Peter Ward
Contrary to popular belief, humans continue to evolve. Our bodies and brains are no longer what our ancestors had - or our descendants will have
As soon as we ask someone's opinion on what the people of the future might look like, we usually get one of two answers. Someone immediately recalls the familiar image from science fiction: our descendants will have a very high forehead, increased brain volume, and highly developed intelligence. Others argue that humans no longer evolve, at least physically, because technology has put an end to the harsh logic of natural selection. And that is why evolution is today exclusively cultural in nature.
The first story - about an increased brain volume - has no real scientific basis. Based on paleontological studies of head size in the last several hundred generations, the times of rapid growth in the volume of our skulls are long gone. Accordingly, even a few years ago, most scientists could consider the physical evolution of man to be complete. However, new methods of working with DNA (which allow analysis of genomes of different generations, thereby making a revolution in the study of human evolution) create a completely different picture. Since the appearance of the species Homo sapiens in our body, there has been more than just a fundamental "shuffling" of genes: the rate of human evolution has also increased. In addition to the fact that over the past period, we, like other biological organisms, have dramatically changed the shape of the body, today our physiology, and possibly behavior, continues to undergo genetically determined changes. So, right up to the very last period of our history in different parts light, there was a quite distinct separation of the human races. Even today, under the influence of the conditions of modern life, genetic factors can determine the emergence of new behavioral characteristics in people.
So, if we don't have the prospect of having a brain of enormous size, what can we count on? Will we get bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber? How will new diseases and global temperature rise affect us? Will one day appear the new kind person? Or maybe the future evolution of mankind no longer depends on our genes, but on the level of development of technology, on the introduction of silicon and steel elements into our brain and body? What if our destiny is to be just the creators of machines, the next civilization that will dominate the planet Earth?
Distant and recent past
It has always been the job of paleontologists to follow the course of evolution - they are studying fossilized bones that have survived from ancient times. As experts have found out, the age of the human family called hominids is at least 7 million years. This is exactly how much time has passed since the small protohuman Sahelanthropus tchadensis appeared. Since then, our family has been replenished (this issue is still actively discussed by experts) with a number of new, rather peculiar species. Today we know of nine, although there are certainly other characters lurking somewhere in this surprisingly incomplete fossil record of hominids. Traces of a person of a more ancient period have practically not survived, and did not get into sedimentary rocks. However, the generally accepted picture changes every year, depending on published reports of newly discovered fossils or new interpretations of previous finds.
The formation of each new species of hominids occurred after a small group of these creatures was in one way or another isolated from the main population. Many generations of the new group have used new methods of adaptation under unusual conditions. Cut off from relatives, this small group followed its own special genetic path, and subsequently its representatives could no longer have common offspring with members of the main population.
As the fossil record shows, the earliest representative of our species lived 195 thousand years ago on the territory of present-day Ethiopia, from where it began to spread throughout the planet. Already 10 thousand years ago people modern type settled on all continents of the Earth, except for Antarctica. And their adaptation to a variety of local conditions (among other driving forces of evolution) led to the formation of what we conventionally call races. It is obvious that groups of people who lived in different places sufficiently retained ties with each other and therefore avoided becoming certain types... Now, with a sufficiently dense population of people on the planet, one could consider that the time of their evolution has come to an end.
AFTER HOMO SAPIENS |
In the past, new species have already appeared in our genus. What about the future? Speciation requires some form of isolation. The most common is geographical isolation, when a small population remains completely cut off from the main gene pool. Given the current size and interconnectedness of human nations, the likelihood of such an option is low. However, there are other ways to solve a similar problem: • create human colonies on distant planets; • in one way or another disrupt the global mechanism of human gene exchange; • break up into separate groups after some kind of cataclysm such as a large asteroid falling to Earth; • resort to genetic engineering. |
However, in reality, everything is somewhat different. In a study published a year ago by Henry C. Harpending of the University of Utah, John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and his colleagues analyzed data from an international haplotype map of the human genome. They focused on the genetic markers of 270 people representing four groups: Chinese (Han), Japanese, Yoruba, and Europeans from northern Europe. Scientists have found that 5 thousand years ago, at least 7% of human genes evolved. A significant part of these changes were associated with adaptation to a certain environment- both natural and created by people themselves. For example, in China and Africa, only a few adults can digest fresh milk, while in Sweden and Denmark this is almost no problem for anyone. And it can be assumed that the inhabitants of these countries acquired this ability as a result of the development of dairy farming by their ancestors.
