Hominin Evolution

Primate’s evolutions are specially the Hominidae and, apes led to huge impact on human. Though the image of hominidae evolution appears far from complete, the Darwin theory brings the assumption that earlier tools were made of perishable materials.  The earliest hominin fossils appear to have bidedal whereby; there is no clear evidence showing there was a transition from Knuckle –walking to the locomotion modern age.  For one to understand the best mechanism that makes locomotion an efficient form today, scientists have to first consider hominin bipedalism origin.  Darwin theory on locomotion majors on defining earliest humans thereby, not strong enough in giving factors which might have driven evolution into bipedalism (Michael, Raichlen & Pontzer, 2007).

            I would argue with the theory assuming that, if the early bipeds were highly exposed to sunlight, they would probably stand upright. I think that the pre-dipedal locomotion was prepared in their habitats unlike the Darwin theory which suggests that the primates might have been terrestrial quadrupeds, or even the today chimpanzees. The surrounding the primates lived on are the only possible for locomotion preparation, hominin adapted the running among branches as well as practiced standing upright to forego overhead (Michael, David & Pontzer , 2007).

Bipedal locomotion cannot be compared to our walking, because they appear different considering their bent knees and bent throughout. The result opts to be an awkward movement with unmarked mediolateral body, rather than, the modern human whose walking cycle are characterized by divergent phases. Bipedal appear to have led to the modern human locomotion, simply because while running they both seem to exert energy from the ground. The only difference is that the primates adopt a full stance with full extension of their limbs. The limbs of the bipedal seem to have a strange change, since they are longer and extend like the tree branches (Michael, David & Pontzer, 2007).

Neanderthals are the closest to the human extinct, because the primate’s appearance is similar to human.  I would suggest that the only difference between the two is seen in their heights, size as well as morphological features. The height of the primates was shorter as compared to humans whereby; human body appeared large.DNA is a genetic difference discovered between the modern man and Neanderthal. Evidence on the genetic difference is driven from the fossils and archaeological, where difference in their separation is noticed. Considering the brains in both, Neanderthals was bigger compared to that of homo sapience. Despite their differences, there is no noticeable difference in their physical appearance considering their thicker bones (Bayertz, 2012).

Darwin theory on the origin of species gives clear evidences that, Neanderthals live in nuclear families. However, I tend to agree with this theory because the species bones shows that, they hand small population together. According to the evidences of their genetic differences to humans, the species genetic display shows that they lacked clear hybrids. I would support the genetic differences  suggesting that, human infant’s growth rate take more time as compared to Neanderthal, which is rapid from child to adult. The morphological differences in both Neanderthals and modern human, does not clearly gives evidential details on the species. Moreover, similarity is seen in both whereby; Neanderthals are known to be using tools such as ‘stones and blades. The physical differences might be clear, but in terms of anatomy scientists are giving extinct that they are our closest cousins. The Darwin theory on DNA differences between, Neanderthals and human cannot be relied on because; it does not clear evidence why, the Neanderthals species disappeared while the human survived (Bayertz, 2012).

References

Sockol.D. Michael, Raichlen. A. David andPontzer Herman.(2007). Chimpanzee Locomotor Energetics and of Human Bipedalism.

Bayertz, K. (2012). Der aufrechte Gang: Eine Geschichte des anthropologischen Denkens. C.H.Beck.