essay on evolution and anthropology

Introductory essay

Written by the educator who created What Makes Us Human?, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in his field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

As a biological anthropologist, I never liked drawing sharp distinctions between human and non-human. Such boundaries make little evolutionary sense, as they ignore or grossly underestimate what we humans have in common with our ancestors and other primates. What's more, it's impossible to make sharp distinctions between human and non-human in the paleoanthropological record. Even with a time machine, we couldn't go back to identify one generation of humans and say that the previous generation contained none: one's biological parents, by definition, must be in the same species as their offspring. This notion of continuity is inherent to most evolutionary perspectives and it's reflected in the similarities (homologies) shared among very different species. As a result, I've always been more interested in what makes us similar to, not different from, non-humans.

Evolutionary research has clearly revealed that we share great biological continuity with others in the animal kingdom. Yet humans are truly unique in ways that have not only shaped our own evolution, but have altered the entire planet. Despite great continuity and similarity with our fellow primates, our biocultural evolution has produced significant, profound discontinuities in how we interact with each other and in our environment, where no precedent exists in other animals. Although we share similar underlying evolved traits with other species, we also display uses of those traits that are so novel and extraordinary that they often make us forget about our commonalities. Preparing a twig to fish for termites may seem comparable to preparing a stone to produce a sharp flake—but landing on the moon and being able to return to tell the story is truly out of this non-human world.

Humans are the sole hominin species in existence today. Thus, it's easier than it would have been in the ancient past to distinguish ourselves from our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom. Primatologists such as Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal, however, continue to clarify why the lines dividing human from non-human aren't as distinct as we might think. Goodall's classic observations of chimpanzee behaviors like tool use, warfare and even cannibalism demolished once-cherished views of what separates us from other primates. de Waal has done exceptional work illustrating some continuity in reciprocity and fairness, and in empathy and compassion, with other species. With evolution, it seems, we are always standing on the shoulders of others, our common ancestors.

Primatology—the study of living primates—is only one of several approaches that biological anthropologists use to understand what makes us human. Two others, paleoanthropology (which studies human origins through the fossil record) and molecular anthropology (which studies human origins through genetic analysis), also yield some surprising insights about our hominin relatives. For example, Zeresenay Alemsegad's painstaking field work and analysis of Selam, a 3.3 million-year old fossil of a 3-year-old australopithecine infant from Ethiopia, exemplifies how paleoanthropologists can blur boundaries between living humans and apes.

Selam, if alive today, would not be confused with a three-year-old human—but neither would we mistake her for a living ape. Selam's chimpanzee-like hyoid bone suggests a more ape-like form of vocal communication, rather than human language capability. Overall, she would look chimp-like in many respects—until she walked past you on two feet. In addition, based on Selam's brain development, Alemseged theorizes that Selam and her contemporaries experienced a human-like extended childhood with a complex social organization.

Fast-forward to the time when Neanderthals lived, about 130,000 – 30,000 years ago, and most paleoanthropologists would agree that language capacity among the Neanderthals was far more human-like than ape-like; in the Neanderthal fossil record, hyoids and other possible evidence of language can be found. Moreover, paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo's groundbreaking research in molecular anthropology strongly suggests that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans. Paabo's work informs our genetic understanding of relationships to ancient hominins in ways that one could hardly imagine not long ago—by extracting and comparing DNA from fossils comprised largely of rock in the shape of bones and teeth—and emphasizes the great biological continuity we see, not only within our own species, but with other hominins sometimes classified as different species.

Though genetics has made truly astounding and vital contributions toward biological anthropology by this work, it's important to acknowledge the equally pivotal role paleoanthropology continues to play in its tandem effort to flesh out humanity's roots. Paleoanthropologists like Alemsegad draw on every available source of information to both physically reconstruct hominin bodies and, perhaps more importantly, develop our understanding of how they may have lived, communicated, sustained themselves, and interacted with their environment and with each other. The work of Pääbo and others in his field offers powerful affirmations of paleoanthropological studies that have long investigated the contributions of Neanderthals and other hominins to the lineage of modern humans. Importantly, without paleoanthropology, the continued discovery and recovery of fossil specimens to later undergo genetic analysis would be greatly diminished.

Molecular anthropology and paleoanthropology, though often at odds with each other in the past regarding modern human evolution, now seem to be working together to chip away at theories that portray Neanderthals as inferior offshoots of humanity. Molecular anthropologists and paleoanthropologists also concur that that human evolution did not occur in ladder-like form, with one species leading to the next. Instead, the fossil evidence clearly reveals an evolutionary bush, with numerous hominin species existing at the same time and interacting through migration, some leading to modern humans and others going extinct.

Molecular anthropologist Spencer Wells uses DNA analysis to understand how our biological diversity correlates with ancient migration patterns from Africa into other continents. The study of our genetic evolution reveals that as humans migrated from Africa to all continents of the globe, they developed biological and cultural adaptations that allowed for survival in a variety of new environments. One example is skin color. Biological anthropologist Nina Jablonski uses satellite data to investigate the evolution of skin color, an aspect of human biological variation carrying tremendous social consequences. Jablonski underscores the importance of trying to understand skin color as a single trait affected by natural selection with its own evolutionary history and pressures, not as a tool to grouping humans into artificial races.

For Pääbo, Wells, Jablonski and others, technology affords the chance to investigate our origins in exciting new ways, adding pieces into the human puzzle at a record pace. At the same time, our technologies may well be changing who we are as a species and propelling us into an era of "neo-evolution."

Increasingly over time, human adaptations have been less related to predators, resources, or natural disasters, and more related to environmental and social pressures produced by other humans. Indeed, biological anthropologists have no choice but to consider the cultural components related to human evolutionary changes over time. Hominins have been constructing their own niches for a very long time, and when we make significant changes (such as agricultural subsistence), we must adapt to those changes. Classic examples of this include increases in sickle-cell anemia in new malarial environments, and greater lactose tolerance in regions with a long history of dairy farming.

Today we can, in some ways, evolve ourselves. We can enact biological change through genetic engineering, which operates at an astonishing pace in comparison to natural selection. Medical ethicist Harvey Fineberg calls this "neo-evolution". Fineberg goes beyond asking who we are as a species, to ask who we want to become and what genes we want our offspring to inherit. Depending on one's point of view, the future he envisions is both tantalizing and frightening: to some, it shows the promise of science to eradicate genetic abnormalities, while for others it raises the specter of eugenics. It's also worth remembering that while we may have the potential to influence certain genetic predispositions, changes in genotypes do not guarantee the desired results. Environmental and social pressures like pollution, nutrition or discrimination can trigger "epigenetic" changes which can turn genes on or off, or make them less or more active. This is important to factor in as we consider possible medical benefits from efforts in self-directed evolution. We must also ask: In an era of human-engineered, rapid-rate neo-evolution, who decides what the new human blueprints should be?

Technology figures in our evolutionary future in other ways as well. According to anthropologist Amber Case, many of our modern technologies are changing us into cyborgs: our smart phones, tablets and other tools are "exogenous components" that afford us astonishing and unsettling capabilities. They allow us to travel instantly through time and space and to create second, "digital selves" that represent our "analog selves" and interact with others in virtual environments. This has psychological implications for our analog selves that worry Case: a loss of mental reflection, the "ambient intimacy" of knowing that we can connect to anyone we want to at any time, and the "panic architecture" of managing endless information across multiple devices in virtual and real-world environments.

Despite her concerns, Case believes that our technological future is essentially positive. She suggests that at a fundamental level, much of this technology is focused on the basic concerns all humans share: who am I, where and how do I fit in, what do others think of me, who can I trust, who should I fear? Indeed, I would argue that we've evolved to be obsessed with what other humans are thinking—to be mind-readers in a sense—in a way that most would agree is uniquely human. For even though a baboon can assess those baboons it fears and those it can dominate, it cannot say something to a second baboon about a third baboon in order to trick that baboon into telling a fourth baboon to gang up on a fifth baboon. I think Facebook is a brilliant example of tapping into our evolved human psychology. We can have friends we've never met and let them know who we think we are—while we hope they like us and we try to assess what they're actually thinking and if they can be trusted. It's as if technology has provided an online supply of an addictive drug for a social mind evolved to crave that specific stimulant!

Yet our heightened concern for fairness in reciprocal relationships, in combination with our elevated sense of empathy and compassion, have led to something far greater than online chats: humanism itself. As Jane Goodall notes, chimps and baboons cannot rally together to save themselves from extinction; instead, they must rely on what she references as the "indomitable human spirit" to lessen harm done to the planet and all the living things that share it. As Goodall and other TED speakers in this course ask: will we use our highly evolved capabilities to secure a better future for ourselves and other species?

I hope those reading this essay, watching the TED Talks, and further exploring evolutionary perspectives on what makes us human, will view the continuities and discontinuities of our species as cause for celebration and less discrimination. Our social dependency and our prosocial need to identify ourselves, our friends, and our foes make us human. As a species, we clearly have major relationship problems, ranging from personal to global scales. Yet whenever we expand our levels of compassion and understanding, whenever we increase our feelings of empathy across cultural and even species boundaries, we benefit individually and as a species.

Get started

Zeresenay Alemseged

The search for humanity's roots, relevant talks.

Spencer Wells

A family tree for humanity.

Svante Pääbo

Dna clues to our inner neanderthal.

Nina Jablonski

Skin color is an illusion.

We are all cyborgs now

Harvey Fineberg

Are we ready for neo-evolution.

Frans de Waal

Moral behavior in animals.

Jane Goodall

What separates us from chimpanzees.

• Support Our Work

The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

• Introduction to Human Evolution

Human evolution

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens , has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.

Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.

Paleoanthropology

Paleoanthropology is the scientific study of human evolution. Paleoanthropology is a subfield of anthropology, the study of human culture, society, and biology. The field involves an understanding of the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior. Paleoanthropologists search for the roots of human physical traits and behavior. They seek to discover how evolution has shaped the potentials, tendencies, and limitations of all people. For many people, paleoanthropology is an exciting scientific field because it investigates the origin, over millions of years, of the universal and defining traits of our species. However, some people find the concept of human evolution troubling because it can seem not to fit with religious and other traditional beliefs about how people, other living things, and the world came to be. Nevertheless, many people have come to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific evidence.