Another study by Pardis C. Sabeti and her colleagues at Harvard University used more data on hereditary variation. Scientists have tried to find in them the relationship between natural selection and the human genome. As a result, traces of recent changes were found in more than 300 parts of the genome, which increased people's chances of survival and procreation. Examples include resistance to one of the worst scourges in Africa, the virus that causes Las haemorrhagic fever, as well as a certain resistance of a part of the African population to other diseases such as malaria; discoloration of the skin and active growth of hair follicles in Asians, or gradual lightening of the skin and the acquisition of blue eyes in residents of northern Europe.
The Harpending and Hawkes research group estimates that in the last 10,000 years, human evolution has occurred 100 times faster than at any other time since the separation of the earliest hominid from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees. Researchers attributed this acceleration to a variety of environmental types that people moved to, as well as changes in living conditions caused by the emergence of agriculture and the construction of large cities. The main results of the transformation of the wild natural environment into cultivated land were not developing agriculture and landscape transformations, but the often deadly combination of unsanitary living conditions, a new diet and various diseases (which were transmitted from other people and domesticated animals). While some researchers disagree with these estimates, the basic message is clear: humans evolve excellence.
Unnatural selection
In the last century, the conditions in which our species existed have changed again. The geographic isolation of different groups of people has been disrupted by the ease of spatial movement and the elimination of social barriers that once divided individual racial groups. The human gene pool has never seen such an incredible gene mixing of local populations of the species Homo sapiens. It should be noted that the mobility of humanity in general can lead to the homogenization of our species. The process of natural selection is also hampered by our advances in medicine and technology. For example, in most countries mass child mortality is no longer observed. People with genetic damage, doomed to death in the past, today can live normally and have offspring. Our natural enemies - predators - also no longer determine the rules of survival for us.
Researcher Steve Jones of University College London insists that human evolution has largely stopped. In 2002, speaking at a discussion held at the Royal Society of Edinburgh under the title "Is Evolution Over?" ". Jones pointed out that, at least in industrialized countries, almost everyone can now live to reproductive age, and all rich and poor have equal opportunities to have children. Of course, hereditary resistance to diseases, such as HIV, gives people an additional chance of survival, but the decisive factor in deciding the question of life and death today will not be so much genetic inheritance as culture. In other words, modern evolution, perhaps, can be called not genetic, but mimetic, i.e. related to thoughts.
Another point of view is that genetic evolution continues today, but it works in the opposite direction. Certain features of modern life can cause such evolutionary changes that not only do not increase our ability to survive, but even contribute to its decrease. One of possible options actions of such evolution "in reverse side"is experienced, for example, by a huge number of students. Continuing their education, they postpone for some time the creation of a family and the birth of children, while many of their former classmates, who did not succeed in their studies, have children immediately. If the less intellectually developed parents there are more children, then intellectuality in the modern world turns out to be, according to Darwin, a factor of vulnerability and, accordingly, one can expect a decrease in its average level.
Such controversial issues have been discussed for a long time. One of the many counterarguments is that human intelligence consists of many different abilities, encoded in a huge number of genes, and does not have high heritability, while natural selection acts only in relation to inherited qualities. Scientists are actively debating how intellectual abilities can be inherited in general. At the moment, they cannot yet state about real signs of a decrease in the average level of intelligence.
But even if our intelligence is not yet threatened, the human species may well accumulate other, more inherited features that certainly do not bode well for us. For example, behavioral disorders such as Tourette's syndrome or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can, unlike intelligence, be encoded in only a few genes - and this will be enough for their high heritability. If such violations for someone increase the likelihood of having children, then they will become more common with each new generation. According to publications in scientific journals and in his book, the expert on such disorders David Comings (David Comings), the number of people suffering from these syndromes has increased significantly. Evolution may be the reason: women with similar syndromes are less likely to study in higher educational institutions, and therefore tend to have more children than healthy mothers. However, some researchers express serious objections to the method used by Cumings. In addition, the question of whether the prevalence of these disorders is really increasing is not clear: research in these areas is difficult due to the prevailing prejudice in society that many such deviations from the norm are incurable.
So, the general logic of reasoning seems to be quite convincing. We tend to think of evolution as something related to structural changes in the body, but it can also affect areas such as human behavior. Many people carry genes that make them predisposed to alcoholism, drug use and other addictions. Most people successfully resist this, since genes are not always inevitable, and the action of such genes is determined by the person's environment. However, of course, there are people who are susceptible to the influence of heredity, and the problems that arise affect whether they can survive and how many children they will have. Such changes in the birth rate are quite enough for the continuation of the action of natural selection. Further evolution may largely depend on situations in which specific forms of human behavior will manifest themselves. In the same way, it depends on various human reactions to changing social and other external conditions. However, unlike other species, we are not going to passively accept this Darwinian logic.
