Evolution can be seen throughout all aspects of life, but for each aspect evolution does not occur in the same process. In his article entitled “Natural Selection, Scale, and Cultural Evolution,” Dunnell emphasizes and explains why evolution has made such a small impact on archaeology. Cultural evolution and biological evolution are not the same. Biological evolution uses theoretical propositions that explain the mechanisms of biological adaptation and evolution. The laws of cultural evolution “are not theoretical propositions but rather empirical generalizations” (Dunnell, 1996: 25). Cultural evolution does not explain the differences among the occurrences cultural phenomena. Dunnell’s main goal is to effectively formulate ways to integrate evolutionary characteristics and anthropological theory (Dunnell, 1996).
Dunnell believed that evolutionary biology is a better method to explain evolution in cultural anthropology and archaeology rather than cultural evolution. The main problem with biological evolution is the dilemma of altruistic behavior in humans, which is the exact opposite of natural selection. Dunnell states that altruistic behavior is “the ultimate of the selfish principles” (Dunnell 1996: 26). The original solution to the issue of altruistic behavior was thought to be to change the scale of which natural selection works from that of the individual to the group. However, Dunnell gives three reasons why this change usually would not work. First, the individual, not the group, is the mean by which the reproductivity occurs. Second, the individual is the mean by which observable characteristics show themselves. Finally, changes in higher levels of ranking in society, such as that of the group, are too slow for ...
... middle of paper ...
...a “culture” (Dunnell 1988).
After a forty years absence, the cultural evolution method was revived in the mid-twentieth century. At first, many rejected the revival of this method, even though they were still using some aspects of the method, i.e. the stages of a cultures development. The twentieth century cultural evolution method differed from the earlier model in a few ways, but the main difference was in the definition of “progress.” During the nineteenth century, “progress” was broadly defined as “the betterment or similarity to modern European culture” (Dunnell, 1988; pg 176-177). During the twentieth century, however, “progress” took the definition of “ the increase in the amount of energy captured by society” (Dunnell, 1988; pg 177). This simply means that the “least developed” cultures used less energy than “more developed” cultures (Dunnell, 1988).
Frands de Waal is a world leading primatologist, author of The Ape of the Sushi Master, who decided to inform everyday people about his cultural reflections regarding his theory of survival of the kindest. He questions the popular theory of survival of the fittest with his own scientific observations. He allows us to explore the animal kingdom with his observations as he informs his audience on his theory. Waal claims that animal species rely on altruism which is acts of kindness in order to survive. Throughout his book he supports his claim by using rhetorical strategies (list) this appeals to the audience (appeals, trust in him as author,feelings) ultimately make his main argument persuasive.
Different theories have been developed which relate to this theme of moral decay throughout history, even several centuries after Hesiod's life. This idea of evolutionary decay seems to corroborate with the widely received, contemporary theory of evolution, or Darwinism, brought forth through the designs and beliefs of Charles Darwin in which he states that, in nature, only the fittest creatures will survive ...
Most people believe that Social Darwinism is a term that can only be applied to people’s race, and for most well known social Darwinism theories this is true. The basis of these theories is always revolved around the term survival of the fittest. Darwin works where to do with animals and how animal species have ada...
Humanity became fascinated with the idea of evolution with the work of Charles Darwin and the Scientific Revolution. People began hunting for fossils that would prove that man had an ape derived ancestry (Weiner, 1955). After various years of searching, a piece of physical evidence was found in England that was said to confirm the theory of evolution (Weiner, 1955).This confirmation came from Charles Dawson’s discoveries from 1908, that were announced publicly in 1912 (Thackeray, 2011). Dawson was believed to have found the fossil remains of the “missing link” between ape and human evolution, the reconstructed skull of Piltdown man (Augustine, 2006). The material was found in stratigraphical evidence and animal remains that were, at the time, adequate enough to confirm the antiquity of the remains (Weiner, 1955). In 1915, another specimen, Piltdown man II, was found further proving this theory (Augustine, 2006). However, this was merely a hoax proven by fluorine relative dating in 1953; the artifacts and bone fragments discovered turned out to be altered to fit the proposed scenario (Augustine, 2006). The skull found was actually composed of a human braincase that was younger than the complimentary orangutan lower jaw (Falk, 2011). Both sections of the skull had been stained to appear to be from the same person of the same age (Falk, 2011).The perpetrator of this act was never caught and there are many theories proposed for the motive of this hoax (Augustine, 2006). Many people have been taken into consideration for this crime, such as Chardin, Woodward, Hinton, and Dawson (Augustine, 2006). Nevertheless, the evidence that proves that Dawson is guilty of this crime against anthropology is quite substantial compared to the evidence...
