Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Evolution from primates to humans
Biology chapter 34 primate and human evolution
Two different hypotheses associated with the modern human origins debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evolution from primates to humans
There is great debate over the concept of primate evolution. Some research supports the idea that evolution occurred linearly as a continuum while other research supports the idea that fossils found to date should be separated into individual species. Through morphological, and geological evidence this paper explores this topic and provides concise arguments to further develop the understanding of human primate evolution.
Much of the debate over whether species should be separated into different groups arises from the morphological differences between individuals of the same species. For example, Australopithecus Afarensis fossils express high sexual dimorphism, which proposes two individual species (Reno et al., 2003). While Australopithecus Africanus, in comparison, shows more realistic size ratios between males and females suggesting one species (Lockwood, 1999). A study performed by Richmond and Jungers looked at the size variation in Australopithecus Afarensis compared to living hominoids to answer the following question: whether it is possible to see such high differences in size between genders of the same species or whether it makes more sense to divide the species into two (1995). In this study, a conclusion of two separate species for the Australopithecus Afarensis was made based on comparisons of fossils such as the humorous and femur with modern gorillas (Richmond & Jungers, 1995). This study compared the size of postcranial fossils. While most of the research has focused on making interpretations based on only cranial fossils, research by Harmon agrees that by looking at postcranial evidence we can gain better insight into the real variations between and within species (2009). Most research assumes high dimorphism wi...
... middle of paper ...
...e single origin perspective but not the multiregional perspective (1988). For example, the first appearance of Homo sapiens raises problems. The newest fossils of Homo sapiens were discovered in Africa while Europe, the Far East and Australia have the oldest fossils (Stringer & Andrew 1988). If there was one linearly evolving species we should see the oldest fossils in Africa. Also, Although Europe and southwest Asia have the most complete fossil record there is an absence of Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens transitional fossils, which goes against the idea that species evolved together (Stringer & Andrew, 1988). The fossils better describe the single origin perspective.
In conclusion, while some research suggests human evolution is a continuum, based on morphological and geographical evidence, it can be accepted that evolution is made up of distinct species.
: Primates didn’t just appear among Earth, but they evolved. The coevolution has to do with flowers and fruits. Fruits were evolving to get tastier for primates to eat and as primates ate them they spread them around as well. As they ate these new evolved fruits and flowers this invited changes onto their bodies as
Dr. Goodall is a well-known British primatologist who has discovered a substantial amount about primates in her many years of research. She has written numerous books, including one that we will be going into depth about called, “Through a Window.” Her book contains personal experiences, research findings, and even pictures to help the readers visualize her scientific breaking moments from her thirty years with the chimpanzees of Gombe. She states that there is are minor differences, and several similarities between humans and the chimpanzees. We will discuss these differences and similarities through their social behavior, intellectual ability, and emotions. To conclude, examine Goodall’s research to adopt what her findings can tell us about our early ancestors, and whether or not her study coincided to the steps of scientific methodology.
Chinese and Malaysian Homo Sapiens have very close features to the Neanderthal. The skull analysis of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are usually considered more accurate if the entire skull is examined, rather than certain ...
Hausler and Schmid suggest that speciation exists within the Hadar Australopithecines – that the specimens represent not just one species (afarensis), but two. To support their view, the scientists use calculations showing the sexual dimorphism (the presence of characteristics that differ between male and female members) among Australopithecines. Again, by studying sexual dimorphic traits, the scientists claim that “Lucy” is possibly male, not fema...
A Primate’s Memoir, written by Robert Sapolsky, documents the author’s time in Kenya while he studied the various behaviors of a troop of baboons. One of the key aspects of the book was the social rank that developed within the troop. Female baboons have a social hierarchy that is fairly cut and dry. The eldest baboons in the troop are considered the higher-ranking females, and as the baboons get younger, so to follows the string of dominance. The ranking for males was essentially from the strongest baboons to the weakest baboons. The baboon at the top of the social hierarchy was considered the alpha male. This social rank has huge implications for the troop in regards to which baboons mated with each other. If another baboon wanted to become the alpha male, then he would have to challenge the current alpha male to a fight, and win. The baboon’s distinct personality mixed with their instincts are the primary factors for where one lands on the social hierarchy. Another key aspect of the book was the strategies that took place when the baboons wanted to mate with another baboon. Similar to humans, the baboon males tried to impress the female baboons in a way that would make them want to mate. The rank of the male is considered to be one of the greatest factors contributing to what mate they end up with, because there is nothing more impressive than becoming a high-ranking baboon. Also, there were instances of lower-ranking baboons strategizing and forming teams with other baboons to become a higher ranking baboon for the mating possibilities. The baboons in the group are considered a patch-work of different troops, as it is common for one baboon to move to different groups frequently.
The evolution of man is constantly in question. While we are reasonably sure that modern humans and primates are both related to the same common ancestor, there is constant debate over what initially caused the two species to split into early hominids and apes. According to some, our longest and most popular theory on the division of man and ape is profoundly wrong. However, those same individuals usually offer an equally controversial theory as a substitute, one that is almost impossible to scientifically test or prove. Both the Savanna Theory and the Aquatic Ape Theory offer solutions to how and why humans evolved into bipedal toolmakers. But with enough questioning, each loses its accountability to rhetorical science.
