[Class Title]
The human species is believed to have come from hominids, a member of the primate family where the human species is believed to have originated from after a lengthy process of evolution. The Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins present this unique history of human evolution through fossils. The exhibition covers millions of years of human evolution presented through innovative displays. One of its notable exhibits is the famous ‘Lucy’ skeleton, which was unearthed in Ethiopia by a joint American and French paleoanthropologist team sometime in 1974. The museum also showed partial skulls of the ‘Peking Man,’ one of man’s early ancestors, which was discovered in an excavation in Peking, China back in the 1930s. The fossil exhibits are not only significant for paleoanthropologists. Rather, the fossils also have a profound impact on philosophers, particularly those who wish to explore ‘human nature’ by studying human anatomy. Such approach is not a new thing. In fact, many philosophers have tried to find meaning to human behavior in the field of biological science. The famous British naturalist, Charles Darwin, for instance, developed his theory of evolution by studying the anatomy of a specie; noting certain similarities and evolutionary evidence from fossils. As observed by evolution proponent, Jerry Coyne, within the bodies of plants and animals are clues; clues that can lead to a better understanding of their nature.
An examination of hominid fossils in the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins exhibit could provide many clues to the nature of human beings. The skull of hominids, for instance, has peculiar qualities that make them unique from ordinary primates. It can be observed that their skulls are less protruding than primates and are more robust. Their skulls, however, are not notably bigger compared to the skulls of ordinary primates; giving an impression that their brains are significantly larger. Considering that the brain of hominids is just a bit larger compared to other primates, it can be deduced that the earliest human ancestors must have significant intellectual skills. But unlike modern humans, their intellectual capacity must be limited. Most likely, they exhibit more ape-like behavior as opposed to modern human behavior. The dental features of hominids, however, are more human-like as compared to apes and chimps. Compared to chimps, the incisors of man’s ancestors are smaller while their molars and premolars are larger; resembling that of humans. Such dental features suggest that human ancestors have more diverse diets as compared to ordinary primates. Most likely, their ability eat varied types of food increased not only their survival ability, but also helped in the process of evolution by providing the nutritional needs required for them to evolve.
The bone structures of hominids are believed to have been structured in such a way that they can walk in two feet. According to scholars, the bipedal ability of the early human ancestors is brought partly by their larger brains as well as environmental adaptability as they were forced to live on the ground. Among the unique bone features of hominids that made them develop skills for walking and less in climbing is in their lower extremities. According to observers, the femur of hominids is angled “medially from the hip to the knee” decreasing their ability to pull their hind limb. It is believed that the placement of the femur on the hip bone of hominids, particularly that of ‘Lucy,’ is angled in such a way that both its bones and muscles work like that of humans than that of apes (Murdock, 107). Since their ability to climb trees is significantly decreased, hominids developed bipedal skills. Nevertheless, early human ancestors do not have good balancing skills owing to their large head in proportion to their body. Also, their pelvic bones are not as developed as modern humans, which “allows them to only waddle awkwardly from side to side” (Murdock, 109).
Whether or not evolution did happen to species, particularly to humans, is still a controversy. Until today, there is still no direct evidence that would suggest that, after a certain period of time, a particular species would evolve into something else. Even evolutionists agree that in order to build a strong proof to the process of evolution, one would need to gather an enormous amount of fossil in order to successfully document the evolutionary process that took place over time (Coyne 42). Unfortunately, no such evidence is available and people would have to make do of speculations and hypothesis about how the changes took place based on fragments of bones that are preserved by nature. It could be that the fossils unearthed and displayed in the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins are, indeed, human ancestors. However, it is also possible that these fossils are just a specie of human-like primates that has gone extinct. Unless hard scientific evidence reveals the truth behind the theory of evolution, such apprehensions could never be laid to rest. Such skepticism is consistent with David Hume’s philosophy of human nature, particularly his assertion on the limits of empirical knowledge. Hume believes that humans could not achieve a factual understanding of things unless he experiences it physically. While humans have the capacity to imagine things, for Hume, nothing can replace the knowledge brought about by observation and experiment. Nevertheless, people can always speculate that humans must have come from primates. After all, our genetic composition does not differ much from primates. Perhaps for convenience or just for the sake of classification, the plant and animal species are classified by science, according to their physical characteristics and genetic structure. Such classification suggests that species under the same family of genes must share similar attributes. If it is to be accepted that humans evolved from primates, then it should also be accepted that certain attributes associated with primates must have been passed on to humans. Otherwise, studying fossils and connecting them to modern humans would be a futile intellectual activity.
Bibliography
American Museum of Natural History. Spitzer Hall of Human Origins. n.d. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins (accessed June 2016).
BBC. Mother of man - 3.2 million years ago. September 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/mother_of_man1.shtml (accessed June 2016).
Coyne, J. Why Evolution is True. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Hume, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. n.d. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hume/enquiry.pdf (accessed June 2016).
Hunt, K. Australopithecines, australopiths. n.d. http://www.indiana.edu/. http://www.indiana.edu/~semliki/PDFs/Australopithecines.pdf (accessed June 2016).
Murdock, M. These apes were made for walking: the pelves of Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. 2006. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/Journal_20_2__pp104_112.pdf (accessed June 2016).
Sharp, J. Animals: How They Are Classified. n.d. http://www.desertusa.com/desert-activity/classified-plants-animals.html (accessed June 2016).
Smithsonian Institution. Australopithecus afarensis. December 2014. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis (accessed June 2016).
