Atheism 101

Having read a few articles about the topic of atheism and faith, I was rather disturbed by the amount of misinformation and confusion on atheism. Atheism, simply defined, is the lack of belief in any sort of god; an atheist is one who does not believe in any sort of god. Many people use a more restricted definition of atheism; for example, Stacey Baran from Odyssey defines atheism as someone who claims there is no god. This, however, is a misconception.

Some may wonder, "what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?" The general misconception is that the atheist holds the claim that a god does not exist while it is the agnostic that holds no claim or holds the claim that it is impossible to know if a god exists. However, despite this misconception, in accordance with the definition above, the atheist holds no claim specifically in regard to the gods or the supernatural; agnosticism is not inclusive of religious claims but of any claim on knowledge. Austin Cline explains the difference quite well:

This is also a simple concept, but it may be as widely misunderstood as atheism is. One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal with questions about the existence of gods, but whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

However, for the intention of resolving ambiguity, one may be identified—self or otherwise—as an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. The agnostic atheist is also the one that holds no claim on the existence of god—the agnostic theist too. While the gnostic theist claims there is a god; likewise, the gnostic atheist claims that a god does not exist.

The reasons for the lack of belief vary from small problematic reasons to rather concerning and/or rational reasons. Some atheists will claim that they were simply raised in a household that was not religious, while others claim they lack an urge to believe and/or logic compels them not to. Many atheists that I know of have no sort of religious beliefs, having evaluated the arguments for a god’s existence due to the lack of evidence for the existence of any sort of god. The following are some common examples of arguments for the existence of god. Here I analyze them while illustrating their fallacies and shortcomings.

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

The cosmological argument is, essentially, an argument in which the existence of a god or supernatural power is deduced or inferred as highly probable from alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it [4]. The problem with claiming that someone or something created the universe is that there is a lack of evidence to support such an incredible claim. As of right now, how the universe came to be is under investigation. The Big Bang, however, is quite a firm theory as the amount of evidence (e.g., expansion of the universe, microwave radiation, etc.) supporting it is large and has yet to be invalidated since it accords with the nature. This being so, all matter in the universe was once in a dense singularity; anything that occurred before the Big Bang has or would have no observational consequences on what is to occur after the initial expansion. Time itself would not exist prior to the Big Bang because there was nothing before the Big Bang. As Professor Hawking put it:

“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”

The problem with the cosmological argument or the first-cause argument is that it tends to assume that everything that exists requires a cause. A contemporary of mine, Alexis Delanoir, stated the following when confronted with the question, "Does the universe require a progenitor?":

Every finite and contingent being has a cause, but we don't know if the universe is finite or contingent. Why can't a causal loop exist? And why can't it be infinite? Why can existence not be contingent upon itself; in fact, even if we were to prove that it cannot exist within the confines of our own universe, [then] that doesn't apply to pre-universal laws. Since the Big Bang is what created existence; the laws prior to existence were therefore very likely to be different—or, to not exist at all. Since, again, these laws have to "exist," but if "existence" did not start until the events which led up to the Big Bang, then there were no laws. All of this is conjecture.The easiest thing to rebut is "Every finite and contingent being has a cause". Yes, if it's contingent, then it must have a cause. Is the universe contingent? We don't know.

In matters of metaphysical assumptions, Occam's Razor is quite useful. Perhaps one claims that a god is the cause of the big bang or, perhaps, the universe just is. The following is an example of the Occam Razor’s usage.

An example of this which is relevant to atheism is found in the following two hypotheses: 1) There is a universe; 2) There is a universe and a God which created the universe.The first hypothesis is obviously simpler than the second. Thus, without sufficient reason, the first is preferable to the second. That doesn't mean that the second hypothesis is wrong—it does, however, mean that we should not simply assume the second.

2. Morality is objective—Deus vult.

Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon a god, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires. "Morality derives from god or from the divine, solely." This sort of argument is often met with the Euthyphro Dilemma: are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? Whichever way the theist answers this question, problems are thought to follow. If morally good acts are willed by a god because the acts are morally good, then the morally good acts are morally good before and independently of a god. If, however morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then he faces three problems: arbitrariness problem, the emptiness problem, and the problem of abhorrent commands. The arbitrariness problem comes into play if divine command theory is held as true as morality seems to be determined without a basis. Without a basis, the morals chosen by a god are not dictated by morality itself. Without morality influencing a god’s choosing of morals, then the god may have no reason as to choose marriage fidelity over infidelity—morality is then arbitrary. If, however, there existed morals that influenced a god’s choosing of morality, then morality can then be independent from a god. The emptiness problem is essentially a problem formed when a theist claims that a god is good because the god wills itself to be good. These claims are tautologies, the saying of the same thing twice—generally considered a fault of style. There are those that may will their self to be morally good but, at times, falter and may not assert their self to be as they will. Finally, the problem of abhorrent commands entails that murder, rape, theft, arson, and the ilk can be deemed morally good if the divine command theory is held as true.

