CHAPTER 1

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Section 1-Natural selection
The theory of evolution is central, unifying principle of modern biology.
Although entire book has been devoted to explaining the theory in
detail, its fundamental ideas can be described briefly.
1) The individual member of any given species varies considerably
from each other, and some of that variation is due to genetic
factor. Furthermore, new heritable traits are constantly arising
because of random mutations.
2) Since, in each species, there are more offspring than the
environment can support, many individual dies without
reproducing.
3) Those members of species who have inherited traits that make less
likely to survive will, on average, have fewer offspring. Hence, in
the next generation, there will be fewer individuals with those
traits.
4) The result is the selective elimination of less useful traits and, in
comparison, the natural selection of more useful traits.
5) This leads to series of small changes within a species; and the
gradual accumulation of many small changes eventually results in
the formation of a new species, related to the original one.1
Note that two different processes are involved; (a) random
mutation (which occur entirely by chance); and (b) selection of more
useful traits (a process that is far from random). The notion that
evolution is governed entirely by chance is therefore false.
At no stage is either process have results in organisms that are
very well adapted to their environments, they usually give the
appearance of having been designed.
 The Theory of Evolution

Most frequently, selection is for traits that make it more likely that
the individual organism will survive (such as greater size, speed,
strength, intelligence, or resistance to disease). This might be called
“survival selection” However, in sexually reproducing species, an
individual cannot pass on its genes unless its mate with the member
of opposite sex. Consequently, traits that make an individual more
attractive mate will also be selected for, whether or not that aid in
survival. this is call “sexual selection,” and is important evolutionary
mechanism.2
Section 2- Genes
Heritable traits are transmitted from parent to child by
microscopically small particles called genes. All cell contains genes,
but it is only the genes contained in the sperm and egg cell that are
responsible for heredity. Normally, an individual receives two copies
of each gene, one from each parent. However, he will pass one copy
of each gene to his offspring.3
It is common for there to be two or more slightly different forms
of a given gene. These variants are called alleles. If, for some gene,
an individual receives an identical allele from his two parents he is
said to be homozygous at that gene site. If instead he receives two
different alleles from his two parents at that gene site, he is
heterozygous for that gene. In the latter case, the individual often
exhibits the traits corresponding to just one of those alleles (the
“dominant” one), and the other allele (the “recessive” one) will have
no effect. However, the recessive allele is not destroyed, and is just as
likely as the dominant one to the pass to person’s offspring.
A gene is a fragment of large molecule called DNA. However, for
most purposes, one can consider an individual gene to be independent
molecule, a molecule which consists of long string of simpler units
called nucleotides. There are four types of nucleotides; and their

2
 The Theory of Evolution

various genes (and alleles of the same gene) can differ from each
other by containing either:
1) Different number of nucleotides; or
2) The same total number of nucleotides, but not the same number
of each type; or
3) The same number of each type of nucleotide, but arranged in
different order.
Mutation occurs when gene in a sperm or egg cell is altered, most
commonly by random natural occurrence such as:
 Cosmic rays
 Gamma rays emitted from radioactive materials in the Earth’s
crust
 Solar radiation (particularly ultraviolet radiation)
 Certain chemicals (“Mutagenic chemicals”)
 Ordinary thermal agitation.
(Human activities can also produce gamma rays, ultraviolet ray, X
rays, and mutagenic chemicals; but so far these have had almost no
impact on our gene pool.
Initially, genes were thought of as simply the physical particles
responsible for our inherited characteristics. Today, we know that the
genes do far more than code for our original structure. A complete
set of our genes is present in every one of our cells, and throughout
our lives they direct the operation of those cells.
The genes in a person’s body cells were produce by copying
the genes present in the fertilized egg from which that individual
started. Since an adult human being contain about a quadrillion (a
thousand trillion, or 1015) cells, each of the genes present in that egg
must have been copied about a quadrillion times. To appreciate the
magnitude of the task involved, we should take into account that the
human genome – i.e., the complete set of genes present in a single
3
 The Theory of Evolution

cell – consist of tens of thousands of genes, totaling about one

hundred million nucleotides!
The biological process by which genes are copied (or
“replicated”) is usually very accurate. However, it is not absolutely
not perfect, and many of our cells contain one or more incorrect
nucleotides. Usually, the presence of a few incorrect nucleotides
does not greatly affect the functioning of the cell, but sometimes it
does. Indeed, there are instances in which a single incorrect
nucleotide will cause a cell to malfunction and die. It is only because
the copying process for genes is normally so marvelously precise
that we are able to survive.
Section 3 – Genetic drift
Suppose that two alleles of a given gene are equally advantageous.
Call the two alleles P and Q. One might think that the law of
averages ensures that the percentage of the population holding allele
P will not vary from generation to generation. However, chance
variations from the law of averages occur quite frequently, and as a
result the percentage of population with allele P will vary. Indeed,
such chance variations can even result in the complete elimination of
an allele from the gene pool.
Changes in gene frequencies (strictly speaking, allele frequencies)
that result purely from chance are called “genetic drift,” and are
additional cause of evolution. If a species has a very large
population, then genetic drift is usually a slow and relatively
unimportant process. However, if the population size is small then
genetic drift can be a significant factor. There are occasions when the
population of species is drastically reduced by a plague, famine, or
other catastrophe, and genetic drift can be of great importance when
such a “population bottleneck” occurs.

4
 The Theory of Evolution

If different alleles of the same gene are not equally advantageous to

an organism, the effects of natural selection will normally swamp the
effects of genetic drift. Drift is therefore most likely to occur in those
sections of the DNA that have no known genetic effect. (Such
sections – which are surprisingly common – are often referred to as
“junk DNA.”)
Section 4 – Chickens and eggs
A wit once said, “A chicken is just an egg’s way of making
another egg.” For a long time, that was considered to be just a clever
quip; but we now realize that the alternative way it suggests of
viewing reproduction provides valuable insights.
At first glance, these two statements appear to correspond perfectly:
a) A person (or animal, or plant) uses genes to create another person
(or animal, or plant).
b) Genes used a person (or animal, or plant) to create more genes.
But although the statements are similar in the form, there is an important
substantive difference between them. When genes replicate, their
“children” are identical to the original genes. But although human beings
reproduce, they never replicate: Human children are not copies of their
parents. Genes make copy of themselves; human beings do not, not do
members of any other sexually reproducing species.
The biologist Richard Dawkins wrote a celebrated book, The Selfish
Genes, in which he emphasized the “Gene’s -eye view” of reproduction.
Of course, genes are just a molecule, with no consciousness or purpose
at all, selfish or otherwise. However, the result of natural selection is
much the same as if the genes actually were selfish, and you will rarely
reach a wrong conclusion by viewing them as such. (Of course, a
conclusion reached in this fashion should be checked against the true
test: differential replication rates.)

5
 The Theory of Evolution

It is interesting to consider what the function of human being is from the

stand-point of his genes. Genes are just molecules, and they can easily
be destroyed by heat, by radiation, or by dangerous chemical in outside
the world. To protect themselves, the genes conduct a container around
themselves to keep out harmful chemicals and radiation, a “house” with
a thermostat that keeps the temperature nearly constant. If the “house”
(i.e., the human being or animal produced by the genes) is well
designed, then the genes can survive and replicate; if the house has
serious defects, the genes inside it will die. (Note the contrast: for a
human being, the genes inside its sperm or egg cells are merely a means
of reproduction; they do nothing to help individual survive.)

