sábado, 11 de noviembre de 2006

Cool Like You


Picture of chimps

Follow the leader?
Chimps in captivity follow the leader and place orange plastic token in a container to receive a reward.

Credit: Yerkes National Primate Research Center


By Gretchen Vogel
ScienceNOW Daily News
3 November 2006

Humans excel at following conventions. In France, acquaintances greet one another with a kiss on the cheek. In Japan, they bow. The different greetings have no inherent use on their own--and they would each lose their meaning when performed in the wrong context. But are humans the only animals to use such social conventions? A new study in chimps suggests not; the primates can learn an arbitrary behavior and pass it along to their groupmates.

The behaviour in question involved objects that chimps would normally deem useless. Graduate student Kristin Bonnie of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and her colleagues provided two groups of chimpanzees with either a bucket with a hole cut in the side or a container with a large tube sticking out of the top. Out of sight of the other group members, the researchers trained one high-ranking female from each group to deposit tokens into either the bucket or the tube. The team then sat back and watched to see if that trained behavior would spread.

Indeed, the other animals quickly realized that the trained group member was receiving treats--apple or banana slices--for picking up the tokens and placing them in a container. Although treats were available for chimps that used either receptacle, each group followed their leader and used just one of the two options. There was only one exception: A low-ranking female in one group figured out she could get rewards for using the second container, but none of her group members followed her lead.

Bonnie and her colleagues say the results, reported online this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that the evolutionary roots of humans’ tendency to follow convention are also present in our chimpanzee cousins. While other studies have shown that different chimp groups use similar tools in different ways (ScienceNOW, 22 August 2005), this is the first controlled study that shows chimps can follow conventions that don’t involve tools, Bonnie says.

The experiment is "getting closer to the heart of cultural phenomena where you’re only doing something because it’s the local way of doing it," says study co-author Andrew Whiten of the University of St. Andrews in Fife, United Kingdom. But psychologist Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says the experiment doesn’t cleanly demonstrate that chimps can pick up a completely arbitrary custom. Learning that performing a certain action results in a reward is not the same as doing something just because everyone else is doing it, he says.

Fuente: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1103/4?etoc

Speaking Bonobo


20061111195957-bonobo-sidebar.jpg
Bonobos have an impressive vocabulary, especially when it comes to snacks

By Paul Raffaele


To better understand bonobo intelligence, I traveled to Des Moines, Iowa, to meet Kanzi, a 26-year-old male bonobo reputedly able to converse with humans. When Kanzi was an infant, American psychologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh tried to teach his mother, Matata, to communicate using a keyboard labeled with geometric symbols. Matata never really got the hang of it, but Kanzi—who usually played in the background, seemingly oblivious, during his mother’s teaching sessions—picked up the language.

Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues kept adding symbols to Kanzi’s keyboard and laminated sheets of paper. First Kanzi used 6 symbols, then 18, finally 348. The symbols refer to familiar objects (yogurt, key, tummy, bowl), favored activities (chase, tickle), and even some concepts considered fairly abstract (now, bad).

Kanzi learned to combine these symbols in regular ways, or in what linguists call"proto-grammar."Once, Savage-Rumbaugh says, on an outing in a forest by the Georgia State University laboratory where he was raised, Kanzi touched the symbols for"marshmallow"and"fire."Given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick.

Watch Kanzi comprehend novel sentences — phrases that preclude the learning of specific responses.

Savage-Rumbaugh claims that in addition to the symbols Kanzi uses, he knows the meaning of up to 3,000 spoken English words. She tests his comprehension in part by having someone in another room pronounce words that Kanzi hears through a set of headphones. Kanzi then points to the appropriate symbol on his keyboard. But Savage-Rumbaugh says Kanzi also understands words that aren’t a part of his keyboard vocabulary; she says he can respond appropriately to commands such as"put the soap in the water"or"carry the TV outdoors."

