Brain Anatomy and Relations with Skull Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Brain Anatomy and dealing with Skull - Article ExampleMost students should see that there ar skulls which satisfy some(a) of the criteria but non others that is, there are forms intermediate between human and non human (Nickels, 1987). If the concept of a graduation of forms is accepted, then(prenominal) the further interrogation what came first, a large brain or an upright stance will bring out ideas on how and wherefore this evolution occurred as it apparently did.Of course this approach concentrates entirely on fossil sound structure. Modern ideas on human evolution are based on a variety of forms of evidence addition to morphology molecular clocks such 2 interspecies differences in DNA and haemoglol anthropological observations on apes and primitive hunter-gatherers tools maintain footprints and considerations of climate and likely competitors. These factors should all be mentioned, but from the classroom point of view they do not have the convenience and concrete appeal of the skulls.It is not intended to cover the topic of the human evolutionary pathway comprehensively here. Recent and interesting accounts of the fossil record and prehistory of man can be found in Day (1984), Leakey and Lewin (1977), Lewin (1984), Lambert (1987), Putnam (1988), Stringer (1985), and Weaver (1985). The skull casts used in this exercise need to be reasonably accurate copies of genuine fossils which are as old (with due allowance for experimental error) as claimed. Some casts are partially restored and it is reasonable to accept restorations which are soundly based on drawings, photographs, and casts of relate fossil material. Opponents of evolutionary theory may dispute this approach on the grounds that the fossils are forgeries or that the dating methods are in error. The history of Piltdown man earlier this century lends some plausibility to the claims of forgery, but with upstart advances in dating methods a modern Piltdown would not survive for very long (Wein er, 1955). And if dating methods are so inaccurate that an object only 6000 years old is dated at 600 000 years then the validity of the large areas of chemical, physical, and geological theory and practice that underpin those methods must be called into question. Of course, it must be emphasized that while the evidence currently available to us suggests that a special creation some 6000 years ago is improbable, it does not, and cannot, show that it is impossible. Nor does the evidence necessarily contradict the concept that the universe as a whole and the laws that govern it were created a long time ago. There are large gaps in the fossil record and it is sometimes claimed that this shows that there is in fact no link between a new-fangled animal and its postulated ancestor. However, it is hardly surprising that there are such gaps in the record. Consider the sequence of events in the formulation of a fossil. After the animal dies it is almost certain to be torn apart by carnivore s and scavengers and its bones might be distributed widely. If the bones are