Guided evolution
We have already managed to control the evolution of many species of plants and animals. Why not now try to control your own? Why wait for natural selection to do it when we can handle it faster and in many ways to our advantage? For example, working in the field of human behavior, scientists today are searching for genetic components associated not only with medical problems and disorders, but also with character, various aspects of sexuality and a person's competitiveness. Much of this, at least in part, can be inherited. It is likely that over time it will become habitual to conduct a thorough examination of people to determine the organization of their genome and to prescribe medications based on the results.
The next step will be to directly influence the human genes. This can be done in two ways: by replacing genes in a particular organ (gene therapy), or by altering the patient's entire genome (so-called embryonic hereditary therapy). So far, researchers are trying to solve the intermediate problem of using gene therapy to treat certain diseases in a patient. But if someday scientists master embryonic hereditary therapy, this will mean that we will be able to provide assistance not only to the patient himself, but also to his children. The main obstacle to the use of genetic engineering for this purpose is the extreme complexity of the human genome. Genes in the human body usually perform more than one function. And functions, in turn, are usually encoded in more than one gene. Because of this feature, known as pleiotropy, targeting a single gene can have unexpected consequences.
Why bother trying to do this? Intervention in genes will probably be forced by the desire of parents to guarantee the birth of a child of the correct sex, a desire to endow children with beauty, intelligence, musical talent or a pleasant character, and in addition, to try to save the child from the doom of becoming stingy, depressed, hyperactive, or even prone to delinquency. ... The incentives are obvious here, and they are very strong. The fight against human aging will become as motivated as the attempts of parents to genetically ensure the social security of their children. As many recent studies suggest, human aging is not just wear and tear on parts of the body, but programmed destruction, which is largely genetically controlled. If this is the case, then sooner or later genetic research will help to identify the numerous genes that control various aspects of this process, and with such genes it will be possible to perform the necessary manipulations.
If we imagine that genetic changes will come into practice, then it is worth considering how this could affect the further evolution of mankind? Probably very strong. Suppose parents act in this way on unborn children, contributing to their mental development, the acquisition of a certain appearance and a longer life expectancy. If such children grow up smart, live for many years, then they will be able to have more children and earn more than any of us. Probably, such similar people will begin to act mutual attraction. In the conditions of their voluntary geographic or social self-isolation, gene drift may occur, and subsequently new speciation. In other words, one day people will be able to create a person of a new kind. Whether mankind wants to choose this scenario will depend on our descendants.
Borg path
Even less predictable than gene manipulation is our relationship with machines. Or them with us. Couldn't symbiosis with technology, synthesis of organic and inorganic principles be the ultimate goal of the evolution of our biological species? Many science fiction writers have already predicted that it is possible to combine a human and a robot, or, for example, download data from the human brain to a computer (see G. Styx How to connect to the brain // VMN, no. 2, 2009). In fact, we are already dependent on machines. The more actively we create them to satisfy our own needs, the more our life turns out to be adapted already to their needs. With the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of technology, the need for us to try to establish some kind of interaction with them increases. This position was clearly expressed in his 1998 book "Darwin Among Machines" by the American writer George Dyson. He wrote: “Everything that people do to facilitate the management of computer networks becomes at the same time, albeit for different reasons, a facilitation for computer networks of the task of managing people: Darwinian evolution can fall victim to its own success, since it will not keep up with the non-Darwinian processes generated by it itself ".
Our advances in technical areas threaten to blur the old paths that evolution has taken. Consider two different views of the future taken from a 2004 essay by the Swedish evolutionary philosopher Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford. At first he sets us up to be optimistic: "The big picture shows a general trend towards increasing levels of complexity, knowledge, understanding and purposeful organization. A trend that we can call" progress. " (biological, mimetic and technical) will continue and go in the direction we want. "
While the use of the word "progress" would surely cause the late evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould to turn over in the grave, some clarification should be given. As Gold argued, fossils - including those from our ancestors - indicate that evolutionary change was not continuous. They happened in spurts, which, of course, cannot be considered "progressive" or purposeful. After all, biological organisms can both decrease and increase in size. However, past evolution had at least one constant vector: in the direction of increasing complexity. Probably, this will also be the further evolution of mankind: to an increase in complexity through some combination of anatomical, physiological or behavioral changes. If we continue to adapt and perform skilful terraforming (changing the climatic conditions of the planet to bring its atmosphere, temperature and environmental conditions to a state suitable for the habitation of terrestrial plants and animals; the term was first used by American science fiction writer Jack Williamson in 1942. ), then we will have all the genetic and evolutionary prerequisites for living on our planet even in the era of the extinction of the Sun. Unlike being programmed to age, our species does not appear to be genetically programmed to die out.
