The biological myth of human evolution

Marks, Jonathan

doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.691989

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Levins & Lewontin 1998b, p. xii) This statement charges evolutionary analysis of human behavior with adherence to several pernicious doctrines: biological determinism, teleological and ethnocentric views of human history, and an underlying political or ideological conservatism. Although authored by biologists, it is not hard to find similar critiques by anthropologists (e.g., Marks 1998Marks , 2012McKinnon 2005;Pavelka 2002;Singer 1996;Turner 2005).…”

Section: Anthropological Critiques Of Evolutionary Social Sciencementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Critics argue that the standard framework does not recognize, or may even obscure, the importance of human agency, the generative power of culture, and the ways in which humans transform environments rather than adapt to them (e.g., Fuentes 2009, Goodman & Leatherman 1998, Joseph 2000, Marks 2012, Schultz 2009, Singer 1996, Smith 2009 These criticisms are varied and complex and have themselves been subject to critical examination. Below, I briefly summarize these criticisms, particularly as they are said to apply current evolutionary analyses of human social behavior and institutions-referred to here as evolutionary behavioral anthropology (EBA).…”

Section: The Standard Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology

Smith

2013

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neo-Darwinian evolution is widely acknowledged as the key framework for understanding the form and function of living systems, including myriad aspects of animal behavior. Yet extensions to human behavior and society are perennially challenged; debates are vociferous and seemingly irresolvable, and evolutionary approaches to human behavior are marginalized within much of anthropology and other social sciences. This review explores this contested terrain, arguing that although many critiques of evolutionary analyses of behavior are faulty, some valid concerns must be addressed. Human agency, behavioral plasticity, and the partial autonomy of cultural and historical change present real challenges to the standard evolutionary framework. However, several additions to the standard framework currently employed by evolutionary anthropologists and others address these concerns and provide a more comprehensive understanding of human behavioral evolution and adaptation. These additions include phenotypic adaptation, cultural transmission, gene-culture coevolution, and niche construction.

show abstract

Section: Anthropological Critiques Of Evolutionary Social Sciencementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Standard Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology

Smith

2013

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The humans are well known for the development of a specific social-cognitive niche [1]. According to Whiten and Erdal [11] the main components of the latter are cooperation, egalitarianism, mindreading (theory of mind), language and cultural transmission.…”

Section: Complexities In Behaviour -Brain Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers argued that human biology can be analytically separated from culture and that it is meaningful to study only human biological evolution [1]. Nevertheless, scholars [1][2][3][4][5] stress the importance of culture and human history for emergence and development of humanity as a species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroanthropological Understanding of Complex Cognition - Numerosity and Arithmetics

Muršič

2013

: Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humankind has a long evolutionary history. When we are trying to understand human complex cognition, it is as well important to look back to entire evolution. I will present the thesis that our biological predispositions and culture, together with natural and social environment, are tightly connected. During ontogenetically development we are shaped by various factors, and they enabled humans to develop some aspects of complex cognition, such as mathematics.In the beginning of the article I present the importance of natural and cultural evolution in other animals. In the following part, I briefly examine the field of mathematics -numerosity and arithmetic.Presentation of comparative animal studies, mainly made on primates, provides some interesting examples in animals' abilities to separate between different quantities. From abilities for numerosity in animals I continue to neuroscientific studies of humans and our ability to solve simple arithmetic tasks. I also mention cross-cultural studies of arithmetic skills. In the final part of the text I present the field neuroanthropology as a possible new pillar of cognitive science. Finally, it is important to connect human evolution and development with animal cognition studies, but as well with cross-cultural studies in shaping of human ability for numerosity and arithmetic.

show abstract

“…Once labels are consciously, unconsciously or administratively adopted as a matter of audit, the complexity of the individual patient begins to be lost. Treating all bodies as universal and alike erases the importance of local biology even when the importance of epigenetics and pharmacogenetics is acknowledged (Lock 2013;Marks 2012). And, as noted by Mol (2008), to care for the afflicted is a difficult task given that bodies are unpredictable and complex assemblages.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%