“Neutral theory” and the dynamics of the evolution of “Modern” human morphology

Abstract

There is a widespread assumption, even among those who reject the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, that the form of “modern”Homo sapiens is somehow superior to that of archaicHomo sapiens (Tattersall 2000). Those who accept the general outlook of evolutionary biology also tend to assume that “modern” form emerged because it was selected for, which also implies that it was better than that which preceded it. However, after years of using craniofacial measurements to compare human populations, I finally came to realize that, with only a few exceptions, the dimensions measured have no relation to differences in adaptation (Brace 1989, 1996, 2000; Brace et al., 1993). Elsewhere the conclusion has been supported that what is shown by craniometrics is selectively neutral on the average (Relethford 2002). With the documentation that approximately 95% of the genome is not functional, molecular genetics has proved to be useful in documenting the length of time of separation of related human populations by investigating the differences that have accumulated in the neutral parts of the genome. Not surprisingly, the picture revealed by the study of genetic differences is very similar to the one revealed by the study of craniometric differences (Brace et al., 2001). For this reason, the logic behind the “neutral theory” in molecular genetics is very similar to that applied to what happens to morphological characteristics when selection ceases (Brace 1963; Kimura 1968). The difference is that random changes in the neutral part of the genome have no other consequences. However, random changes in the genes that produce specific aspects of morphology will be visible even when selection is no longer controlling the particular trait in question. From an assessment of what random changes in genes controlling morphological traits are likely to do, it follows that the most likely change will probably be a reduction in the trait in question, i.e. the Probable Mutation Effect will produce structural reduction. When survival in the temperate zone during the last glaciation dependend on “obligatory cooking”, one of the unintended consequences was a reduction in the selective pressures maintaining a Middle Pleistocene-sized dentition. The result was a gradual reduction in tooth size and a conversion, of a Neanderthal-sized face into one of “modern” dimensions. The manufacture and use of string for snares and nets similarly reduced the selective pressures maintaining post-cranial levels of robustness and muscularity. The reduction in the latter resulted in the emergence of moderm post-cranial robustness out of what had been a Neanderthal level,in situ wherever the technology can be documented and without any need for invasions and replacements.