Early human fossils and archeological remains offer the most important clues about this ancient past. These remains include bones, tools and any other evidence (such as footprints, evidence of hearths, or butchery marks on animal bones) left by earlier people. Usually, the remains were buried and preserved naturally. They are then found either on the surface (exposed by rain, rivers, and wind erosion) or by digging in the ground. By studying fossilized bones, scientists learn about the physical appearance of earlier humans and how it changed. Bone size, shape, and markings left by muscles tell us how those predecessors moved around, held tools, and how the size of their brains changed over a long time. Archeological evidence refers to the things earlier people made and the places where scientists find them. By studying this type of evidence, archeologists can understand how early humans made and used tools and lived in their environments.

The process of evolution

The process of evolution involves a series of natural changes that cause species (populations of different organisms) to arise, adapt to the environment, and become extinct. All species or organisms have originated through the process of biological evolution. In animals that reproduce sexually, including humans, the term species refers to a group whose adult members regularly interbreed, resulting in fertile offspring -- that is, offspring themselves capable of reproducing. Scientists classify each species with a unique, two-part scientific name. In this system, modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens .

Evolution occurs when there is change in the genetic material -- the chemical molecule, DNA -- which is inherited from the parents, and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. Genes represent the segments of DNA that provide the chemical code for producing proteins. Information contained in the DNA can change by a process known as mutation. The way particular genes are expressed – that is, how they influence the body or behavior of an organism -- can also change. Genes affect how the body and behavior of an organism develop during its life, and this is why genetically inherited characteristics can influence the likelihood of an organism’s survival and reproduction.

Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population. As a result, the offspring inherit those genetic characteristics that enhance their chances of survival and ability to give birth, which may work well until the environment changes. Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live. Human evolution took place as new genetic variations in early ancestor populations favored new abilities to adapt to environmental change and so altered the human way of life.

Dr. Rick Potts provides a video short introduction to some of the evidence for human evolution, in the form of fossils and artifacts.

• Climate Effects on Human Evolution
• Survival of the Adaptable
• Human Evolution Timeline Interactive
• 2011 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 2004 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 1999 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• Olorgesailie Drilling Project
• Kanam, Kenya
• Kanjera, Kenya
• Ol Pejeta, Kenya
• Olorgesailie, Kenya
• Evolution of Human Innovation
• Adventures in the Rift Valley: Interactive
• 'Hobbits' on Flores, Indonesia
• Earliest Humans in China
• Bose, China
• Anthropocene: The Age of Humans
• Fossil Forensics: Interactive
• What's Hot in Human Origins?
• Instructions
• Carnivore Dentition
• Ungulate Dentition
• Primate Behavior
• Footprints from Koobi Fora, Kenya
• Laetoli Footprint Trails
• Footprints from Engare Sero, Tanzania
• Hammerstone from Majuangou, China
• Handaxe and Tektites from Bose, China
• Handaxe from Europe
• Handaxe from India
• Oldowan Tools from Lokalalei, Kenya
• Olduvai Chopper
• Stone Tools from Majuangou, China
• Middle Stone Age Tools
• Burin from Laugerie Haute & Basse, Dordogne, France
• La Madeleine, Dordogne, France
• Butchered Animal Bones from Gona, Ethiopia
• Katanda Bone Harpoon Point
• Oldest Wooden Spear
• Punctured Horse Shoulder Blade
• Stone Sickle Blades
• Projectile Point
• Oldest Pottery
• Pottery Fragment
• Fire-Altered Stone Tools
• Terra Amata Shelter
• Qafzeh: Oldest Intentional Burial
• Assyrian Cylinder Seal
• Blombos Ocher Plaque
• Ishango Bone
• Bone and Ivory Needles
• Carved Ivory Running Lion
• Female torso in ivory
• Ivory Horse Figurine
• Ivory Horse Sculpture
• Lady of Brassempouy
• Lion-Man Figurine
• Willendorf Venus
• Ancient Shell Beads
• Carved Bone Disc
• Cro-Magnon Shell Bead Necklace
• Oldest Known Shell Beads
• Ancient Flute
• Ancient Pigments
• Apollo 11 Plaque
• Carved antler baton with horses
• Geometric incised bone rectangle
• Tata Plaque
• Mystery Skull Interactive
• Shanidar 3 - Neanderthal Skeleton
• One Species, Living Worldwide
• Human Skin Color Variation
• Ancient DNA and Neanderthals
• Human Family Tree
• Swartkrans, South Africa
• Shanidar, Iraq
• Walking Upright
• Tools & Food
• Social Life
• Language & Symbols
• Humans Change the World
• Nuts and bolts classification: Arbitrary or not? (Grades 6-8)
• Comparison of Human and Chimp Chromosomes (Grades 9-12)
• Hominid Cranial Comparison: The "Skulls" Lab (Grades 9-12)
• Investigating Common Descent: Formulating Explanations and Models (Grades 9-12)
• Fossil and Migration Patterns in Early Hominids (Grades 9-12)
• For College Students
• Why do we get goose bumps?
• Chickens, chimpanzees, and you - what do they have in common?
• Grandparents are unique to humans
• How strong are we?
• Humans are handy!
• Humans: the running ape
• Our big hungry brain!
• Our eyes say it!
• The early human tool kit
• The short-haired human!
• The “Nutcracker”
• What can lice tell us about human evolution?
• What does gut got to do with it?
• Why do paleoanthropologists love Lucy?
• Why do we have wisdom teeth?
• Human Origins Glossary
• Teaching Evolution through Human Examples
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recommended Books
• Exhibit Floorplan Interactive
• Print Floorplan PDF
• Reconstructions of Early Humans
• Chesterfield County Public Library
• Orange County Library
• Andover Public Library
• Ephrata Public Library
• Oelwein Public Library
• Cedar City Public Library
• Milpitas Library
• Spokane County Library
• Cottage Grove Public Library
• Pueblo City-County Library
• Springfield-Greene County Library
• Peoria Public Library
• Orion Township Public Library
• Skokie Public Library
• Wyckoff Free Public Library
• Tompkins County Public Library
• Otis Library
• Fletcher Free Library
• Bangor Public Library
• Human Origins Do it Yourself Exhibit
• Exhibit Field Trip Guide
• Acknowledgments
• Human Origins Program Team
• Connie Bertka
• Betty Holley
• Nancy Howell
• Lee Meadows
• Jamie L. Jensen
• David Orenstein
• Michael Tenneson
• Leonisa Ardizzone
• David Haberman
• Fred Edwords (Emeritus)
• Elliot Dorff (Emeritus)
• Francisca Cho (Emeritus)
• Peter F. Ryan (Emeritus)
• Mustansir Mir (Emeritus)
• Randy Isaac (Emeritus)
• Mary Evelyn Tucker (Emeritus)
• Wentzel van Huyssteen (Emeritus)
• Joe Watkins (Emeritus)
• Tom Weinandy (Emeritus)
• Members Thoughts on Science, Religion & Human Origins (video)
• Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer
• The Evolution of Religious Belief: Seeking Deep Evolutionary Roots
• Laboring for Science, Laboring for Souls:  Obstacles and Approaches to Teaching and Learning Evolution in the Southeastern United States
• Public Event : Religious Audiences and the Topic of Evolution: Lessons from the Classroom (video)
• Evolution and the Anthropocene: Science, Religion, and the Human Future
• Imagining the Human Future: Ethics for the Anthropocene
• Human Evolution and Religion: Questions and Conversations from the Hall of Human Origins
• I Came from Where? Approaching the Science of Human Origins from Religious Perspectives
• Religious Perspectives on the Science of Human Origins
• Submit Your Response to "What Does It Mean To Be Human?"
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Submit Question
• "Shaping Humanity: How Science, Art, and Imagination Help Us Understand Our Origins" (book by John Gurche)
• What Does It Mean To Be Human? (book by Richard Potts and Chris Sloan)
• Bronze Statues
• Reconstructed Faces

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Anthropology

IResearchNet

Custom Writing Services

Anthropology and evolution.

This article first outlines the various models of evolution that have been proposed, including the Darwinian theory and the most popular alternatives. It then outlines the early development of ideas about how life could have developed, including the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The development and publication of Darwin’s theory is described, along with the controversies following its publication. Efforts to promote alternative theories in the late nineteenth century are described and the implications of the various theories for ideas about human origins and social evolution noted. The article concludes with the emergence of modern Darwinism and later debates such as those arising from sociobiology and evolutionary developmental biology.

Evolution Definition

The term ‘evolution’ is widely used to denote the development through time of societies, cultures, and more especially of living species. It is often contrasted with the view that these entities were divinely created as we see them today, and is routinely (but incorrectly according to modern biological theory) associated with the idea of progress. This article outlines the various models of evolution that have been suggested to account for the development of life and social organization, and then shows how the theories were formulated and popularized. Particular attention is paid to the work of Charles Darwin, whose theory of biological evolution by natural selection is now seen as the most influential expression of the basic idea of natural development. However, non- Darwinian evolutionary ideas also played a role in biology and were perceived to have implications for social evolution.

Models of Evolution

The term ‘evolution’ is derived from the Latin evolutio, denoting the unrolling of a scroll. In the eighteenth century it was applied to the growth of the embryo, then often described as the mere expansion of a preformed miniature. This application was retained up to the nineteenth century, by which time it was clear that the development of the embryo consisted of the progressive appearance of more complex structures. The philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer generalized the term by applying it to any process of natural progressive development, thereby creating the still common but inaccurate belief that all evolution must be progressive. In particular, Spencer applied the term to the development of societies and of life on earth.

Charles Darwin did not often use the term when describing his theory of the origin of species, but by the end of the nineteenth century, this had become the most common version of ‘evolution.’ However, Darwin’s theory did not imply an inevitable progression toward complexity, and much controversy has surrounded the association between evolution and progress. Darwin’s theory of natural selection now dominates biology and is being extended to many other domains; it is but one of a number of mechanisms that have been suggested to explain evolution, each of which has its own associated implications.

The Ladder of Progress

Perhaps the most popular model of evolution, and one that reveals the link with embryology, is of a linear hierarchy of stages of development from inception to maturity. Such a model simply assumes that all change is progressive and that there is only one direction of development. When applied to societies or species, the model can be adapted by supposing that many lines of development each ascend the same hierarchy but at different rates, so that the slow developers illustrate the ancestral stages already passed through by those at the top of the scale.

Evolutionary Trees

Although the ladder model is still popularly applied to the evolution of life on earth, and was once accepted in the social sciences, biologists and sociologists now realize that there is no single goal toward which evolution is developing – neither the human race nor Western civilization can be treated as the most mature phase of development. Evolution is better represented as a tree or a bush with many branches, each of which is constantly subdividing. The end product of one branch cannot be seen as the goal toward which all the others are ascending, and it is impossible for the end product of one branch to illustrate exactly the ancestral form of another branch. The living apes are not immature humans, because even if the common ancestor from which humans and apes have evolved would be classified as an ape, it would no longer be identical to any of the living ape species. If there is progress on the branching tree-model, it has to be defined in more sophisticated terms so that there are many different ways to become more complex.