Section 5 -Present status of the Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859
in his great work. In the century and a half since then, there have been
several important modifications of his original theory. For example,
Darwin did not discuss genetic drift, rarely mention mutations, and
know nothing about genes. Furthermore, it seems likely that there will
be additional refinements to Darwin’s theory in the future. Still, virtually
all modern scientist agrees that Darwin’s central insight – evolution by
means of natural selection – was correct.
Nevertheless, lots of people have never really accepted the theory
of evolution. The most obvious of these are religious fundamentalists,
many of whom openly dispute the theory. A more important group,
however, consist of numerous persons who say (and think) that they
accept the theory of evolution, but who in fact shrink from accepting the
implications of that theory. Among those unwelcomed implications:
1. Human beings are animal: very unusual animal, to be sure, but
nevertheless animals. In origin, we are not fallen angels, but apes
arisen.

6
 The Theory of Evolution

2. Evolution is a completely amoral process.

3. A person’s physical capabilities and limitations are strongly
influenced by his genes.
4. A person’s mental attributes (i.e., his individual abilities and
proclivities) are also influenced by his genes – not rigidly
determined, but strongly influenced. The notion that we are
entirely products of our environments is therefore false.
5. The observed behavioral differences between sexes are strongly
influenced
Even less welcome, perhaps, are these other implications of the
theory:
6. Whenever two populations within a species are reproductively
isolated, they will diverge from each other genetically. If they are
in different environments, this will occur by natural selection: but
it will occur by genetic drift even if the environment is the same.
7. The process of evolution did not stop with emergence of Homo
sapiens sapiens (the branch of that species to which all living
humans belong). Rather evolution has continued and has produced
visible differences between human groups whose ancestors
evolved in different regions.
8. There is no reason to suppose that the visible differences we see
between the regional variations of human beings are the only
differences that exist between them. On the contrary, it would be
very surprising if that were the case.
These conclusions may be unpalatable. But they are amply confirmed by
our knowledge of biology. Of course, the extent of the differences can
only be determined by observation and experiment.

7
 The Theory of Evolution

FOOTNOTES – CHAPTER 1
1) These ideas were first presented by Charles Darwin in the Origin
of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of
favored races in the struggle for life (1859). Other restatements of
his ideas can be found in most modern college textbooks on
biology, for example: Wallace, R.A. (1992), Chapters 1 and 10.
2) Sexual selection was discussed at length by Darwin in his second
major book. The Descent of man, and selection in relation to sex
(1871).
3) Most of the materials in this section can be found in many
introductory college textbooks, for example: Wallace, R.A. (1992),
chapter 7.
4) Expect in very technical writing, it is common to refer to alleles as
“genes” when no confusion will result, and I shall often do so in
this book.
5) Genetic drift is mentioned in standard college texts such as
Wallace, R.A. (1992), chapter 10. More detailed discussion can be
found in many places, including:
a) Kimura, M. (1983):
b) Cavalli-Sforza, ital. (1994), especially section 1.4, pp..13-15:
and
c) Wilson, Edward O. (2000), pp. 64-66.
6) Dawkins, Richard (1989), especially chapters 2 and 3.
7) See Pinker, Steven (2002). The Blank State.pp.45-50 and 373-377.

8
CHAPTER 2
HUMAN RACES

Section 1 - Introduction
The entire topic of human races is a contentious issue, beset by
ideological passions. Indeed, so intense are these passions that some
people speak as if race is nothing but skin color, others assert that the
notion of race is just a “social construct,” and others claim that there is
no such thing as race or races.1
Such a claim is ridiculous. Even a child can detect the obvious
physical differences between members of different races. If the
proverbial “man from Mars” were to visit Earth he would readily see
that human beings come in different varieties. If he went to northern
China, he would notice that most of the people living there have a
yellowish tinge to their skins, straight black hair, very little body hair,
and a configuration of their eyelids that give them a slightly “slant-eyed”
appearance.
If he visited central or southern Africa, he would see that the
great majority of the persons living there have very broad, flat noses
(relative to Europeans and Chinese), with the nostrils flaring out. He
would also see that most of them have brown skins, very curly hair, very
little body hair, and thick, everted lips.
Finally, if he were to visit northwest Europe, he would notice
that most people there have pale “pinkish” skins, much more body hair
than Chinese or black Africans, and relatively protruding noses. He
would also notice that the number of people with blond or red hair is
much greater than in China or Africa, as is the number with blue or
green eyes.
 Human Races

In other words, he would readily detect the existence of the three

large races (often called the Mongoloid, Negro, and Caucasoid races).
Nor would he have any trouble in discovering that the above traits are
inherited. Whenever two typical-looking north Chinese mate and
produce a child, the child shares the attributes mentioned above, and the
same is true for Europeans and Africans. Of course, he would also notice
that there are many human beings who do not readily fit into any of
three categories just described.
The existence of races is not unique to the human species. Many
animal species consist of more than one type, although in the case of
animals these are usually called subspecies or varieties or breeds.
A race (or subspecies, or variety, or breed) might be defined as
a large group of individuals --- all of them members of the same species
--- who have formed partially or completely isolated breeding population
for a significant period of time, and who consequently differ statistically
from the rest of the species in various heritable traits by which they can
be recognized.3
It is possible for one subspecies to be included in another, larger
subspecies. (In other words, every member of the smaller group is also a
member of the larger group). In such cases, we call the smaller groups a
sub sub-species (or sub-variety, or sub-race, or sub-breed). When this
occurs, however, the differences between sub sub-species may be quite
small, so disputes as to classification often arise.
In most cases, it is geographic separation that has caused the
group to be an isolated breeding population; however, there can be other
causes. For example, social taboos against marrying someone of a
different religion, social class, or ethnic group can be the cause; and the
mating choices of domesticated animals are often restricted by their
human owners, sometimes for the explicit purpose of creating a new
breed.

10
 Human Races

If two breeding populations are separated from each other for a

long time, the result will be an accumulation of genetic differences
between them, either by natural selection or by genetic drift. If the
separation continues long enough, the can diverge into separate species.
However, as long as the two groups will usually mate (if given the
opportunity) and produce fertile offspring, they are generally considered
to be varieties of the same species.
Perhaps the best known example of a species that includes
various breeds or subspecies is the domestic dog, Canis familiaris. If a
zoologist who had never seen a dog before was shown a group of Irish
setters, he would readily notice the large number of similar traits that
they share. He would also observe that they freely mated with each
other, and that their offspring shared the obvious physical traits of the
prior generation. (In other words, they “breed true.”) He would therefore
classify them as a species, and – noticing their resemblance to wolves
(Canis lupus) – might call them Canis irishsetter.
In like fashion, if the same geologists were then shown a
group of dachshunds, he would notice their resemblance to each other,
and that they bred true, and he would probably decide that dachshunds
constitute another species, which he might call Canis dachshunds.
However, if he then permitted the Irish setters and dachshunds
to intermingle, he would soon find that rather than being two distinct
species, Irish setters and dachshunds were merely different varieties or
breeds of a single species. Despite their rather different appearance, he
would realize that the two breeds must share many genes, including the
ones responsible for mating and reproduction. He would reach the same
conclusion, of course, for the dozens of other breeds of dogs.
The offspring of a dachshund and an Irish setter – or of any two dogs
belonging to different breeds – is not a member of either breed. We call
such dogs mongrels. (The term used for most other species is hybrids.) a

11
 Human Races

mongrel, of course, is just as much a member of the species Canis

familiaris as any purebred dog, and he possesses all the traits that are
common to that species; he is just not a member of any of the special
breeds.
The reader might ask whether we should consider mongrels to
constitute a separate breed of dog. There are two reasons why we do not.
In the first place, mongrels (unlike Irish setters) share no set of physical
traits, except those common to all dogs. In the second place, mongrels
(unlike Irish setters) do not “breed true.”
Are mongrels better or worse than purebred dogs? That is a
subjective question, since it depends upon what traits you value in dogs.
If you value speed, for example, then greyhounds are better than
mongrels. If you value the Irish setter’s lovely reddish brown coat, you
are not likely to find a mongrel (or any other dog) that is quite that
beautiful. But by most criteria, mongrels are neither better nor worse
than purebred dogs.
However, in one important aspect, mongrels tend to be slightly
superior to purebred dogs. Like hybrids of most species, they often have
fewer genetic defects than purebreds, and therefore (if equally well cared
for) will on average be healthier. This effect – called hybrid vigor – is
the exact complement of the tendency for offspring of incestuous
matings to have a higher than average number of genetic defects, and it
has the same cause.4 The majority of deleterious alleles are recessive, so
the more closely related two individuals are, the more likely it is that
their offspring will be harmed by inheriting the same recessive allele
from both of them.
Some people have objected to the entire concept of human races. One
common objection is “There are all degrees of gradations between the
so-called ‘races’ of mankind, and many individuals do not fit into any

