American Journal of Physical Anthropology

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300501pmid: N/A

Szathmary, Emőke J. E.

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300502pmid: N/A

Binford, Lewis R.

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300503pmid: N/A

Zihlman, Adrienne L.

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300504pmid: N/A

Scott, Eugenie C.

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300505pmid: N/A

Antievolutionism is alive and well in the United States, as shown by public attitudes toward evolution and the factual truth of Biblical literalism. High percentages of college students do not accept evolution as a valid explanation of earth's history. One in three think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Antievolutionism has had three phases: (1) “straight” antievolutionism, during which time the teaching of evolution was outlawed; (2) pro‐creationism, during which the Genesis story was taught alongside or instead of evolution; and finally, today, (3) “scientific” creationism, in which Biblical literalism is clothed in scientific terms. The strategy of modern antievolutionists is to move creationism away from religion (hence scientific creationism) and argue a “free speech” issue: that students being taught only “one side” of the “origins” issue are being denied a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Present‐day antievolutionists have had surprising success, as shown by legislation in Arkansas and Louisiana mandating the teaching of scientific creationism. Textbooks have sharply reduced the coverage of evolution in quantity and quality as a result of antievolutionist pressure. There is a pervasive feeling being generated that evolutionary sciences are not as reliable as other sciences. Pressure has been exerted on research institutions and granting agencies to cease funding evolutionary projects. These trends will continue until opposed by a successful educational effort both in and out of schools to increase the public understanding of science.

Weiss, Mark L.

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300506pmid: N/A

Molecular approaches to primate evolutionary relationships have been in use for 25 years. Recent advances in nucleic acid technology have permitted increasing resolution in assessing the topology and timing of primate phylogeny. The basics of these new approaches and their possibilities and limitations are set forth in reference to hominoid evolution. Specific reference is made to recent research involving DNA‐DNA liquid hybridization, restriction mapping, and nucleic acid sequencing. These approaches are unanimous in establishing an African ape‐human clade within the hominoids; orangutans share a more recent common ancestor with this clade than does the gibbon. Present data on the form of the tree uniting chimps, gorilla, and human are not compelling. Currently, it appears somewhat more likely that chimps and humans shared a most recent common ancestor, but a strong case can be made for a tree that joins chimp and gorilla. The tree uniting humans and gorillas cannot be disregarded. For present purposes, a trifurcation, though probably not literally correct, is a reasonable reconstruction. Molecular information is proving especially useful in setting the time frame for hominoid evolution as well as drastically limiting the number of trees that can be reasonably entertained. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, it can be hoped that the ability to discriminate between trees will increase. It will be necessary to maintain a continuing dialogue between morphological and molecular biologists to insure cross‐fertilization of ideas about hominoid relations.

Szalay, Frederick S.; Rosenberger, Alfred L.; Dagosto, Marian

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300507pmid: N/A

We contrast our approach to a phylogenetic diagnosis of the order Primates, and its various supraspecific taxa, with definitional procedures. The order, which we divide into the semiorders Paromomyiformes and Euprimates, is clearly diagnosable on the basis of well‐corroborated information from the fossil record. Lists of derived features which we hypothesize to have been fixed in the first representative species of the Primates, Euprimates, Strepsirhini, Haplorhini, and Anthropoidea, are presented. Our classification of the order includes both holophyletic and paraphyletic groups, depending on the nature of the available evidence.

Falk, Dean

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300508pmid: N/A

Recent studies suggest that vocal communication and visuospatial processing are lateralized to left and right hemispheres respectively in monkeys of the genus Macaca, as they are in humans. The fundamental neurological substrate that forms the basis for complex cerebral asymmetries in Homo sapiens may therefore have been established remarkably early in anthropoid evolution. The tendency toward cortical lateralization has been greatly elaborated in human evolution, such that at least 90% of extant humans are right‐handed. Numerous data support an association of the left human hemisphere with time‐sequencing, language skills, certain neurochemical asymmetries, and specific psychiatric disorders. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is associated with holistic processing, visuospatial and musical abilities, emotional processing, and its own neurochemical and psychiatric properties. Although a controversial topic, there appears to be slight but significant sexual dimorphism in certain skills associated with cortical lateralization in humans. Females excel at language and fine motor skills, as well as emotional decoding and expression; males are relatively adept at composing music and exhibit visuospatial and mathematical skills. Various scenarios that account for these differences are reviewed, and it is concluded that dimorphism in these behaviors may be due in part to hormonal priming involved in prenatal gender differentiation.

Harpending, Henry; Rogers, Alan; Draper, Patricia

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300509pmid: N/A

Sociobiology provides a perspective from which much of human behavior seems to make sense, and we expect that its importance will grow in years to come. We believe, however, that its current development is flawed by several widespread misunderstandings.

Excoffier, Laurent; Pellegrini, Beatrice; Sanchez‐Mazas, Alicia; Simon, Christian; Langaney, Andre

doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330300510pmid: N/A

This paper aims to review the contribution of genetic data to the prehistory and history of sub‐Saharan African peoples. The authors review briefly paleontologic data, which give limited information about modern Homo sapiens sapiens origins and isolation of present African gene pools. Most linguistic and archaeological theories about African peoples' prehistory are then confronted with the most informative genetic data available. Rhesus, Gm, HLA, and DNA data are analyzed. Their frequent haplotypes are compared between populations by means of genetic distances and average linkage clustering. Despite heterogeneities between the quality and the quantity of data provided by different genetic systems, some clear conclusions can be drawn. Genetic differentiation clearly parallels the clustering of major linguistic families. These families of populations seem genetically homogeneous, suggesting either relatively recent origins or long‐term important and continuous intragroup migrations. The well‐known divergence between the historical theories suggested by immunological and DNA data about the relationship between Africa and other gene pools is discussed. Decisive conclusions about African origins of modern humans either from fossil or from DNA data seem very premature. An alternative hypothesis issued from overall genetic variation is proposed.