Darwin argued that branching evolution explains how we are able to classify species into groups within groups (species, genera, families, etc.). Two species descended from a common ancestor will still share many characters derived from that ancestor, and will share some characters with even more distant relatives. Darwin and his modern followers assume that each new character is developed only once, so all species exhibiting the character are descended from a common ancestor that also had the character. This assumption will be invalidated if there are cases where two lines of evolution evolve the same character independently (convergence or homoplasy). It will also be invalidated if there are even small-scale examples of ladder-like evolution, where several branches are constrained to evolve along the same pattern of development (parallelism).

The branching model had already been applied to the evolution of languages before Darwin and his followers used it to transform biology. Darwin’s key insight was that there was no natural mechanism that could force evolution along a single predetermined path. Evolution is driven not by progress but by the necessity for each species to adapt to its environment in an ever-changing world. Branching occurs because a single population can sometimes become divided by a geographical barrier, after which each isolated population will develop independently in response to the different adaptive pressures it encounters. Progress to a more complex structure is at best a by-product of adaptation and is never inevitable in any one branch; indeed, many species are the products of degenerative evolution. In the animal kingdom, two branches of evolution can seldom if ever rejoin via hybridization (although this does happen in plants). Here, there is a clear contrast with social and linguistic evolution, where mergings and borrowings are frequent.

Darwinism and Lamarckism

Two mechanisms of adaptive evolution have been suggested: natural selection (Darwinism) and the inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarckism). Darwin assumed that the species consists of a population of organisms that exhibit some degree of individual variation and that these variations are inherited – we now explain them as genetic differences produced by mutations. He argued that if the population is exposed to a new environment, some variants will by chance be able to cope better with the new conditions; they will survive and reproduce, transmitting their favorable characters to the next generation. Any that are less fitted to the environment will be unlikely to breed and may even die, so their characters are eliminated from the population. Over many generations, this process of natural selection (Spencer called it the ‘survival of the fittest’) will change the species to adapt it to the environment.

Some time before Darwin, J.B. Lamarck proposed that the inheritance of characters acquired during an organism’s lifetime could accumulate to give adaptive transmutation. An acquired character is produced by the organism’s behavior, which in the wild is usually a response to the environment. Thus, the ancestral giraffes, striving to reach the leaves of trees as an alternative source of food, were able to lengthen their necks, just as a weightlifter can acquire better developed muscles. If such characters are inherited, the next generation of giraffes would be born with longer necks and would then stretch them further. This mechanism was once popular in biology, and corresponds quite closely to how humans transmit new ideas to their descendants. However, where teaching and learning provide a natural mechanism for ideas to be transmitted, modern genetics has shown that there is no way in which acquired biological characters can be inherited. Lamarckism has been banished from biology: The giraffe got its long neck because those who by chance inherited the genes producing that trait reproduced faster than those who carried the genes for shorter necks. The genetic differences are the product of mutations that are random as far as the requirements of the species are concerned.

Nonadaptive Evolution

There are also several mechanisms of biological evolution that suppose that not all developments are adaptive. In the nineteenth century, many naturalists believed that evolution was the unfolding of a predetermined pattern, perhaps analogous to or controlled by the forces of embryological development. Such ideas gave rise to the theory of recapitulation, which supposes that the evolutionary history of the species is traced out by the development of the embryo (or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’). This in turn suggests a model of evolution more in tune with the notion of a hierarchical ladder of development. The possibility that saltations (evolutionary jumps or macromutations) might have found new populations was once taken seriously even by geneticists. The theory of orthogenesis supposed that the species was somehow programmed to vary continuously in a particular direction, forcing groups of species to evolve in parallel. Such ideas are now largely discounted in biology, although the possibility that there might be constraints on the range of possible variation has recently been taken more seriously by the advocates of evolutionary developmental biology or ‘evo-devo.’ In the social sciences, the question of whether all cultural and social differences serve a practical purpose has been much debated, and this debate continues.

Pre-Darwinian Evolutionism

Darwin’s was not the first theory of evolution, although the publication of his Origin of Species in 1859 triggered the conversion of most scientists to evolutionism. Several earlier versions of the idea were proposed, and although rejected by conservative thinkers and most scientists, they did much to prepare the way for the reception of Darwinism (Bowler, 1989c).

Creation and Design

The early Church Fathers did not take the Genesis story of creation in the Bible literally, and it was the Protestant theologians of the seventeenth century who established the worldview that survives in modern ‘young earth’ creationism. Archbishop James Ussher published his much ridiculed calculation that the earth was created in 4004 BC. In such a climate of opinion, a form of natural theology flourished in which it could be argued that God had designed and created all the modern species just as we see them today, each with the structures and instincts appropriate for its intended habitat. John Ray and many other naturalists stressed the adaptation of species to their environment, and argued that similarities could be used to classify species because they expressed the rational order of God’s plan of creation – a view adopted by Carolus Linnaeus, who founded the modern system of biological classification (Greene, 1959). Others exploited the ancient concept of the ‘chain of being,’ in which the plan of creation was a linear hierarchy, with the human species at the top of the animal series. This was promoted without any sense of progression through time, although the influence of the chain was retained in some of the early theories of progressive evolution.

Evolution in the Enlightenment

The more radical thinkers of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment recognized that the Earth was much older than Ussher’s estimate and that the planet had changed considerably in the course of its history. Some explored the possibility that life had been produced by spontaneous generation from nonliving matter, and began to doubt that species remained unchanged through time. The French naturalist Georges Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, was especially influential in this respect, as were the materialist philosophers Denis Diderot and Baron d’Holbach (Roger, 1998).

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles) published a theory of transmutation in his Zoonomia, arguing that all living things were derived from a simple origin and had become more complex through their striving to adapt to the environment. These views were echoed in a more sophisticated form in J.B. Lamarck’s Zoological Philosophy of 1809. Lamarck accepted that there was a basic progressive force driving living things to ascend the chain of being over many generations, but he accepted that no linear pattern is visible in the present animal and plant kingdoms, explaining the divergence as a consequence of life’s constant need to adapt to an ever-changing environment. He invoked the inheritance of acquired characters (described above) to explain this process, and his name has been associated with that mechanism ever since (Corsi, 1988).

The Fossil Record

Historians used to think that Lamarck was marginalized by his great rival, Georges Cuvier, who pioneered the study of fossil bones to reconstruct the history of life. Cuvier showed that there was a succession of populations in the course of the earth’s history but insisted that species disappear abruptly from the record through the action of geological catastrophes. He rejected transmutation but did not openly endorse the idea of divine creation – although the theory of a succession of creations was popularized by Cuvier’s British followers, including William Buckland. Although they had extended the Earth’s history, Cuvier and Buckland were convinced that the human race was a recent creation. Their work thus endorsed a view of human history in which there was no time for social evolution, many scholars still believing that language and the arts of civilization were taught to the earliest humans by their Creator.

Later historical work has shown that although the theory of successive creations was endorsed by the scientific establishment, more radical thinkers in both France and Britain were attracted to Lamarck’s theory (Desmond, 1989). Darwin, who developed his theory in the 1830s, concealed it for fear of being associated with this radical movement. Historians also now recognize that there was an alternative non-Darwinian theory of evolution emerging in Germany among the followers of J.F. Blumenbach. This stressed the model of preordained development and invoked the parallel with embryological development. The situation in Britain changed significantly following the anonymous publication of Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844 (Secord, 2000). Chambers argued that an ideology of progress was just what the middle class needed to support its demands for reform, and provided a scientific foundation for this ideology based on the idea of progressive evolution. Although he presented evolution as the unfolding of a divine plan, his book’s open recognition that humans are transformed animals, and that the mind is a product of the expansion of the brain, caused an outcry from conservative thinkers. Over the following decade, however, Vestiges popularized the idea of progressive evolution, creating a space in which Darwin’s more scientific theory could have an impact.

The Development of Darwin’s Theory

Charles Darwin was converted to evolutionism by his discoveries on the voyage of HMS Beagle (1831–36) and returned to England determined to understand how the process worked. He soon discovered the mechanism of natural selection and continued to work on the various aspects of his theory in relative secrecy. Much controversy has surrounded Darwin’s discovery, because in addition to the many scientific factors influencing his thinking, he acknowledged the impact of Thomas Malthus’ principle of population, a product of the ideology of laissez-faire economics.

Scientific Influences

While studying at Cambridge, Darwin was attracted to William Paley’s Natural Theology of 1802, which restated the argument that species are adapted to their environment through the wisdom and benevolence of the Creator. On the voyage of the Beagle, his observations of South American geology converted him to Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian position, which accounted for all geological change in terms of the action of observable forces over vast periods of time. Biogeographical studies, especially those of the birds of the Galapagos Islands, forced him to rethink the idea of Divine Creation, because he saw that individual islands had each acquired a distinct species of immigrant families, such as the finches. On his return to England, he soon accepted a complete evolutionary philosophy and began to search for a mechanism (Browne, 1995).

Darwin saw that evolution must be a branching process and that the ultimate cause was the adaptation of isolated populations to different environments. He studied animal breeding and realized that breeders produce new varieties by selecting out individual animals with the required character and breeding only from these. Artificial selection draws on the natural and largely random variability of the population and allows only individuals with a selected character to breed, thereby enhancing that character in future generations. Darwin was soon looking for a natural equivalent of this process.

Malthus and Population

A vital step in Darwin’s thinking came when he read Malthus’ Essay on Population, which argued that populations breed so rapidly that they outstrip their food supply. Drawing on hints in Malthus, Darwin realized that population pressure must generate a struggle for existence in which many individuals die He was now able to argue that any better adapted variant would be more successful in the struggle and would be more likely to survive and reproduce, while poorly adapted variants would die, thus establishing the theory of natural selection described in Section Darwinism and Lamarckism. This gave Darwin the basis on which to erect a comprehensive account of evolution. The role played by Malthus’ ideologically loaded principle has, however, led to frequent charges that Darwin’s theory is itself a projection of laissez-faire values on to nature, with the consequence that the theory would be used to justify the competitive ethos of Victorian capitalism (Young, 1985). Much controversy also surrounds the degree of Darwin’s commitment to the idea of progress. Although the selection theory undermines the ladder model of progress, historians now accept that Darwin’s thinking was influenced by the assumption that competition is the driving force of a more general form of progress. However, it is clear that Darwin’s commitment to branching evolution went far beyond the conventional social values later linked to his theory, while his application of the population principle undermined Malthus’ own ideology, which was an attempt to discredit the optimism of social progressionists.