The less favorable option is already very familiar to us. Bostrom believes that uploading our consciousness to a computer could mean the end of humanity. A perfect artificial mind would be able to extract various elements of our knowledge, and then collect from them something that will no longer be relevant to humans. This would make us morally obsolete. Bostrom predicts the following scenario: "Some human individuals will download into a computer and make several copies of their own. Meanwhile, thanks to the gradual progress in neuroscience and the creation of artificial intelligence, it will subsequently be possible to put the knowledge of each person in an individual module, and then connect it to the modules. Modules conforming to a common standard could better communicate and interact with other modules, which would be more economical and productive, and would necessitate further standardization: There might simply not be room for the mental structure of the human type. "
As if the forecast about the possibility of moral obsolescence of a person was not enough for him, Bostrom draws us an even darker prospect. If the efficiency of machines became the new criterion of evolutionary fitness, then a lot of what we consider deeply human would be destroyed in our life. The scientist writes: “There are such extravagant and pleasant things that to a large extent conditionally fill human life with meaning - humor, love, games, art, sex, dancing, small talk, philosophy, literature, scientific discoveries, food, friendship, parenting, sports. Based on our taste and capabilities, we do all this, and in the evolutionary past of our species, such preferences were of an adaptive nature. But what grounds do we have to be sure that the same or similar things will still be needed for us to adapt in the future? Probably, then it will be possible to achieve maximum evolutionary fitness only through continuous, hard and monotonous labor with the help of repetitive and exhausting work operations, the main goal of which is a tiny improvement in some production and economic indicator. "
In short, assuming it survives, humanity can take one of three possible paths:
• stagnation - predominant preservation of the current situation with some correction during the period of mixing of human races;
• speciation - the emergence of a new species of man on our or any other planet;
• symbiosis with machines - as a result of the combination of machines and human consciousness, a collective mind is formed, within whose boundaries the qualities that we consider as human may or may not be preserved.
Quo vadis Homo futuris?
Translation: A. N. Bozhko
ADDITIONAL LITERATURE
• Future Evolution. Peter Ward. W.H. Freeman, 2001.
• The Future of Human Evolution. Nick Bostrom in Death ad Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years after Kant, Fifty Years after Turing. Edited by Charles Tandy. Ria University Press, 2004.
• A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome. Benjamin F. Voight, Sridhar Kudaravalli, Xiaoquan Wen and Jonathan K. Pritchard in PloS Biology, Vol. 4, No. 3, pages 0446-0458; March 7, 2006.
• Genome-wide Detection and Characterization of Positive Selection in Human Populations. Pardis C. Sabeti et al. in Nature, Vol. 449, pages 913-918; October 18, 2007.
• Natural Selection Has Driven Population Differentiation in Modern Humans. L.B. Barreiro, G. Laval, H. Quach, E. Patin and L. Quintana-Murci in Nature Genetics, Vol. 40, No. 3, pages 340-345; March 2008.
• The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Basic Books, 2009.
Before Homo sapiens, i.e. to the modern human stage is as difficult to satisfactorily document as the initial branching stage of the hominid lineage. However, in this case the matter is complicated by the presence of several contenders for such an intermediate position.
According to a number of anthropologists, the step that led directly to Homo sapiens was the Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Neanderthals appeared no later than 150 thousand years ago, and their different types flourished until the period of approx. 40–35 thousand years ago, marked by the undoubted presence of well-formed H. sapiens (Homo sapiens sapiens). This era corresponded to the onset of the Wurm glaciation in Europe, i.e. ice age closest to modern times. Other scientists do not associate the origin of modern humans with the Neanderthal, pointing out, in particular, that the morphological structure of the face and skull of the latter was too primitive to have time to evolve to the forms of Homo sapiens.
Neanderthaloids are usually thought of as stocky, hairy, bestial people on bent legs, with a protruding head on a short neck, giving the impression that they have not yet fully reached upright posture. Paintings and reconstructions in clay usually emphasize their hairiness and unjustified primitiveness. This image of a Neanderthal is a big distortion. First, we don't know if the Neanderthals were hairy or not. Second, they were all fully erect. As for the evidence of a tilted body position, it is likely that they were obtained from the study of individuals suffering from arthritis.
One of the most striking features of the entire Neanderthal series of finds is that the least modern ones were the most recent in appearance. This is the so-called. the classic Neanderthal type, whose skull is characterized by a low forehead, a heavy brow, a cut chin, a protruding mouth region and a long, low skull. However, their brain size was larger than that of modern humans. They quite definitely had a culture: there is evidence of funerary cults and, possibly, animal cults, since animal bones are found along with the fossil remains of the classical Neanderthals.
At one time it was believed that the classical type Neanderthals lived only in southern and western Europe, and their origin is associated with the onset of the glacier, which put them in conditions of genetic isolation and climatic selection. However, later, clearly similar forms were found in some regions of Africa and the Middle East and, possibly, in Indonesia. Such a widespread distribution of the classical Neanderthal forces us to abandon this theory.