12
 Human Races

single racial group. The concept of ‘race’ is therefore meaningless, or at

least pointless.”
Although that argument is often presented, it is fallacious, as can be
seen by considering a few counterexamples: (a) it is useful and
meaningful to employ the terms blue and green even though there are an
infinite number of gradations between the two colors; (b) Similarly,
although there are all gradations between rich and poor, it is nevertheless
plain that John D. Rockefeller was rich, while at the same time large
numbers of peasants in China and India were poor; (c) Likewise, the
terms fat and skinny are widely used, as are the terms hard and soft. In
all these examples, the extreme cases are obvious; and even though
many intermediate cases are hard to classify, the terms are meaningful
and widely used.5
Another common objection is that the word “race” is difficult to
define, and dictionaries give varying definitions of it (most of which
contains some ambiguities). That argument is also fallacious. Virtually
all common terms are hard to define (except in mathematics and, to a
lesser extent, in the hard sciences). Insistence on precise definitions for
every term used would render all serious discussion (except in
mathematics) virtually impossible.
The two objections just mentioned are typical forms of
sophistry. People who make objections of this sort are ignoring the fact
that similar objections would apply to their own reasoning on most other
topics.
Despite the attempts of some writers to pretend that the word
“race” is meaningless, I suspect that most readers of this book do not
doubt that it refers to something real. (He may find it hard to give a
precise definition of the word, but when he hears or reads it he knows
what is being talked about.6) As a well–known biologist put it, “It

13
 Human Races

requires an almost superhuman feat of political zeal to overlook the

conspicuous differences between our own local populations or races.”7
Section 2 – The Australoids
Australian aborigines resemble Negroes in having brown skins and
broad noses, but in many other aspects they differ greatly from Negroes.
For example:
 Their lips, although thick, are not everted.
 A significant number of them have blond hair.
 Their hair is typically wavy, unlike the very curly hair of Negroes.
 They have a substantial amount of body hair.
 Compared to most humans, they are prognathous (i.e., their jaws
protrude forward).
 They have prominent brow ridges above their eyes (somewhat like
the now-extinct Neanderthals), which are very rare among
Negroes.8
It is therefore generally agreed that they should not be classified as
Negroes, and DNA tests confirm that the two groups are not closely
related.9 Since they are so different from the three groups described at
the beginning of this chapter, they are usually considered to belong to a
fourth race, the Australoids.
Section 3 – Some sub-races
Although various other racial groups have been identified, most of
them appear to be subgroups of the races already described. For
example, because of their small stature, the pygmies living in central
Africa (the Congoid Pygmies) can easily be distinguished from the
nearby Negro tribes. However, their resemblance to the Negroes – who
constitute most of the population of sub – Saharan Africa is obvious, so I
think it reasonable to classify both groups as branches (or sub-races) of a
larger racial group, which I shall call Negrids.

14
 Human Races

In southern Africa, there are two small groups – commonly called

the Bushmen and the Hottentots10 – which together comprise another
distinctive racial group. Scientists call this group the Sanids, the
Khoisan. Since the Sanids resemble the Negrids in many ways, it seems
best to classify both of them as sub-races of a still larger group, the
Negroids.11
(See Table 2-1)

15
 Understanding Human History

TABLE 2-1

PRINCIPAL HUMAN RACES, AND

SOME SUB-RACES

Races Sub-races

Negroids A. Negrids
1) Negroes
2) Congoid Pygmies
B. Sanids (= Khoisan)
Caucasoids
Mongoloids A. Amerids (= American Indians)
B. Mongolids (= Asian Mongoloids)

Australoids

Similarly, since the American Indians have so many traits in

common with the Mongoloids living in East Asia, I think it best to
consider the two groups as comprising subgroups of a larger race. I shall
call the Asian branch of this race the Mongoloids, the American branch
the Amerids, and the combined group the Mongoloid race.
(Note: A wide variety of nomenclatures have been used by various
scholars when discussing human racial groups: the one used in Table 2-1
may be easier to use than most.)
Not all human beings are members of discrete racial groups. Many
of us are of mixed parentage; such persons may be referred to as
“hybrids.” There are regions where hybrids are particularly common,
and other regions (for example, the North China Plain) where they are
completely
 Understanding Human History

rare. In some countries, there are important groups that contain a high
percentage of hybrids. For example, most “blacks” living in the United
States today are hybrids.12 (The infamous one drop rule – “If you’re one
percent black, you’re all black” – is a social rule that has no basis in
biology.)
Among the important questions concerning human races which will
be discussed in later chapters are:
1) Where and when were the various races formed?
2) Do the races differ in other ways, besides the physical traits
mentioned?
3) Have the differences between the races had any significant
historical consequences?
 Understanding Human History

FOOT NOTES – CHAPTER 2

1) For example:
(a) A statement drafted by several well-known scholars and
issued by UNESCO in 1950 said: “For all practical social
purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a
social myth”. See Montagu, Ashley (1970), p. 10.
(b) According to James Schreeve, “Surveys of physical
anthropologists have found that almost half no longer believe
that biological races exist.” (See the November, 1994 The
Discover, p.60.)
(c) In the same issue of Discover, on p. 83, the well-known
scholar Jared Diamond said, “The reality of human races is
another commonsense ‘truth’ destined to follow the flat Earth
into obliviation.”
(d) In Cavalli Sforza, et al. (1994), the heading of section 1.6 (on
p. 19) is “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races.”
2)
(a) As a famous geneticist put it: “… members of the same
species who inhabit different parts of the world are often
visibly and genetically different. This, in the simplest
terms possible, is what race is as a biological phenomenon.”
(Dobzhansky, T. [1970], p. 269.)
(b) See also Whitney; Glayde (1999), and Wilson, Edward O.
(2000), pp. 9-10.
3) (a) “A breed of dog is a construct zoologically and genetically
equivalent to the race of a man.” (Freedman, Daniel G.
[1979],
 Understanding Human History

p. 144.)
(b) See also chapter 7 of The Descent of Man (1871). Where
Darwin discusses at length the question of whether the
various
races should be considered different species. He concludes
that,
although the human races are not separate species, “….it
seems
that the term ‘sub-species’ might be used with propriety. But
from long habit the term ‘race’ will perhaps always be
employed.”
4) Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 edition (1986). See the article on
(a) “Heterosis” on p. 903 of volume 5.
(b) Villee, Claude A. (1972), pp. 658-659.
(c) Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (2000), p. 47.
5) Here are two other counterexamples:
(a) As there are at least 3 billion human beings with heights
between 4’6” and 6’6”, if one lined up everyone alive
today in size place, the typical person would differ in
height from the one adjacent to him by the less than
hundred-millionth of an inch. Nevertheless, we have no
trouble saying that those persons with height greater than
6 feet are tall and that those with height of less than 5 feet
are short.
(b) If you held hands with your mother, and she with her
mother, and so on until the chain included 250,000

19
 Understanding Human History

generations, those at the modern end of the chain would be

obviously and indisputably human, while those at the early
end of the chain (about five million years ago) would look
like and be categorized as apes. Yet each individual on the
chain would appear to be of the same species as her
neighbor.
6) As a Andrew Hacker put it: In the United States, what people
mean by ‘race’ is usually straight forward and clear, given the
principal division into black and white.” (Hacker, 1992, p. 5.)
Indeed, the entire set of regulations involving racial preferences
and/or “affirmative action” would be impossible to apply if the
word ‘race’ was meaningless.
7) Dawkins, Richard (2004), p. 399.
8) Description of the physical appearance of Australian can be
aborigines can be found in:
(a) Colliers Encyclopedia (1963 edition). See article on
“Australia, Primitive tribes of” on page 275 of volume 3.
(b) Encyclopedia Brittanica (15th edition, 1986). See article on
“Human Evolution” (especially p. 975) in volume 18. Also
see photograph on p.971.
(c) Baker, John R. (1974), chapter 16, especially pp. 278-291.
Also see photos on p.274.
9) See Cavalli-Sforza ital. (1994), Tables 2.3.1A and 2.3.1B on
pp.75-76.
10) The Bushmen and Hottentots refer to themselves as San and
Khoikhoi, respectively.
11) See Cavalli-Sforza, et al. (1994), especially;
a) Figure 2.3.2.B, on p.78.