3. The world appears to be tailored for mankind.

This world just happens to also allow for the existence of the numerous amount of parasites and diseases that afflict the majority of organisms, including humans. If the aforementioned fits into the claim that the world is beautiful and good, then so be it; however, to claim that a god is responsible for the beauty observed in the world would require incredible evidence. A common and rhetorical statement held by theists is "What chance is there for random atoms to collide and create this beautiful earth?". The problem with this statement is that it implicitly suggests that it is improbable for randomness to create Earth as it is. Even if there is a small chance, it is still a chance; and due to the sheer size of the universe, it is rather bound to happen due to the laws of probability. Another problem with the aforesaid statement is that it implicitly suggests that one may not know how the world came to be, therefore it is easier to posit that someone was responsible for this creation—a god. Another common claim, and a similar claim, is that reality itself is the evidence for the existence of the divine. To that I ask "how do you know that the 'default position' you've selected is the correct one?" Reality is simply evidence for reality and not some sort of divine agent. Existence itself is evidence of existence itself and not a presence of the divine.

The above has been an examination of what atheism and agnosticism are, along with three common arguments used to assert that a god exists, with a rebuttal that may be held by an atheist.

Bibliography

[1] "Atheism." Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[2] Baran, Stacey. "The Problem With Agnosticism." The Odyssey. N.p., 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

[3] "Cosmological Argument." Stanford University. Stanford University, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

[4] Cline, Austin. "What's the Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics?" About.com Religion & Spirituality. About, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015

[5] Hawking, Stephen. "The Beginning of Time." The Beginning of Time. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[6] Cline, Austin. "Occam's Razor." About.com Agnosticism/Atheism. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[7] "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[8] "Philosophy of Religion." Philosophy of Religion Divine Command Theory Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[9] "Philosophy of Religion." Philosophy of Religion Divine Command Theory Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

[10] "Tautology." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

Hypothesis, Theory, Law, Fact. What's the Difference?

   Question: what is a scientific theory? What differentiates a scientific theory and its ilk, hypotheses, laws, fact, et cetera? Is scientific fact immutable? Unfortunately, many people lack an understanding on how scientific definitions are defined and how the scientific method is applied in the fields of science. In a sense, it is understandable as fields like science, social science, and the rest often have definitions and uses that vastly differ from the common language. For example, 'heat' in regards to animal behavior in the field of anthropology can refer to estrus and how/when a species enters a period of sexual receptivity. However, as humans, we do not use the word often or confuse heat/estrus with its more typical definition because humans—human females—are in the category of animals that have a hidden estrus. A scientific control, a noun, differs from the average control that often used as a verb; the scientific control is method by which a variable or variables is usually held constant so that the impact of a certain factor may be accounted for in a test. [1] Within the English language, especially in the American dialect, a theory is often synonymous with a guess or hypothesis. So, naturally, when one who knows not better hears of a scientific theory or, even, hypothesis, one may simply regard them as simply a guess. Vernacular aside, in science, a scientific theory is defined as something like

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)  

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984). 

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990). 

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion]. 

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995). [2]

With the scientific theory being defined, a scientific hypothesis is quite similar. Britannic defines the scientific hypothesis as an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If...then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. [3] So, essentially, a hypothesis can be hold true and, even then, can still remain a hypothesis due to several reasons. One of those reasons being that a hypothesis can be tested, verified, and or falsified. As my biology professor instructed me, a theory and hypothesis can differ in four or more ways.

I. Theories are supported by multiple lines of evidencesII. Theories tends to explain more phenomena and have more explanations.III. Theories may not be testable.IV. Theories tend to have more supporting evidences. 

In short, hypotheses may explain phenomena, in a narrow sense, while also being testable and or falsifiable. [4] Theories may explain phenomena in a broad sense while likely embodying related hypotheses and evidences and having few exceptions to what it predicts. [5] [6]

   Scientific laws are rarely, if ever, contested by those not in the science fields but I feel inclined as to define and explain what a scientific law is and its relevance to hypotheses and theories. Laws are often defined as a scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstance. [7] [8] In a sense, laws account for their own exceptions with explanations like in the case of Mendel's laws of Independent assortment and or Law of Segregation. This being so and with the addition of scientific fact being mutable and subject to change, I like to think of science as being pragmatic—open to change and improvement. Berkeley explains what scientific facts mean much better than I may describe it be.

Facts are statements that we know to be true through direct observation. In everyday usage, facts are a highly valued form of knowledge because we can be so confident in them. Scientific thinking, however, recognizes that, though facts are important, we can only be completely confident about relatively simple statements. For example, it may be a fact that there are three trees in your backyard. However, our knowledge of how all trees are related to one another is not a fact; it is a complex body of knowledge based on many different lines of evidence and reasoning that may change as new evidence is discovered and as old evidence is interpreted in new ways. Though our knowledge of tree relationships is not a fact, it is broadly applicable, useful in many situations, and synthesizes many individual facts into a broader framework. Science values facts but recognizes that many forms of knowledge are more powerful than simple facts.  [9]

Scientific fact holds a much different meaning than in the vernacular to some; one may think or regard fact, scientific or not, is absolute and immutable but this is rarely the case. Lastly, one may easily think that a scientific hypothesis may evolve into a theory or law—or theory to law/fact. However, this is not so; hypotheses tend to remain as hypotheses, laws as laws, and facts as facts. In some cases, a theory may be both theory and fact like in the case of evolution. [10] [11] [12] 

TL;DR: hypotheses may hold true and not be regarded as a theory; a theory may hold true and not be regarded as a law or fact; a law or fact may hold true but may be subject to change so to accord with current evidences. 

Link to image: http://www.slideshare.net/michael_gezae/hypothesis-7600477




1: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary.php
2: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
3: http://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis
4: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19
5: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19
6: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
7: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
8: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
9: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a1
10: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html
11: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
12: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Civilodysseus—the Ideal Greek.

   Within the Odyssey, there is a recurring theme pertaining to civilization and how a person's dependence on civilization, or lack thereof, makes a person human or a lowly beast. The word "Civilization" is composed of the 16th-century French civilisé (civilized), from Latin civilis (civil), related to civis (citizen) and civitas (city) [1]; with the process or state of being civilized being subjective, civilization will be defined somewhat as how the Greeks may have defined or imagined the process or state of being civilized: demonstrating, having, or fostering xenia, story-telling, conversation, structure, order, arts, lawfulness, and so on. Throughout the Odyssey, one may notice how the civilized humans (e.g., the Phaekians, Agamemnon, and Eumaios) act as opposed to the uncivilized beasts (e.g., the cyclopes and the Laestragonians). The uncivilized lack the majority of what the Greeks would define as being civilized—namely the lack of xenia. In addition to the discussion of civilization and what it is to be civilized, does Odysseus portray what it is to be a civilized man? Based on the aforesaid definition of what it is to be civilized, Odysseus, for the most part, is definitely civilized as he demonstrates xenia, story-telling, conversation, and upholds a sort of structural hierarchy when possible—essentially, Odysseus is the ideal Greek male. There are, of course, to be examples of Odysseus failing to act civilized and an analysis on those failures. The objective of this essay is to further illustrate the Greeks'—or Homer's—ideas of civilization and how one may be deemed civilized or uncivilized as well as to construct an argument for how Odysseus verily demonstrates what it is to be civilized.  

   Xenia, an intrinsic and quintessential aspect of civilized Greek life in Homer's time period, may simply be defined as guest-friendship or hospitality. Essentially, in order to demonstrate xenia, a host will offer or provide foods, drinks, baths, and other needs the guest may want, within reason, before asking or demanding anything from the guest. The guest, in return, is to be respectful and prove not an onerous burden upon the host. The first obvious portrayal of xenia within the Odyssey is found in the Telamachiad when Telemachus first meets Mentes [Athena] by the entrance to Telemachus'' home; Telemachus' immediately relieved Mentes of his spear, welcomed him with winged words, and noted that he is to be entertained and fed before any talk of business. Odysseus, due to being away from home, never hosts anyone in the same manner as his son, but, instead, demonstrates xenia in the role of a guest when among the Phaekians, Eumaios, Circe and Calypso by simply not being burdensome and abusing his privilege of being a guest; furthermore, Odysseus goes as far as to critique Polyphemus' lack of xenia when Odysseus runs into the cave of Polyphemus as Polyphemus refuses to take care of the needs of his guests and, instead, eats a number of them. It is this action that further enables the cyclopes to be labelled as uncivilized, for without any sort of hospitality, then conversation, story-telling, and lawfulness are not able to be fostered; without the essential aspects to civilization, then the cyclopes—Polyphemus—is not an example of what it is to be civilized.  