About a year ago, Kanzi and his sister, mother, nephew and four other bonobos moved into a $10 million, 18-room house and laboratory complex at the Great Ape Trust, North America’s largest great ape sanctuary, five miles from downtown Des Moines. The bonobo compound boasts a 13,000-square-foot lab, drinking fountains, outdoor playgrounds, rooms linked by hydraulic doors that the animals operate themselves by pushing buttons, and a kitchen where they can use a microwave oven and get snacks from a vending machine (pressing the symbols for desired foods).

Kanzi and the other bonobos spend evenings sprawled on the floor, snacking on M & M’s, blueberries, onions and celery, as they watch DVDs they select by pressing buttons on a computer screen. Their favorites star apes and other creatures friendly with humans such as Quest for Fire, Every Which Way But Loose, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan and Babe.

Through a glass panel, Savage-Rumbaugh asks Kanzi if it’s OK for me to enter his enclosure."The bonobos control who comes into their quarters,"she explains. Kanzi, still the alpha male of this group in his middle age, has the mien of an aging patriarch—he’s balding and paunchy with serious, deep-set eyes. Squealing apparent agreement, he pushes a button, and I walk inside. A wire barrier still separates us."Kanzi can cause you serious damage if he wants,"Savage-Rumbaugh adds.

Kanzi shows me his electronic lexigram touch pad, which is connected to a computer that displays—while a male voice speaks—the words he selects. But Kanzi’s finger slips off the keys."We're trying to solve this problem,"says Savage-Rumbaugh.

She and her colleagues have been testing the bonobos’ ability to express their thoughts vocally, rather than by pushing buttons. In one experiment she described to me, she placed Kanzi and Panbanisha, his sister, in separate rooms where they could hear but not see each other. Through lexigrams, Savage-Rumbaugh explained to Kanzi that he would be given yogurt. He was then asked to communicate this information to Panbanisha."Kanzi vocalized, then Panbanisha vocalized in return and selected ‘yogurt’ on the keyboard in front of her,"Savage-Rumbaugh tells me.

With these and other ape-language experiments, says Savage-Rumbaugh,"the mythology of human uniqueness is coming under challenge. If apes can learn language, which we once thought unique to humans, then it suggests that ability is not innate in just us."

But many linguists argue that these bonobos are simply very skilled at getting what they want, and that their abilities do not constitute language."I do not believe that there has ever been an example anywhere of a nonhuman expressing an opinion, or asking a question. Not ever,"says Geoffrey Pullum, a linguist at the University of California at Santa Cruz."It would be wonderful if animals could say things about the world, as opposed to just signaling a direct emotional state or need. But they just don’t.”

Whatever the dimension of Kanzi’s abilities, he and I did manage to communicate. I’d told Savage-Rumbaugh about some of my adventures, and she invited me to perform a Maori war dance. I beat my chest, slapped my thighs and hollered. The bonobos sat quiet and motionless for a few seconds, then all but Kanzi snapped into a frenzy, the noise deafening as they screamed, bared their teeth and pounded on the walls and floor of their enclosure. Still calm, Kanzi waved an arm at Savage-Rumbaugh, as if asking her to come closer, then let loose with a stream of squeaks and squeals."Kanzi says he knows you're not threatening them,"Savage-Rumbaugh said to me,"and he'd like you to do it again just for him, in a room out back, so the others won't get upset.”

I’m skeptical, but I follow the researcher through the complex, out of Kanzi's sight. I find him, all alone, standing behind protective bars. Seeing me, he slapped his chest and thighs, mimicking my war dance, as if inviting me to perform an encore. I obliged, of course, and Kanzi joined in with gusto.

miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2006

La estructura genética del gran simio


A un 3% del hombre

  1. Robert Waterston, el científico que coordinó la secuenciación del genoma del chimpancé, explica que las mayores diferencias con los humanos atañen al sexo y el sistema inmune
Robert Waterston El lunes, en CosmoCaixa-Barcelona. Foto: JOSEP GARCÍA" border="0" height="164" width="200"> Robert Waterston El lunes, en CosmoCaixa-Barcelona. Foto: JOSEP GARCÍA
ANTONIO MADRIDEJOS
BARCELONA
Los humanos (Homo sapiens) y los chimpancés (Pan troglodytes) llevan solo seis o siete millones de años avanzando por caminos divergentes, que en términos evolutivos es un suspiro, y lógicamente lo comparten casi todo. Guardando las distancias, se parecen los esqueletos, la visión, la fabricación de hemoglobina, el desarrollo corporal, la memoria, el cuidado de los hijos... "Compartimos entre el 96% y el 97% del genoma. Nos parecemos tanto a los chimpancés --dice el biólogo Robert Waterston-- como los propios chimpancés a los gorilas". ¿Otro ejemplo? Las diferencias son 10 veces más pequeñas que entre ratas y ratones.
Waterston, catedrático de la Universidad de Washington en Seattle (EEUU), fue el coordinador del consorcio internacional que el año pasado publicó la secuenciación del genoma del chimpancé, "el primer gran simio, si exceptuamos el hombre", del que disponemos un resumen bastante preciso de su estructura genética. El investigador estuvo ayer en Barcelona invitado por el programa de ciencia y medio ambiente de la Obra Social La Caixa.
Técnicamente, prosigue Waterston, las diferencias en el ADN de ambas especies suponen sólo el 1,2% del total. "Lo que pasa es que hay secuencias que están en el chimpancé y faltan en los humanos, o al revés, y pueden representar otro 3%", insiste. Tenemos casi los mismos cromosomas (23 pares los humanos, 24 pares los chimpancés) y casi los mismos genes. "Lo que nos diferencia es esencialmente que algunos aminoácidos que están codificados dentro de un gen son distintos". Los genes se expresan de forma diferente y las proteínas resultantes no son iguales.
En cualquier caso, cambios aparentemente pequeños pueden tener una importancia vital. El profesor pone el ejemplo de la mutación que provocó que el cráneo de los humanos pudiera crecer a costa de perder musculatura en la mandíbula y fuerza en la masticación.

Genes defensivos
De forma sorprendente, las mayores diferencias entre ambos genomas no atañen a genes vinculados a lo que entendemos por humanidad, sino a una conducta tan supuestamente animal como es la reproducción. Así, Waterston cita grandes divergencias en genes responsables de la producción de esperma, fruto posiblemente de la prosmicua vida de los chimpancés. También varían el sistema inmunológico y las defensas: "Son genes que tienden a cambiar rápido debido a la injerencia de factores externos que los atacan".
¿Y la inteligencia? "Es difícil vincular determinados genes a lo que llamamos inteligencia. Ya me gustaría saberlo --prosigue--, pero sí confío en que comparando ambos genomas podamos descubrir qué es lo que nos hizo humanos".
Lo que sí se ha comprobado, dice Waterston, es que hay un gen inactivo en los chimpancés, llamado FoxP2, que parece determinante en nuestra capacidad de hablar. El catedrático explica que a una familia británica se le ha detectado la misma particularidad: sus miembros son inteligentes, pero tienen problemas insalvables con la pronunciación y la gramática.

Capacidad olfativa
En seis millones de vida por separado, ambas especies de origen centroafricano han acumulado nuevas aptitudes genéticas y han perdido otras. "Es difícil determinarlo, pero sabemos que los humanos, por ejemplo, han perdido capacidad olfativa que se mantiene en los chimpancés".
"Como nuestros parientes evolutivos más cercanos, los chimpancés están especialmente capacitados para enseñarnos sobre nosotros mismos --dice Waterston--. Creo que nos podrían ayudar a entender la base genética de algunas enfermedades humanas". Y luego cita el caso del virus del sida, una enfermedad que los chimpancés transportan pero no sufren. "El sida no progresa en ellos, no les infecta".
¿Y los gorilas? Se sitúan más lejos de los humanos. A partir de un antepasado común, sus genes iniciaron caminos divergentes mucho antes, posiblemente hace 10 millones de años, y hora las coincidencias rondan el 92%. "Todavía no ha concluido la secuenciación del genoma del gorila, pero hay aproximadamente un 2% de diferencias y otro 6% de fragmentos del ADN que faltan en una u otra especie", concluye Waterston.

miércoles, 1 de noviembre de 2006

Autoconsciencia en elefantes?