20
 Understanding Human History

b) Table 3.7.1, on p.175, where he also says, “The San differ from
other sub-Saharan Africans … more than any other sub-Saharan
group differs from any other.”
12) For estimate of the average amount of Caucasoid parentage in
the gene pool of American blacks see Reed, T. (1969); or Levin
M. (1997), p.20.

21
 Understanding Human History

CHAPTER 3
INTELLIGENCE
Section 1-what is intelligence?
We all recognize that some persons are “smarter” than others. They
reason more quickly and accurately (particularly about abstract
questions), and usually learn more readily and retain information longer
than other person do. We say that such persons possess the attribute of
“intelligence”. Unfortunately, like many commonly used words, the
word “intelligence” is hard to define precisely. In this book, I shall use
as a working definition of intelligence: “general reasoning ability, and in
particular the ability to carry out and understand abstract reasoning.”
Not everyone, however, uses the world in that fashion. Howard
Gardner, for example, in his history of multiple intelligences, list at least
seven different types of intelligence,1 including musical intelligence (as
exemplified by the compose Igor Stravinsky) and bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence (as exemplified by the dancer Martha Graham). While it is
clear that Stravinsky and Graham possessed exceptional talents referring
to those talents as “intelligences” merely serves to obfuscate discussions
of intellectual ability.2
The reader, of course, is free to use whatever terminology he or she
prefers. In this book, however, the term “intelligence” will be used only
in the sense of the word stated in the first paragraph. The advantages of
this definition are:
 It accords fairly well with common usage.
 It is very close to such common dictionary definition as “the
ability to acquire and retain knowledge” and “use of the faculty of
reason in solving problems.” (It also resembles the dictionary
 Understanding Human History

definition of intellect as “the ability to think abstractly or

profoundly.”)
 It seems to describe the faculty that is actually measured in
standard intelligence tests.
In any event, intelligence is not the same thing as knowledge.
Memorizing a page from a telephone book increases your store of
knowledge, but it does not make you any smarter. (Since a more
intelligent person has a greater ability to acquire and retain knowledge,
he will probably have accumulated a greater store of knowledge than a
less intelligent person of the same age; the two concepts, however are
quite distinct.)
Section 2 – Correlation and the “g factor”
We all know that individuals who have high verbal skills but who
seem to have trouble with mathematics. Conversely, there are persons
who are good at math, but whose verbal skills are weak. Nevertheless, if
a large number of people are each given two tests, one measuring their
verbal skills and the other measuring their mathematical abilities, we
find that on average those persons who do well on one test also do well
on the other one, and those who do poorly on one test also do poorly on
the other. We can summarize this by saying that verbal abilities and
mathematical abilities are positively correlated with each other.
The degree to which high values of one quantity are, on average,
associated with high values of another quantity can be expressed
precisely by a number that statisticians call the correlation coefficient.
That coefficient, which is often designated by the letter r, is defined in
such a way that it cannot be greater than 1.0 nor less than -1.0. A
correlation of 1.0 would indicate that the connection between the two
quantities is not merely statistical but is exact and invariable. A value of
r = 0.05 would indicate only a very small statistical relation between the
two quantities. A value of r = 0 would indicate that there is no statistical

23
 Understanding Human History

correlation between the two quantities. If, on average, those persons who
did well on the math test did poorly on the verbal test (and vice versa)
we would then say that mathematical and verbal abilities were
negatively correlated, and such a result would be described by a value of
r that was less than zero. (although such a result is possible in theory,
test results show that in fact mathematical and verbal abilities are
positively correlated.)
Indeed, if we give a large group of people any two standard
intelligence tests – even if the two tests seem to measure quite different
aspects of intelligence – we almost always find a positive correlation
between the results of two tests,3 and usually a rather high correlation.
The simplest explanation of those results is that an individual’s score on
any well-designed intelligence test is strongly influenced by some
underlying factor which we call his general intelligence, but is also
affected (although to a lesser degree) by various special talents. The
underlying factor is usually referred to as the “g factor”.
The first person to define the g factor precisely was the British
psychologist Charles Spearman,4 although the general notion had been
expressed many times before. Spearman also invented a mathematical
technique (“factor analysis”) by means of which an individual’s g factor
can be calculated from his score on an assortment of standardized
intelligence tests.
Some people have objected to the whole notion of the g factor, on
the grounds that is “just a mathematical construct.” That objection,
however, is without merit. After all, physicists seeking to give a precise
meaning to the word temperature define it as “mean kinetic energy per
molecule” – or sometimes, even more abstractly, as “he partial
derivative of internal energy with respect to entropy”. Should we dismiss
the concept of temperature as “just a mathematical construct?” in some
sense, it is; nevertheless, if you touch a hot stove, you will burn your
finger!

24
 Understanding Human History

The point is that although, in order to render the notion precise, we

have defined temperature in abstract mathematical terminology, the term
describes a phenomenon that exists in the real world. In like fashion, the
“g factor” describes a phenomenon – an individual’s general intelligence
– that we had already noticed, and which has real, observable
consequences.
We might still ask, of course, whether the g factor is a unitary talent
or is instead a composite of several more basic abilities. At present. We
are not sure; however, since the answer would not affect any of the other
conclusions in this book, I will not dwell on that question.
One more point of terminology: Some intelligence tests correlate more
strongly with an individual’s g factor than others do. We say that such
tests are “strongly g-loaded.”
Section 3 – Variation of intelligence with age
A newborn child has very little reasoning ability, and his
intelligence is therefore very low. However, a child’s reasoning ability
gradually increases as he matures. A rough approximation is that
intelligence increases linearly with age, typically reaching a maximum at
about age fourteen or fifteen. (Of course, at that age a person has much
less knowledge and experience than he will have when he is older.)
The intelligence of an adult typically remains nearly constant for
many years, and then gradually diminishes with age. None of us is as
smart at age seventy as we were at twenty: however, in the absence of
serious disease or inquiry, we are a lot smarter than we were at age
seven.
Section 4 – IQ
As the average person’s intelligence varies so little between ages
twenty and fifty-five, we can almost regard his adult intelligence as
constant. However, we cannot do this for children, since a child’s

25
 Understanding Human History

intelligence increases markedly as he matures. The notion of IQ – an

abbreviation for “intelligence quotient” – was designed to estimate the
(nearly constant) intelligence that a child is likely to have when he
becomes an adult.
This is done by first determining a child’s “mental age” (defined as
the age of typical children who do as well as he does on a standard
intelligence test) and then comparing it with his chronological age. His
IQ = (mental age/chronological age) x 100. A child of average
intelligence for his age will therefore have an IQ of 100.
Empirically, we find that a child’s IQ (as defined above) varies far
less with age than do his raw scores on intelligence tests. IQ tests given
after a child reaches the age of seven usually provide fairly good
estimates of his adult intelligence.
The above definition of IQ applies only to children. It is usual to
measure an adult’s intelligence simply by his score on a normalized
standard IQ test. (“Normalized” means that each person’s raw score on
the test is modified in a standard fashion so that the average score of the
entire population is 100.