  Examining the killing spree of Odysseus, Odysseus does not always obey the social more of xenia. During Odysseus' killing spree near the end of the book, Telemachus persuades Odysseus to spare two exceptions from the suitor lot; Leodes, even after begging for his life at the knees of Odysseus and claiming innocence, was nonetheless killed by Odysseus despite supposedly being under the protection of Zeus (Latimore 329).  

   From what we've learned from the prior books, especially through Odysseus himself on the island of Phaekia [grabbing] a person's knees earns you instant suppliant status [and] puts you under the protection of Zeus and makes the other person have an obligation to treat you like a guest in your home and you should [receive] hospitality. But Odysseus does not heed xenia in this case. The conclusion we have to draw is that in certain times, there are certain people in extreme situations, and with great heroes, sometimes pieces of the social code need to give way when other pieces of the social code—that are more important—require that we cut corners in order to meet the end—justice dictated by the overarching social code. Homer is telling us that there is no way that Odysseus should have spared Leodes even despite Leodes getting a hold of [Odysseus'] knees.[2] 

   Perhaps Odysseus was justified in this case, for Telemachus, himself, did not claim Leodes to be innocent; or, perhaps, killing Leodes was a sort of necessary evil that Odysseus felt entitled to; or Odysseus was simply overwhelmed in his killing spree so as to forget to heed the social mores he had obeyed willingly beforehand. Regardless of why, xenia was not demonstrated in this case and Odysseus' actions almost mirror that of Polyphemus—lacking of xenia and killing a suppliant guest. Though, based solely on the precise frequency of Odysseus' demonstration of xenia, however, Odysseus, I would posit, is quite civilized despite the aforesaid infraction of xenia. 

   Perhaps it is arguable whether or not Odysseus' killing spree of the suitors was a major breach of xenia and what it is to be civilized. The suitors naturally adventured to Odysseus' domain as Odysseus was away at sea for several years; his family knew not where he was or if he was still alive. Thus, the suitors were not in the wrong when they ventured toward Penelope with the intention of marrying her. However, it is how the suitors acted while being housed within the domain of the absent Odysseus that nullifies their protection under xenia. Athena, in fact, observes how the suitors were unruly and tells how and when Telemachus ought to kill the suitors (Latimore 33-34). In this case, the killing of the suitors was warranted and sanctioned by a wise divinity; Odysseus and Telemachus need not worry about breaching xenia as xenia no longer applies to those who have broken xenia and, especially, those who would plot the demise of a host, Telemachus (Latimore 48). So, in conclusion, Odysseus breaches not xenia in the case of his slaughter of the suitors but, rather, displays a sort of piety towards Athena and his family.   

  The art of story-telling and conversation are quite intrinsic as many of the conversations observed within the Odyssey contain some sort of story and are demonstrated by civilized people. Notably, the major arcs within the Odyssey viz. the island of Calypso, Circe, Phaekians, Menelaus, Nestor, et cetera have stories told within the conversations held. The stories told in the Odyssey may serve a few purposes: to pass time or entertain, to notify the listeners of the story-teller's past, to describe one's self, to add substance to one's character or status, and to possibly impress the audience. It is on the island of the Phaekians that Odysseus seem to use all of the aforesaid functions of story-telling to his advantage. Near the end of book 8, Odysseus is asked to reveal himself to the Phaekians and does so in the style of a story—a story of his past wanderings after Troy. Itaque, in book 9, Odysseus claims himself as himself, son of Laertes, and claims his fame extends toward the heavens; furthermore, Odysseus tells the Phaekians of his homeland and, subsequently, of his previous wanderings before arriving to the island of the Phaekians. This act from Odysseus wins himself the full support of the Phaekians as well as a large amount of treasure, trust, and—most importantly—a ride home to Ithaka. Antinoös states that it is the manner of which Odysseus tells his story most skillfully and credibly that substantiates the credibility and trustworthiness of Odysseus with, "Odysseus, we as we look upon you do not imagine that you are deceptive or thievish man […] making up lying stories, from which no one could learn anything. You have a grace upon your words, […] sound sense within them, and expertly told […]" (Latimore 177).  This act of profound story-telling can be observed not only by Odysseus but also by Nestor, Menelaus, Agamemnon and a few of the Phaekians—all civilized people.  

