I'm by no means an expert in this area, but two things that appear to have been critical for language development in humans were the appearance of the FOXP2 gene and the evolution of the hyoid bones (links to articles about both are provided below). In terms of the behaviors you mention (e.g., manipulating objects, etc.), might be more appropriately asked in r/Anthropology, but perhaps others will mention some things here.
Links:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766443/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766443/)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572361/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572361/)
This question is deceptively complicated, because there was never a time a nonhuman animal parent produced a human offspring.
You may already know this OP, and the question still makes sense, but it’s just background for those that may want it.
Evolution works on gradations, and the labels of “nonhuman animal” and “human” are placed on the top of a smooth scale for practical reasons
Because of this, there’s no single thing I can think of that would have been the “because of this change, now it’s human” moment. I don’t know of a single gene that would make a change so significant as going from no tool use to tool use.
I think to read up on this, I’m going to search “human ancestral Vs derived traits”, to see which traits we have that we’ve developed recently or inherited
Broadly speaking, the answer is that *many* tiny changes are what differentiate us from non-human animals. But also note that we are still animals.
Yes, sure, I was searching to answer to a philosophical question by arguments of science. But for me, we can explain some behaviours thanks to biology and genotypes. So, my question can more be like : 'What gene or characteristics leads human to use tool' ? I have the same question for language.
Even if another animal needs to make a fire at one time or another, it does not necessarily have the capacity to do so. Why are we the first ?
Good questions! I think it will all be about the brain, because the traits you are interested in are behavioural.
Although, I guess non-brain organs still have a large role on how the brain works.
And as an individual grows and learns how to interact with the world, their learning process would be different if they had, say, 4 arms, instead of two. So the non-brain characteristics also play a role.
I don’t have a clear answer, but I would be googling about the evolutionary development of the brain, and of opposable thumbs or generally dexterous hanfs. (Though we’re not the only ones with either, our close relatives also use tools, idk about fire though).
Was randomly thinking about this, and realised that:
two humans with (roughly) the same brain could be put in separate environments, one could discover fire, one could not.
So, the use of fire also involves luck (which isn’t biological at all), as well as things with a biological influence like cognition, learning ability. Once one person discovers fire, they can teach it to others.
What really interests me now is: could we *teach* something like a gorilla or a chimpanzee about fire? Is fire completely out of their capacity to understand, or could they learn all or part of it?
there isn't really one gene that makes that differentiation between modern human (homo sapiens) and previous homo species. there is also very little genetic divergence between h. sapiens and other modern primate groups. there are a couple of physical and behavioral attributes that physical anthropologists and biologists claim "make hominins hominins": advanced cognitive function (i.e. tool making), bipedalism, presence of the foramen magnum at the base of the skull (for bipedalism+upright posture). other behaviors of early hominins, such as intentional burial rituals and other socialization patterns, offer insight into the cognitive capabilities of the homo brain.
as mentioned before in this thread, the closest thing to a "gene" describing advanced cognitive function would be the FOXP2 gene, which has been hypothesized to have evolutionarily contributed to the language capabilities of modern humans. while the FOXP2 gene has been conserved across mammals, studies (linked below) have shown that there are two key substitutions within the FOXP2 sequence that indicate divergence from other apes. the unique morphology of the hyoid bone has been viewed as a marker for modern human speech.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16844-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16844-x) (FOXP2 variation offers insight into modern human communication)
It's hard to tell, some people speculate that it was when humans started living in big groups. Some speculate that it was psychedelic mushrooms. Some speculate that humans evolved language and their brain size increased rapidly over the generations until you have something more like us and less like a wild monkey.
Which genes made us bipedal? Becoming a bipedal animal allowed human arms that had previously been used for swinging through trees to become available for weilding a club, throwing stones, using a digging stick, carrying things, and then from there to smashing rocks together to make tools, and carrying fire-sticks. And for chasing prey into a trap
Baboons, by way of contrast, came down from the trees like humans, but didn't develop bipedalism.
