Colloquium paper: a role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity.
Explaining the extravagant complexity of the human language and our competence to acquire it has long posed challenges for natural selection theory. To answer his critics, Darwin turned to sexual selection to account for the extreme development of language. Many contemporary evolutionary theorists have invoked incredibly lucky mutation or some variant of the assimilation of acquired behaviors to innate predispositions in an effort to explain it. Recent evodevo approaches have identified developmental processes that help to explain how complex functional synergies can evolve by Darwinian means. Interestingly, many of these developmental mechanisms bear a resemblance to aspects of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, often differing only in one respect (e.g., form of duplication, kind of variation, competition/cooperation). A common feature is an interplay between processes of stabilizing selection and processes of relaxed selection at different levels of organism function. These may play important roles in the many levels of evolutionary process contributing to language. Surprisingly, the relaxation of selection at the organism level may have been a source of many complex synergistic features of the human language capacity, and may help explain why so much language information is "inherited" socially.
Deacon
Terrence W
TW
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. deacon@berkeley.edu
D000818:Animals; D005075:Biological Evolution; D001921:Brain / Q000473:pathology; D003142:Communication; D044127:Epigenesis, Genetic; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D008954:Models, Biological; D008957:Models, Genetic; D012641:Selection, Genetic
Br Foreign Med Chir Rev. 1860 Apr;25(50):367-404
30164232
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Dec;6(12):917-27
16341072
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Dec;6(12):881-92
16341069
Genetics. 1994 Dec;138(4):1331-7
7896112
Mol Biol Evol. 1997 Jun;14(6):611-8
9190062
J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol. 2012 Nov;317(9):561-70
22927235
Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Feb;23(4):847-56
16519650
J Biol Chem. 1994 May 6;269(18):13685-8
8175804
Science. 1896 Nov 20;4(99):733-40
17735249
Behav Brain Sci. 2006 Jun;29(3):259-80; discussion 280-325
17214017
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1016:724-35
15313802
Science. 1984 Sep 21;225(4668):1258-65
6474175
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1987;52:875-90
3454296
Brain Behav Evol. 1987;30(1-2):102-17
3304526
Science. 1973 Dec 21;182(4118):1271-2
4752221
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005 Aug;15(4):444-53
16026978
Science. 1995 Sep 1;269(5228):1265-7
7652574
Science. 1980 Oct 10;210(4466):153-7
7414326
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002 Feb;12(1):14-25
11861160
Genetics. 1995 Jan;139(1):421-8
7705642
Science. 1988 Dec 9;242(4884):1437-41
2462279
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1016:749-77
15313804
Neuroreport. 1994 Dec 20;5(18):2697-701
7535122
Science. 1896 Nov 27;4(100):786-9
17734840
Brain Behav Evol. 1997;49(4):179-213
9096908
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999 Oct 18;1472(1-2):408-11
10572964
J Comp Neurol. 1981 Dec 1;203(2):227-56
7309922