Darwin let only a few close contacts know of his theory, while continuing to work on exploring its scientific implications. He came to appreciate that, even in a stable environment, specialization would allow natural selection to continue the process of divergence by which species separate from close relatives. Eventually, he began to write up his ideas for publication but was interrupted in 1858 by the arrival of a paper by Alfred Russel Wallace describing a similar (although not identical) theory. The joint Darwin–Wallace papers were published in that year, while Darwin rushed to complete the Origin of Species (Browne, 2002).

Darwinism in Biology

The Origin of Species sparked an intense debate that soon led to the conversion of most scientists and educated people to evolutionism (Hull, 1973; Ruse, 1979). Despite initial opposition by conservative thinkers, the belief that the human race was the outcome of a progressive trend built into nature was accepted. In science, too, creationism was replaced by the expectation that all living species are the products of natural processes, and here, too, there was a widespread assumption that such processes guaranteed progress, even if superimposed on a branching model of development. The success of Darwinism needs to be assessed with care because the popularity of this developmental model of evolution meant that the more radical implications of Darwin’s thinking were evaded (Bowler, 1988). Far from welcoming the theory of natural selection, most nineteenth-century scientists, including some of Darwin’s leading supporters, were lukewarm about it. Opposition grew toward the end of the century, with many alternative mechanisms of evolution being tried out.

The History of Life

Much of the first generation of evolutionists’ efforts focused on reconstructing the course of the history of life on earth from anatomical, embryological, biogeographical, and fossil evidence (Bowler, 1996). Darwin himself treated this project with caution, but under the influence of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, a whole generation of evolutionists strove to complete it. They had some successes, but the problems were much greater than they had anticipated and the project was sidelined by new developments in biology at the beginning of the twentieth century. Darwin had stressed the imperfection of the fossil record, but in a few important areas new discoveries helped to show how the major steps in evolution had taken place. Elsewhere, anatomical and embryological evidence was used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. Darwin’s theory implied that it would be unlikely for the same character to develop independently in different lines of evolution, so similarity of underlying structure could be taken as evidence of common descent. Some non-Darwinian theories, however, postulated predetermined trends that might generate similar structures independently. In embryology, Darwin’s assumption that early stages of development would illustrate affinities was overtaken by Haeckel’s recapitulation theory, according to which earlier stages could actually illustrate ancestral adult forms. This way of thinking was a product of the progressionist way of thought, presupposing a privileged line of development toward maturity. Only in biogeography did it become clear that evolution was a highly irregular process, depending on the hazards of migration in a world where geological forces were constantly remolding the topography.

Natural Selection and the Alternatives

Historians have focused on the debates over natural selection, but this is more a product of our modern preoccupation with that mechanism than of its significance in late nineteenth-century biology. One much discussed theme centers on Darwin’s concept of heredity, which was quite unlike the model of unit character inheritance promoted by Mendelian genetics. It has even been argued that, without the concept of non-blending unit characters, natural selection was fatally flawed. It is true that Darwin was much concerned by Fleeming Jenkins’ 1867 review, which argued that if male and female parental characters blend in the offspring, the advantages of a well-favored ‘sport’ or mutation would be diluted rapidly. However, as A.R. Wallace pointed out, this objection is irrelevant if there is a continuous range of variation in the population, which is the case for most characters (Gayon, 1998).

In fact, many of the objections to natural selection were intended only to show that evolution must be a more purposeful process than any mechanism based on random variation would allow. One major alternative that now became popular was the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of acquired characters, in which the animals’ own behavior directs their variation. Some objections to natural selection were aimed at the whole idea of adaptive evolution and were intended to show that some internally driven force directed the organisms’ variation. These were very much a product of the rival developmental tradition that had become popular earlier in the century, especially in Germany. The theory of orthogenesis supposed that variation was controlled by internal developmental forces that generated linear evolutionary trends, while the theory of saltations assumed that macromutations could somehow find new breeding populations (Bowler, 1983).

Human Origins and Social Evolution

Many religious thinkers objected to the idea that the human soul was the product of evolution from an animal ancestry. Much of this initial opposition was overcome by stressing the purposeful nature of evolution, allowing the appearance of humanity to be presented as the culmination of a divine plan (Moore, 1979). Darwin’s theory of evolution threatened this assumption, and in his Descent of Man of 1871, he argued that humans had evolved from African apes, which had stood upright as an adaptation to a new lifestyle on the open plains. Most late nineteenth-century accounts of human evolution, however, stressed the expansion of the brain as the main driving force of the process. At the same time, the idea of progressive evolution was applied to the history of human cultures and societies. Some evolutionists, including Spencer, stressed competition as the driving force of progress, leading to the charge that they were promoting a ‘social Darwinism’ designed to legitimize capitalist values. While Darwin’s theory was certainly associated with this movement, it was by no means the only scientific justification offered.

Cultural Evolutionism

Coincidentally with the Darwinian revolution, archaeologists undermined the belief that the human race was a recent creation, and exposed a vast period of prehistory in which our ancestors had used only stone tools. It was this initiative rather than any influence from Darwinism that led anthropologists such as Edward B. Tylor to equate modern ‘savages’ (i.e., people with relatively unsophisticated technology) with the ancestral stages through which civilized humans had passed in prehistoric times on their march toward a more mature culture. Cultural evolutionism was a product of the nineteenth-century developmental viewpoint, based on the ladder model of progress (Bowler, 1989a). Tylor himself did not accept that humans had evolved from apes, but other cultural evolutionists, especially John Lubbock, linked the two modes of evolution and argued that ‘savages’ were biologically as well as culturally primitive – living examples of the earlier stages in human biological and mental evolution. Herbert Spencer’s model of social evolution, while stressing ostensibly the divergent nature of evolution, still presented ‘lower’ races as surviving primitives incapable of matching the mental powers of the Anglo-Saxons.

Social Darwinism

Spencer is most often remembered, however, as the social philosopher who linked the idea of progress to the ideology of free enterprise individualism. As an exponent of laissez-faire, and the coiner of the term ‘survival of the fittest,’ it has been easy for critics to portray Spencer’s enthusiasm for struggle as the motor of progress as a direct application of the Darwinian selection theory to society, hence the image of him as the founder of ‘Social Darwinism.’ Spencer worried about the elimination of the unfit, but in biology he defended Lamarckism, and his enthusiasm for struggle came more from a conviction that competition would stimulate individual self-improvement (which in a Lamarckian scheme could be passed on to future generations). Darwin’s theory is thus only one of the scientific factors that stimulated the ideology of ‘progress through struggle’ – remembered preferentially because natural selection has now become the only mechanism by which that metaphor can be put into practice in biology (Bannister, 1979). In the later nineteenth century, there was more emphasis on the struggle between nations and races, which bypasses the central feature of natural selection within populations.

Modern Darwinism

By the end of the nineteenth century, the attempt to reconstruct the courses of biological and social evolution had run out of steam. The social sciences abandoned the evolutionary model and any suggestion that human behavior is predetermined by biological factors. Biologists began to study the actual processes of heredity and variation, leading to the emergence of Mendelian genetics. The geneticists destroyed Lamarckism, and although at first hostile to the selection theory, they were eventually convinced that genetic mutation was the source of the random variation that is the raw material of natural selection. By the mid-twentieth century, the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of Darwinism and genetics had come to dominate biology but remained controversial elsewhere.

The Modern Darwinian Synthesis

In the last decade of the nineteenth century, the statistician Karl Pearson developed a mathematical model of natural selection acting on the variations in a wild population (Gayon, 1998). Many biologists were now exploring the idea that new species were produced by saltations or macromutations, and it was partly from this tradition that the ‘rediscovery’ of Gregor Mendel’s laws of particulate inheritance emerged. Ignored since the 1860s, these laws postulated the existence of unit characters transmitted unchanged from one generation to the next. In 1900, Mendel’s laws were proclaimed as the basis for a new science of heredity, which William Bateson soon called ‘genetics.’ However, Pearson was already hostile to Bateson’s saltationism, while Bateson rejected Pearson’s commitment to continuity and adaptation. Genetics was thus perceived as a new alternative to Darwinism, although it destroyed the credibility of Lamarckism by suggesting that there is no plausible way in which acquired characters can affect the gene (Bowler, 1989b).

T.H. Morgan’s studies of genetic mutations showed that most macromutations are fatal, while small mutations simply add to the genetic variation in the population. Soon, Morgan conceded that natural selection would affect the reproductive success of the various genes. In the 1920s and 1930s, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright brought together the statistical study of populations with the new genetics to create a science of population genetics based on the genetic theory of natural selection (Provine, 1971; Mayr, 1982). Naturalists such as Julian Huxley and Ernst Mayr now recognized that the adaptation of local populations to their environment was the most likely explanation of how species originate. The new selection theory was integrated with these wider developments to create what Huxley called the ‘Modern Synthesis.’

Later Developments

The Darwinian synthesis has dominated biology since the mid-twentieth century, although there have been numerous developments within it and some efforts to limit its applicability. Some modern thinkers now argue that the concept of natural selection can be applied to almost all areas where change is observed, sweeping away the whole idea of a universe that is the product of divine purpose. Conversely, the emergence of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) has renewed interest in the role of embryological factors in the creation of new characters and has thereby reinstated some topics that were central to the non-Darwinian programs of the nineteenth century (Amundson, 2005).

Perhaps the most controversial applications of modern biology are efforts to apply the theory of natural selection to human beings, especially in the area of social behavior. The science of sociobiology has been successful in explaining the social behavior of animals in terms of genetics and reproductive success, via the concept of the ‘selfish gene’ (Dawkins, 1976). However, E.O. Wilson’s efforts to apply sociobiology to human behavior by suggesting that we are driven by instincts implanted by natural selection have been greeted with much suspicion by social scientists and have also been dismissed as a revived ‘social Darwinism’ by the political left (Segerstrale, 2000). In more recent decades, sociobiology has been replaced by evolutionary psychology, which postulates that human behavior is shaped by inbuilt behavioral constraints evolved originally to deal with the environment in which the earliest modern humans evolved (Barkow et al., 1992). This approach depicts the mind as a collection of more or less independent modules controlling behavior, rather than as a generalized information processor. It is opposed by rival methodologies including human behavioral ecology and a new form of cultural evolutionism, both of which focus on the malleability of behavior and our ability to respond to current environmental and social pressures. The question of how much evolutionary biology can tell us about operations of the human mind thus remains controversial.

