Human Evolution Unit





The article on human evolution captures well the author’s goals.These are explained well along with the thesis statement in theintroduction section. Such objectives and the thesis statement allowthe readers to understand what the paper covers at a glance. It alsoallows the audience to assess whether the article has achieved itsgoals by meeting the set objectives.


The methods section does not clearly explain how it sampled orcollected information and the instruments used. In the case of asecondary research study, the author should describe the sources ofinformation such as online databases or libraries and the methodsemployed to identify sources or those used by primary researchers(Wallen &amp Franenkel 2013).


Under this section, the author captures the key concepts of the humanevolution theory as presented by Dobzhansky and Allen (1956). Themanner in which the writer presents the arguments and claims by thetwo researchers shows an impressive understanding of the topic. Theauthor clearly captures one major claim by Dobzhansky and Allen thathuman evolution has been an on-going process even in modern times. Hecites the evidence presented by the two authors to support theirclaim noting that people of different blood groups are susceptible tocertain illnesses. For instance, individuals with blood group O aremore vulnerable to duodenal ulcers than others. Citing suchinformation is imperative for secondary research.

Biasand conclusion

The article is biased towards the views of Dobzhansky and Allen. Thisis because the author used only this source for his research. Thereare no alternative or supporting views from other authors what wereexplored. Other sources that argue that human evolution is anon-going process would have increased the validity of such claims.Again, opposing views would have demonstrated critical thinking andextensive research and allowed the author to point out the weaknessesof such claims.

The article is also heavily biased towards the mid-20th centuryperiod when Dobzhansky and Allen conducted their research. Ever sincethis initial research, more than a half a century of studies in thefield of genetics and changes in the social environment has revealeda lot of information that would be better placed to argue for oragainst ongoing human evolution. Again, there have been major changesin the environment notably in technology that would impact the humanevolution process. Such events have not been captured out of suchbias. Consequently, the conclusions made are also biased towards theviews of Dobzhansky and Allen and the time of their research.


Dobzhansky, T., &amp Allen, G. (1956). Does natural selectioncontinue to operate in modern

mankind? AmericanAnthropologist, 58(4), 591-604.

Wallen, N. &ampFranenkel, J. (2013). Educational research: a guide to theprocess. New York: