Epigenetic theory of human evolution

[Bgoatgruff]

Been a while since I posted anything on this forum, thought my recent publication 'Left in the Dark' might be of interest, it outlines a new theory in laypersons language that explains some of the unusual human traits that are not easily explained by classic adaptive selection. In addition I have proposed that the dominant left hemisphere in humans is simplistically a hormonally retarded version of the right.

 

Despite the radical nature of these and other proposals it is already attracting academic interest.

 

‘This is a totally new way of looking at the evolution of the human brain. It is so totally fresh, unexpected and hitherto un-thought-of that it will probably take a long time before evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists begin to take it on board; but it will make an impact, of that there is no doubt. It will be, it must be, taken very seriously in any discussion of human origins.’ Professor Colin Groves A.N.U.

 

I have attached a brief synopsis, more info at http://www.leftinthedark.org.uk

Synopsis (Full).pdf

[CharonY]

Wait a tick, are you really one of the authors?

[CDarwin]

What does "Tantalisingly, the book hints at the beginnings of a strategy that could be developed with the aim of returning mankind to its former evolutionary path, with all the glory and magnificence that would entail." mean, exactly? The evolutionary path toward robust australopithecines? That one wasn't so glorious.

Edited June 26, 2008 by CDarwin

[ecoli]

From the website, it appears it has something to do with hormones contributing brain expansion.

[CharonY]

Ow and is anything of its findings published in journal?

[Bgoatgruff]

Yes I am one of the books authors (not the synopsis), it was co-written due to my abysmal English.

 

The synopsis ‘tantalisingly ‘alludes to a hypothetical period of greater neural function prior to the stall in neural expansion.

 

Yes its something to do with hormones contributing to brain expansion, in part the hormonal and neuroactive effects of flavonoids on the neuroendocrine system.

 

The conclusions are not published in any journals, the conclusions cite supporting data from journals.

 

Have attached the foreword as it may help provide some context.

Foreword.pdf

[CharonY]

Ah, OK. Reading some of the endorsements I was under the impression that it included original experiments. My bad.

[jimmydasaint]

Are you talking about cognitive enhancement through the use of certain appropriate chemicals?

[Bgoatgruff]

One central theme is the role of our primary/only tool for investigating who/what we are. Aside from the mysteries of self awareness, consciousness etc our brain/mind appears to be central to framing the questions we ask the protocols we implement and experiments we design including the engineering of the equipment we use. Then of course the interpretation of the data/information we perceive.

 

I would suggest it is contrary to accepted scientific protocols to presume our brain/mind is fully functional given the role it plays. Even if there was no evidence to suggest any malfunction the question should at least be addressed if only to eliminate such a possibility. My hypothesis proposes that there is already significant if not overwhelming evidence of a major problem. In fact to propose out neural system is significantly compromised would require such evidence to be plainly apparent. Part of the conundrum is that our ability to recognise the evidence may be one of the symptoms. Left in the Dark attempts in simple language to join some of the dots that are already evidenced from orthodox research as well as evidence that does not fit accepted scientific protocols, it also predicts where further dots may exist. Simply asking the question and considering the possibility that there is a glitch in our perceptual equipment may be sufficient to dismiss the theory if you are willing, on the other hand it may not….

 

 

 

RE ‘enhancement through the use of certain appropriate chemicals?’

 

Part of my proposal is that the evolution/development /function of the human neuroendocrine system was significantly dependent on a continuous flood of relatively unique chemicals. Not only did these chemicals play a role in development and function they directly elevated/modified the activity of the neuroendocrine system. The loss of these chemicals and the associated enhanced/modified neuroendocrine activity has left us (amongst other things) clinically deficient in key neurochemicals. This offers an explanation for the traditional use of neurochemical analogues and why we are so predisposed to use/abuse of neuroactive chemicals. It also opens the door to judicious use of same as part of a hypothetical solution.

[Barry II]

By "judicious use of the same" do you mean you want crack legalized or pot to be prescribed for anxiety, or what? Sorry to be suspicious, but I don't often see published scientists on internet message boards.

[Bgoatgruff]

I have recently added a preview/review page with the whole book available. http://leftinthedark.org.uk/preview might stimulate some debate...