Section 5 – Intelligence tests, and possible bias in testing

Throughout most of the history, estimates of the intelligence of an
individual were entirely subjective. The first attempts to construct
objective tests of intelligence were made by Francis Galton in the last
half of the 19th century. Although the tests he constructed did not turn
out to be accurate measures of intelligence, Galton’s writings stimulated
work in the field. By 1905, Alfred Binet had developed a test that,
although crude by modern standards, still did a fairly good job of
measuring a person’s intelligence.

26
 Understanding Human History

Since Binet’s day, intelligence tests have been steadily improved.

Modern tests are statistically good predictors of both academic success
and adult income. They correlate highly with each other, and with
subjective assessments of an individual’s intelligence. They also
correlate with various physical attributes, such as brain size, and with the
results of reaction time experiments (describe in the next section).
It has often been asserted that intelligence tests are so culturally
biased as to be worthless, or at least unreliable. As an example of such
bias, proponents of this view often point to an analogy question that
once appeared in an SAT (a test widely used in the United Stated for
college admissions), to which the correct answer was:
RUNNER: MARATHON as OARSMAN: REGATTA
Obviously this was a very poor question, heavily biased against
persons whose upbringing and circumstances had not brought them into
any contact with boating or regattas. However, it was only one question
in an examination that consisted of more than one hundred, and
therefore – while it may have detracted slightly from the accuracy of that
test – it could not have drastically affected anyone’s score.
Although this example is still widely quoted, it is taken from an
examination given several decades ago, and such tests have been greatly
improved in the interviewing time. Test writers have become very
sensitive to the question of test bias and now take great care to minimize
it. Questions like the “regatta” items are unlikely to appear on an SAT
test today.
It might seem that the extent of bias in an intelligence test is
completely subjective. Actually, there are several established techniques
for measuring it. For example, internal tests of bias begin by ranking the
test’s questions in order of difficulty (as measured by what fraction of all
test takers answer them correctly), and then check whether the rank
order of the questions varies greatly between different groups of test

27
 Understanding Human History

takers. If so, it implies that some questions are highly biased against a
group. There are also external tests of test bias. Intelligence tests are
often used for predictive proposes: for example, to predict the academic
success of college students. If a particular test is biased against a group
of persons, then their scores on that test will underestimate how well
those persons do in college.
A large amount of data has been accumulated on such matters, and
the subject of bias in intelligence tests has been analyzed in great deal,
using both the internal and external evidence. These analyses show that
the amount of bias in most modern intelligence tests is very small.5
Section 6 – Reaction time experiments
Two types of tests that almost everyone agrees are free of serious
cultural bias are reaction time tests and digit span tests.
There are several types of reaction time experiments. 6 In the “choice
reaction time” (CRT) experiment, the person being tested sits in front of
a console on which there are eight translucent push buttons which are
arranged in a semicircle, plus one more button – the “home button” – at
the center. The subject starts with his finger holding down the home
button. He is told that in a few seconds one of the translucent buttons
will light up, and that he should then push that button down, as quickly
as he can, using the finger that he had on the button. Instructions is given
in the subject’s native language, and the task is so simple that everyone
(with the exception of severely retarded or brain damaged persons) can
do it with 100% accuracy. In fact, the task can be performed by
chimpanzees, and they do about as well as normal eight-year-old
children.7
The time it takes to push the button down after it lights up can be
divided into two parts, which can be timed separately and automatically:

28
 Understanding Human History

a) The reaction time is defined as the interval between the instant the
light goes on and the time the subject’s finger leaves the home
button.
b) The movement time is defined as the time it then takes for the
subject’s finger to depress the target button.
Movement times are typically about a quarter of a second, and are
not significantly correlated with intelligence. Reaction times are usually
a bit longer and are significantly correlated with IQ. 8 The correlation is
negative, which means that persons with higher IQs tend to have shorter
reaction times.9
The “odd-man-out” experiments are quite similar to CRTs, except
that:
a) Three buttons light up instead of one, with two of the buttons
being closer to each other either is to the third button.
b) The subject is instructed to not push either of the buttons that
are close to each other, but to push only the lit button that is
furthest from the other two.
These instructions too can be carried out accurately by virtually
everyone. Movement times are typically about the same in CRT
experiments; but reaction times are a good deal longer. The correlation
between IQ and reaction times is much greater in the old-man-out
experiments than in the CRT experiments – about twice as large, in the
fact.10 This is such a high correlation that the old-man-out reaction time
test can be thought of as almost an IQ test in itself. It is, of course,
cruder and less comprehensive than ordinary IQ tests; but it has the
advantage of being completely independent of any prior knowledge, and
therefore free from any cultural bias.
In a digit span test, the subject is read a set of digits (at a standard
rate of one per second) and asked to repeat them in the order given. The
longest set of digits he can repeat without error is his forward digit span
(FDS). In a variant of his test, the subject must repeat the digits, but in

29
 Understanding Human History

the reverse order. The longest set of digits he can repeat backwards is his
backward digit span (BDS). Like reaction times, digit spans are
independent of prior knowledge and free of cultural bias.
We might expect that an individual’s FDS is greater than his BDS,
and experimentally this is almost always the case. Both forward digit
span and backward digit span increase during childhood. For adults of
normal intelligence, FDS average about seven while BDS averages
about five. Both are correlated with general intelligence, but the
correlation is about twice as high as it is for FDS. 11 Because of these
correlations, digit span tests are often used as a component of more
comprehensive intelligent tests.

Section 7 - How important is intelligence?

It is clear that high intelligence does not, by itself, ensures an
individual success. Indeed, persons of obviously high intelligence who
have nevertheless failed to accomplish anything significant are so
common that we have a special word for them: under-achievers. Even a
very smart person is unlikely to accomplish much if he lacks sufficient
energy, dedication and determination; and he might also be held back by
a lack of social skills, or by lack of poor health, or by lack of
opportunity.
Not is high intelligence - or even average intelligence - necessary
for an individual to function capably in everyday life. Many people have
the notion that a person with an IQ of 70 is an incompetent who needs to
be institutionalized; but that notion is incorrect. Such persons can not
only wash, dress, and feed themselves, but can also make and retain
friends, marry, rear children, and support themselves economically.
They can learn a wide range of skills by direct, hands-on instructions, or
by simply watching more experienced persons. As long as their job or

30
 Understanding Human History

occupation does not require a high degree of abstract reasoning, such

persons are able to perform their duties in an adequate manner.
Not only is this true today, but it was even more true in past ages,
including the Paleolithic Era, during which most human evolution
occurred. It did not require high intelligence for a parent to demonstrate
to his child how to make a hand ax by chipping a piece of stone, or to
show him which plants are edible and which should be avoided. The
same is true for the typical skills needed by subsistence farmers.
However, although high intelligence is neither necessary for
functioning in ordinary circumstances, nor sufficient by itself for marked
success, it is not unimportant. In the first place, there are certain tasks
for which high intelligence is an absolute requisite. For example, one
can hardly imagine a person of average intelligence teaching a course in
quantum mechanics.
In the second place, high intelligence enhances most other abilities.
Even when a job or task can be performed adequately by someone of
average intelligence, it can usually be performed better by a person of
higher intelligence.12 This holds for such varied tasks as planting crops,
composing music, or waiting on tables. It is even true for many menial
tasks.
Finally, high intelligence plays a crucial role in environments.
Every aspect of our modern world and its technology had to be invented,
and virtually none of those innovations were obvious. It seems highly
probable that throughout history (and prehistory) all the important
inventions and innovations were made by persons who were far above
average intelligence.
Section 8 – What causes differences in intelligence?
Since individuals differ greatly in intelligence, we may ask:

