Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Contributions to Darwin's theory of evolution
Contributions to Darwin's theory of evolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contributions to Darwin's theory of evolution
Since the discoveries of Charles Darwin and other nineteenth century explorers, humans have created an analogy of the evolution of our own species. This view of our evolution is often represented by an all-too-familiar branching tree. Recent studies, however, suggest that this interpretation should be replaced with a map of human derivation in the form of an interwoven “tapestry.” These lineages would come together in kinships over time (Finlayson). Two recent studies have proved that Neanderthal DNA is still present in modern human keratin, the protein that helps produce skin, hair, and nails (Yong). Today, there is much uncertainty in the work of anthropologists. Any new discovery in paleontology, large or small, is likely to change our big understanding of human evolution.
The increment of time in which humans have existed is a very small portion on the Earth’s evolutionary timescale. It is relatively recent that humans appeared. Our species, Homo sapiens, began evolving about 200,000 years ago (“Early). All life on earth descended from a single living cell. The first life on Earth appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, an estimated 1.3 billion years after the earth was formed. The first living organisms on our planet were simple photosynthetic bacteria. Cells didn’t form until half a billion years later. All life on primitive Earth lived in water, and it wasn’t until 300 million years ago that some life, i.e. human ancestors, left the water and began living on land (“Human).
The evolution of Homo sapiens is unlike the evolution of any other species on Earth. The differentiation of physical characteristics throughout our evolutionary timescale is not the only factor of our evolution. Culture has played a vital role. Other sp...
... middle of paper ...
...res, different biological and cultural events, and the fluid evolutionary nature of living organisms. Homo sapiens is the only species that is able to unveil its origins and evolutionary path through research and discoveries. Mankind posses a unique intellect that sets apart our species from other organisms on the evolutionary timescale. However, our extensive knowledge can come with consequences. Humans have the power to influence the evolution of virtually all other species in the world. Humans are capable of so much, such as extreme good and extreme evil. If the evolutionary clock was to be rewound, the chances of the first living cell evolving into similar modern humans that inhabit the globe today would be less than 0.01%. Humans today are constantly discovering new things. Perhaps someday humans will figure out the precise line of evolution for the species.
Over the last few hundred years, more and more has been added to the world’s fossil collection, fossils from all over the world. New theories have been created and old theories have almost been proven about the evolution of man. For example, we have proof that different species of man existed with certain types of DNA sequences and instincts, some we may not have anymore, or some that other species did not have back then. Even though it is subjected to much debate, one of the most widely accepted theories however, is that Homo sapiens interbred with the slightly more primitive species of man, the Neanderthal.
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.
The human archaeological record is a long and undefined story that may be the most complex question researched today. One of the big questions in human history is the disappearance of the Neanderthal people from the archaeological record around 30,000 BP. While for thousands of years Neanderthals and Anatomically modern humans crossed paths and perhaps lived in close relations, we have yet to really understand the degree to which they lived together. My hypothesis is that these two hominids, Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans, interbred exchanging genes after Modern Humans dispersed from Africa and creating like cultures and material remains. The differences between Neanderthal and Modern humans are not only physical but also genetically evolved and this research will determine an estimated amount of admixture between the two groups.
years ” (Quimby 2), since this epoch involved the fundamental evolution of mankind to the present. It is important to
Myers, provider of source material for Edie Heydt's notes from "Human Origins," fall 1997, Alfred. Much of the material in the notes is paraphrased, and the original information sources are unknown.
This paper has shown how Homo sapiens had several advantages over the Neanderthals including better diets, better tools and just better luck. The Neanderthals could not survive the harsh climates they were thrust into and eventually died out. In this paper I looked at how Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis had co-existed but the disappearance of the Neanderthal ius due in some part to the appearance of the more culturally advanced and genetically superior Homo sapiens. Although the How and Why of how Neanderthals went extinct, it is clear that Homo sapiens had a part in their demise. In the last one hundred and fifty years that we have been studying humans we have seen them come from savage brutes, to Homo sapiens respectable contemporary. If we had not gotten lucky in the past, Neanderthals could be studying us today.
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.
B.M.de Waal, Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social Evolution. Havard University Press: Massachusets, 2001.
From the ancient bones of the Neanderthals, scientists have been able to extract small amounts of DNA. The DNA comparisons to modern humans show no relationship, implying evolutionary separation (Kunzig, 159). Some anthropologists say the small sections of DNA found are not conclusive evidence, because modern humans show just as much variation in DNA. These people point out that individuals such as the “Portugal Kid” are hybrids of Neanderthals and modern humans, showing there was gene trading. One argument against this is that there is no skull from the ‘Portugal Kid” so it is hard to compare it to Neanderthals. Also, it is known that closely related species can breed and their offspring can be fertile, but they are still separate species (Kunzig, 161).
According to Darwin and his theory on evolution, organisms are presented with nature’s challenge of environmental change. Those that possess the characteristics of adapting to such challenges are successful in leaving their genes behind and ensuring that their lineage will continue. It is natural selection, where nature can perform tiny to mass sporadic experiments on its organisms, and the results can be interesting from extinction to significant changes within a species. Human beings are no exception to biological evolution. Like other organisms around the world, humans have significantly changed over time and have developed all sorts of diverse characteristics.
Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for well over 100,000 years. Then suddenly Homo neandertalensis began to die out and surrender the earth to Homo sapiens. Paleontologists and anthropologists have entertained several possibilities to the causes of this event: interbreeding among Neanderthals and humans, competition for natural resources, and Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest.” What the real cause has been has plagued scientists for years. Now, due to an international research team from Germany, those possibilities have been even further deduced, making it easier to pinpoint the exact reason Homo neandertalensis became extinct.
“The scientific study of how humans developed did not begin until the 1800s in Europe. Until that time, people relied on religious explanations of how humans came into existence. Starting in the 1500s a scientific revolution began to sweep Europe. Thinkers started using scientific methods and experiments to try to better understand the world and the creatures living in it. Eventually these methods were turned to the question of human origins” (The Nature Of Human Origins, 1). Earth made it possible for species to change over time because Ancient Earth provides ability to plenty of time.The Homo Sapien a is very complex creature. The species started off very simple by living in caves and surviving with little food and then later evolved into a species that were able to do many more complex things. The first species was Sahelanthropus tchadensis They were one of the most simple humans in that time period and on. They had very small skulls compared to Homo Sapiens today and their motor skills were just the same. We have evolved and changed for the better both mentally and physically. The Evolution of Homo Sapiens started off simple, such as the Neanderthals, and now we are the most advanced species to ever walk the planet so far.
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.
Mankind’s origin is from God through creation. The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 verse 27; So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him: male and female created He them. The Bible also says in Genesis chapter 2 verse 7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The cultural innovations analyses presented here illustrate the presence of cumulative cultural evolution in the upper Paleolithic and portray how a steady rate of change continuous with that seen in later human history. This should serve to encourage interests in the internal process of evolution that may tend to produce a smooth curve, including the possible the autocatalytic effects of the increasing technological