24

Humans are believed to be mostly serial monogamists with a noticeable components of secret cheating. Serial monogamy means most will have a single partner at a time but will likely have several partners throughout their life, there is however an under current (~15%) of hidden cheating in most studied populations. Also I say mostly becasue human behavior is ...


15

Like so much of biology, we just don't know! I'll preface this answer by disappointing you; this answer doesn't entirely answer your question. That's because this is a pretty big mystery in research and a fascinating topic. I'll start with a couple of quotes that maybe explain why! "If you search on the Web of Science database for papers on the emotion ...


12

As the answers given already point out, humans are generally considered omnivores that are able to use food sources available to them opportunistically. Apart from that, there actually is not much to debunk in the PETA statement - it is just a slightly one sided view on the history of human diet. Just as one sided as the claims that humans would not have ...


12

The easy answer is simply, no. The longer answer is that it depends on whatever cultural norms that are practiced in a given area at a certain time. Often powerful men in history had multiple lovers, but had arranged marriages. Like wise open relationships were very normal in the 60's and 70's of the 20th century. Also polygamous relationships are ...


7

Rigor mortis does not cause movement. It causes rigor (Latin for stiffness.) This is only a comparison, but think of it this way. Superglue doesn't shrink or change the shape of the connection of the two things glued together; it just holds them there with powerful 'stiffness'. So imagine that at death, part of our muscle cells exuded superglue. You would ...


7

The simple answer is humans are omnivores – physiologically – because we have the capability to digest both plant and animal matter. Many humans are behavioural omnivores as well, consuming both as part of their diet, although many people can and do live while consuming only plant products. Most if not all humans can or could digest animal products in some ...


5

No, it is not. As you said only 1-4% of non-subsaharan africans' genome is from Neanderthal and it is more or less the same sequences. The entire Neanderthal genome is not present in modern day humans, it is only a small set of sequences.


4

Answer below is copy-pasted from the section Do we have documented cases of outbreeding depression? of my answer here. Many cases of inbreeding depression have been documented in humans (McQuillan et al. 2012, Strauss et al. 2013, Lettic et al. 2008, Gellera et al. 1990) but cases of outbreeding depression seem much rarer if any! I spent some time ...


4

Even though individual humans only have around 2-5% Neanderthal genome, it's not the same 2-5% across people. In total, at least 20%, and perhaps as much as 40% of the Neanderthal genome could be recovered from modern human populations: We identified Neandertal lineages that persist in the DNA of modern humans, in whole-genome sequences from 379 European ...


4

Short answer It is mainly synaptic connectivity that determines intelligence, rather than brain size per se. Background For a starters, Albert Einstein, considered to have been a reasonable intelligent person, had an average sized brain (Sukel, 2009). Secondly, there are not only neurons in a brain that determine its size. The brain contains a relative ...


4

Check the book "Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two-Culture Divide" edited by Alan H. Goodman, Deborah Heath, M. Susan Lindee. Page 205 states that that is a myth started by geneticist F Lenz of Gottingen that has been disproven.


4

Although this question makes some false assumptions, it is fundamentally interesting as the methodology used is neither simple or easy to understand. It is not my area, but I have found it especially interesting to read the long 2010 Science paper by Green et al.. One really needs to read it for oneself (it is free view), but it is not a trivial undertaking. ...


4

This bit of the book Developmental Neuropsychiatry: Fundamentals describes the difference between the oral cavity in humans and other animals. It doesn't refer to Homo habilis in this context, but it says: As a result of this anatomical pattern, the range of sounds that an animal can make is limited because of the pharyngeal cavity, which is necessary of ...


4

"Dinosaur", when used properly, refers to a clade. There's no way for a clade to evolve multiple times, or even to really evolve at all as something that happens; it's just a name for a group of descendants sharing a common ancestor. I'm guessing instead that it's an incorrect transcription of "feathers in dinosaurs", since in and and ...


3

I just read a book on the Evolution of Sex and one of the questions was why primates have lost the estrous cycle. The thought was that the sexual desire of the female anytime rather then periodically tends to keep the male "at Home" ensuring survival of the female and offspring. This implies that males are genetically engineered for monogamy but since ...