31
 Understanding Human History

1) What are the direct biological factors responsible for those

differences?
2) What are the underlying factors? In particularly, are individual
differences in intelligence caused primarily by genetic factors or
by differences in upbringing and environment? (In technical
language, what is the inheritability13 of intelligence?)
As for question (1), at least three biological factors affect the
intelligence of a human being:
 The size of the brain.
 The microstructure of his brain. (For example, the surfaces of
the cerebral cortex are extremely convoluted, and the extent of
those convolutions – which is much greater in human beings
than in any other animal – may be connected with intelligence.)
 The details of his brain chemistry, such as the abundance of
various neurotransmitters.
It is plain that brain size is not the only factor. There are many
persons whose high intelligence is undisputed but who have
smaller than average brains, and vice versa. However, on average,
persons with larger brains are more intelligent.
This is what we would intuitively expect. After all, larger hearts
can pump more blood, and larger muscles can lift greater weights.
We would therefore expect that larger brains can, on average,
process more information. Furthermore, there is a high correlation
between intelligence and brain size across animal species. Finally,
since brains are very expensive organs metabolically, it seems
unlikely that natural selection would have permitted the evolution
of large brains unless they resulted in greater intelligence.
However, there is no need rely upon intuition in this matter.
There are several scientific studies that show a positive correlation
between individual brain size and intelligence in human beings. 14
Estimates of the correlation vary, but clusters around r = 0.35.

32
 Understanding Human History

Question (2) has aroused a great deal of controversy. Five

possible hypothesis are:
a) The differences are caused almost entirely by environment
factors.
b) They are caused by a combination of factors, with the
environmental factors normally being more important.
c) Environmental and genetic factors are about equally
important.
d) They are caused by a combination of factors, with the genetic
factors normally being more important.
e) The differences are due almost entirely to genetic factors.
Offhand, (a) and (e) sound like extreme views, and the others
therefore seem more likely. However, we need not rely on intuition
alone, since there is a good deal of scientific data that bears on the
question.
Perhaps the most straightforward way of measuring the heritability
of IQ is by comparing the IQs of identical twins who were reared
separately. Although such pairs (called “monozygotic apart” or “MZA”
in the literature) are quite rare, because of their theoretical importance
they have been sought out and carefully studied. Every study shows a
high correlation between the IQs of MZAs, with the correlation ranging
from 0.69 to 0.78.15 These results strongly support hypothesis (d).
(MZAs also show high correlations on a variety of personality traits and
social attitudes.16)
These results should be compared with the correlation between the IQs
of ordinary siblings reared together which is only 0.49.17 (Such pairs
share half of their genes in addition to having been reared in very similar
environments.) Even in the case of fraternal twins reared together, the
correlation of the IQs is only about 0.60.18 That is a high figure, but still
a good deal lower than for identical twins reared apart, which suggests

33
 Understanding Human History

that genetic factors are more powerful than environmental ones in

shopping a person’s IQ.
Another approach is to compare the correlation between the adult IQs of
ordinary siblings who have been reared apart (which is about 0.47) with
the correlation between the IQs of unrelated adults who were reared
together (which is nearly zero).19
A slightly different approach is to compare the IQs of adopted child who
have never known their biological parents with: (i) the IQs of their
biological parents; and (ii) the IQs of their adopted parents. Careful
studies show that the first correlation is greater than second. 20 This
strongly contradicts the predictions of hypotheses (a) and (b), but is
consistent with hypothesis (d).
Although all studies show that the heritability of intelligence is non-zero
– and indeed quite significant – its numerical value is still in dispute.
The heritability depends in part upon how old the subjects are (because
the effect of the shared home environment is greatest during childhood
and becomes less important as a person ages.) Plomin, after using
several different approaches to the question, estimated the heritability of
IQ to be about 50%.21 Other scholars have concluded that, for adults, the
heritability of IQ is about 60% or higher, rising to 70% or more in some
age groups.22
I have spent so much time on this topic because in the past many persons
have supported hypotheses (a) and (b) – which we can now see are
plainly refuted by the scientific data – or have taken the position that we
have no idea what the answer to question (2) is. The empirical data,
however, makes it very clear that we do know the answer. Both genetic
and environmental factors affect a person’s intelligence, with the
influence of heredity being somewhat larger than that of his upbringing
and environment, perhaps considerably larger.
Section 9 – Summary
34
 Understanding Human History

The essential points of this chapter can br summarized rather easily.

Basically, many of the old common-sense views about intelligence that
used to be widely accepted (and would probably be readily accepted
today if racial concern did not make us self-conscious) are compatible
with recent scientific studies. Among these common-sense views are:
1) Some people are smarter than others, and all gradations of
intelligence exist.
2) There are different aspects of intelligence, and typically an individual
is not equally gifted in all those aspects. A person’s overall mental
ability is a combination of his or her general intelligence (which is
usually the dominant factor) and various special intellectual strengths
and weaknesses.
3) Those persons who are considered to be “very smart” typically have a
high general intelligence, and their general intelligence can be applied
to a wide variety of practical tasks.
4) There are many other important talents and character traits besides
intelligence: and high intelligence, by itself, rarely results in success.
5) However, there are tasks that do not require high intelligence, and
high intelligence tends to enhance a person’s other capabilities,
sometimes quite markedly. Therefore, other factors being equal, a
person of high intelligence will be able to perform a great variety of
tasks better than someone of lower intelligence.
6) Modern intelligence tests, although certainly not perfect, are
reasonably accurate: and a person’s IQ provides a fair approximation
to his general intelligence.
7) Individual differences in intelligence are caused in part by genetic
factors, and in part by differences in upbringing and environment.
However, in adult life the genetic factors are typically more
important.
8) Although brain size does not rigidly determine a person’s
intelligence, there is a marked positive correlation between brain size
and IQ.
35
 Understanding Human History

FOOTNOTES – CHAPTER 3
1) Gardener, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
2) Gardener’s theory has been criticized on other grounds, for example
that he does not supply any quantitative evidence to support it. See
pp. 18-19 of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), or pp.
128-130 of The g Factor (Jensen, 1998) for a fuller discussion.
3) This is well established. See, for example:
a) Detterman, D.K & M.H. Daniel (1989) who state on p. 349:
“Positive manifold among mental tests is one of the most reliable,
replicable, and important empirical discoveries about human
ability yet found.”
b) Herrnstein & Murray (1994), p.3.
c) Jencks, C. (1998). See pp. 59-60 in chapter 2 of The Black-White
Test Score Gap.

36
 Understanding Human History

4) Spearman, Charles (1904).

5) For a full discussion see Bias in Mental Testing (Jensen, 1980). For
briefer discussion see pp. 280-282 of Herrnstein & Murray (1994).
6) For a more detailed discussion of the reaction time experiments
discussed here see Jensen, Arthur (1998), pp. 210-216.
7) Morris, R.D. & W.D. Hopkins (1995).
8) Jensen, Arthur (1998), pp. 212-214.
9) Jensen, Arthur (1997). Also see Deary, I.J. (2003), pp. 55,61 and 62.
10) (a) Frearson, W.M. & H.J. Eysenck (1986).
(b) Jensen, Arthur (1992).
(c) Jensen, Arthur (1993).
(d) Jensen, Arthur & P.A. Whang (1993).
11) Jensen, Arthur (1998), p. 221: see also note 22 on p. 263.
12) For a fuller discussion of this point, and some examples, see
chapter 3 of Herrnstein & Murray (1994), particularly pp. 70-
80.
13) The inheritability of the trait is defined as the proportion of the
total variance of that trait that is genetically explained. (The variance
of a train within a population is defined as the square of the standard
deviation of that trait in the population.) Note that the standard
deviation, and therefore the variance, is not the property of any
individual, but is inherently a group property. It follows that the
inheritability of a trait is also a property of the group, and is not
defined for individuals.
14) (a) Willerman, et al. (1991).