20061101095952-10-31-2006.nn-31elephant.gkj20p3cp.1.jpg

Los elefantes pueden, al igual que delfines y simios, reconocerse en el espejo

EUROPA PRESS
MADRID

Los elefantes pueden reconocerse a sí mismos en un espejo como ya se había descubierto en el caso de simios y delfines, animales que como el ser humano poseen este sentido de conciencia, según un estudio de la Universidad Emory en Atlanta (Estados Unidos) que se publica en la edición digital de la revista de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias.

Los investigadores explican que este tipo de conciencia puede medirse a través del autorreconocimiento en el espejo. Un animal capaz de reconocerse ante el espejo suele progresar hacia otra serie de reconocimientos y observaciones, culminando en una prueba mediante la que es capaz de tocar una marca sobre su cuerpo que de otra forma no podría ver.

Esta capacidad de reconocerse en el espejo sólo se ha documentado hasta ahora en simios y delfines.

La prueba definitiva

Los científicos han realizado una prueba de reconocimiento ante el espejo en tres elefantes hembra asiáticos. Los tres elefantes han pasado varios niveles de pruebas frente al espejo. Por último, uno de los tres comenzó a tocar repetidamente una X que tenía sobre su cabeza con su trompa.

Aunque sólo uno de los elefantes ha pasado la prueba de tocarse la marca, los investigadores indican que menos de la mitad de los chimpancés evaluados habitualmente pasaban también esta prueba. En combinación con el hecho de que la progresión global fue paralela a la de simios y delfines, los elefantes pondrían por ello desplegar autoconciencia.

Fuente: El Periódico de Catalunya .

Mirror Test Implies Elephants Self-Aware


20061111191521-1162227331-extras-ladillos-1-g-0.jpg

By ANDREW BRIDGES
The Associated Press
Monday, October 30, 2006; 11:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- If you're Happy and you know it, pat your head. That, in a peanut shell, is how a 34-year-old female Asian elephant in the Bronx Zoo showed researchers that pachyderms can recognize themselves in a mirror _ complex behavior observed in only a few other species.

The test results suggest elephants _ or at least Happy _ are self-aware. The ability to distinguish oneself from others had been shown only in humans, chimpanzees and, to a limited extent, dolphins.

That self-recognition may underlie the social complexity seen in elephants, and could be linked to the empathy and altruism that the big-brained animals have been known to display, said researcher Diana Reiss, of the Wildlife Conservation Society, which manages the Bronx Zoo.

In a 2005 experiment, Happy faced her reflection in an 8-by-8-foot mirror and repeatedly used her trunk to touch an "X" painted above her eye. The elephant could not have seen the mark except in her reflection. Furthermore, Happy ignored a similar mark, made on the opposite side of her head in paint of an identical smell and texture, that was invisible unless seen under black light.

"It seems to verify for us she definitely recognized herself in the mirror," said Joshua Plotnik, one of the researchers behind the study. Details appear this week on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Still, two other zoo elephants, Maxine and Patty, failed to touch either the visible or invisible "X" marks on their heads in two runs of the experiment. But all three adult female elephants at the zoo behaved while in front of the jumbo mirror in ways that suggested they recognized themselves, said Plotnik, a graduate student at Emory University in Atlanta.

Maxine, for instance, used the tip of her trunk to probe the inside of her mouth while facing the mirror. She also used her trunk to slowly pull one ear toward the mirror, as if she were using the reflection to investigate herself. The researchers reported not seeing that type of behavior at any other time.

