Great topic Peg, and one that should not be taken lightly. The very subject of this topic perplexed Alfred Russel Wallace and many other 'strict adaptationists'. I would need to dig for the quote, but he discussed how a 'simple' hunter-gatherer could be taught all of the science and culture of the West, demonstrating that the human brain could not have evolved as its use in the natural realm is far below its capabilities (remember when he was writing, Europeans were considered the pinnacle of human achievement). Wallace eventually adopted a brand if ID because of his insistence on pure adaptationism.
While we are far from the complete answer, we have learned quite a bit in the last 150 years. Probably most important to this discussion is the concept of spandrels. At a lecture called Daring Diversity I heard SJ Gould explain it in terms of a computer. If you want a computer for a single task, say keeping your business accounts, you might choose the most basic system there is that could perform the tasks you wish. But because of the fundamentals of architecture, that system will be capable of playing chess, displaying your photos, etc. because of the needed components. Likewise the brain architecture required for tasks that were important to our ancestors also allow us to compose music, build airplanes, etc.
The portion of brain evolution that most fascinates me is that dealing with what they call 'the mind's big bang'. If I understand the concept correctly it seems that our brains reached current size long before we see evidence of cultural complexity. We see long periods of apparent stasis in stone tools for example. Then at some point something changed and we see new tool kits, and specialized tookits. I am sure part of this is an artifact of preservation. Just some thoughts!
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)
