Groundwork for the theory that "evolutionary modifications in primate development might have led to … modern humans" was laid by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ernst Haeckel, Louis Bolk, and Adolph Schultz.
[4] Brian Hall traces the roots of evolutionary developmental biology in his 2012 paper on its past present and future.
[5] Greater understanding of genotypic and phenotypic structures from the 1940s enabled the unification of evolution and genetics in the modern synthesis.
Leigh found three different patterns, all of which pointed to the growth rate of H. erectus either matching or exceeding H.
[7] Utilization of endocranial volume as a measure for brain size has been a popular methodology with the fossil record since Darwin in the mid 1800s.
[8] Neoteny is defined as the delayed or slowed development in humans when compared with their non-human primate counterparts.
[10] Using the fossil record of Neanderthals, modern humans, and chimpanzees, Gunz et al. examined that patterns of endocranial development.
[11] There have been a number of studies that not only take incomplete fossil records into consideration, but have attempted to specifically identify the barriers presented by this condition.
For example, Kieran McNulty covers the potential utilities and constraints of using incomplete fossil taxa to examine longitudinal development in Australopithecus africanis.
[13] Technological advances that have allowed better and better access to the growth of the human form in utero have proven particularly formative in studies involving focus on genetic and epigenetic development.
Bakker et al. look at the interconnected nature of developmental processes and attempt to use fetal vertebral abnormalities as an indicator for other malformations.
They argue that this construction is relevant for the study of disease, the consistency in evolution of body plans, and understanding of developmental constraints.
[15] Sexual dimorphism in prenatal digit ratio was found as early as 14 weeks and was maintained whether or not the fleshy finger part was included.
[16] This is a counter to the claims by theorists like Noam Chomsky, who argued against language as a human specific adaptation.
[19] Ploeger and Galis tackled modular evolvability and developmental constraints in human and other primate evolutionary trajectories.