37
 Understanding Human History

(b) Andreasen, et al. (1993).

(c) Egan, et al. (1994).
(d) Wickett, Vernon, & Lee (1994).
(e) Anderson, Britt (2003), especially pp. 30-35.
(f) McDaniel, Michael A. (2005).
15) Levin, Michael (1997), pp. 97-98. Also see:
a) Newman, Freeman, & Holzinger (1937), see Table 96 on p. 347.
b) Bouchard, et al. (1990).
c) Pedersen, et al. (1992).
16) Bouchard, et al. (1990).
17) (a)Paul, S.M. (1980), whose study was based on over 27,000
sibling pairs.
(b) Bouchard & McGue (1981). This review discusses the results
for many other kinship relationships. It is based on over 100
studies which, together, include over 40,000 kinship pairs. For the
68 studies involving siblings reared together, they obtain a
weighted average of 0.47, very similar to Paul’s result.
18) Bouchard & McGue (1981), see figure 1, p. 1056.
19) Jensen, Arthur (1998), p. 178.
20) Scarr, Sandra & Richard A. Weinberg (1983), p. 262. Also
see Jensen, Arthur (1998), p. 177.
21) Plomin, R. (1990). See also Chipeur, Rovinc, & Plomin (1990).
22) (a) Bouchard, et al. (1990).
(b) Pederson, et al. (1992).

38
 Understanding Human History

CHAPTER 4
THE ORIGIN OF HOMO SAPIENS
Section 1 – Predecessors of Homo sapiens
Zoologists classify our species as part of the genus Homo, which in
turn is part of hominid family. The hominid family once included
another genus 9now extinct) called Australopithecus. Once species
within that genus was Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in East
Africa about 3.5 million years ago, and from which the entire genus
Homo is believed to be descended.
We are the only surviving species in genus Homo (indeed, in the
entire hominid family), and our closest living relatives are the
chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are not hominids, but belong to another
family, the pongids (or great apes). The last common ancestor of
chimpanzees and human beings probably lived about 5 million years
ago.1 (For information about how prehistoric dates are determined, see
Appendix 2.)
Two major differences between hominids and pongids are: (1) we
are fully adapted to bipedal locomotion; and (2) we have much larger
brains. The purpose of our large brain size is clear enough: it enables us
to have high intelligence. Otherwise, our large brains – which are
metabolically very expensive2 – would never have evolved.
Among the extinct species within our genus are Homo habilis and Homo
erectus. (the official name of a species consist of two words, the first
being the genus to which it belongs.) The exact evolutionary sequence
leading to Homo sapiens is still disputed, but a common view is that we
drive from Homo erectus, which derived from Homo habilis, which in
turn derived from Australopithecus afarensis.

39
 Understanding Human History

Adult members of Australopithecus afarensis were considerably

smaller than we are. Their average height wad about 3’6” (1.1 meters),
and their average weight about 110 pounds (50 kg). They walked erect,
but their brains were much smaller than ours, typically only about 450 cc
(cubic centimeters). This is about the same size as that of an average
chimpanzee, but only one-third that of a modern human. However, as
they were considerably smaller than chimpanzees, their encephalization
(i.e., the ratio of brain weight to body weight) was much higher, and
they were probably a good deal smarter.

The origin of homo sapiens

Our genus, Homo, originated about 2.5 million years ago, and its earliest
known species was Homo habilis. As all species of Australopithecus
lived in Africa, Homo habilis must have originated there; and indeed,
fossil remains of Homo habilis have been found only in East Africa.
Although there were several anatomical differences between Homo
habilis and Australopithecus, the most important one involved brain
size. The brains of Homo habilis averaged about 650 cc in size – roughly
fifty percent larger than those of Australopithecus, although only about
half the size of ours. The increase in brain size was accompanied by a
significant behavioral change: They developed techniques for making
stone tools. Although the tools they produced were very crude, it was an
important advance. (that early type of tools is called Oldowan, after
Olduvai gorge in modern Tanzania. Where many of the remains of
Homo habilis have been found.)
About 1.8 million years ago a new species, Homo erectus, arose in East
Africa. The brains of Homo erectus were much larger than those of
Homo habilis, and for adults averaged about 1000 cc. Indeed, the largest
Homo erectus brains lie within the range of our own species, although
far below the human average.

40
 Understanding Human History

Once again, the increased brain power of new species was accompanied
by behavioral changes, at least three of which are noteworthy. To begin
with, Homo erectus was the first hominid to spread out of Africa into
Asia and Europe. They reached Central Asia at least 1.5 million years
ago and must have entered the Middle East even earlier. Remains of
Homo erectus have been found in northern China (in the cave at
Zhoukoudian, near Beijing), and as far east as Java. Indeed, the first
Homo erectus skull ever discovered was found in central Java in 1891;
and for a while, the species was called “Java Man” or Pithecanthropus
erectus. That skull might be about a million years old, and it is therefore
predates the earliest specimens of Homo erectus found in Europe.
In the second place, Homo erectus was the first of our ancestors to use
and maintain fires. This advance was made at least 1.6 million years ago.
Most primates lack the anatomical and physiological features necessary
to survive cold winters, and – within the exception of those in genus
Homo – they are only found in tropical regions. It seems likely,
therefore, that it was only due to its mastery of fire that Homo erectus
was able to move into such regions as Central Asia, northern China, and
Europe.
Thirdly, Homo erectus created a new set of tools, better and more varied
than any produced by Homo habilis. This improved toolkit is often
called Acheulian, after the site in France where samples of it were first
found. (For a list of some major prehistoric stone toolkits, see Table A2-
1 in Appendix 2.)
Because of the higher intelligence of the new species, and the advance
resulting from it, Homo erectus eventually supplanted all earlier hominid
species, and by one million BC those earlier species had become extinct.
A similar fate was to befall Homo erectus after Homo sapiens arose.3

41
 Understanding Human History

Section 2- Archaic Homo sapiens

The prevailing view among anthropologists is that Homo sapiens
originated in Africa about 350 kya. 4 (Note: “kya” is an abbreviation for
“kiloyears ago,” and since 1 kiloyear = 1000 years, 350 kya means
350,000 years ago.) the new species spread widely and eventually
replaced Homo erectus everywhere. Homo sapiens reached China at
least as early as 210 kya, and possibly as early as 300 kya. 5 they
probably reached Europe and Central Asia earlier than China, and the
Middle East earlier still.
From their fossil remains, we can tell that those early humans
looked somewhat different from us, so – even though their brains were
roughly as large as ours – we often refer to them as “archaic Homo
sapiens” (or AHS). Their possession of human sized brains does not
prove they had the same mental skills as we do, and it is doubtful that
they did. However, their displacement of Homo erectus is consistent
with the view that the larger brains of AHS gave them a clear advantage
over the earlier species.
Since AHS was widely scattered throughout Asia, Africa, Europe, and
since inhabitants of each region had very little opportunity to mate with
inhabitants of other regions, we would expect regional variations of AHS
to arise. This indeed occurred. The variant that evolved in Western
Europe was particularly distinctive and is often called “Neanderthal
Man” or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
The Neanderthals were a successful subspecies, and specimens have
been found in Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia, and as far east as
Uzbekistan, in Central Asia.6 They were a bit shorter than modern
human beings, and more heavily built, which was an advantage in the
cold climate they originated in. in addition, they probably evolved
various physiological adaptations to protect them from the cold.