"Doing things in front of the mirror: that spoke volumes to me that they were definitely recognizing themselves," said Janine Brown, a research physiologist and elephant expert at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington. She was not connected with the study but expressed interest in conducting follow-up research.

Gordon Gallup, the psychologist who devised the mark test in 1970 for use on chimps, called the results "very strong and very compelling." But he said additional studies on both elephants and dolphins were needed.

"They really need to be replicated in order to be able to say with any assurance that dolphins and elephants indeed as species are capable of recognizing themselves. Replication is the cornerstone of science," said Gallup, a professor at the State University of New York at Albany, who provided advice to the researchers.

The three Bronx Zoo elephants did not display any social behavior in front of the mirror, suggesting that each recognized the reflected image as itself and not another elephant. Many other animals mistake their mirror reflections for other creatures.

That divergent species such as elephants and dolphins should share the ability to recognize themselves as distinct from others suggests the characteristic evolved independently, according to the study.

Elephants and mammoths, now extinct, split from the last common ancestor they shared with mastodons, also extinct, about 24 million years ago. In a separate study also appearing this week on the scientific journal's Web site, researchers report finding fossil evidence of an older species that links modern elephants to even older ancestors.

The likely "missing link" is a 27 million-year-old jaw fossil, found in Eritrea.

___

On the Net:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/

Fuente: The Washington Post

jueves, 26 de octubre de 2006

Study Suggests Evolutionary Link Between Diet, Brain Size In Orangutans


In a study of orangutans living on the Indonesian islands of Borneo and Sumatra, scientists from Duke University and the University of Zurich have found what they say is the first demonstration in primates of an evolutionary connection between available food supplies and brain size.


Andrea Taylor deduced brain size by measuring orangutan skulls. (Photo Credit: Megan Morr / Courtesy of Duke University)

Based on their comparative study, the scientists say orangutans confined to part of Borneo where food supplies are frequently depleted may have evolved through the process of natural selection comparatively smaller brains than orangs inhabiting the more bounteous Sumatra.

The findings "suggest that temporary, unavoidable food scarcity may select for a decrease in brain size, perhaps accompanied by only small or subtle decreases in body size," said Andrea Taylor and Carel van Schaik in a report now online in the Journal of Human Evolution.

Taylor is an assistant professor at Duke's departments of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and of Community and Family Medicine. Van Schaik directs the University of Zurich's Anthropological Institute & Museum, and he also is an adjunct professor of biological anthropology and anatomy at Duke, where he had worked for 15 years.

"To our knowledge, this is the first such study to demonstrate a relationship between relative brain size and resource quality at this microevolutionary level in primates," they said.

Such a change would provide support for what Taylor called the "expensive tissue" hypothesis. "Compared to other tissues, brain tissue is metabolically expensive to grow and maintain," she said. "If there has to be a trade-off, brain tissue may have to give."

"The study suggests that animals facing periods of uncontrollable food scarcity may deal with that by reducing their energy requirement for one of the most expensive organs in their bodies: the brain," van Schaik added.

"This brings us closer to a good ecological theory of variation in brain size, and thus of the conditions steering cognitive evolution," he said. "Such a theory is vital for understanding what happened during human evolution, where, relative to our ancestors, our lineage underwent a threefold expansion of brain size in a few million years."

In their study, Taylor and van Schaik focused on several varieties of orangutans, an endangered primate closely related to humans.

Members of the orang species inhabiting Sumatra, called Pongo abelii, live in the island's most favored environment, where soils are best for growing the fruits they most like to eat. "They'll eat fruits as often as they can, and they'll travel farther away for them if not nearby," Taylor said.

Sumatra also appears to be less subject to periodic "El Niño" climatic fluctuations that disrupt vegetative growth on other islands in the Indonesian region, the researchers' report said.

The scientists found that the nutritionally well-off Sumatran orangutans differed most strikingly from Pongo pygmaeus morio, one of the three subspecies occupying the island of Borneo. The morio subspecies lives in the northeastern part of the island where soils are poorer, access to fruit is most iffy and the impact of El Niño events can be significant.