   In a sense, it can be extrapolated that Odysseus could serve the purpose of what the ideal Greek character ought to be like. In regards to xenia, an essential component of being civilized, Odysseus especially manages to withhold and demonstrate xenia. Odysseus also manages to remain civilized despite being far from home in troubled waters and partake in conversation and story-telling while, against the odds, return home after years of hardship in order to rule his land and care for his familial duty. This is what one would imagine the Greeks would have strived to do if given the chance. It could be said that, even today, this is what one should strive to do: withhold xenia and piety despite hardship.  



Bibliography: 
1: Sullivan, Larry. The SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavorial Sciences: SAGE Publications, 2009. Print. 
2: Struck, Peter. "Week 4 Lecture 6: The Bow." Online video Clip. Coursera. Coursera, N/A. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. 
All right reserved.

 Art: Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein (1751–1829)

Our Evolutionary History,

Beginning with Australopithecus afarensis, despite it likely not being a species that we homo sapiens can directly trace lineage to, there existed many important characteristics within this species. The Australopithecus afarensis existed from about 3.9 to 3 million years in Eastern Africa—probably survived for almost one million years [1]. In this species, distinct human and ape-like features are expressed however, evidenced by Lucy, looked very different from the more modern and related species that are found after afarensis. Afarensis had a flat-nose and strongly projecting lower jaw as well as a rather small brain—around 500cm³—a third of the average human size [2]. Furthermore, afarensis had small  canine teeth like that of the modern human and most likely regularly walked upright while also retaining arboreal ability. Stanley Rice notes that bipedalism was a major adaption afarensis had due to the location of the opening for the spinal cord and the pelvis was found suitable for walking; the feet, however, were only partially adapted for walking upright. Furthermore, Stanly Rice writes that this suggests that afarensis lived mostly on the ground but frequently scrambled into the trees when danger was present [3]. The arms of the afarensis substantiate the possibility of afarensis retaining the ability to still be able to be arboreal. According to the Savanna hypothesis, bipedalism evolved—or further evolved—due to some common ancestor beginning to live within savanna biomes. Sexual dimorphism is quite overt in afarensis as well; the average male is found to be about 151cm while females average at 105cm. Dental microwear seems to support that afarensis most likely had a plant based diet that could likely include small vertebrates [4]. So, essentially, the afarensis is important due to quasi-human and ape characteristics as well as it being very related to the modern human despite the probability of the afarensis not being on our direct evolutionary lineage. 

   In a sense, our direct roots come more recently with the Homo habilis which is one of the earliest members of the Homo genus existing 2.4-1.4 million years ago [5]. The most notable differences from habilis and afarensis are that habilis had larger brain and smaller face but, however, retained an ape-like face and arms. The habilis is probably most known as the first tool-maker despite some earlier species also having made some tools a bit before habilis is known to have existed. Also, during the lifetime of the habilis' lifetime, there existed other similar species that would also be capable of creating tools; to claim that habilis was the first is rather difficult. However, it is most probable that the habilis was able to use stone tools with a decent proficiency. Regardless of which species was the first to make tools, tool-making increases efficiency, namely, in food gathering—flora and fauna. The hard enamel of the habilis suggests that the species' diet consisted of rather hard foods like nuts, tree roots, woody plants, animal tissue and so forth. It is also quite probable that habilis practiced marrow eating as evidenced by fossils of marked bones that suggest this [6] [7]. The importance of the practice of consuming the bone marrow substances is due to the nutritional benefits that may have boosted the performance efficiency of habilis [8]. The overall ability and anatomy of the Homo habilis allowed for its species survival until the species branched off into, probably, Homo ergaster or Homo erectus. It is in this sense, that habilis succeeded within its species' lifetime.  