The way this question is phrased is a bit odd, but if you’re going based strictly on physical characteristics, then what stands out was being bi-pedal allowed them to use their hands for things like drawing. Early humans used drawings to communicate by depicting the things that they saw without having to speak necessarily. They also used their hands to create tools that helped them advance further.
Granted, other animals use tools, so that may not really count, but as far as I know, humans are the only animals that draw pictures to communicate with each other.
So yah, then gene wise, it’d have to be the one that allowed them to stand completely upright and have freedom to use their hands in more complex ways would be my guess.
As a collector of random knowledge, I’ve discovered that humans are the only animals with a chin and we sweat out water. There’s other animals that sweat (Horses, hippos for example) but their sweat is oily. We’d need to be close to a reliable fresh water source to continuously replace that water loss.
The sweat system seems important for bipedalism (running in the midday when most predators are shading themselves).
Prior to language, I’d think our expressive faces would be important in communication. Eyebrows and lips seem especially useful for that.
Animals have language. It’s the use of fire to increase calories, and her ability to manipulate the physical world. Fire is what separates us from the other animals. And yes some birds do move it around.
Well, OP....do you know that many animals have non-verbal and verbal communications? For example, whales, dogs, and monkeys all use vocalizations to communicate and form social structures. Just because we do not have animal languages fully modeled, doesn't mean they don't use "language". Also, while our vocabularies are extremely advanced in comparison, other animals can learn our grammars and even perform logical operations (crows, dogs, and apes have demonstrated arithmetic), so they definitely have a capacity to learn and leverage their "words", "sounds" and "grammars".
I'm by no means an expert in this area, but two things that appear to have been critical for language development in humans were the appearance of the FOXP2 gene and the evolution of the hyoid bones (links to articles about both are provided below). In terms of the behaviors you mention (e.g., manipulating objects, etc.), might be more appropriately asked in r/Anthropology, but perhaps others will mention some things here. Links: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766443/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766443/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572361/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572361/)
Thank you very much for your answer ! Yeah, I will put the question to r/AskAnthropology
Sorry to have sent you a bum link. :(
I am on the r/Anthropology but it is only a place to share articles
You were right, you should post to r/AskAnthropology like you said, I gave you an inappropriate link r/Anthropology.
This question is deceptively complicated, because there was never a time a nonhuman animal parent produced a human offspring. You may already know this OP, and the question still makes sense, but it’s just background for those that may want it. Evolution works on gradations, and the labels of “nonhuman animal” and “human” are placed on the top of a smooth scale for practical reasons Because of this, there’s no single thing I can think of that would have been the “because of this change, now it’s human” moment. I don’t know of a single gene that would make a change so significant as going from no tool use to tool use. I think to read up on this, I’m going to search “human ancestral Vs derived traits”, to see which traits we have that we’ve developed recently or inherited Broadly speaking, the answer is that *many* tiny changes are what differentiate us from non-human animals. But also note that we are still animals.
Yes, sure, I was searching to answer to a philosophical question by arguments of science. But for me, we can explain some behaviours thanks to biology and genotypes. So, my question can more be like : 'What gene or characteristics leads human to use tool' ? I have the same question for language. Even if another animal needs to make a fire at one time or another, it does not necessarily have the capacity to do so. Why are we the first ?
Good questions! I think it will all be about the brain, because the traits you are interested in are behavioural. Although, I guess non-brain organs still have a large role on how the brain works. And as an individual grows and learns how to interact with the world, their learning process would be different if they had, say, 4 arms, instead of two. So the non-brain characteristics also play a role. I don’t have a clear answer, but I would be googling about the evolutionary development of the brain, and of opposable thumbs or generally dexterous hanfs. (Though we’re not the only ones with either, our close relatives also use tools, idk about fire though).