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains the general laws by which any given species transforms into other varieties and species. Darwin extends the application of his theory to the entire hierarchy of classification and states that all forms of life have descended from one incredibly remote ancestor. The process of natural selection entails the divergence of character of specific varieties and the subsequent classification of once-related living forms as distinct entities on one or many levels of classification. The process occurs as a species varies slightly over the course of numerous generations. Through inheritance, natural selection preserves each variation that proves advantageous to that species in its present circumstances of living, which include its interaction with closely related species in the “struggle for existence” (Darwin 62).
Wilson's contribution here is concerned with correcting our perspective. He points out how we limit our insight if we do not think about genetic causes, how refusal to consider them commits us to standing far too close to the social pattern, taking as absolute what are really passing features of our own society, and as relative the underlying structures that cannot easily be fitted into them. We cannot know ourselves in this way. And if we insist on making the mistake, evolution will indeed make a monkey of us.
Nunney, Len. “Group Selection, Altruism, and Structured-Deme Models.” The American Naturalist 126.2 (1985): 212-230. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.
Griswold, W. (2013). Cultures and societies in a changing world. (4th ed.). United States of America: SAGE publications Inc.
Many kinds of cumulative change through time have been described by the term "evolution," and the term is used in astronomy, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences. This document focuses o...
One of the most key examples of understanding human culture through archaeology is the topic of climate and the environment. As seen through history, there is an intricate relationship between the environment and life on earth. Through extensive research, archaeologists have the ability to take note of minor cultural changes that can be attributed to the environment during a particular time period. These changes include, shifts in methods of food collection, changes in the artwor...
Julian H. Steward was a neoevolutionist in the mid-20th century that rejected the then-popular theory that a people’s culture could only be traced by historical links to past cultures. “Together with Leslie White, [Steward] contributed to the formation of the theory of multilinear evolution, which examined the way in which societies adapted to their environment” (New World Encyclopedia, 2008). Steward argued that, as opposed to the theory of unilinear evolution that suggests that cultures develop in a regular linear sequence, changes are not universal and though some aspects of culture can develop in similar ways, few cultural traits can be found in all groups and these different factors (ideology, political systems, kinship, etc.) push culture
Migration theories and patters are often thought of as chaotic and poorly understood, though not because they are thought of as unimportant in the field of archaeology. On the contrary, they are thought of as important and potentially linked to further understanding cultural evolution (Anthony 1990). It is the fact that archeologists lack the theory and methods that might allow them to incorporate migration into the explanation of culture that places it in the realm of the chaotic and poorly understood (Anthony 1990).
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of the 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by the ‘development ladder’ is that development happens in a sequential process through stage by stage, while the second premise underpinned by the ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards Western values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies.
About fifty thousand years ago, the human cultures started to be more and more similar to modern culture. The hominids killed animals not only to feed themselves but also for the production of clothing (Pickrell, 2006). The hominids had the sense of shame. They used hides to cover their body. Besides, the hominids have the thought to bury their companions (Pickrell, 2006). It is an idea of group or family. With the final formation of human society, people developed and valued quickly. The oldest cave painting had more than thirty-three thousand years’ history (Pickrell, 2006). It is the proof of original humans’ pursuit of art. Almost ten thousand years ago, the systematic agriculture appeared, developed and spread with an amazing speed (Pickrell, 2006). Humans started to plant cereal and raise and train livestock. After that, the Bronze Age carried on the Stone Age (Pickrell, 2006). The change of tool materials helped people have higher efficiency when they were working. At the same time, the first recorded human culture appeared in Mesopotamia (Pickrell, 2006). Until this time point, human beings finished their evolution from ancient apes to modern humans. The process, which had experienced more than hundreds million years, was the most wonderful evolution on the
Without evolution, and the constant ever changing environment, the complexity of living organisms would not be as it is. Evolution is defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (8).Scientists believe in the theory of evolution. This belief is based on scientific evidence that corroborates the theory of evolution. In Figure 1 the pictures of the skulls depict the sequence of the evolution of Homo-sapiens. As the figure shows, man has evolved from our common ancestor that is shared by homo-sapiens. The change of diet of homo-sapiens over time has thought to contribute to the change in jaw structure and overall skull shape.