Anthropology and Evolution: Facts, Concepts, and Perspectives

As the comprehensive study of evolving humankind, anthropology is that discipline that is devoted to research in those areas that are relevant to understanding and appreciating Homo sapiens sapiens within the natural world (Bollt, 2009; Hublin, 2006). These areas range from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology to sociology, psychology, and linguistics. The more anthropologists search, the more fossils and artifacts they find that shed light on the emergence of our species over several million years. Each discovery helps to complete the developing picture of hominid evolution (Birx, 1988; Shubin, 2009; Tattersall & Schwartz, 2000). Of particular significance are those discoveries in primatology that clearly show the undeniable similarities between our human species and the four great apes in terms of genetics and psychology. Research in cross-cultural studies reveals the astonishing diversity of human thought and behavior from society to society throughout history.

In paleoanthropology, three discoveries have been especially important: Ardipithecus ramidus (“Ardi”), Astralopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), and Homo florensiensis (“Hobbit”). Although interpretations of these three hominid species vary among anthropologists, who debate specific conclusions from the fossil specimens, there is no denying the empirical evidence itself. Today, it is exciting to speculate on what remarkable fossil specimens are still in the earth waiting to be discovered by future anthropologists.

A perplexing question still haunts some anthropologists: What is the uniqueness of our species? One answer offered was that the human animal is the only toolmaker— until it was discovered that chimpanzees make and use simple tools (as do a few other animals). A second reply was that only our species has self-consciousness that allows it to communicate through language—until ape studies showed that the pongids have self-awareness and are capable of learning symbolic communication. More recently, it has been argued that only humans stand erect and walk upright with a bipedal gait; that is, only humans are capable of sustained bipedality. However, chimpanzees and bonobos are able to walk erect for short distances. It seems that the only uniqueness of our species that separates us from the other living hominoids is about 6 million years of biological evolution (Rachels, 1999). Huxley, Haeckel, and Darwin himself got it correctly back in the 19th century: Man differs merely in degree rather than in kind from the great apes.

Religious Creationism or Scientific Evolutionism

During the 19th century, two fundamental questions remained to be answered: What is the age of this planet? Have species always been fixed throughout earth history? As evidence accumulated in geology and paleontology, it became increasingly obvious to naturalists that our planet is millions (actually billions) of years old and that species have changed over time (with most species eventually becoming extinct). This emerging evolution framework held devastating consequences for all orthodox conceptions of earth, life-forms, and our species. In 1860 at the University of Oxford, England, the infamous Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce confrontation exemplified the intense conflict between the new evolution paradigm in science and an outmoded static worldview in religion.

The fact of evolution challenged not only traditional science and philosophy but also natural theology. Darwin himself was disturbed by the materialist implications of his own evolution theory for religious beliefs. In fact, his wife, Emma, even felt compelled to delete all of her husband’s views on theology and religion from his Autobiography, which was published posthumously in 1887; not until 1958 did an unexpurgated edition of Darwin’s life, written by himself in 1876, appear in print (Darwin, 1969).

In England, to reconcile evolutionary science with Christian faith, religious naturalist Philip Gosse argued that God had placed fossils in the earth in order to merely suggest that organic evolution had taken place, although in reality (so thought Gosse) species are fixed and earth had been suddenly created only about 6,000 years ago. Not surprisingly, his bizarre but provocative book Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot (1857) convinced neither scientists nor theologians.

During the 20th century, reacting to the materialist ramifications of organic evolution, some religionists argued against the new dynamic outlook by first defending biblical fundamentalism and then advocating so-called scientific creationism (Isaak, 2007). Both viewpoints gave priority to beliefs rather than to facts. In 1925 at Dayton, Tennessee, the infamous John Scopes “Monkey Trial” had best represented this ongoing clash between science and religion over the factual theory of organic evolution.

In an attempt to reconcile modern science with traditional theology, some religionists now maintain that the universe in general and evolution in particular manifest an intelligent design (Petto & Godfrey, 2007). Ultimately, this is a religious position not supported by scientific evidence. Despite all the ongoing attacks, continuing research in all areas of science (from genetics to paleontology) confirms the fact of evolution and the close biological relationship between our species and the great apes. In fact, an honest examination of human history clearly shows that even complex religious beliefs and theological systems have evolved, over thousands of years, from simplistic explanations for interpreting the natural world. No doubt, exciting discoveries in the future will further strengthen the evolution framework. Finally, in light of ongoing changes in human societies and their cultures, one wonders what the religious beliefs and theological systems of human beings will look like 2,000 years from now.

Evolutionary Humanism, Transhumanism, and Posthumanism

Grounded in science, reason, and an open-ended perspective, evolutionary humanism emphasizes the ongoing development of human beings within a strictly naturalistic framework. It maintains the unity of mental activity and the organic brain, and places our species totally within biological evolution. With optimism, evolutionary humanism argues for the improvement of our species in order to increase its health, happiness, and longevity (overcoming illness, disease, and physical disability). With the advances in science and technology since the middle of the 20th century, especially in genetics, the innovative ideas and pragmatic values of this movement for human enhancement would seem increasingly plausible for guiding our evolving species.

Extending the evolutionary framework, some scientists and philosophers see the human being as an unfinished species that will continue to change as a result of implementing nanotechnology and genetic engineering (Harris, 2007; Savulescu & Bostrom, 2009; Sorgner, 2006; Young, 2006). Both the ideas and values of transhumanism (going beyond the human of today) have been put forward by several visionary thinkers: Nick Bostrom, Fereidoun M. Esfandiary, Sir Julian S. Huxley, Michel Houellebecq, and Julian Savulescu (among others). Through human intervention, these thinkers argue, our species will be improved in its biological and psychological makeup, just as Homo sapiens of today is a biopsychological advance over Homo erectus of the distant past.

Reminiscent of Friedrich Nietzsche’s conception of the overbeing, some thinkers even speculate that the transhuman will be the “missing link” between the human of today and the posthuman of the remote future. In fact, the posthuman may even be a new species far beyond both humans and the following transhumans. Of course, one cannot imagine the nature of the posthumans. It is likely that these cosmic overbeings will travel to and live among the stars.

Exobiology and Exoevolution

In 1836, during the end of his 5-year voyage on the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin revisited the tropical Brazilian rainforest. He admired this lush environment and thought how great it would be, if it were ever possible, to experience the scenery on another planet. Therefore, at least once, the young naturalist glimpsed the forthcoming science of exobiology or astrobiology as the search for life-forms on other worlds (and if they are found, their study).

In the history of philosophy, major thinkers like Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) envisioned living beings inhabiting other planets. Today, with advances in technology, scientists are seriously scanning the heavens in hopes of detecting indisputable evidence that organisms exist elsewhere in sidereal reality (Boss, 2009; Lamb, 2001). The size and age of this material universe, with its billions of galaxies each having billions of stars, argues for the existence of countless planets. If the same physical laws and chemical elements pervade this cosmos, then it seems reasonable to assume that earthlike worlds harbor life-forms among the stars, perhaps even sentient beings similar to or even advanced beyond ourselves.

In our own solar system, the earth has those necessary natural conditions that have allowed for the origin and evolution of biological forms over the past 4 billion years. Beyond this solar system, extrasolar planets may have similar life zones that permit the existence of organisms. Thus, planetology becomes cosmology as the probability of and interest in biological evolution are extended to include this entire universe. Likewise, exobiology implies exoevolution, that is, the evolution of life-forms on different worlds, where organisms are adapting to changing habitats far different from those environments on earth (Birx, 2006b). In the distant future, both exobiology and exoevolution may offer intriguing areas for scientific research.

Even if forms of life are never found elsewhere in this universe, it does not mean that they do not exist on worlds that will remain beyond the detection of our human species (Webb, 2002). Moreover, organisms may have existed in the remote past before the formation of the present galaxies or will emerge in the distant future in new galaxies. And there may have been, are, or will be other universes with life-forms very similar to or far different from those organisms that have inhabited or are now inhabiting earth. One can only speculate on what the consequences might be if our human species ever encounters superior intelligent beings evolving among the stars.

Since the convincing writings of Charles Darwin, interpretations of organic evolution have evolved from the narrow materialism of early evolutionists to the comprehensive naturalism of modern neo-Darwinists. Advances in those special sciences that support biological evolution include ongoing discoveries in paleontology, comparative biology, anthropology, and population genetics, as well as more accurate dating techniques in geology and biochemistry. Progress in these special sciences is an increasing challenge to vitalistic, spiritualistic, and mystical interpretations of our species and organic evolution.

Two exciting and promising but controversial areas in modern evolution research are transhumanism and exoevolution. With the rapid advances in nanotechnology and genetic engineering, an increasing ability to design the DNA molecule will allow humans to alter and improve species, including our own, and to design new organisms for specific purposes both on earth and in outer space; as such, one may speak of emerging teleology in terms of human intervention and technological manipulation. The successful journey of human beings into outer space will require our species to adapt to and survive in different environments, both artificial and natural. If life-forms are discovered elsewhere in this universe, then scientists and philosophers will be able to study the evolution of organisms on other worlds.

Quo vadis, Homo sapiens? In those countless centuries to come, the human being may even transform itself into a new species, Homo futurensis. Of course, designer evolution will require establishing ethical guidelines while promoting open inquiry. For now, the primary focus must be on those steps that need to be taken to ensure the continued biodiversity of life-forms on this planet, including the ongoing fulfillment of humans on this earth before they venture to the stars.

