Thinking about origins needs original thinking.
My general interests concern trying to understand the peculiar beings we humans are, by studying the evolution and the origins of Life, of species, of our genus Homo, of language, of consciousness and of religiosity. Raised as a convinced neodarwinist, it becomes more and more clear to me that explaining "origins" requires nonconformistic evolutionary thinking. Expanding the principle of natural selection too far, or applying it inappropriately, may lead to simplisms and just-so stories.
ideas about the Origin of Life (pdf)
do not ignore the intriguing findings related to the RNA-world, preceding the
The interaction of on the one hand a protometabolic chemical community (possibly embraced by a membrane) with on the other hand newly developed nucleotide strands (which enabled symbolic, encoded, PERMANENT information), perhaps virus-like, might have lead to the semantic closure as we observe in the cell.
The protometabolic chemical community that started to use permanent information carriers (nucleotide sequences) might be compared to the interactions that became possible when part of the present life, i.e. humans, started using (spoken) symbolic language, which resulted in the use of symbolic, encoded, PERMANENT information: printed/electronic texts, cfr. nucleotide strands.
In both cases, that of the development of cell and that of the current scientific progress, the availability of permanently encoded information (of permanent carriers of encoded information) may be the clue to understanding how a biological mystery, the first cell, ever came to be. This interaction between metabolism and permanently encoded information has once led to the cell, the only self-duplicating system known. Might something similar happen again as a result of our metabolic activity in combination with permanently encoded – digital – information?
My ideas about Experience, awareness and consciousness were inspired by David Chalmers' publication in J. Consciousness Studies (Chalmers, 1995), where he formulated the 'hard problem' of consciousness, wondering about the inexplicability of conscious experience. I agree that the essence of (conscious) experience is inexplicable by current scientific knowledge. I only realized after reading Chalmers’ publication that experience is unexplainable: we can reason about how chemical/neuronal interactions lead to an experience, but we cannot describe/understand the nature of the experience, how it feels to be hungry, happy, sad, frightened, depressed, ..., or why it should feel like something at all.
But I argue that a more general and clarifying view on this problem is only possible when experience itself (and not consciousness, which is just one of many possible experiences) is considered as a basic inexplicable characteristic of nature, already present at the atomic level. Consciousness can be understood as reflexive awareness, a specific form of animal awareness, made possible by symbolic language. The hard problem is that of experience, not of consciousness. Animal awareness itself can be considered as a specific form of experience, made possible by the development of a central neurological control center, the brain.
In my opinion, understanding the many pecularities of mankind - including consciousness and religiosity, becomes rather easy when one can explain the origin of language. After all, it is symbolic language that makes fully possible reflection and reflexive awareness (i.e. consciousness) and that makes speaking animals ask the endlessly repeatable question 'Why?', which leads to religious solutions. In opposition to others who see the advantageous characteristics of language itself as sufficient to explain its existence (through natural selection driven by the advantages of language (Pinker)), John Skoyles and I argue that several preadaptations contingently lead to the emergence of symbolic language. Our extreme musicality, we claim, is very explanatory with regard to the phylogenetic (in Homo sapiens as a species) and ontogenetic (in every child as an individual) origin of language. There are related hypotheses, like that of Robin Allott, which put more emphasis on motoric capacities (gestural equivalence). These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and have in common that they point to what we consider a more plausible explanation for the intriguing phenomenon of language.
It is generally agreed that increased breath control is a precondition to human speech. Marc Verhaegen and Stephen Munro (a, b, c) think that increased breath control capacity was an adaptation to a semi-aquatic/parttime diving past. Aquatic adaptations like increased breath control may have increased our singing capacities as well and in the first place, later leading to human speech. As such, a waterside past does not contradict, and in fact strenghtens the argument for a musical origin of language.
See also our e-book (Was Man more aquatic in the past? Bentham Publishers) on the aquatic origin of our species.
Modern aquarboreal arguments in one chapter:
Marc Verhaegen, Stephen Munro, Mario Vaneechoutte, Nicole Bender-Oser & Renato Bender. 2007. The original econiche of the genus Homo. Open plain or waterside? Chapter 6, pp. 155-186, In: Ecology Research Progress, Sebastian I. Munoz (Editor). Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-60021-807-1.
Marc Verhaegen & Stephen Munro 2007. New directions in palaeoanthropology. Pp. 1-4 In: Ecology Research Progress, Sebastian I. Munoz (Editor). Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-60021-807-1.
Verhaegen M, Puech P-F. 2000. Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: Paleo-environmental and comparative data. Hum Evol 15: 175-186. pdf
An aquatic past and our musicality might as well explain why we feel the urge to sing under the shower J
Origin of mankind: link to programme, proceedings and summary of the Symposium 'Water and Human Evolution', held in Gent, Belgium 30 April 1999, discussing a possibly more aquatic past for humans than generally accepted. And a link to Marc Verhaegen's heretic, provocative, but well developed ideas about Australopithecines: not our ancestors, but those of Pan and Gorilla? And recently (2007), his view has been corroborated: Lucy is not our ancestor, but more Gorilla-like.