42
 Understanding Human History

Unfortunately, such adaptations are held to detect from skeletal remains,

so their exact nature is unknown.
The most obvious behavioral difference between AHS and Homo erectus
lies in the markedly superior tools produced by AHS. In particularly, the
Neanderthals developed a set of tools – often called the Mousterian
toolkit, after the French cave where the first samples were found – which
were plainly more sophisticated than Acheulian tools.
For tens of thousands of years, the Neanderthals were the only hominids
living in Europe. However, anatomically modern humans entered
Eastern Europe about 46 kya,7 and by 30 kya, only a few pockets of
Neanderthals survived. They appear to have contributed very little to the
gene pool of modern human beings.8
Section 3 – The advent of Homo sapiens sapiens
Besides the Neanderthals, there were several other regional
variants of Homo sapiens. About 100 kya a new variant – Homo sapiens
sapiens (or “HSS”) – arose in sub-Saharan Africa.9 This new variant is
important because it eventually spread throughout the entire world,
displacing all other variants (apparently with rather little interbreeding),
and as a result all humans living today are members of that subspecies.
Some scholars dispute the claim that HSS originated only in Africa, and
instead espouse the “multiregional model,” according to which HSS
evolved more or less simultaneously in several parts of the Old World. 10
However, the majority of anthropologists now reject that hypothesis 11
and accept that “out-of-Africa” model because:
a) Early examples of HSS in Africa (at Border Cave and at Klasies
River, both in southern Africa) are much older than the earliest
examples of HSS in China, India, or Europe.
b) Only in Africa do we find a convincing sequence of forms leading
from archaic Homo sapiens (such as those at Broken Hill and at

43
 Understanding Human History

Eliye Springs), through transitional forms (such as those at

Florisbab, Omo, and Laetoli) to early HSS (such as those at Border
Cave and Klasies River).
c) Studies of mitochondrial DNA from humans living in widely
separated parts of the world show that they all have as one of their
ancestors a particular woman (the so-called “African Eve”), and
that she lived about 200 kya, not 1000 kya as the multiregional
model suggests.12
The worldwide triumph of HSS over its rivals make it plain that it
was “superior” (in the Darwinian sense if the word) to those rivals.
However, examination of the fossil remains reveals only small
differences between the skeletal structure of HSS and the other
subspecies, seemingly far too small to explain its rapid triumph over the
others. The members of HSS did not have larger brains than their rivals;
nor is there any sign that they were generally bigger, stronger, or faster
than the other variants of Homo sapiens.
It has frequently been suggested that the superiority of HSS resided in
their greater linguistic skills. Early humans certainly had some sort of
primitive speech; but it has been suggested that HSS were the first
humans capable of fully-developed language.13
Our brains appeared to be “hard-wired” in such a way as to enable
children to master language, and to do so long before they can master
various other tasks that are far less complicated. 14 It is well established,
for example, that there are sections of our brain – Broca’s area, for
example, and Wernicke’s area – that are highly specialized for the
production and understanding of human speech. If HSS (but not any
other variant of Homo sapiens) possessed these built-in language
capacities, its triumph over the other variants would be easily explicable
– indeed, virtually inevitable.
Note that if, in earlier variants of Homo sapiens, Broca’s area and
Wernicke’s area were less specialized for the production and

44
 Understanding Human History

understanding of language – or if they were smaller, or less developed,

or even completely absent in those variants – we could not observe the
difference just by examining the skeletal remains. The hypothesis that
the superiority of HSS lay in their linguistic skills is therefore unproven,
and may never be conclusively demonstrated. However, the hypothesis
appears to be consistent with the available data; and since no better
explanation for the triumph of HSS is known, I shall adopt it in this
book.
Understanding Human History
Section 4 – Syntactic language and the human species
In the previous section, I mentioned that there was an important
difference between “primitive speech” and “fully-developed language”
without specifies the differences between the two categories. In
primitive speech (such as many animal possess):
 The vocabulary is small.
 Each sentence consists of a single word.
 There are no grammatical rules.
On the other hand, in a fully developed language (or “syntactic
language”):
 There is a large vocabulary.
 Multi-word sentences (sometimes quite lengthy ones) are common.
 There are rules for expressing:
a) Negatives
b) Conditional or hypothetical statements.
c) The distinctions between the subject and the object of a verb.
d) A full range of tenses, including past, present, future, future
perfect, pluperfect, and so forth.
In the period when the transitions from more primitive language to fully
syntactic language took place there must have been languages that did
not fall clearly into either category. However, no such languages
45
 Understanding Human History

survive. All existing animal languages are primitive, and all human
languages are syntactic. As the difference between primitive and
syntactic languages is so enormous. I shall hereafter use the word speech
to refer only to the latter.
In the course of human history and prehistory there have been many
inventions of great importance, including agriculture, metalworking,
printing, firearms, antibiotics, and computers. But none of those was
nearly as important as the invention of speech. It is speech – syntactic
language - that truly separates us from all other animals.
Taxonomist list HSS as a mere subspecies of Homo sapiens, and there is
little doubt that matings between HSS and Homo sapiens would have
produced fertile offspring. But although the visible anatomical
differences separating us from AHS are minor, behaviorally we are
worlds apart. Behaviorally, any hominid without speech is closer to
Australopithecus that it is to us.
It is sometimes said that two organisms or populations should be
included in the same species if they produce fertile offspring. However,
this method of classifying species is not always followed by biologists.
Taxonomists consider lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris)
separates species, even though they have been crossbred in zoos and the
offspring are fertile, because lions and tigers do not interbreed in the
wild.15 in like fashion, dogs and wolves are considered separate species.
This is because – even though wolves are physically capable of mating
with dogs and producing fertile offspring – in the wild they more
commonly kill and eat them.
If we use “commonly interbreed in the wild” as our creation, then HSS
should be considered a separate species. Human beings who possessed
syntactic language would surely have considered hominids without
speech to be “subhuman,” which explains why they rarely interbred with
them. With rare exceptions, human females adamantly refuse to copulate

46
 Understanding Human History

with anything subhuman; and although young males will sometimes

copulate with anything vaguely female, they will marry a female only if
they consider her fully human.
Definitions, of course, are arbitrary and adopted merely for convenience.
How we choose to define a word will not change any physical or
biological facts. Therefore, you need not consider HSS to be a separate
species if you don’t want to. However, in the rest of this book I will use
the terms “human,” “human race,” “human species,” “human beings,”
and “humanity” to refer to Homo sapiens sapiens, and to them alone.
When I wish to include other hominids, I shall use the terms, “Homo,”
“Homo sapiens,” or “hominid.”

FOOTNOOTES - 4
1. Sarich, Vincent and Allan C. Wilson, (1967).
2. Typically, the brain of an adult human accounts for only about 2
percent of his weight, but it uses about 20 percent of his resting
energy.
3. Most of the data in this section comes from either Fagan, Brian M.
(2001), chapter 2 and 3; or Cavalli-Sforza, et al. (1994), chapter 2.
4. This date is very uncertain:
a) Clark, J. Desmond (1989) suggests more than 400 kya. (See
figure 29.2 on p. 567.)
b) Bräuer, Günter (1989), suggests 450 kya. (See his figure 8.1
on p.124)
c) Caralli-Sforza, et al. (1994) says “at least 300 kya.” (See
p.61.)
d) Fagan, Brian M. (2001) says 200-400 kya. (See p. 107.)
5. Brooks, Alison & Bernard Wood (1990).

47
 Understanding Human History

6. See Cavalli-Sforza, et al. (1994), figure 2.1.2; or Fagan, Brian M.

(2001), figure 3.16.
7. Mellars, P.A. (1993), pp. 202-203.
8. (a) Stringer, C.B. (1989), p. 241.
(b) Klein, Richard G. (1989), pp. 334-343.
(c) Diamond, Jared (1992), p. 53.
(d) Diamond, Jared (1999), pp. 40-41.
(e) Zubrow, Ezra (1989), p. 212.
9. The date is uncertain. My figure is based on:
(a) Rightmire, G.P. (1989), p. 120.
(b) Deacon, H.J. (1989), P. 561.
(c) Bräuer, Günter (1989), p. 148.
(d) Clark, J. Desmond (1993), p. 148.
10. A sophisticated presentation of this view is given by
Wolpoff, M.H. (1989).

48