James Brooks

Brain size:
One physic al trait of the human species is a very large brain relative to our closest
relatives. Humans have a cranial capacity approximately three times the size of chimpanzees,
our closest relatives (Ashton & Spence 1958). Humans have a cranial capacity almost 700
cubic centimeters larger than the gorilla, the great ape with the next largest brain (Shultz
1941). Humans have a significantly larger brain than any other apes, indeed larger than the
brain of any other primates (Shultz 1941). Despite the amount of discussion about this trait
being one that distinguishes humans from all other animals, in many ways it is not unique.
Humans have neither the largest brain nor the largest brain relative to body size among all
mammals (Cartmill 1990). Humans are not even the species furthest above the line of best fit
between brain size and body size (Cartmill 1990). Nevertheless, much effort has gone into
defining humans brain size as unique. The rapid expansion of cranial capacity in human
evolution certainly represents an important synapomorphy among hominids; however, the
evolution of larger skulls relative to our closest ancestors does not place humans in a unique
category relative to all other species. Many social species have larger brains than their closest
relatives, such as hammerhead sharks and manta rays, though their large brains are not seen
as unique (Park et al. 2007). Elephants have larger brains than their closest relatives (Park et
al. 2007), and significantly larger brains than humans, implying that the tendency to place
humans in a category of their own in terms of brain size may not have as much scientific
backing as is typically believed. The expansion of human cranial capacity was extremely
likely due to a natural selective advantage, as the extent to which we diverged would not be
easily explained through other processes. Brain size has been associated with tool use, prosociality, and several other factors that could lead to improved fitness, so it is likely that one
or more of these factors provided a selective advantage for an increased brain size in the
human lineage (Dunbar 1995). It is difficult to determine whether it currently serves the same

James Brooks

role as it did during our evolution, though it is likely that many elements of daily human life
depend on it. The Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis posits that social organization may
have a large role in brain size, and if this is the case large brains are certainly still serving
their original role (Park et al. 2007). Human society is as complex as it has ever been, and a
large brain is no doubt crucial for navigating such a complicated social structure. However,
the clever foraging hypothesis presents the idea that brain size is correlated with hunting or
foraging more strategically, with less encephalized species tending to feed opportunistically
(Park et al. 2007). I dont think learning whether or not we currently use our large brains for
the same purposes would have an enormous effect on social cohesion or health, but I do think
that an understanding of the forces leading to an increased brain size could have a sizeable
impact on human society. Understanding brain size as a characteristic of our evolutionary
past which served a role in social bonds or foraging strategies, rather than as a marker of
increased intelligence and human superiority, could have large impacts on the mentality of
many humans towards the environment and other species. Seeing large brains as simply an
adaptation like many others could lead to more mindfulness of humans place in the tree of
life, and potentially have significant influence on environmental efforts. I do not think
understanding the original function of large brains would have great impact, but the general
population understanding large brains simply as a trait serving a function in our ancestry
could.
Language:
One of the most widely discusses behavioural traits marking humans as a unique
species is our extensive use of language. Humans communicate verbally in a way not seen in
any of our closest relatives (Hewes 1973). Our use of language is highly symbolic and
abstract, and those qualities are often thought to set human language apart from all other
species (i Cancho et al. 2001). Despite our propensity to draw a distinction between human

James Brooks

language and the communication of other species, the difference is not so absolute. Vervet
monkeys communicate verbally in similar ways to humans, with different sounds having
different meanings (Seyfarth et al. 1980), and chimpanzees use a rich vocabulary of gestures
(Hobaiter & Byrne 2011). Closely related species often have species-specific forms of
communication. Chimpanzees and bonobos have been observed to produce structurally
different vocalizations, showing that their communications also evolved through time in a
manner similar to our own (De Waal 1988). This evidence further provides basis for believing
that language likely evolved due to natural selection. More advanced forms of
communication offer a clear evolutionary benefit to the species, and due to the lack of
alternative processes that could account for such complexity it makes the most sense to
attribute humans language abilities to natural selection (Pinker & Bloom 1990).
Experimental evidence has supported the theory that language evolved side-by-side with toolmaking (Morgan et al. 2015), providing a specific theory on how a more advanced language
could improve fitness. If this explanation were found to be true, it could be argued that in
many ways the trait is still serving its original function. Human society is dependent on the
transmission of knowledge through generations, including the use of complex tools in various
circumstances. Language seems to serve an expanded role in modern society relative to its
original function, but it remains crucial to skill-learning (Morgan et al. 2015). Human
language has expanded its role so much that it is essential in nearly all aspects of our society.
For this reason, I do not think knowing its original function would have a significant impact
on social cohesion. Language plays such a universal role in daily life that its use would very
likely not be affected by an understanding of its original function. However, one domain that
could change significantly with a greater understanding of languages original function is the
learning of new languages. A greater understanding of the origins of human language could
lead to drastically improved techniques for learning a language, and in that sense social