At the moment, there is no material evidence of any gradual morphological transformation of the classical type of Neanderthal into the modern type of man, with the exception of finds made in the Skhul cave in Israel. The skulls found in this cave are significantly different from each other, some of them have characteristics that put them in an intermediate position between the two human types. According to some experts, this is evidence of the evolutionary change of a Neanderthal to a modern human, while others believe that this phenomenon is the result of mixed marriages between representatives of two types of people, thereby believing that Homo sapiens evolved independently. This explanation is supported by evidence that as early as 200-300 thousand years ago, i.e. before the appearance of the classical Neanderthal, there was a type of person that most likely belongs to the early Homo sapiens, and not to the "progressive" Neanderthal. We are talking about well-known finds - fragments of a skull found in Swansky (England), and a more complete cranium from Steinheim (Germany).
The disagreement on the question of the "Neanderthal stage" in human evolution is partly due to the fact that two circumstances are not always taken into account. First, it is possible for more primitive types of any evolving organism to exist in a relatively unchanged form at the same time when other branches of the same species are undergoing various evolutionary modifications. Secondly, migrations associated with a shift in climatic zones are possible. Such displacements were repeated in the Pleistocene as glaciers advanced and retreated, and man could follow the shifts in the climatic zone. Thus, when considering long periods of time, it should be borne in mind that the populations occupying a given area at a certain moment are not necessarily descendants of populations that lived there in an earlier period. It is possible that early Homo sapiens could migrate from the regions where they appeared, and then return to their former places after many thousands of years, having had time to undergo evolutionary changes. When fully formed Homo sapiens appeared in Europe 35–40 thousand years ago, during the warmer period of the last glaciation, it undoubtedly supplanted the classical Neanderthal, who occupied the same region for 100 thousand years. Now it is impossible to determine with certainty whether the Neanderthal population moved further north, following the retreat of its usual climatic zone, or mixed with the Homo sapiens invading its territory.
According to Darwin's theory, man in his development has come a long way - from ape to modernHomo sapiens. And since evolution is a very long process in time, “on the way” Homo sapiens underwent many changes: Australopithecines - ancient people - ancient people (Neanderthals), modern people (Cro-Magnons). And all would be fine, but recent discoveries have shown that Darwin's grandfather was not always right. For example, his theory does not fit the fact that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens for a long time inhabited the Earth at the same time. It was 40 thousand years ago.
Scientists from the University of Tel Aviv, having examined the remains of both human species, have come to the conclusion that there are many striking differences between them. And this, in turn, suggests that these species originated from different ancestors. Differences are manifested even in the external structure. Neanderthals, who ate exclusively on meat, had larger livers (a small Homo sapiens liver would not have digested that much protein). Accordingly, the kidneys, bladder and the entire pelvic part of the Neanderthals were noticeably larger. And their muscle mass was 30-40 percent more than that of a Homo sapiens.
The average height of a Neanderthal was, according to various scientists, from 165 to 180 centimeters. A person of this type had a large skull, protruding superciliary arches, which often merged into a ridge, and a very low forehead. Scientists note a very similar structure among the modern Eskimos, who live in the very north of the continent.
Mexican paleontologist Professor Eric Trinkaus and his colleagues found that the brain volume of a Neanderthal was approximately 1900 cm ³, while in Homo sapiens it does not exceed 1300 cm ³. However, scientists have shown that mental abilities are influenced not so much by the volume of the brain as by the features of its development. Thus, researchers at the Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology of Leipzig have found that in infancy, the brain sizes of Neanderthal and Homo sapiens are practically indistinguishable. But as the individual matures, the parietal and temporal parts of the head begin to actively increase in Homo sapiens, while this does not happen in the Neanderthal, his head increased in size proportionally.
Nevertheless, scientists believe that the Neanderthals were quite highly developed. For example, the tools found at the places of their camps were often even superior in quality to those of Homo sapiens. Moreover, found skeletons of people with traces of bone fractures showed that up to 70 percent of the fractures were skillfully healed. That is, the Neanderthals had their own skillful chiropractors. Erik Trinkaus, after a comparative analysis of the remains of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, claims that there is not a single evidence that would indicate the primitiveness or backwardness of the Neanderthals.
Everything is much more complicated with the structure of DNA. Still anthropologists different countries the world is arguing whether the interbreeding of Neanderthals with Homo sapiens took place. Obviously, if it happened, then these were isolated cases: never once did the remains in the caves indicate that both of these human species lived there at the same time.
The Neanderthals who came from the north of Western Europe were cannibals. For those whom scientists call Homo sapiens, this was not the case. By the way, Homo sapiens came to Eurasia from Africa - a continent that he, after several tens of thousands of years, turned into a part of the world inhabited by cannibalistic tribes.
Neanderthals and Homo sapiens had the beginnings of a culture. But, according to German scientists, the "cultural explosion" occurred when, as a result of warming and the retreat of the great glaciers, both of these individuals met. Probably, they nevertheless recognized in the two-legged creatures equal to themselves and began in all possible ways to try to stand out: somehow mark their sites, isolate at least externally. It was then that the flowering of rock paintings, jewelry in the form of beads, feathers, claws and everything that nature could present began. But this is why the Neanderthals became extinct, scientists have not yet been able to establish. And Homo sapiens got its name not because he was much smarter, but because he survived.
Homosapiens- species, which included four subspecies - Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Anatoly DEREVYANKO
Photo by ITAR-TASS
Until recently, it was believed that a modern biological species originated in Africa about 200 thousand years ago.
"Modern biological type" in this case means us. That is, we, today's people, are homo sapiens (more precisely, Homosapienssapiens) we are direct descendants of certain creatures that appeared exactly there and just then. Previously they were called Cro-Magnons, but today this designation is considered obsolete.
About 80 thousand years ago, this "modern man" began his triumphant march across the planet. Triumphant in the literal sense: it is believed that in that campaign he displaced other human forms from life - for example, the famous Neanderthals.
But recently, evidence has emerged that this is not entirely true ...
The following circumstances have led to this conclusion.
Several years ago, an expedition of Russian archaeologists and specialists in other sciences, working under the leadership of the director of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Anatoly Derevyanko, discovered the remains of an ancient man in the Denisovskaya Cave in Altai.
Culturally, he fully corresponded to the level of contemporary sapiens: the tools of labor were at the same technological level, and the love of jewelry indicated a fairly high stage of social development at that time. But biologically ...
It turned out that the structure of the DNA found in the remains differs from the genetic code of living people. But that was not what caused the main sensation. It turned out that this - according to all, we repeat, technological and cultural characteristics - a reasonable person turned out to be ... a "stranger." According to genetics, he moved away from the common line of ancestors with us at least 800 thousand years ago! Yes, even Neanderthals are dearer to us!
“We are apparently talking about a new species of man, which was previously unknown to world science,” said Svante Paabo, legendary in professional circles, director of the department of evolutionary genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Well, he knows better: it was he who analyzed the DNA of an unexpected find.
So what happens? While we humans were climbing the evolutionary ladder, was some competitive “humanity” climbing up alongside us?
Yes, says Academician Derevyanko. Moreover: in his opinion, there may be at least ... four such centers where different groups of people strove for the title of Homo sapiens in parallel and independently of each other!
He told ITAR-TASS about the main provisions of the new concept, which is sometimes called "a new revolution in anthropology".
Before getting to the heart of the matter, let's start with the "pre-revolutionary situation." What happened before the current events, what was the picture of human evolution?
We can confidently say that humanity originated in Africa. The first traces of creatures who learned how to make tools are found today in the region of the East African Rift, stretching in the meridional direction from the Dead Sea depression through the Red Sea and further along the territory of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania.
The spread of the first people to Eurasia and their settling of vast territories in Asia and Europe took place in the mode of gradual development of the most favorable ecological niches for living and then moving to adjacent areas. Scientists attribute the beginning of the process of human penetration into Eurasia to a wide chronological range from 2 to 1 million years ago.
The largest population of ancient Homo that emerged from Africa was associated with the species Homo ergaster-erectus and the so-called Oldowan industry. Industry in this context means a certain technology, culture of stone processing. Oldowan or Oldowan - the most primitive of them, when a stone, most often a pebble, which is why this culture is also called pebble, was split in half to get a sharp edge without additional processing.
About 450-350 thousand years ago, the second global migration flow began to move to the east of Eurasia from the Middle East. The spread of the late Acheulian industry is associated with it, in which people made macroliths - stone chops, flakes.
During its advancement, the new human population in many territories met the population of the first migration wave, and therefore there is a mixture of two industries - pebble and late Achols.
But here's what's interesting: judging by the nature of the finds, the second wave reached the territory of only India and Mongolia. She did not go further. In any case, there is a noticeable difference in the whole industry of Eastern and South-East Asia from the industry of the rest of Eurasia. And this means, in turn, that since the first appearance of the most ancient human populations in East and Southeast Asia 1.8-1.3 million years ago, there has been a continuous and independent development of both the physical type of man and his culture. And this alone contradicts the theory of the monocentric origin of modern humans.
- But you just said that man was born in Africa? ..
It is very important to emphasize, and it was not by chance that I did this: we are talking about a person of a modern anatomical type. According to the monocentric hypothesis, it was formed 200–150 thousand years ago in Africa, and 80–60 thousand years ago it began to spread to Eurasia and Australia.
However, this hypothesis leaves many problems unresolved.
For example, researchers are faced primarily with the question: why, if a person of a modern physical type arose at least 150 thousand years ago, then the culture of the Upper Paleolithic, which is associated with Homo sapiens, appeared only 50-40 thousand years ago?
Or: if the Upper Paleolithic culture spread to other continents with modern man, then why did its products appear almost simultaneously in regions of Eurasia that are very distant from each other? And besides, significantly differing from each other in the main technical and typological characteristics?
And further. According to archaeological data, a man of a modern physical type inhabited Australia 50, maybe 60 thousand years ago, while in the territories adjacent to East Africa on the African continent itself, he appeared ... later! In South Africa, judging by anthropological findings, it was about 40 thousand years ago, in Central and Western Africa - probably about 30 thousand years ago, and only in North Africa - about 50 thousand years ago. How can one explain the fact that modern man first penetrated Australia, and only then settled on the African continent?
And how, from the point of view of monocentrism, to explain the fact that Homo sapiens in 5-10 thousand years was able to overcome a gigantic distance (more than 10 thousand km) without leaving any traces on the path of its movement? Indeed, in South, Southeast and East Asia 80-30 thousand years ago, in the event of replacement of the autochthonous population by newcomers, a complete change of industry should have taken place, but this is not at all traced in the east of Asia. Moreover, between the regions with the Upper Paleolithic industry, there were territories where the culture of the Middle Paleolithic continued to exist.
Swam on something, as some suggest? But in South and East Africa, no means of swimming have been found at the sites of the final middle and early stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Moreover, in these industries there are no tools for processing wood, and without them you cannot build boats and other similar tools on which you could go to Australia.
And what about the data of genetics? After all, they show that all modern people are the descendants of one "father" who lived just in Africa and just about 80 thousand years ago ...
Well, in fact, monocentrists, based on the study of DNA variability in modern people, suggest that it was in the period 80-60 thousand years ago that a population explosion occurred in Africa, and as a result of a sharp increase in population and a shortage of food resources, a migration wave spilled out into Eurasia ...
But with all due respect to the data of genetic research, it is impossible to believe in the infallibility of these conclusions, without having any convincing archaeological and anthropological evidence to support them. And yet there are none!
Look here. It must be borne in mind that with an average life expectancy at that time of about 25 years, the offspring in most cases remained without parents even at an immature age. With a high postnatal, child mortality, as well as mortality among adolescents due to the early loss of parents, there is no reason to talk about a population explosion.
But even if we agree that 80-60 thousand years ago in East Africa there was a rapid population growth, which determined the need to search for new food resources and, accordingly, the settlement of new territories, the question arises: why migratory flows were initially directed far to the east , all the way to Australia?
In a word, the vast archaeological material of the studied Paleolithic localities of South, Southeast and East Asia in the range of 60-30 thousand years ago does not allow tracing the wave of migration of anatomically modern people from Africa. In these territories, there is not only a change in culture, which should have happened in the case of replacement of the autochthonous population by newcomers, but also well-expressed innovations, which indicate acculturation. Respected researchers such as F.J. Khabgud and N.R. Franklin draws a clear conclusion: the indigenous people of Australia never had a complete African "package" of innovation, because they were not originally from Africa.
Or take China. Extensive archaeological material from hundreds of studied Paleolithic sites in East and Southeast Asia testifies to the continuity of the development of industry in this area over the past million years. Perhaps, as a result of paleoecological catastrophes (cold snap, etc.), the area of ancient human populations in the Sino-Malay zone narrowed, but the archanthropus never left it. Here, evolutionarily, without any significant outside influences, both man himself and his culture developed. There is no similarity with African industries in the chronological interval 70–30 thousand years ago in Southeast and East Asia. According to the extensive archaeological material available, no migration of people from the west to the territory of China can be traced in the chronological interval of 120-30 thousand years ago.
On the other hand, over the past 50 years, numerous finds have been identified in China that make it possible to trace the continuity not only between the ancient anthropological type and modern Chinese populations, but also between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. In addition, they exhibit mosaic morphological features. This indicates a gradual transition from one species to another and indicates that human evolution in China is characterized by continuity and hybridization or interspecific crossing.
In other words, the evolutionary development of the Asian Homo erectus took place in East and Southeast Asia for more than 1 million years. This does not exclude the arrival of small populations here from adjacent regions and the possibility of gene exchange, especially in areas bordering on neighboring populations. But taking into account the closeness of the Paleolithic industries of East and Southeast Asia and their difference from the industries of adjacent western regions, it can be argued that at the end of the Middle - beginning of the Upper Pleistocene, a person of the modern physical type Homo sapiens orientalensis was formed on the basis of the autochthonous erectoid form of Homo in East and Southeast Asia, along with Africa.
