The assumptions made on early life have limited knowledge

The assumptions made on early life have limited knowledge on scientific techniques and the overall science used in determining our ancestral past. Though, observations that are made of our ancestors are based on the concept of the new theory, does that diminish the idea of using old observation? But, oddly enough, the majority of that observation coincides with the way we act now, instead of focusing on why we act that way and what could have possibly caused it.

A study referred to as “Evolutionary Psychology” is used to backup and support what we came from and who we are today by what we have evolved from.

Evolution is “… a valid scientific explanation for the origins of body form and other aspects of the material world” (Social Responses | AMNH) or is an undeniable point of ‘observation, it’s essentially an idea that proves we understand more than what we’re first made to believe. But there’s little to no evidence that we can even comprehend what our ancestors’ images could’ve been or what their attitudes, etc.

that comes even close to being as widely accepted. Simply, field of study is solely based on science that doesn’t exist to many (talking in terms of religion). Evolutionary psychologists use things we do not comprehend such as the reason as to why we tend to be around certain people, why we tend to these people, and who we are when around them. On the other hand, anthropologists use the ‘impossible’ to speculate who we used to be and what caused a change.

Get quality help now
Marrie pro writer
Verified

Proficient in: Epistemology

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

The constant fight or struggle of our past life regarding our confusing history of evolution seems to get in the way of the true meaning of even having an argument, solely finding out how we evolved. This topic gets so diluted from personal bias and other sources of influence that this topic has become more of a personal belief than a hard-core statistic and true answer. An example of how this gets misinterpreted in history is from a past study referred to as the “Great Man Theory.” This theory specifically demonstrates how easily a change in social status affects the way evolution is described. It is a difficult theory to swallow because it basically says that, “leaders are born with the attributes necessary to set them apart from those around them and that these traits enable them to assume roles of authority and power.” (The Great Man Theory, Villanova). There are still believers of this theory which means that the idea of evolution is still at risk for being thought of as a belief and not a fact. As stated, some believe that those who are leaders are born into the environment needed to lead and others believe that greatness is like a science and has to be learned, not just given.

This has prompted that evolution has not much changed since it was first brought up. Does this mean that our ancestors knew that in order to survive they needed a fire and food to keep them alive? Did they rationalize and think of the best possible materials in order to keep them protected? Or did they simple adapt to their environment and realize that these things needed to be done in order to properly flourish. The social reactions over time to evolution has ultimately stayed the same, some think that the word ‘evolution’ is a sin and that God created us and whatnot. Others believe that as mammals we grew from something more and that there’s more of explanation behind us.

Cite this page

The assumptions made on early life have limited knowledge. (2019, Dec 17). Retrieved from http://paperap.com/the-assumptions-made-on-early-life-have-limited-knowledge-best-essay/

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7