Bibliography:

• Amundson, R., (2005). The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: The Roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Bannister, R.C., (1979). Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
• Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (Eds.), (1992). The Adapted Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Birx, H. J. (1988). Human evolution. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
• Birx, H. J. (2006a). Evolution, arc of. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 881–882). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Birx, H. J. (2006b). Exobiology and exoevolution. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 931–934). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Bollt, R. (2009). Anthropology. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of time (Vol. 1, pp. 23–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Boss, A. (2009). The crowded universe: The search for living planets. New York: Basic Books.
• Bowler, P.J., (1983). The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
• Bowler, P.J., (1988). The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
• Bowler, P.J., (1989a). The Invention of Progress: The Victorian and the Past. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• Bowler, P.J., (1989b). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. Athlone, London.
• Bowler, P.J., (1989c). Evolution: The History of an Idea. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
• Bowler, P.J., (1996). Life’s Splendid Drama: Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life’s Ancestry, 1860–1940. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Browne, J., (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Jonathan Cape, London.
• Browne, J., (2002). Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. Jonathan Cape, London.
• Corsi, P., (1988). The Age of Lamarck: Evolutionary Theory in France, 1790–1830. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
• Darwin, C. (1969). Autobiography (N. Barlow, Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. (Original work published 1887, unexpurgated version published 1958)
• Dawkins, R., (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Desmond, A., (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine and Reform in Radical London. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Gayon, J., (1998). Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival; Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Greene, J.C., (1959). The Death of Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
• Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hublin, J.-J. (2006). Evolutionary anthropology. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 913–919). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hull, D.L., (1973). Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory by the Scientific Community. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Isaak, M. (2007). The counter-creationism handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Lamb, D. (2001). The search for extraterrestrial intelligence: A philosophical inquiry. New York: Routledge.
• Mayr, E., (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Moore, J.R., (1979). The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Britain and America, 1870–1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Petto, A. J., & Godfrey, L. R. (Eds.). (2007). Scientists confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Provine, W.B., (1971). The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Rachels, J. (1999). Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Roger, J., (1998). The Life Sciences in Eighteenth-century French Thought. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• Ruse, M., (1979). The Darwinian Revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (Eds.). (2009). Human enhancement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Secord, J., (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Segerstrale, U., (2000). Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• Shubin, N. (2009). Your inner fish: A journey into the 3.5-billion-year history of the human body. New York: Random House.
• Sorgner, S. (2006). Transhumanism. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of time (Vol. 3, pp. 1375–1376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Tattersall, I., & Schwartz, J. H. (2000). Extinct humans. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Webb, S. (2002). Where is everybody? Fifty solutions to the Fermi paradox and the problem of extraterrestrial life. New York: Copernicus Books.
• Young, R.M., (1985). Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Young, S. (2006). Designer evolution: A transhumanist manifesto. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Reader Interactions

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature

Anthropology

• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Cultural Evolution

Introduction, general overviews.

• Mathematical Models
• Laboratory Experiments
• Ethnographic Field Studies
• Phylogenetic Methods
• Comparative Studies of Nonhuman Culture
• Cultural Macroevolution
• Cultural Microevolution
• The Evolution of Cultural Evolution
• Cultural Drift
• Gene-Culture Coevolution
• Cultural Group Selection
• Language Evolution
• Evolutionary Economics
• Technological Evolution
• Evolutionary Synthesis in the Social Sciences

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Anthrozoology
• Archaeology
• Archaeology and Political Evolution
• Biocultural Anthropology
• Cognitive Anthropology
• Environmental Anthropology
• Human Evolution
• Lewis Henry Morgan
• Maritime Archaeology

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Anthropology of Corruption
• University Museums
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Steps to an Ecology of Mind

Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology.

Gregory Bateson

565 pages | 5 line drawings | 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 | © 2000

Anthropology: Cultural and Social Anthropology

Psychology: General Psychology

• Table of contents
• Author Events

Related Titles

Table of contents, anthropologists in the stock exchange.

Marc Flandreau

The Lost Black Scholar

David A. Varel

The Accidental Species

Culture and the course of human evolution.

Gary Tomlinson

Be the first to know

Get the latest updates on new releases, special offers, and media highlights when you subscribe to our email lists!

Sign up here for updates about the Press

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4: Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 149974

• Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, & Marjorie M. Snipes

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

• 4.1: Introduction
• 4.2: What Is Biological Anthropology?
• 4.3: What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy
• 4.4: It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution
• 4.5: Evolution in Action- Past and Present
• 4.6: What Is a Primate?
• 4.7: Origin of and Classification of Primates
• 4.8: Our Ancient Past- The Earliest Hominins
• 4.9: Key Terms
• 4.10: Summary
• 4.11: Critical Thinking Questions
• 4.12: Bibliography

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Race, culture, and evolution : essays in the history of anthropology : with a new preface

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

147 Previews

10 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station11.cebu on October 23, 2021

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

History and Branches of Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of the origin and development of human societies and cultures.

Anthropology, Archaeology, Sociology, Earth Science, Geology, Geography, Human Geography, Social Studies, Ancient Civilizations, World History

Loading ...

Anthropology  is the study of the origin and development of human societies and cultures . Culture is the learned behavior of people, including their languages , belief systems, social structures, institutions, and material goods. Anthropologists study the  characteristics of past and present human communities through a variety of techniques. In doing so, they investigate and describe how different peoples of our world lived throughout history. Anthropologists aim to study and present their human subjects in a clear and un biased way. They attempt to achieve this by observing subjects in their local environment. Anthropologists then describe interactions and customs, a process known as  ethnography . By participating in the everyday life of their subjects, anthropologists can better understand and explain the purpose of local institutions, culture, and practices. This process is known as  participant-observation . As anthropologists study societies and cultures different from their own, they must evaluate their interpretations to make sure they aren’t biased. This bias is known as  ethnocentrism , or the habit of viewing all groups as inferior to another, usually their own, cultural group. Taken as a whole, these steps enable anthropologists to describe people through the people's own terms. Subdisciplines of Anthropology Anthropology’s diverse topics of study are generally categorized in four subdisciplines. A subdiscipline is a specialized field of study within a broader subject or discipline. Anthropologists specialize in cultural or social anthropology ,  linguistic anthropology , biological or physical anthropology, and archaeology . While subdisciplines can overlap and are not always seen by  scholars as  distinct , each tends to use different techniques and methods. Cultural Anthropology Cultural anthropology, also known as social anthropology, is the study of the learned behavior of groups of people in specific environments. Cultural anthropologists base their work in ethnography, a research method that uses field work and participant-observation to study individual cultures and customs. Elizabeth Kapu'uwailani Lindsey is a National Geographic Fellow in anthropology. As a doctoral student, she documented rare and nearly lost traditions of the  palu , Micronesian navigators who don’t use maps or instruments. Among the traditions she studied were the chants and practices of the Satawalese, a tiny cultural group native to a single coral  atoll  in the Federated States of Micronesia. Cultural anthropologists who analyze and compare different cultures are known as ethnologists. Ethnologists may observe how specific customs develop differently in different cultures and interpret why these differences exist. National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Wade Davis is an ethnobotanist . He spent more than three years in Latin America , collecting and studying plants that different indigenous groups use in their daily lives. His work compares how these groups understand and use plants as food, medicine, and in religious ceremonies. Linguistic Anthropology Linguistic anthropology is the study of how language influences social life. Linguistic anthropologists say language provides people with the intellectual tools for thinking and acting in the world. Linguistic anthropologists focus on how language shapes societies and their social networks, cultural beliefs, and understanding of themselves and their environments. To understand how people use language for social and cultural purposes, linguistic anthropologists closely document what people say as they engage in daily social activities. This documentation relies on participant-observation and other methods, including audiovisual recording and interviews with participants. Lera Boroditsky, a  cognitive scientist , studies forms of communication among the Pormpuraaw, an Aboriginal community in Australia. Boroditsky found that almost all daily activities and conversations were placed within the context of  cardinal directions . For example, when greeting someone in Pormpuraaw, one asks, “Where are you going?” A response may be: “A long way to the south-southwest.” A person might warn another, “There is a snake near your northwest foot.” This language enables the Pormpuraaw to locate and navigate themselves in landscapes with extreme precision, but makes communication nearly impossible for those without an absolute knowledge of cardinal directions. Linguistic anthropologists may document native languages that are in danger of  extinction . The Enduring Voices Project at National Geographic aimed to prevent language extinction by embarking on expeditions that create textual, visual, and auditory records of threatened languages. The project also assisted indigenous communities in their efforts to revitalize and maintain their languages. Enduring Voices has documented the Chipaya language of Bolivia, the Yshyr Chamacoco language of Paraguay, and the Matugar Panau language of Papua New Guinea, among many others. Biological Anthropology Biological anthropology, also known as physical anthropology, is the study of the  evolution  of human beings and their living and  fossil  relatives. Biological anthropology places human evolution within the context of human culture and behavior. This means biological anthropologists look at how physical developments, such as changes in our skeletal or genetic makeup, are interconnected with social and cultural behaviors throughout history.

To understand how humans evolved from earlier life forms, some biological anthropologists study  primates , such as monkeys and apes. Primates are considered our closest living relatives. Analyzing the similarities and differences between human beings and the “ great apes ” helps biological anthropologists understand human evolution. Jane Goodall , a primatologist , has studied wild chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) in Tanzania for more than 40 years. By living with these primates for extended periods of time, Goodall discovered a number of similarities between humans and chimpanzees. One of the most notable of Goodall’s discoveries was that chimpanzees use basic tools, such as sticks. Toolmaking is considered a key juncture in human evolution. Biological anthropologists link the evolution of the human hand, with a longer thumb and stronger gripping muscles, to our ancient ancestors ’ focus on toolmaking. Other biological anthropologists examine the skeletal remains of our human ancestors to see how we have adapted to different physical environments and social structures over time. This specialty is known as human paleontology , or  paleoanthropology . Zeresenay Alemseged, a National Geographic Explorer, examines  hominid  fossils found at the Busidima-Dikika anthropological site in Ethiopia. Alemseged’s work aims to prove that a wide diversity of early hominid species existed three million to four million years ago. Paleoanthropologists study why some hominid species were able to survive for thousands of years, while others were not. Biological anthropology may focus on how the biological characteristics of living people are related to their social or cultural practices. The Ju/’hoansi, a foraging society of Namibia, for example, have developed unique physical characteristics in response to cold weather and a lack of high-calorie foods. A thick layer of fat protects vital organs of the chest and abdomen , and veins shrink at night. This reduces the Ju/’hoansi’s heat loss and keeps their core body temperature at normal levels. Archaeology Archaeology is the study of the human past using material remains. These remains can be any objects that people created, modified, or used. Archaeologists carefully uncover and examine these objects in order to interpret the experiences and activities of peoples and  civilizations throughout history. Archaeologists often focus their work on a specific period of history. Archaeologists may study  prehistoric  cultures—cultures that existed before the invention of writing. These studies are important because reconstructing a prehistoric culture’s way of life can only be done through interpreting the  artifacts they left behind. For example, macaw eggshells, skeletal remains, and ceramic imagery recovered at archaeological sites in the United States Southwest suggest the important role macaws played as exotic trade items and objects of worship for prehistoric peoples in that area. Other archaeologists may focus their studies on a specific culture or aspect of cultural life. Constanza Ceruti, a National Geographic Emerging Explorer, is a high-altitude archaeologist specializing in artifacts and features of the Incan Empire. Along with archaeological evidence, Ceruti analyzes historical sources and traditional Andean beliefs. These data help her reconstruct what ancient sites looked like, the symbolic meaning behind each artifact, and how ceremonies took place. History of Anthropology Throughout history, the study of anthropology has reflected our evolving relationships with other people and cultures. These relationships are deeply connected to political,  economic , and social forces present at different points in history. The study of history was an important aspect of ancient Greek and Roman cultures, which focused on using reason and  inquiry  to understand and create just societies.  Herodotus , a Greek historian, traveled through regions as far-flung as present-day Libya, Ukraine, Egypt, and Syria during the fifth century B.C.E. Herodotus traveled to these places to understand the origins of conflict between Greeks and Persians. Along with historical accounts, Herodotus described the customs and social structures of the peoples he visited. These detailed observations are considered one of the world’s first exercises in ethnography. The establishment of exchange routes was also an important development in expanding an interest in societies and cultures. Zhang Qian was a diplomat who negotiated trade agreements and treaties between China and communities throughout Central Asia, for instance. Zhang’s  diplomacy  and interest in Central Asia helped spur the development of the  Silk Road , one of history’s greatest networks for trade, communication, and exchange. The Silk Road provided a vital link between Asia, East Africa, and Eastern Europe for thousands of years. Medieval scholars and explorers, who traveled the world to develop new trading partnerships, continued to keep accounts of cultures they encountered. Marco Polo, a Venetian  merchant , wrote the first detailed descriptions of Central Asia and China, where he traveled for 24 years. Polo’s writings greatly elaborated Europe’s early understandings of Asia, its peoples, and practices. Ibn Battuta traveled much more extensively than Marco Polo. Battuta was a Moroccan scholar who regularly traveled throughout North Africa and the Middle East. His expeditions, as far east as India and China, and as far south as Kenya, are recorded in his memoir, the  Rihla .

