Skip to main content

Last Man Standing


For anyone interested in human evolution as I am, and the enduring question of why modern humans survived and Neandertals did not, the new book by anthropologist and retired Penn State professor Pat Shipman is an essential read. While the last few years have seen a number of excellent books on the question published, The Invaders: How Humans and Their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction, brings a new perspective to a diverse array of evidence from ecology, paleoanthropology, and beyond.

Shipman begins with her assertion that modern humans are best viewed as the most successful invasive species that our planet has ever seen. Using the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park as an example, she relates the science of what happens to an ecosystem when a new top predator is introduced. Not only does this new species increase competition for limited resources, these invaders often deliberately target their closest competitors, as wolves did with coyotes in Yellowstone. Fossil evidence suggests that this might also have been the case as modern humans moved into Europe, where competing predators like cave bears, cave lions, and ultimately Neandertals themselves, disappeared not long after our arrival. 

The most interesting portion of the book, and in line with previous work by the author, is the discussion of the central importance of our relationship with dogs to our ultimate success as a species. While determining accurate dates for these events remains a complex endeavor, and it is highly possible that Neandertals were already extinct by the time we domesticated dogs, the partnership of humans and dogs gave us a competitive advantage that other predators lacked. Shipman argues that this partnership, unique among the animals, allowed for more effective hunting, provided protection, and was a source of labor that freed up time and energy for other concerns, ultimately cementing our dominance over other predatory species. 

A compelling read, written in language accessible to the non-specialist, The Invaders presents a convincing argument about the final triumph of humans as a species. Whether the hypothesis will hold up in light of future discoveries remains to be seen. If the work of the past ten years is any indication, even after nearly two centuries of studying human evolution, we are still only at the beginning of understanding our own past. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...