Those factors "converge to produce an environment for orangutans of eastern Borneo that is at times seriously resource-limited," the scientists wrote. During extensive fruit-short periods, the animals have to "resort to fallback foods with reduced energy and protein content, such as vegetation and bark," they added.

In previous studies, reported in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, Taylor found evidence that orangs living in Borneo's northeast have jaws that are better able to handle tougher varieties of food than orangutans in other parts of Borneo or Sumatra.

This improved feeding efficiency, coupled with a relatively small brain, would enable such animals to adapt to their conditions by both maximizing their resources and conserving energy, she said.

In addition, studies by van Schaik and other scientists have suggested that Borneo's morio orangs bear offspring more frequently than do Sumatra's orangs. Such relatively short intervals between births could themselves be tied to smaller brains in such higher primates as orangutans, van Schaik and Taylor wrote in their current report.

"Larger-brained apes have slower-paced life histories," they said. "Assuming selection is acting on brain size, life history is prolonged because development of larger brains require more time."

Their previous work led Taylor, an anatomist who studies bones, to begin collaborating with van Schaik, a field biologist who studies living orangs in the wilds, to address the question of whether nutrition, brain size and interbirth intervals might be linked.

Other scientists working in the 1980s had found no differences in brain size among orangs from Borneo and Sumatra, Taylor said. But that work sampled animals only from west Borneo and not from resource-limited east Borneo, she added.

In their own studies, as well as in studies by other researchers, "we see greater anatomical differences amongst the Bornean populations than we see between the Bornean and Sumatran populations," Taylor said.

In addition to having physical differences, Bornean orangs also inhabit areas that vary more ecologically than do comparative orangutan habitats on Sumatra. "The eastern parts of Borneo suffer more from El Niño-related droughts than parts of western Borneo," the scientists wrote. "The effects of El Niño on tropical rain forest composition and diversity are also more marked in eastern compared to western parts."

So Taylor and van Schaik undertook "a comprehensive re-evaluation of brain size among all orangutan species and subspecies," they wrote.

Since they couldn't measure brain size in wild, living members of these endangered animals, Taylor sought out skulls from museums and other sources. In all, they compared 226 adult specimens from the four distinct populations occupying Sumatra and Borneo.

Among these populations, orangutans of the Pongo pygmaeus morio species on Borneo "consistently exhibit the absolutely and relatively smallest cranial capacity," the researchers concluded. Although the researchers found reduced brain sizes in both male and female orangutans, the differences within the small group of animals studied were statistically significant only for the females, they noted.

As to what may cause the gender difference, the researchers note that female morio are notably smaller than their male counterparts and that they generally are at greater risk for nutritional stress because of pregnancy and lactation and their smaller homes ranges.

"The general scenario supported by these results, then, is that an increase in the frequency of uncontrollable periods of low energy intake in one part of the orangutan's geographic range selected for a reduction in brain size," the researchers said.

Similar evolutionary pressures within resource-poor environments also may explain the smaller-than-normal brain size of a controversial 18,000-year-old skull recently found on the Indonesian island of Flores, Taylor and van Schaik said in their article.

In announcing the find in 2004, the skull's discoverers suggested that the small-brained specimen represented a new dwarf early human species that somehow survived until fairly recently. Critics argue that it actually is a modern human afflicted with microcephaly, a genetic disorder characterized by an abnormally small head and an underdeveloped brain.

