, in no animals,
regardless of sex, age, or locality have we
found the abundance of elastic tissue
characteristic of human skin" (Montagna54).
This finding comes from the same author who, in an earlier article comparing
human skin with that of pigs, observed that "one of the most striking resemblances
between these two skins [pig and human] is the large content of elastic tissue in
the dermis."55
He also remarks that "the surface of both skins [human and porcine] is grooved by
intersecting lines which form characteristic geometric patterns." 56 In a separate
paper on the evolution of human skin he provides a little more detail:
The outer surface of human skin is crisscrossed, almost everywhere, by fine intersecting congenital
lines (You can confirm the presence of these lines by looking at the back of your hands). This
characteristic is not limited to human skin; creases are also found on the skin of pachyderms,
walruses, and, to a lesser extent, pigs. With the exception of occasional, shallow creases, the surface
of the hairy skin of nonhuman primates is smooth.57
The presence of these lines in both pigs and humans is not easily explained in
terms of natural selection since they have no known function. 58
On the underside of our "hairy skin" (general body surface), where the epidermis
meets the dermis, is a different patterning not corresponding in its configuration to
the outside patterning described in the preceding paragraph. A similar, though
coarser, pattern is also characteristic of the epidermal-dermal junction in pigs.
Montagna, however, notes that "in split-skin preparations where the epidermis is
neatly removed from the dermis, the epidermis of heavily haired animals is flat.59
Even in monkeys and apes, epidermal grooves are found only around the
attachment of the ducts of glands and pilary canals." We can account for a finer
patterning in humans than in pigs by the fact that a fine mesh is intermediate
between the coarse patterning of pig skin and the smooth undersurface of
nonhuman primate skin.
So, in the pig, we have a sparsely haired animal
Note: A section discussing
with a fatty, stretchy skin supplied by
sweating in humans, pigs, and
musculocutaneous arteries. The surface of the hairy
chimpanzees, which formerly
appeared here, has been
skin is marked by congenital lines similar to those
moved. Sorry for any
seen in human beings, and the patterning of the
confusion or inconvenience
epidermal-dermal junction is also quite similar in
this may have caused!
the hairy skin regions. Under the hypothesis that we
Jump to the new location >>
are considering, it makes little difference that pig
skin differs from human skin in other ways. The essential point is that, in those
cases in which our skin is peculiar for a primate, an explanation for each such
anomaly can be found in the skin of pigs.
The Savanna Hunter
Clothing, which replaces hair as a radiation barrier in human beings, has much the
same effect on human perspiration. Human beings subjected to solar heat loads
sweat more when naked than when wearing light clothing under otherwise identical
circumstances. In a study of the effects of clothing on sweat, Adolph167concluded
that "the nude man can save easily as much body water by putting on a shirt and
trousers as can the clothed man by finding good shade." Moreover, body hair does
not reduce convective heat loss "and has nothing to do with radiation of long-wave
infra-red heat to cooler objects," says Newman.168 He therefore asserts that naked
skin,
is a marked disadvantage under high radiant heat
loads rather than the other way around, and that
man's specialization for and great dependence on
thermal sweating stems from his increased heat load
in the sun.169
Indeed, it seems incredible that a hominid would spend any more time than
necessary away from the forest. Although the savannahs of Africa were teeming
with game, they were also swarming with ferocious predators. When a human being
is chased by a lion, the first impulse is to find a tree. Consider the picture painted
by current evolutionary theory: the noble savannah hunter, naked to the brazen
sun, boldly erect on an arid and treeless plain, in indefatigable pursuit of a wary
and dangerous prey, indifferent to the attack of rapacious carnivores. Certainly this
description has dramatic appeal. It's like a Tarzan story. But is it plausible?
Plato's minimal definition of a human being as a "featherless biped" exploits the fact
that it is unusual for a mammal to use only two feet in the course of normal
locomotion. Since we're mammals, it's easy enough to understand the lack of
feathers. Why, though, do we go about on two feet? Human bipedality has long
been a subject of controversy. How long have human beings stood erect? How long
did the transition take from quadrupedal locomotion to bipedality? What factors
caused the change? Why have other primates not done the same?
