In the history of paleoanthropology, Neanderthals are central. A lot of our earliest fossil evidence for human evolution comes in the form of Neanderthals . . . And yet in an evolutionary standpoint, Neanderthals probably aren't as important as the attention we give them. If we think about the evolutionary reality of humans for the last million and half years, as they've occupied large stretches of Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe was probably always fairly marginal, on the peripheries of that environment. Europe was one of the last areas of the Old World to be occupied. And throughout the late Pleistocene, as we had major ice age events, it became an even smaller space, as populations where restricted to Southern Europe. So Neanderthals were probably always a fairly small population, probably only a tenth the size of the population in Africa, maybe even less. . . . But they're important in the history our discipline because they've been the center of discussion for so long.
Biologists and paleontologists have made a convincing case that life diversified tremendously during the Cambrian, and that the body plans apparent half a billion years ago showed significant similarities to body plans still thriving today. Figuring out why, and why then, is more challenging. Possible triggers include environmental changes, such as the retreat of the glaciers of Snowball (or Slushball) Earth, or the increased availability of oxygen, though those big changes happened before the Ediacaran Period. The development of predation might have spurred an evolutionary arms race, though that becomes a chicken-and-egg question of timing. Another possibility involves changes in developmental genes. Although evolution is not random, it can be driven by random changes in genes, and changes in Hox genes responsible for regulating overall body plans could have contributed to a rapid diversification of animal phyla over a short span of geologic time. Genetic changes might also have limited the diversification of phyla after that time. Evolution certainly continues today, but it doesn't appear to operate at the phylum level in the animal kingdom.
The Big Bang Theory | Creation vs. Evolution
The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement’s leading figures, asserts that “the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory,” its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.
Creation vs. Evolution Basics - Welcome to The Parent …
However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment."
Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784)
persuasive Essay on Creationism vs. Evolution? | Yahoo Answers
Introduction to the History of Philosophy (1832)
Whilst he preferred to consult reliable translations Emerson could attempt to read works in French and it is worth noting that he read, and was influenced by ideas offered in, Victor Cousin's "History of Philosophy" prior to the English language edition of 1832 - as this excerpt from a letter to his brother William demonstrates:-
Footnote from - The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson
English traits, Volume 5
by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Alfred Riggs Ferguson, Joseph Slater - 1971)
Note Emerson's enthusiasm for Cousin's views in this particular sentence:-
We may wonder - did Cousin's metaphysics influence, perhaps significantly, the construction by Emerson of aspects of his own essay, History?
5/21/2013 · Persuasive Essay on Creationism vs
Paleoanthropologists estimate that australopithecines evolved into early forms of the genus sometime between 3 million and 2.5 million years ago, but verifying this hypothesis has been complicated by a dearth of early fossils. A 2.3-million-year-old maxilla (upper jaw) long served as the oldest example of the genus, and the type specimen for , or "handy man," is younger still. A computerized reconstruction of the mandible (lower jaw) from the type specimen showed australopithecine characteristics along with traits of our own genus. And comparisons of the fossils from this period suggests "an evolutionary explosion at the dawn of our genus," according to .