3

Regard this one as a comment I prefer to cite some text form this website instead of providing the link only (as it could be removed). In general, this pattern can be observed across the planet with the size of lips and nose decreasing as we move away from the equator towards the poles. So what could the reason be? For someone living in hot ...


3

No, they are not. Polygyny, polyandry and group marriage are, or have been, practiced in various cultures. Polyamory and other forms of non-monogamy are practiced. There are estimates that four to five percent of Americans are involved in consensual non-monogamy (despite social pressure for monogamy). A sizeable portion of what the porn industry is ...


3

It is hypothesized that the starkness of white sclera against darker colors of the pupil and iris is a unique mutation in primates that have become prevalent in human beings because it enhanced our ability to communicate with other humans and animals, including dogs, by more clearly communicating where we are looking. However, it has not yet been ...


3

There are several lines of evidence. Behavior, we regularly eat meat. This is the one that matters most, omnivore is a behavioral classification. All humans societies eat meat, a few eat little else or nothing else. The fact that a small subset of well off people in developed countries don't does not change this. Our two closest relatives also eat meat and ...


3

It is not known for sure. But I find Hurley and Dennett's theory very convincing. Our brains are engaged full time in real-time (risky) heuristic search, generating presumtpions about what will be experienced next in every domain. This time-pressured, unsupervised generation process has necessarily lenient standards and introduces content - not all of ...


3

I can think of two factors that could explain why a civilization took so long to appear despite humans having fully developed their capabilities. Civilization is built into previous achievements: this generates an exponential growth in technologies making it easier to improve or create technologies giving that you already have the tools to create it. Think ...


2

We are not herbivorous because our digestive system is too short. Humans do not have many of the features required to digest plant matter efficiently. We do not have a multi chamber stomach like ruminants have. We do not have an enlarged cecum like rabbits In fact, the human gut as a percentage of body mass is half that of a chimpanzee, (10% vs 20%). Also ...


2

Try this article as a starting point; Stringer, Chris B., and Peter Andrews. "Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans." Science 239.4845 (1988): 1263-1268. It is old, but it has been cited 918 times to date. That should be more than enough of a breadcrumb trail to find what you are looking for. Also if you click through to the Science ...


2

Why do we laugh? The leading research on why we laugh is done by Robert Provine. He has even written several books on the topic. His theory is that laughter was a primitve form of communication that evolved. For example,he and some graduate students listened in on average conversations in public places and made notes. And in a survey of 1,200 "laugh ...


2

The discovery strengthens the bering strait land bridge hypothesis because if I remember right they did genetic analysis and her ancestors were almost certainly east asian. As for opposing migration models, they involve boats. Some evidence exists for polynesians reaching the west coast of south america, but probably in small numbers and not before humans ...


2

Interesting question. The organism would have to be monogamous, that's for sure, otherwise it would be too competitive and it would be a beast - as chimps are. Chimps couldn't integrate into the modern society. So, monogamy is the prime prerequisite as it's also prerequisite for intelligence. Bipedalism is another obvious prerequisite, as you need an ...


2

As someone has mentioned in this question, the closest species not directly linked to the Homo genus are the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Around 6 million years ago, humans diverged from both chimps and bonobos, making them (as far as we know now) both humanity's last common ancestor. The last common ancestor directly connected to the homo genus, however, is ...


2

A new study published in the journal PLoS One compared facial characteristics, gazing behaviors, and sociality of 26 different canid species (including wolves, bush dogs, and Arctic foxes). The researchers found that animals with eyes and facial features that are easier to discern are more likely to live and hunt socially. (One of the authors, S. Kohshima, ...


2

Short answer: No. If populations A and B share a haplogroup it does not imply that population A is B's ancestor, or population B is A's ancestor. No present-day population is the descendant of any present-day population, though both populations may share common ancestors. The common haplogroup is probably inherited from common ancestors. Long answer: No. ...


2

Selective breeding will select for genetics that are already present in your population, but won't introduce new DNA sequences that aren't carried by any of the population members. It would technically be possible if everyone carried a different 1-4% of the Neanderthal genome, since it would be possible to reconstruct the full Neanderthal genome by creative ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible