9.3.1- 4: Use available evidence to analyse, using a named example, how advances in technology have changed scientific thinking about evolutionary relationships. The physical features that are easily visible are most often used to classify organisms - but can sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions. Advances in biotechnology have enabled scientists to look beyond these physical features to closely investigate evolutionary relationships between organisms. DNA hybridisation technology: If two species are ‘closely related’, they evolved from a common ancestor is only a relatively short time ago. This means that there has been only a short time for DNA mutations to occur, so they will still share many DNA sequences - and there will be fewer differences in their DNA than in more distantly related species.
Although the Apogee company may be more profitable if it is run out of one central location, the argument as presented is unconvincing. First of all, there is no evidence demonstrating the profitability of the field offices. Although the Apogee company is less profitable than it has been, some of the field offices could in fact be profitable. Furthermore, it’s not stated which office the Apogee company will run out of. The Apogee company could have a few unprofitable field offices.
There is also a “cultural contrast between the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens (early modern man)” indicated by in the seventh edition of Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archeology. These differences set them apart in a way that tells us how they lived and defines the difference in the two. Tool technology on the behalf of the Neanderthals was less advanced. Flake tools were used for specific and few operations. Bone, antler, and ivory were used infrequently.
Milton (2008) argues without meat it is unlikely that we would have developed the modern brain size. This helped ensure their survival as they were a more developed species and so this enabled them to adapt to new situations and continue the survival of the human
Hidden systems are hard to overcome, Wise says, because they are often not perceived by most of society and therefore not much attention is given to them by those who are not negatively affected. The effectiveness of these hidden systems hinges on the people who accept added benefits without pondering the counter-effect on minorities. Wise accuses whites, who are able to comprehend the prejudice taking place, of denial. He personally blames those who intentionally shut their eyes to the reality of the race based class system. Wise would agree with the notion that race is invented by society and has no biological basis.
Despite being crucial to the war effort, Rifles and machine guns did very little to break stalemate during World War I. Their primary function was that of a defensive one and thus, only served to slow advancement and only further cement stalemate. Out of the two, the machine gun best represents this notion. Its range of 500-1000 metres makes it a prime defensive weapon for combating against enemy troops advancing upon the recipient’s trench. Although highly accurate, the machine gun had very little tactical advantage for its own soldiers due mainly to its cumbersome and heavy design; consequently, it was used mainly for holding troops back.
With this, it is only right to question if the society was truly advanced. Today, individuals base a societies level of advancement or development on technology because technology is something that present day humans admire and care about. However, individuals need to recognize that the societies in the Americas were extremely successful without the invention of the wheel. Despite their understanding of the wheel, the Olmec were still extremely civilized and advanced. They did not need a wheel in order to succeed, Mann states on page 253 “the Americas lacked animals suitable for domestication” meaning that even if the Olmec had created a larger wheel, they would have no animals to help maneuver goods.
They then had stated that all of this could re-write history. These claims are not that well supported and basically have very little strong evidence to support them. For the first claim, that this discovery could be just as important as Machu Picchu, there is not much evidence of backing this claim up. Machu Picchu had been a important discovery because it was culturally well preserved. Machu Picchu was hidden from the Spanish during their conquests so it was not disturbed and remained well intact culturally.
are not expected to pay back an equivalent amount, as they would with balanced reciprocity − generalized reciprocity, in turn seems to work best with, or even require, egalitarian social organization − minimal inequality, minimal hierarchy − Most other kinds of societies do not live in equality. Why not? − hierarchy has NOT been typical for humans, who have been foragers for 98% of our existence (or more, depending on how you count) − so how did this aberration of hierarchical society come to be? − the historical process is a question for archaeologists − the answer is not clear − but large, settled groups were apparently a necessary step − and with few possible exceptions, these generally appear to have been possible only with farming to support them − how is social inequality or hierarchy socially constructed? − that is, how is it maintained and instilled in each new member born into the