James Brooks

cohesion could improve. The extent to which humans use language is definitely unique, but a
symbolic form of communication does not set humans apart from all other species. Language
very likely evolved from a more rudimentary form of communication used by our ancestors,
slowly progressing to what we now accept as language, but many of the fundamental and
defining elements of language can be found in other species, implying language is not as
unique as is often assumed.
Culture:
Culture is often considered one of the trademarks of the human species. Culture
defines who we are, how we behave, and how we view the world, but it is often lacking a
definition itself. Despite how frequently the word is used it is an empty vessel waiting for
peopleto fill it with meaning (Baldwin et al., 2006). One of the most influential
definitions, by Kroeber and Kluckholm (1952) defines culture as human-specific right from
the start, leaving no room to question whether the trait is in fact unique to our species.
Culture in humans is no doubt more elaborate than what is seen in other species, but that does
not mean the concept of culture is unique to humans. Chimpanzees show regional variation in
behaviour, including different populations using different socially-transmitted tool-use
techniques towards the same goal, with other populations not using any tools for the same
purpose (Boesch & Boesch, 1990). With this in mind, it is difficult to create a meaningful
dissociation between human culture and behaviours observed in chimpanzees. Culture in all
likelihood evolved due to a natural selective advantage. Evidence has shown infants will
selectively attend to individuals showing greater success (Birch et al., 2006) and to those who
show the most confidence (Birch et al., 2006), suggesting cultural transmission may be an
adaptation that was selected for early in our lineage. Many models suggest that gene-culture
coevolution is a result of an increase in the efficiency of imitation (Castro & Toro, 2004),
providing an evolutionary explanation for how culture could have increased our fitness. If

James Brooks

this explanation holds true, culture is playing much the same role in modern society as its
original function. The importance of efficiency in imitation cannot be overstated in modern
society. Simple actions such as tying shoes to complex actions such as piloting an airplane all
depend on being able to imitate and learn from others. Nearly every aspect of daily life has to
be learned from others, so humans skill in imitation is certainly as important in modern
society as in our evolutionary past. Nonetheless, an understanding of the role of culture in our
evolutionary history would undoubtedly provide enormous benefits to social cohesion.
Understanding the evolutionary history of culture could help modern society resolve conflicts
between cultures through better understanding the root causes of these conflicts. Further, if
the efficiency of imitation hypothesis is true, understanding the selection pressures our
ancestors faced could revolutionize teaching, providing new insights which could
substantially increase our ability to imitate and learn from others. Overall, the importance of
culture in human society is certainly more pronounced than in any other animal, but this can
likely be attributed to an evolutionary history emphasizing imitation instead of a profound
divergence of the human species from anything seen elsewhere in nature.
Fat composition in neonates:
Humans have large fat deposits at birth which significantly greater than those of any
other species. This is one physiological trait of humans that make us unique. Humans, at
birth, have approximately 15% body fat, more than 4% above the species with the next
greatest amount of body fat, the guinea pig, which is much more mature at birth (Kuzawa,
1998). 90% of fetus weight gain just before birth is due to fat deposition (Battaglia and
Meschia, 1973). In comparison, chimpanzee neonates have a virtual absence of body fat
(Cunnane & Crawford, 2003). The extent to which humans have diverged from any other
known animal suggests this trait was due to natural selection. Some theories propose that this
increase in neonatal body fat developed to compensate for our relative hairlessness,

James Brooks

especially to keep us warm at night (Pawlwski, 1998); however, empirical evidence does not
show strong support for this hypothesis (Kuzawa, 1998). An alternate hypothesis is that an
increase in neonatal fat coevolved with increasing brain size, providing the necessary energy
for the high fuel demands of the developing human brain (Cunnane & Crawford, 2003),
especially during times of nutritional disruption (Kuzawa, 1998). Large quantities of neonatal
fat may well serve its original role in human development in supplying the large energy
requirements of the human brain; however, these fat deposits no longer are necessary for
keeping warm, and nutritional disruption is significantly less common in modern societies
than in our evolutionary history. Understanding the role of such large amounts of neonatal fat
would definitely help modern society in understanding newborn health. Knowledge of how
fat quantities impacts post-natal development would allow us to better judge infant health and
be able to avoid consequences later in life that may arise from imbalances in newborn fatty
deposits. The large quantities of fat in human infants represents a truly unique trait of our
species, and a better understanding of how and why we evolved in this way could yield
important developments in understanding infant health and development.

James Brooks

Works Cited:
Ashton, E, & Spence, T. 1958. Age changes in the cranial capacity and foramen magnum of
hominoids. Journal of Zoology 130(2):169-181.
Baldwin, JR, Faulkner, SL, Hecht, ML, & Lindsley, SL. 2006. A Moving Target: The Illusive
Definition of Culture. In JR Baldwin, SL Faulkner, & ML Hecht (eds.) Redefining
culture: Perspectives across the disciplines Chapter 1, pp3-53. Routledge.
Birch, SAJ, Akmal, N, & Frampton, KL. 2010. Two-year-olds are vigilant of others' nonverbal cues to credibility. Developmental Science 13(2):363-369.
Birch, SAJ, Vauthier, SA, & Bloom, P. 2008. Three- and four-year-olds spontaneously use
others' past performance to guide their learning. Cognition 107(3):1018-1034.
Boesch, C, & Boesch, H. 1990. Tool Use and Tool Making in Wild Chimpanzees. Folia
Primatologica 54(1-2):86-99.
Cartmill, M. 1990. Human Uniqueness and Theoretical Content in Paleoanthropology.
International Journal of Primatology 11(3):173-192.
Castro, L, & Toro, MA. 2004. The evolution of culture: From primate social learning to
human culture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 101(27):10235-10240.
Cunnane, SC, & Crawford, MA. 2003. Survival of the fattest: fat babies were the key to
evolution of the large human brain. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology aMolecular & Integrative Physiology 136(1):17-26.
De Waal, FBM. 1988. The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan-Paniscus),
Compared to That of Chimpanzees. Behaviour 106:183-251.

James Brooks

Dunbar, RIM. 1995. Neocortex Size and Group-Size in Primates - a Test of the Hypothesis.
Journal of Human Evolution 28(3):287-296.
Hewes, GW, Andrew, R, Carini, L, Choe, H, Gardner, RA, Kortlandt, A, Pfeiffer, J. 1973.
Primate communication and the gestural origin of language. Current Anthropology
14:5-24.
Hobaiter, C, & Byrne, RW. 2011. The gestural repertoire of the wild chimpanzee. Animal
Cognition 14(5):745-767.
i Cancho, RF, & Sol, R. V. 2001. The small world of human language. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 268(1482):2261-2265.
Kroeber, AL, & Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.
Papers. Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology. Harvard University Press.
Kuzawa, CW. 1998. Adipose tissue in human infancy and childhood: An evolutionary
perspective. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 41:177-209.
Morgan, TJH, Uomini, NT, Rendell, LE, Chouinard-Thuly, L., Street, S. E., Lewis, H. M.,
Laland, K. N. 2015. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin toolmaking teaching and language. Nature Communications 6.
Park, MS, Nguyen, AD, Aryan, HE, U, HS, Levy, ML, & Semendeferi, K. 2007. Evolution of
the human brain: Changing brain size and the fossil record. Neurosurgery 60(3):555562.
Pawwski, B. 1998. Why are human newborns so big and fat? Human Evolution 13(1):65-72.
Pinker, S, & Bloom, P. 1990. Natural-Language and Natural-Selection. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 13(4):707-726.

James Brooks

Polin, RA, Fox, WW, & Abman, SH. 2011. Lipid metabolism. In RA Polin, WW Fox, & SH
Abman (eds.) Fetal and neonatal physiology Section VI, pp441-517. Elsevier Health
Sciences.
Schultz, AH. 1941. The Relative Size of the Cranial Capacity in Primates. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 28(3):273-287.
Seyfarth, RM., Cheney, DL, & Marler, P. 1980. Vervet Monkey Alarm Calls - Semantic
Communication in a Free-Ranging Primate. Animal Behaviour 28:1070-1094.