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192505.htm

martes, 24 de octubre de 2006

La primera migración


20061024085619-migraciones-sapiens.jpg
  1. Una paleontóloga de Cambridge propone que los 'Homo sapiens' modernos poblaron la Tierra en dos oleadas
  2. Los aborígenes australianos son la herencia de la más antigua

ANTONIO MADRIDEJOS
BARCELONA

Hace 70.000 años, unas tribus de Homo sapiens dejaron su cuna africana y se lanzaron a la colonización del mundo: partiendo de la actual Eritrea, cruzaron el estrecho de Bab el Mandeb, alcanzaron la península Arábiga y, con el paso de las generaciones, bordeando las costas o saltando de isla en isla, hollaron la lejana Australia hace 60.000 años. Los primeros emigrantes modernos llegaron ciertamente lejos, pues cubrieron 12.000 kilómetros, pero su éxito demográfico fue más bien escaso: la herencia genética de aquellas poblaciones solo es detectable hoy en día en unos cuantos miles de personas en Australia y en recónditos rincones de Asia oriental y el Índico.
No hay más herencia visible. Lo dice la genética: o se extinguieron o fueron asimilados sin dejar rastro, puesto que todo el resto del mundo, incluyendo el resto de África, desciende de una segunda expansión mucho más exitosa que aconteció hace 50.000 años. Esto es al menos lo que propone
Marta Mirazón Lahr, paleoantropóloga de la Universidad de Cambridge (Reino Unido), para quien las dos migraciones son la única forma de explicar las particularidades de los nativos australianos. Mirazón participó en un congreso en Barcelona invitada por el programa de ciencia de la Obra Social La Caixa.


"Es cierto que los estudios genéticos apuntan hacia una única migración porque todos los humanos somos muy parecidos, pero cuando uno estudia la morfología y las herramientas de los antiguos australianos se da cuenta de que algo no encaja", afirma.

Avance del desierto

Una crisis climática que desertizó el África tropical fue posiblemente el acicate que hace 70.000 años amplió los horizontes del Homo sapiens. Eso sí, fueron muy pocos, "quizá 500 o 1.000", los que realmente cruzaron Bab el Mandeb. Los colonizadores, adaptados a una dieta más marinera, siguieron por la costa de lo que hoy es Irán hasta llegar al delta del Indo y la India. Aunque varios estudios lo sugieren, Mirazón no cree que la colonización definitiva del planeta partiera de las poblaciones que se instalaron en esas regiones: "Habría que atravesar desiertos o bien los montes Zagros o el Himalaya. No parece fácil". En cambio, la paleoantropóloga considera que los sapiens de aquella época ya tenían suficiente destreza marinera como para sortear los numerosos estrechos que llevan a Australia, incluyendo uno último de 90 kilómetros de anchura. "Podían fabricar barcazas capaces de transportar a varias familias".
Uno de los escollos de la hipótesis de las dos migraciones es que no se han encontrado restos ni descendientes en la India, territorio por el que forzosamente debieron de pasar aquellos primitivos colonizadores. Mirazón Lahr afirma que la erupción del volcán Toba (Indonesia), la mayor en el último millón de años en la Tierra, pudo abocar a la extinción a las comunidades locales en la India y sepultar cualquier resto arqueológico. En su opinión, no es nada descabellado pensar en grandes extinciones porque la humanidad ha sufrido varios cuellos de botella en los últimos 200.000 años.
La migración de hace 70.000 años no ha dejado huella visible en la India, al menos por ahora, pero en cambio sí hay una indudable herencia en poblaciones actuales de las islas Nicobar y Andamán y en núcleos aislados de Filipinas, Malaisia e Indonesia. "Son tribus que quedaron arrinconadas". Originariamente, estas poblaciones reliquias no eran sustancialmente diferentes al grueso de los humanos modernos, pero el aislamiento acentuó ciertos rasgos, como la baja estatura, dice Mirazón.
¿Las diferencias entre los antepasados de los aborígenes australianos y el resto de la población mundial son debidas a una evolución separada, fruto del aislamiento, o a diferentes orígenes africanos? "No tenemos ni idea del proceso de diferenciación dentro de África que llevó al origen del hombre moderno hace 150.000 años. En líneas generales, los colonizadores de ambas migraciones eran muy parecidos, pero no creo salieran de los mismos linajes", concluye la paleontropóloga.

Fuente: El Periódico de Catalunya, 24-10-2006, www.elperiodico.cat