Many scholars argue that modern anthropology developed during the  Age of Enlightenment , a cultural movement of 18th century Europe that focused on the power of reason to advance society and knowledge. Enlightenment scholars aimed to understand human behavior and society as  phenomena  that followed defined  principles . This work was strongly influenced by the work of natural historians, such as Georges Buffon. Buffon studied humanity as a  zoological  species—a community of  Homo sapiens  was just one part of the  flora  and  fauna  of an area. Europeans applied the principles of natural history to document the inhabitants of newly  colonized territories and other indigenous cultures they came in contact with. Colonial scholars studied these cultures as “human primitives,” inferior to the advanced societies of Europe. These studies justified the colonial agenda by describing foreign territories and peoples as needing European reason and control. Today, we recognize these studies as racist. Colonial thought deeply affected the work of 19th century anthropologists. They followed two main theories in their studies:  evolutionism  and  diffusionism . Evolutionists argued that all societies develop in a predictable, universal sequence . Anthropologists who believed in evolutionism placed cultures within this sequence. They placed non-Eurocentric colonies into the “ savagery ” stage and only considered European powers to be in the “civilizations” stage. Evolutionists believed that all societies would reach the civilization stage when they adopted the traits of these powers. Conversely, they studied “savage” societies as a means of understanding the primitive origins of European civilizations. Diffusionists believed all societies stemmed from a set of “ culture circles ” that spread, or diffused , their practices throughout the world. By analyzing and comparing the cultural traits of a society, diffusionists could determine from which culture circle that society derived. W.J. Perry, a British anthropologist, believed all aspects of world cultures— agriculture ,  domesticated animals, pottery, civilization itself—developed from a single culture circle: Egypt. Diffusionists and evolutionists both argued that all cultures could be compared to one another. They also believed certain cultures (mostly their own) were superior to others. These theories were sharply criticized by 20th-century anthropologists who strived to understand particular cultures in those cultures’ own terms, not in comparison to European traditions. The theory of  cultural relativism , supported by pioneering German-American anthropologist Franz Boas , argued that one could only understand a person’s beliefs and behaviors in the context of his or her own culture. To put societies in cultural context, anthropologists began to live in these societies for long periods of time. They used the tools of participant-observation and ethnography to understand and describe the social and cultural life of a group more fully. Turning away from comparing cultures and finding universal laws about human behavior, modern anthropologists describe particular cultures or societies at a given place and time. Other anthropologists began to criticize the discipline’s focus on cultures from the developing world. These anthropologists turned to analyzing the practices of everyday life in the developed world. As a result, ethnographic work has been conducted on a wider variety of human societies, from university hierarchies to high school sports teams to residents of retirement homes. Anthropology Today New technologies and emerging fields of study enable contemporary anthropologists to uncover and analyze more complex information about peoples and cultures. Archaeologists and biological anthropologists use  CT scanners , which combine a series of  X-ray  views taken from different angles, to produce  cross-sectional images of the bones and  soft tissues inside human remains. Zahi Hawass, a former National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence, has used CT scans on ancient Egyptian mummies to learn more about patterns of disease, health, and mortality in ancient Egypt. These scans revealed one  mummy  as an obese, 50-year-old woman who suffered from tooth decay. Hawass and his team were able to identify this mummy as Queen Hatshepsut, a major figure in Egyptian history, after finding one of her missing teeth in a ritual box inscribed with her name. The field of  genetics  uses elements of anthropology and biology. Genetics is the study of how characteristics are passed down from one generation to the next. Geneticists study  DNA , a chemical in every living cell of every organism. DNA studies suggest all human beings descend from a group of ancestors, some of whom began to  migrate  out of Central Africa about 60,000 years ago. Anthropologists also apply their skills and tools to understand how humans create new social connections and cultural identities. Michael Wesch, a National Geographic Emerging Explorer, is studying how new media platforms and digital technologies, such as Facebook and YouTube, are changing how people communicate and relate to one another. As a “digital ethnographer,” Wesch’s findings about our relationships to new media are often presented as videos or interactive web experiences that incorporate hundreds of participant-observers. Wesch is one of many anthropologists expanding how we understand and navigate our digital environment and our approach to anthropological research.

Margaret Mead One of the most famous and controversial anthropologists of the 20th century is Margaret Mead. Mead was an American scientist who gained popular and academic success following the publication of her first book,  Coming of Age in Samoa , in 1928. Mead lived and interacted with the people of Tau, Samoa, for her research. She documented an open-minded society where young women and men regularly engaged in casual sex. This was troubling to many Westerners, who had much more conservative attitudes. However,  Coming of Age in Samoa  remains the most popular anthropology book ever published. Since her death in 1978, anthropologists have questioned Margaret Meads’ methods. Some of her conclusions may have been more a product of the time in which she studied, rather than an unbiased look at a unique culture. Some of the women interviewed for  Coming of Age in Samoa  accuse Mead of coaxing them in what to say. Meads problematic methodology has put many of her anthropological conclusions into doubt.

Cultural Variety Anthropology has dozens of specialties. Some sections listed by the American Anthropological Association are:

• Africanist Anthropology
• Anthropology and the Environment
• Anthropology of Food and Nutrition
• Anthropology of Religion
• Feminist Anthropology
• Medical Anthropology
• Museum Anthropology
• Political and Legal Anthropology
• Queer Anthropology

Zora Neale Hurston The short stories and novels of Zora Neale Hurston are an integral part of the Harlem Renaissance, a cultural movement among African Americans during the 1920s and 1930s. Hurston was also an important anthropologist. Hurston graduated from Barnard College, where she was the only black student, before being awarded a prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship and conducting field work throughout the Caribbean and Central America. Their Eyes Were Watching God , considered to be Hurston’s masterpiece, was written while she was conducting anthropological field work in Haiti.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

April 4, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Quick links

• Directories

Analysis: Everyday life and its variability influenced human evolution at least as much as rare activities like big-game hunting

Submitted by Arts & Sciences Web Team on May 8, 2024 - 7:59 am "In my research as an anthropologist, I’ve focused on the evolution of human walking and running because I love the flexibility people bring to these behaviors. Humans in all kinds of environments across space and time vary how far they go, when they go and what they go for – whether food, water or friends – based on a multitude of factors, including season, daylight, rituals and family," writes Cara Wall-Scheffler, affiliate assistant professor of anthropology at the UW. Featured on The Conversation   News Topic Research In the Press

•   Instagram
•   Twitter
•   YouTube
•   Newsletter

Various Subsections of Anthropology Essay

Studying humanity journey, archaeology and palaeo-anthropology, works cited, introduction.

Anthropology is the study of human beings in time and space. The central theme of anthropology is to trace the development that has occurred to the human race from the past to the present in different geographical locations. In fact, it uses both scientific and humanistic means for its data analysis that is gotten from various studies and researches that are conducted on the human race and its close relatives.

Anthropology explores various issues that pertain to the existence of life for humans and the physical, biological as well as geographical differences exhibited by the human race. From time in memorial, humans have evolved to display the differences that they have among themselves and other animals which share the same ancestral origin.

For ease of study, anthropology as a discipline is divided into various study categories such as physical or biological anthropology, cultural anthropology and forensic anthropology among other sub-sections.

Each of these sectors studies a certain aspect of human life aimed at bringing a clear and concise understanding of the human race. This paper aims at explaining the various subsections of anthropology and the role they play in enhancing the understanding of the value of anthropology.

The value of studying human evolutionary sequence

Of interest to anthropology is the idea of evolution which is pivotal to the explanation of emergence of different forms of life. Evolution theory can be traced back to the work of Charles Darwin who introduced it to modern biological and evolutionary thought. Physical anthropology as a branch deals with evolution of biological characteristics observed in human beings.

Evolution can be described as the process by which living organisms have developed mostly through adaptation, natural selection and survival for the fittest to be what they are today. This theory uses genetical adaptation and inheritance to explain why some organisms have survived while others have become extinct (Thompson 1).

The study of anthropology has helped in many ways both in understanding human beings and solving various problems that persistently arise. Physical anthropology understanding is crucial in the field of medicine.

Most scientists believe that biological evolution can help in preventing and inventing cures as well as getting the local population to change their attitude towards medication. It is evident that many problematic diseases have their roots from the genetical inheritance that has occurred from the past. Medical researchers in this field need to study evolutionary biology to trace and get the cure of these early diseases.

Evolution has played a key role in shaping the current anatomy, physiology and behavior that either exposes us to diseases or provides an immune system against the infections. Natural selection has acted through nature to eliminate mal-adapted organisms through diseases and other natural calamities.

In the process, various organisms might have either survived or passed on defective genes. Major emphasis is laid on diseases and conditions that are passed through genes, from parents to offsprings which may need inference from biological evolution (Downie 3).