Following in Darwins footsteps, a wide variety of authors have asserted that human
beings gradually developed the ability to walk on two feet in response to selective
pressures demanding that two hands be free to manipulate tools. In his book, The
Ascent of Man, Darwin stated this view succinctly: "If it be an advantage to man to
have his hands and arms free and to stand firmly on his feet, of which there can be
little doubt from his pre-eminent success in
the battle for life, then I can see no reason why it should not have been more advantageous to the
progenitors of man to have become more and more erect or bipedal. The hands and arms could
hardly have become perfect enough to have manufactured weapons, or to have hurled stones and
spears with true aim, as long as they were habitually used for supporting the whole weight of the
body or so long as they were especially fitted for climbing trees. 1
This explanation is not without its flaws. For one thing, should we conclude on the
basis of our supposedly pre-eminent success in the battle for life that every
human trait is superior? Isnt this line of reasoning a bit vague and self-indulgent?
Are our hands really in any way perfector do we just see ourselves that way? Isnt
it possible to manufacture weapons while sitting down?
And then, there is the presumption that we became more and more erect or
bipedal. Fossil evidence does not confirm this gradual transition. Apparently, even
very early hominids were fully bipedal. Thus, Lovejoy observes, that "for a number
of years and throughout much of the literature there has been an a priori
assumption that australopithecine locomotion and postcranial morphology were
'intermediate' between quadrupedalism and the bipedalism of modern man. There
is no basis
for this assumption...in terms of the lower limb skeleton of Australopithecus. It is often claimed,
principally on the basis of this a priori assumption, that morphological features shared by both
modern man and Australopithecus do not necessarily indicate similar gait patterns. Although this
might be true in terms of a single feature, it is demonstrably not true when the whole mechanical
pattern is considered...the only significant difference between the total biomechanical patterns of
Australopithecus and H. sapiens is one that indicates that Australopithecus was at a slight
advantage compared with modern man (femoral head pressure [i.e., pressure exerted by the
weight of the body on the hip joint]).
erectus was also fully upright and bipedal.5 This lack of confirmation from the fossil
record leaves gradualistic explanations of bipedalism standing on shaky ground.
Even on a hypothetical level, the idea that early humans "gradually" attained erect
posture is implausible. One must either go on all fours or stand erect. No feasible
intermediate posture exists. Hollywood portrays cave men as slumped over, arms
hanging down. Maintaining such a position
for any length of time would put an extreme
These "free" hands seem not to have
been taken advantage of for more than
strain on the muscles of the lower back.
a million years: The earliest known
Millions of years of slouching, then, would
stone tools date from 2.6 million years
surely have produced more than a few
ago (556.6,236), whereas indisputable
backaches. In fact, it seems ridiculous to
evidence (Laetoli footprints) indicate
that hominids were fully bipedal 3.7
suggest that hominids went about day in,
million years ago (104.5; 293.8).
day out, partially erect. The physical strain
would be too great, even for us with our
This notion that free hands and
supposedly better-balanced bodies.
intelligence are connected did not
Gradualistic thought forces the conclusion
originate with Darwin, although he did
that early "human beings" spent a portion of
their time in the quadrupedal position, but
spent a gradually increasing portion of time
erect as evolution progressed. Why would
there be such a trend? Why have we
developed the ability to stand all day on two
feet?
all of those features relevant to bipedality that apes lack. Wouldn't it then be easy
to understand why a pig-ape hybrid might walk on two feet?
All the human distinctions listed in the remainder of this section were first identified
by other writers; I've merely gathered them together. If a scholar somewhere has
claimed that a certain characteristic distinguishes human beings from chimpanzees
and that that feature contributes to bipedality, then if I have encountered the
claim I at least mention it. I exclude only those features that relate to the skull;
cranial features are discussed in the next section. (It will also be convenient in this
section to discuss a few skeletal distinctions of human beings not directly relating to
bipedality.)
In the literature, most features said to
contribute to human bipedality are located in
the spine and lower extremities. For
example, our gluteal muscles, large in
comparison to those of other primates13,
enhance our ability to hold our torso erect.