   After Homo habilis comes Homo ergaster which is sometimes synonymous with Homo erectus but is also used to differentiate between the early and late Homo erectus; the former is sometimes named as the Homo ergaster but, for simplicity, the Homo ergaster and erectus will be referred to as Homo erectus [9]. Homo erectus, upright man, comes into existence sometime around 1.9 million years ago and moved out of Africa into lower Asia—Middle East, Indian subcontinent, lower China [10]. The Homo erectus' important contribution towards to evolutionary history is that it may have been able to make fire, advance hunting skills and tools as well as possibly having some semblance of a language and culture [11]. The important further development of tools the erectus is credited with is the development of Oldowan or Acheulean tools which are a bit more complex than the tools made by previous homo species[12]. Important anatomical developments include the species' growth heights comparable to the modern human and increased cranium size compared to earlier species viz. Homo erectus' average brain size was about 69% the size of the modern human but 50% larger than the Homo habilis[13] [14].  Furthermore, Homo erectus was likely to have been able to run or walk great distances sufficient enough to be able to hunt small and medium size game—an ability still retained by the homo sapiens[15]. The combination of both the further development of hunting skills and brain development may have been due or led to erectus being able to learn the patterns of vultures and scavenge more meat than the previous species [16]. This begins a positive feedback loop; the more meat consumed, the better the brain development and the better development, the more potential to consume more meat. In regards to appearance, essentially, the Homo erectus physically appeared much like a modern human from the neck downwards with a somewhat ape-like face and large muscles. In regards to the dental aspects of the Homo erectus, the teeth—size and molars in particular—clearly resemble the modern homo sapiens. This being so, it is quite probable that their diet included softer foods than previous species as well as an increase in meat consumption that contributes to the success of the Homo erectus. Due to the various developments like the ones stated above, Homo erectus, with its foundation based upon Homo habilis, further succeeded its predecessor and later evolved into, namely,  Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis—quite likely the predecessor of homo neanderthalensis. 

   Lastly, we have the Homo heidelbergensis. The heidelbergensis evolved from Homo erectus partially within Africa and out of Africa [17]. This species existed from about 700,000 to 200,000 years ago in eastern and southern Africa as well as parts of Europe and possibly Asia [18]. Very related to the modern homo species genetically and physically, heidelbergensis had a large browridge and braincase as well as a flatter face compared to those of the previous species [19]. On average, heidelbergensis maintained a shorter height than the previous species which most likely served the purpose to conserve heat in order to survive in the less tropical and more colder climates out of Africa [20]. Apart from the change in physical characteristics, the heidelbergensis further developed its tools and possibly began to practice the burying of their kin as well as build small huts and mastered its control of fire [21]. The further development of tools resulted in the making of the first spears that could be used to thrust or throw—some being two meters long [22]! This could be the reason as to why heidelbergensis is credited with being able to hunt large game. It is suggested that the European branch of heidelbergensis later evolved into the neanderthalensis whilst the African branch evolved into the Homo sapiens.  

   In summary, the evolution of the later Australopithecus and the Homo habilis, erectus, and heidelbergensis features/demonstrates slight change over time. The slow transition from the more ape-like ancestors slowly began to appear much more human. These slow transitions are often correlated with changes within climate, biome, diet, tool development, and so on which, in turn, slowly begin to alter the species' evolution. The ability of the hominid species to have adapted to their environment enabled the species to live long enough to evolve and survive natural selection. Millions of years of the evolutionary struggle is what our species, Homo sapiens, are the result of so that we could be here—fantastic! 


  

1: "Australopithecus Afarensis." Australopithecus Afarensis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
2: "Australopithecus Afarensis." Australopithecus Afarensis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
3: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
4: "Homo Habilis." Homo Habilis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
5: "Homo Habilis." Homo Habilis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
6: "Homo Habilis." Homo Habilis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
7: McPherron, Shannon, and Et Al. "Evidence for Stone-tool-assisted Consumption of Animal Tissues before 3.39 Million Years Ago at Dikika, Ethiopia." Nature. Nature, 12 Aug. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
8: “Bone marrow adipose tissue is an endocrine organ that contributes to increased circulating adiponectin during caloric restriction,” Cell Metabolism, 3 July. 2014. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
9: O'Neil, Dennis. "Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus." Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
10: O'Neil, Dennis. "Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus." Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
11: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
12: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
13: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
14: O'Neil, Dennis. "Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus." Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
15: O'Neil, Dennis. "Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus." Early Human Evolution:  Homo Ergaster and Erectus. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
16: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
17: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print. 
18: "Homo Heidelbergensis." Homo Heidelbergensis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
19: "Homo Heidelbergensis." Homo Heidelbergensis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
20: "Homo Heidelbergensis." Homo Heidelbergensis. Smithsonian Institution, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. 
21: Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 468. Print.
All right reserved.