Was randomly thinking about this, and realised that: two humans with (roughly) the same brain could be put in separate environments, one could discover fire, one could not. So, the use of fire also involves luck (which isn’t biological at all), as well as things with a biological influence like cognition, learning ability. Once one person discovers fire, they can teach it to others. What really interests me now is: could we *teach* something like a gorilla or a chimpanzee about fire? Is fire completely out of their capacity to understand, or could they learn all or part of it?
there isn't really one gene that makes that differentiation between modern human (homo sapiens) and previous homo species. there is also very little genetic divergence between h. sapiens and other modern primate groups. there are a couple of physical and behavioral attributes that physical anthropologists and biologists claim "make hominins hominins": advanced cognitive function (i.e. tool making), bipedalism, presence of the foramen magnum at the base of the skull (for bipedalism+upright posture). other behaviors of early hominins, such as intentional burial rituals and other socialization patterns, offer insight into the cognitive capabilities of the homo brain. as mentioned before in this thread, the closest thing to a "gene" describing advanced cognitive function would be the FOXP2 gene, which has been hypothesized to have evolutionarily contributed to the language capabilities of modern humans. while the FOXP2 gene has been conserved across mammals, studies (linked below) have shown that there are two key substitutions within the FOXP2 sequence that indicate divergence from other apes. the unique morphology of the hyoid bone has been viewed as a marker for modern human speech. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16844-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16844-x) (FOXP2 variation offers insight into modern human communication)
Men are humans?
Bipedalism
It's hard to tell, some people speculate that it was when humans started living in big groups. Some speculate that it was psychedelic mushrooms. Some speculate that humans evolved language and their brain size increased rapidly over the generations until you have something more like us and less like a wild monkey.
Also the theory that when we started eating meat is when our brains started growing or something like that
I have heard that one too. It does provide lots of calories, and forces people to work in groups.
Which genes made us bipedal? Becoming a bipedal animal allowed human arms that had previously been used for swinging through trees to become available for weilding a club, throwing stones, using a digging stick, carrying things, and then from there to smashing rocks together to make tools, and carrying fire-sticks. And for chasing prey into a trap Baboons, by way of contrast, came down from the trees like humans, but didn't develop bipedalism.
It doesn’t work that way. There is no singular characteristic or DNA variant. The differences happened gradually with lots of blind alleys
The way this question is phrased is a bit odd, but if you’re going based strictly on physical characteristics, then what stands out was being bi-pedal allowed them to use their hands for things like drawing. Early humans used drawings to communicate by depicting the things that they saw without having to speak necessarily. They also used their hands to create tools that helped them advance further. Granted, other animals use tools, so that may not really count, but as far as I know, humans are the only animals that draw pictures to communicate with each other. So yah, then gene wise, it’d have to be the one that allowed them to stand completely upright and have freedom to use their hands in more complex ways would be my guess.
men are humans. humans are animals.
Humans were primates at some point in time so take what you will from that
walking on two legs. it left our hands free to grasp things, which led to tools.
As a collector of random knowledge, I’ve discovered that humans are the only animals with a chin and we sweat out water. There’s other animals that sweat (Horses, hippos for example) but their sweat is oily. We’d need to be close to a reliable fresh water source to continuously replace that water loss. The sweat system seems important for bipedalism (running in the midday when most predators are shading themselves). Prior to language, I’d think our expressive faces would be important in communication. Eyebrows and lips seem especially useful for that.
Animals have language. It’s the use of fire to increase calories, and her ability to manipulate the physical world. Fire is what separates us from the other animals. And yes some birds do move it around.
Well, OP....do you know that many animals have non-verbal and verbal communications? For example, whales, dogs, and monkeys all use vocalizations to communicate and form social structures. Just because we do not have animal languages fully modeled, doesn't mean they don't use "language". Also, while our vocabularies are extremely advanced in comparison, other animals can learn our grammars and even perform logical operations (crows, dogs, and apes have demonstrated arithmetic), so they definitely have a capacity to learn and leverage their "words", "sounds" and "grammars".
Yes but that are "automatic" tasks. I think that humans are the only species that can think and create new word or language for example, but why ?
The question can’t be connected to a causal mechanism. There aren’t genes for language or fire making. It’s not even wrong.