Ardrey observes that
As the brain co-ordinates our nervous activity, so the
buttocks co-ordinate our muscular activity. No ape
boasts such a muscular monument to compare with
ours; and it is a failure more fundamental than his
lack of a large brain.14
ease with which the human body is held erect. Many other modifications of the
spine facilitate our bipedality. At the base of the human spine, where the lumbar
vertebrae meet the sacrum, is a sharp backward bend known as the lumbo-sacral
promontory (see illustration below). The angle formed by this promontory is more
acute on the front side of the spine because of subsequent tapering of the sacrum.
This configuration causes the sacrum to form the roof of the pelvic cavity in human
beings (instead of the rear wall as it does in other primates). 17
More significantly, it brings the base of the flexible portion of the spinal column into
a position directly above the hip joints (when viewed from the side). The force
applied to the pelvis by the weight of the upper body is directed straight downward
through the hip joints and does not tend to rotate the pelvis around those joints.
When an ape is fully erect, a vertical line passing through the base of the spine falls
behind the hip joints so that a rearward twisting torque is applied to the pelvis. This
torque must be countered by constant muscular exertion.
The dorsal, backward-projecting spine of the uppermost vertebra on an ape sacrum
is too long to permit backward flexure of the lowermost lumbar. In human and
pig,the spines on the dorsal (back) face of
Barone (55.1,I,439) states that "on the
the sacrum are quite short and do not
dorsal face of the [pig sacrum]
interfere with bending at this point (see
extreme reduction of the dorsal spines
illustrations above). But, do pigs have a
is quite characteristic." (translated by
E.M. McCarthy)
lumbo-sacral promontory? In anatomical
depictions of pig skeletons arranged in the
Krider et al. (280.5,Fig 4-1) provide a
typical quadrupedal pose, no promontory is
photograph of a pig carcass in this
visible. But if a human being gets down on
position. A lumbo-sacral promontory is
all fours, then the lumbar region is twisted
clearly visible.
forward relative to the sacrum, and the
promontory disappears. Perhaps an erect pig would also develop a sharp bend at
the base of the spine. Obviously, pigs do not ordinarily stand upright, and I have
never seen a drawing showing the configuration of a pig skeleton in such a position.
Nevertheless, anyone willing to examine a hanging side of pork will see that a
lumbo-sacral promontory is evident. Hanging a halved carcass by the hind leg
causes the leg to swing into a position that closely approximates erect human
posture. Here, again, porcine anatomy
Schultz (495.7,77) also points out that
accounts for a human peculiarity.
The human spine contains more lumbar
vertebrae and fewer sacral vertebrae than
does the spinal column of any great ape.18
Because sacrals are fused and lumbars are
not, the human spine is much more flexible
than an ape's. Consequently, we are capable of bending the body backward until it
balances over the hip joints (without rotating the pelvis backward). The "small" of
the human back is the external evidence of this backward curvature of the lumbars.
Pigs have even fewer sacrals19 than do human beings, and they have more
lumbars.20 So here, again, humans are intermediate between apes and pigs.
The seventh human cervical vertebra differs in another respect from those of other
primates: it has transverse foramens or "foramina" (see illustration below). These
large openings on either side of the spinal canal "are very rarely missing in even the
seventh vertebra of Homo sapiens, but in the other primates it is rare to find
corresponding foramina in this segment" (Schultz24). In a work on the comparative
anatomy of humans and domestic animals, Barone discusses the seventh vertebra,
saying it "is not, in general, pierced by a transverse foramen, with the exception of
pigs and human beings. In these two cases it always is."25
The human pelvis and birth canal are smaller than those of apes.28 Moreover, the
sacrum and coccyx curve inward in humans to make a sharp-pointed obstacle that
must be negotiated by an emerging infant.29 In apes there is no curvature (see
illustration above), which leaves the birth canal unobstructed. 30 With their
constricted birth canals, human females experience far more difficulty in delivery
than do their simian counterparts. "Parturition in the great apes is normally a rapid
process," according to primatologist A. F. Dixson, who further states that
Gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees typically give birth in less than one hour and in most cases
there is little sign that parturition is imminent The rapidity with which the great apes give birth
correlates with the fact that the head of the newborn is remarkably small in comparison to the
female's pelvic canal. In human females, by contrast, labor may be prolonged and the baby's large
head is often turned sideways to facilitate its passage through the canal. 31
The most obvious difference is the shortness of the human ilium. The pelvis of an
ape is about half again as long as a human's (as a percentage of body length) and
closely approaches the last rib36 (in the great apes, Schultz (495.7,76) notes that
the iliac crest approaches the last ribs "far more closely than in any other
primates"). A pig has a short pelvis and a wide gap between pelvis and rib cage,
just as we do. The upper blades of the pelvis run from side to side in apes but turn
towards the front in humans.37 They also turn forward in pigs.38
Lower Extremities
All nonhuman catarrhine primates have longer arms than legs.39 The reverse is the
case in humans. But pigs, like humans, have longer hind limbs than forelimbs.40 The
femur (thighbone) is the largest bone of the body. Paleoanthropologists distinguish
the femur of a hominid from an ape's in several ways. On the front of the lower end
of the femur in humans and apes, the patellar groove forms a track for the
kneecap. In apes, this groove is relatively shallow and its medial lip is more
prominent than the lateral.41 But in humans42 (and in pigs43) this groove is deep and
the lateral lip is the more elevated of the two.
Also, on the distal (lower) end of the femur are two condyles. In Homo, these
condyles are of approximately equal size. In pongids the medial one is markedly
larger than the lateral,44 but in pigs the femoral condyles are almost exactly equal
in size.45 Human femoral condyles also differ
Physical anthropologists often note that
in shape from those of other primates. "In
the intercondylar fossa (or notch) is
hominids, both condyles show a distinct
deeper in Homo sapiens than in
pongids (325.5,308; 445.5,282;
elliptical shape, indicating a specialization for
468.2). Barone (55.1,I,693) describes
maximum cartilage contact in the knee joint
the porcine intercondylar notch as "trs
only during full extension of the lower limb.
profunde" (very deep).
In [primate] quadrupeds, on the other hand,
the condyles show no such specialization to one position, being essentially circular
in cross-sectional outline" (Lovejoy46). Nevertheless, many non-primate quadrupeds
do, in fact, have elliptical femoral condyles. Among them are most of the domestic
animals: cows, sheep, horses, dogs and pigs (see illustration below).47 We have
no reason, then, to think that human elliptical condyles represent an adaptation
aiding in bipedal locomotion.
In pigs (and most other domestic animals), the femoral condyles rest on crescentic
menisci that are connected to the tibia (shinbone) in the same way as in humans.52
This configuration is significant because, as Tardieu53points out, Homo sapiens is the
only primate having a "crescent-shaped [lateral] meniscus with two tibial
insertions." In fact, in the vast majority of catarrhine primates (including the
chimpanzee and gorilla) the lateral meniscus is ring-shaped. In the tibia itself the
most prominent difference is the presence of a long malleolus medialis in
nonhuman primates.54 In Homo this downwardly directed, spike-like process is
reduced to little more than a nub. In pigs it is so short as to be nearly
nonexistent.55
Convergence or Relationship?
Our hypotheses have accounted for a number of traits in Homo. From the standard
neo-Darwinian perspective, it is hard to understand why the parallels between
human being and pig should be so extensive. Biologists call the existence of similar
traits in animals that they consider to be
distantly related analogy. They say analogy
Elsewhere on this website, some of the
is found when animals live under similar
problems with thinking in terms of
homology and analogy are considered
conditions or have similar habits. The same
at length. Access this discussion >>
needs in each case are supposed to cause
structures of similar function to develop during the course of evolution. But when
the organisms under consideration are considered to be closely related, such
features are termed homologous. Homologous features are usually judged to be so
when the similarities are numerous and extend to detail. As Dobzhansky et al. put
it, "Examination of the structure of convergent features usually makes it possible to
detect analogy because resemblance rarely extends into the fine details of complex
traits."65
In this section we have considered one complex trait (bipedality) in a fair amount of
detail. Any attempt to account for these details in terms of natural selection seems
inadequate. It is difficult to see what selective pressures could have caused
human beings and pigs to converge in so many different respects. Under neoDarwinian theory, to explain most of the human features that we have just
discussed, we have to posit pressures selecting for bipedality (some human
features long tail bone and ungual tuberosities cannot be explained in this
way). But pigs are quadrupeds. How will we account for the fact that they, too,
have these features? Perhaps it is all just a coincidence, but after a certain point
coincidence begins to assume the color of relationship.