Through studying humankind journey via evolution, we are able to understand the position of man in the current world of organisms. It sheds light on why humans are more developed than other organisms although origin of life seems to have been at similar interval. Past human activities that are recorded by archaeological undertakings help to explain the current changes in both humans and the environment we live.

It is apparent that through beings evolution, archeologists have had great impacts on the natural environment by altering it to suit them (Brunet et al 146). Archaeology brings forth information from the ancient life and helps to reconstruct the extent to which human beings have changed. Adaptation to environment is a major tool used by human beings to survive and propagate.

Humans globally exhibit different characteristics and behavior as per their geographical regions. These perceived differences are due to the influence of the geographical regions and cultural differences. Human variation (HV) studies the various differences exhibited by human beings namely behavior, color, genetical differences and adaptation measures.

HV has evolved from the past through adaptive means to what is currently perceived. Through it, scientists are able to deduce whether humans have the ability to continue adapting successfully to the fluctuating environmental conditions or not. From this kind of data obtained from genetic pools of various past and present humans, scientists are able to advise human beings on potential dangers (Becks et al 989).

Further, HV helps to explain disease prevalence in certain communities or geographical regions as opposed to others. For example, where the malarial disease has high prevalence, certain genetic traits are also prevalent.

The study of HV shows that it is important in maintaining adaptive populations, biological variance for the functioning individual communities and ecological systems. Loss of HV may cause instability in human communities, negative effects in innate systems and genus viability (Becks et al 995).

Archaeology is an anthropological discipline that is concerned with the history of people and their extinct cultures. It relies on the remains of left objects and materials called artifacts for the study and analysis. Archaeology is devoted to the search and excavation of the material remains to reveal the history of people and reconstruct their early life.

It produces visible evidence to support the evolution theory. Historical archeology also relies on material culture and its exploitation but combines it with perspectives in anthropological field to bring an understanding of early lives of various groups of people whose material culture has been excavated (Paynter 169).

Archaeology provides vital information on various issues that pertain to the extinct population. Information on diseases, cultural way of life, eating habits and other important aspects of human life can be gotten from archaeological analysis.

Importance of understanding anthropological sub-fields

Understanding the various sub-fields of anthropology has great importance in the life of individuals and that of the complete society. It is a common phenomenon for people to have a biased approach on others due to their differences in culture, color, eating, dressing habits and various aspects of community life.

Countless conflicts occur due to the misunderstanding generated by difference in cultures (Brunet et al 148). Through understanding various topics, the prevention of such conflicts is possible. Besides, it prepares an individual for any occurrences that require great understanding of human dynamics.

Anthropology offers important scientific and humanistic knowledge on human beings.

Anthropological information traces the descent of mankind from primitive forms to the developed forms that offers insight into the unobserved and observable characteristics which are helpful in a wide-range of scientific and humanistic application. Despite curricula importance, anthropological knowledge has wide individual application in real life.

Archaeology is the humanistic and scientific study of ancient form of human beings through the use of material culture obtained via recovery and analysis. Material culture are the remains of environmental objects left by the ancient form of human beings including artifacts, building remains, biological remains namely plants, bones, ashes and other archaeological records.

Archaeology traces human descent from the first primitive form of human life up the evolution ladder to the present form of human life which takes several million years ago. From paleolithic era to the development of complex human life, archaeology provides information on human evolutionary journey (Renfrew and Bahn 13).

Palaeo-anthropology is the study of human fossils in support of evolutionary theory of human beings. However, fossil are the hardened parts of a human body that have been preserved for a long time through the action of nature such as in snow, burrows and in caves. It incorporates intelligible cultural practices like burial practices that man acquired in the process of evolution.

Palaeo-anthropology uses both paleontology and physical anthropology to study human fossils. Indeed, physical anthropology is concerned with evolution based on biological inherited characteristics that are essential in the maintenance of human evolution path.

Paleontology conversely studies the prehistoric life to determine the evolution and the interactions that occurred among early human beings which might have resulted into the exchange of cultural practices evident in excavated human remains. Paleontology provides an extensive evolution view of the primary forms of life which are found within the context of early human life (Laudan 58).

Human evolution

Existing human beings are as a result of a long chain of evolutionary processes that has seen them develop from primitive forms to complex form. The study of their evolution is attributed to palaeo-anthropological studies that get their raw data from archaeological excavations. In the evolution sequence, human beings have adapted biologically to changing environmental conditions.

Humans are believed to share a common ancestry with the apes but developed and adapted differently resulting to the differences observed between the ape family and human beings. Mutually, these species share various common and similar characteristics both genetically and cultural although apes display primitive form of human behavior (Laudan 59).

The earliest form of human life is traced back to the appearance on the face of earth of an upright walking ape, approximately 6 million years ago. The human species were named hominid and was differentiated from that of the close human like apes named the chimpanzee on traits of uprightness and the use of opposable thumb.

This difference is attributed to the use of tools that required the big finger to move constantly to allow for the gripping of the tool. These fossils are dated 7 million years ago. Further excavations yielded other fossils closer to human beings and were classified under the genera Australopithecus and Homo (Renfrew and Bahn 16).

Through biological evolution initiated largely from the effects of environmental fluctuations, the general homo developed to Homo sapiens which are associated with the current day human beings.

Fossils have been excavated all over the world bearing characteristics that have enabled archaeologists and palaeo-anthropologists to rank them accordingly in the human evolution sequence. From the earliest sahelanthropus species, humans have evolved through various stages each with different adaptations that have helped it to survive the torrid natural environment which has been changing from time to time.

Natural selection in these species has determined which species were to prosper and propagate while others perished. Through nature, environment chose the best adapted forms of species to pass on to the next level to human evolution. The earliest fossils that had resemblance to human beings were discovered at Taung, near Kimberley in South Africa and were assigned to the genus Australopithecus (Dart 196).

This hominid form was more like a chimpanzee and lacked the ability to create tools. Recent discoveries of Kenyanthropus hominid in Kenya that date 3.5 to 7 million years ago reinstated the idea of accepting a separate genera and species for the human beings.

Palaeo-anthropologists cite that the separation between the chimpanzee family and the human family ideally took place nearly 3.5-7 million years ago but each family developed on its own (Dart 197).

Biological differences such as teeth pattern and bi-pedalism have been used extensively by palaeo-anthropologists to differentiate human beings forms and other close relatives. The evolution of hominid family was later followed by the excavation of the hominid ardipithecus from the Middle awash region in Ethiopia.

This hominid displayed characteristics of terrestrial bi-pedalism which was linked to early human forms. This fossil similarly contained dental system that was close to hominids.

The excavation of further hominid forms in Rift Valley also strengthened the argument of evolution (Brunet et al 147). Dentition was used to differentiate the extent of hominid resemblance. The following summary provides a detailed evolutionary sequence of man.

The first fossils attributed to the genus Homo was the Australopithecine found in 1924 at Taung in South Africa by Raymond Dart. The hominid walked erect, lived on the ground and probably used stones as weapons to hunt small animals. It was dated to be 3.5-7 million years old.

The first evidence of the Homo species believed to have walked upright was discovered in Java in 1891. It was named Pithecanthropus Erectus meaning the erect ape man. Another kind of identical hominid was made in China; south-west of Peking called Peking man. The hominid had larger cranial capacity than Australopithecus yet lived in communal existence and used fire.

The Acheulean tool making era is associated with this hominid. These tools were made of stone, wood and bone. The hominid is also said to have hunted big games in a communal way and lived in caves. The Home erectus gradually evolved into the Neanderthal man.

This primitive man used stone flakes as tools, spears for hunting and is seen to have lived in cave (Renfrew and Bahn 15). The Neanderthals were capable of big game hunting including elephants, rhino et cetera. The final stage of man evolution is the appearance of the Homo sapiens hominid that represents the modern day man with all the capabilities to live complex lifestyles.

It is to be noted that the evolution of man has taken millions of years and various reshaping of man by natural occurrences. Numerous factors have contributed to this evolutionary sequence.

Evolution has been marred by struggle for survival. It included where only the fit survived, variations in both biological and physical traits, survival for the fittest which eliminated the mal-adapted organisms and denied them the chance to pass on their defective genes, hence natural selection (Dart, 198).

Through natural selection, nature chooses organisms to propagate based on their ability to adapt to the changing natural conditions. Biological adaptation through genetic variance, mutation and propagation has played a key role in the evolution of man. Genes have enabled organisms that are better adapted to evolve further and deny those which are not the chance to evolve and therefore die away.

The emergence of current day man has been as a result of a long series of evolutionary stages that has been documented by palaeo-anthropologists using archaeological evidence of material remains left by early life forms.

This trend has passed through several stages each characterized by different traits that brought closer the emergence of modern day man. Biological evolution through the role played by genetic inheritance has been pivotal in this sequence.

Becks, Lutz, Ellner Stephen, Jones Laura and Hairston Nelson. “Reduction of adaptive genetic diversity radically alters eco-evolutionary community dynamics”. Ecology letters 13(2010).

Brunet, Michel, et al. “A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa”. Nature 418.6894 (2002): 145–151.

Dart, Raymond. “Australopithecus africanus: The Man-Ape of South Africa”. Nature 115.2884 (1925):195-199.

Downie, John, R. Evolution in health and disease: The role of evolutionary biological in the medical curriculum , May 1994. Web.

Laudan, Ronald. (1992). “What’s so Special about the Past?” Nitecki, Harman and Nitecki, David. History and Evolution, 2010.

Paynter, Ray. “Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian World of North America”. Journal of Archaeological Research 8.3 (2000).

Renfrew, Colin and Bahn, Paul. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice . High Holborn, London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2004. Print.

Thompson, Paul. Biological evolution . Montgomery, AL. Apologetics Press Inc, 1994.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 17). Various Subsections of Anthropology. https://ivypanda.com/essays/general-anthropology-essay/

"Various Subsections of Anthropology." IvyPanda , 17 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/general-anthropology-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Various Subsections of Anthropology'. 17 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Various Subsections of Anthropology." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/general-anthropology-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Various Subsections of Anthropology." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/general-anthropology-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Various Subsections of Anthropology." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/general-anthropology-essay/.

• Assessment of Historical Archaeology Collections
• Hominids as the Members of the Human Family
• Hominids and Stages of Human Evolution
• The Origin of Man by Richard Leakey
• The Four Forces of Evolution and Variation
• Understanding of Primate Socioecology
• Human Evolution and Archaeology
• Comparison of Kula and Moka Practice