VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?2096060 <<<<<<
Lucy, a famous 3. But she did have one defining human trait: she walked on two legs. Lucy belongs to a group called the australopiths. In the 40 years since her partial skeleton was discovered, fragmentary remains of even older fossils have been found, some dating back 7 million years.
These follow the same pattern: they had chimp-like features and tiny brains but probably walked on two legs. We also know that australopiths probably made simple stone tools.
Only with the appearance of true humans — the genus Homo — did hominins begin to look and behave a little more like we do. Few now doubt that our genus evolved from a species of australopith, although exactly which one is a matter of debate. The earliest species of Homo are known from only a few bone fragments, which makes them difficult to study.
Some doubt that they belong in our genus, preferring to label them as australopiths. The first well-established Homo , and the first that we would recognise as looking a bit like us, appeared about 1. It is named Homo erectus. Erectus was unlike earlier hominins. It had come down from the trees completely and also shared our wanderlust: all earlier hominins are known only from Africa, but Homo erectus fossils have been discovered in Europe and Asia too. Homo erectus was also an innovator. It produced far more sophisticated tools than had any of its predecessors, and was probably the first to control fire.
Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens.
While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth.
See "What is evolution? Learn More Origins of Humankind. A society's culture consists of its accumulated learned behavior.
Human culture is based at least partly on social living and language, although the ability of a species to invent and use language and engage in complex social behaviors has a biological basis. Some scientists hypothesize that language developed as a means of establishing lasting social relationships.
Even a form of communication as casual as gossip provides an ingenious social tool: Suddenly, we become aware of crucial information that we never would have known otherwise. We know who needs a favor; who's available; who's already taken; and who's looking for someone -- information that, from an evolutionary perspective, can mean the difference between failure and success. So, it is certainly possible that evolutionary forces have influenced the development of human capacities for social interaction and the development of culture.
While scientists tend to agree about the general role of evolution in culture, there is still great disagreement about its specific contributions. There is great debate about how we are related to Neanderthals, close hominid relatives who coexisted with our species from more than , years ago to about 28, years ago.
Any shorthand summary of Darwin's theory needs three elements: variation between individuals, natural selection based on differences in survival, and heritability of traits.
As far as we know Darwin was never an atheist. He was baptised in the Church of England, taken to Unitarian chapel as a child and at one time intended to become a country clergyman. But Darwin was never a particularly religious person. When in his late 20s and early 30s he began to think more carefully about nature and the meaning of life, he gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity, miracles or divine revelations.
One of the most important factors in this gradual - and as he recalled it distress-free transformation - was his awareness that humans are animals too and are derived from less human-like ancestors.
Secondly, other religions, which had repeatedly swept over vast parts of the globe, were considered utterly groundless myths by Victorian Christians. Darwin could see that almost all peoples in all times had contradictory mythical stories and supernatural beings, and Christianity could boast of no evidence to support its own version. Other pernicious myths claim that Darwin repented of evolution or converted to Christianity on his deathbed.
To the former I can only think, so what? Although it is quite untrue, whatever Darwin could have said on his deathbed could not erase the mountains of scientific evidence which confirms Darwin's views. The latter myth is also entirely untrue and was forcibly denied by his sons in print when it first surfaced in and in the following decades.
Darwin remained an agnostic, though he always retained a lingering suspicion that some intelligence had set up the laws of nature in the first place. These fixed natural laws could be identified by science. He believed he had discovered a new such law in natural selection. There are many attributed to Darwin. Probably the most common is: "It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.
But it was never written by Darwin. There is no longer any excuse for taking someone else's word about or misquoting Darwin, because all of his publications are available for free at darwin-online.
Comments