Do non-human primates have communication, language, both, or neither? By definition, communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information (Snowdon). Communication is very closely related to social behavior since they are both referring to the ways animals interact with each other (Quiatt and Reynolds 1993). Conversely, language is defined as a system of communication using sounds or gestures that are put together in meaningful ways according to a set of rules (Haviland et al. 2010). Non-human primates and human primates are similar in many ways, and communication is no exception. They both have various types of communication senses and styles. Human primate communication senses consist of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. Non-human primates mainly understand the world through sight, but smell, taste, and hearing are important as well (Quiatt and Reynolds 1993). Human primates are capable of speaking a language, while non-human primates use different vocal calls to communicate. In essence, the difference is simple, human primates have language while non-human primates do not. Even though non-human primates do not have language, they do have communication.
It has been believed that culture is unique to humans and no other groups of animals have culture, but recent evidence refutes this ideology. Before getting into the meat of the argument, it is important to first address the issues regarding the ambiguity of the term, “culture.” What is culture? Many scientists may argue that culture is the way of life for a group of individuals, this definition includes the values, beliefs and traditions of the group (Sapolsky, 2006). Other scientists may argue that culture is the transmission of habits and information by social means (Sapolsky, 2006). Despite the different specifics of what culture is, almost all scientists would agree that culture is transmitted socially through social learning that promotes the transfer of information between members in a group (Boesch and Tomasello, 1998). Based on these notions of culture, it can be justifiably stated that primates have culture. Primates exhibit food preparation techniques, use of tools, communication skills, and most importantly, behaviors of social learning. An exemplar of primates’ capabilities for culture is Koko, the lowland gorilla. Koko, in captivity, was able to learn American sign language, demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to deceive.
Australopithecus afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. The distinctive characteristics of A. afarensis were: a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, no chin, more humanlike teeth, pelvis and leg bones resembled those of modern man. Females were smaller than males. Their sexual dimorphism was males:females; 1.5. A. afarensis was not as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but more sexually dimorphic than humans or chimpanzees. A lot of scientists think that Australopithecus afarensis was partially adapted to climbing the trees, because the fingers and toe bones of the species were curved and longer than the ones of the modern human.
Most of their evidence comes from the fossilized bones of Neanderthals and Cro- Magnons, or modern man’s ancestors (Shreeve, 150). There is a definite difference between their bone structures, and it may be a significant enough difference to divide them into species. There is a set of traits that distinguishes Neanderthals. Their general proportions are short, robust, and strong. Males and females of all ages have thick bones, and very pronounced muscle and ligament attachment sites. They also have distinct facial and cranial features. They have a large skull with no chin, a significant brow-ridge, and a large nasal opening (Shreeve, 49-150). They have large brains, around 1400cc, that protrude in the back, causing an occipital bun in the skull (Lecture, 4/19). Cro-Magnons on the other hand look more like humans do today. They are more slender and not as muscular, with chins and rounder skulls with slightly smaller brains among other traits.
World Archaeology, 31:3:329-350. Mitani, J.C. et al 1996 Sexual Dimorphism, the Operational Sex Ratio, and the Intensity of Male Competition in Polygamous Primates. The American Naturalist, 147:6:966-980. Rogers, Alan R. and Arindam Mukherjee 1992 Quantitative Genetics of Sexual Dimorphism in Human Body Size.
The Multiregional hypothesis was originally proposed in 1984 by Milford H. Wolpoff, Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu. The theory indicates that the worldwide expansion of modern humans arose from a series of regionally distinct phases of human evolution that physically replaced Old World humans over thousands of years (Wolpoff et al. 1984). According to the theory, about half of the Homo erectus that originated in Africa split up and migrated out to Europe, Asia and Australia. These regional populations slowly, over time, evolved into different forms of archaic humans separately and then eventually evolved into regionally diverse modern humans. The Multiregional theory was once the favored hypothesis for the origin of modern humans. Supporters of the hypothesis have argued that human traits show continuity over time. They argue that early modern humans show some traits consistent with a ...
Evolutionists should wisely choose and incorporate information from different perspectives, so that the full picture of our evolutionary history is truly shown.
The evidence for human evolution begins with the australopithecines. All the australopithecines were bipedal and therefore possible hominines. In details of their teeth, jaws, and brain size, however, they modify enough among themselves to be divided into five species: Australopithecus anamensis, A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, and A. boisei. Genus Homo are also divided in five different spices: Homo erectus, H. habilis, H. sapiens, and H. sapiens sapiens.
Without evolution, and the constant ever changing environment, the complexity of living organisms would not be as it is. Evolution is defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (8).Scientists believe in the theory of evolution. This belief is based on scientific evidence that corroborates the theory of evolution. In Figure 1 the pictures of the skulls depict the sequence of the evolution of Homo-sapiens. As the figure shows, man has evolved from our common ancestor that is shared by homo-sapiens. The change of diet of homo-sapiens over time has thought to contribute to the change in jaw structure and overall skull shape.