That is, it turns out that the path to sapiens was traversed by different, independent descendants of erectus? Different shoots developed from one cutting, which then again intertwined into one trunk? How can this be?
Let's take a look at the history of the Neanderthals to understand this process. Moreover, over 150 years of research, hundreds of different sites, settlements, and burials of this species have been studied.
Neanderthals settled mainly in Europe. Their morphological type was adapted to the harsh climatic conditions of the northern latitudes. In addition, their Paleolithic localities are also discovered in the Near East, in Western and Central Asia, in the south of Siberia.
They were short, stocky people with great physical strength. Their brain volume was 1400 cubic centimeters and was not inferior to the average brain volume of modern people. Many archaeologists drew attention to the high efficiency of the Neanderthal industry at the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic and the presence in them of many elements of behavior characteristic of a person of the modern anatomical type. There is a lot of evidence of the intentional burial of their congeners by the Neanderthals. They used tools similar to those that developed in parallel in Africa and the East. They also showed many other elements of modern human behavior. It is no coincidence that this species - or subspecies - today is also referred to as "reasonable": Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
But it originated in the period 250 - 300 thousand years ago! That is, it also developed in parallel, not under the influence of the "African" man, which can be designated as Homo sapiens africaniensis ... And we have only one solution: to consider the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Western and Central Europe as an autochthonous phenomenon.
- Yes, but there are no Neanderthals today! As there is no Chinese Homosapiensorientalensis…
Yes, according to many researchers, the Neanderthals were subsequently replaced in Europe by a person of the modern anatomical type who came out of Africa. But others believe that perhaps the fate of the Neanderthals is not so sad. One of the largest anthropologists Eric Trinkaus, comparing 75 features of Neanderthals and modern people, came to the conclusion that about a quarter of the features are characteristic of both Neanderthals and modern people, the same amount is only for Neanderthals and about half is for modern people.
In addition, data from genetic studies show that up to 4 percent of the genome in modern non-Africans is borrowed from Neanderthals. Renowned researcher Richard Green and co-authors, including geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists, made a very important remark: "... Neanderthals are equally closely related to the Chinese, Papuans and French." He notes that the results of studying the Neanderthal genome may be incompatible with the hypothesis of the origin of modern humans from a small African population, then displacing all other forms of Homo and settling around the planet.
At the current level of research, there is no doubt that in the border areas inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans, or in the territories of their cross-settlement, there were processes not only of diffusion of cultures, but also of hybridization and assimilation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis undoubtedly contributed to the morphology and genome of modern humans.
It's time to remember your sensational find in the Denisovskaya cave in Altai, where another species or subspecies of ancient man was discovered. And also - the tools are quite sapiens, and according to genetics - they are not of African origin, and there are more differences with Homo sapiens than with Neanderthal. Although he is not a Neanderthal either ...
As a result of field research in Altai over the past quarter century, more than 70 cultural horizons belonging to the Early, Middle and Upper Paleolithic have been identified at nine cave sites and more than 10 open-type sites. The chronological range of 100–30 thousand years ago includes about 60 cultural horizons, rich in archaeological and paleontological material to varying degrees.
Based on the extensive materials obtained as a result of field and laboratory research, it can be reasonably asserted that the development of human culture in this territory occurred as a result of evolutionary development Middle Paleolithic industry without any noticeable influences associated with the infiltration of populations with another culture.
- That is, no one came and made innovations?
Judge for yourself. In Denisova Cave, 14 culture-bearing layers have been identified, in some of them several habitat horizons have been traced. The oldest finds, apparently related to the late Acheulian time - the early Middle Paleolithic, were recorded in the 22nd layer - 282 ± 56 thousand years ago. Next is the gap. The next cultural horizons, from the 20th to the 12th, belong to the Middle Paleolithic, and the 11th and 9th layers are Upper Paleolithic. I draw your attention: there is no gap here.
In all Middle Paleolithic horizons, a continuous evolution of the stone industry can be traced. Of particular importance are materials from cultural horizons 18–12, which belong to the chronological interval 90–50 thousand years ago. But what is especially important: these are things, in general, of the same level that a person of our biological type had. The bone industry (needles, awls, bases for composite tools) and non-utilitarian items made of bone, stone, shells (beads, pendants, etc.) are a vivid confirmation of the “modern” behavior of the population of Gorny Altai 50–40 thousand years ago. An unexpected find turned out to be a fragment of a stone bracelet, in the design of which several techniques were used: grinding, polishing, sawing and drilling.
About 45 thousand years ago, a Mousterian-type industry appeared in Altai. This is the culture of the Neanderthals. That is, some group of them got here and settled for a while. Apparently, this small population was displaced from Central Asia (for example, Uzbekistan, Teshik-Tash cave) by a man of a modern physical type.
It did not last long on the territory of Altai. Its fate is unknown: either it was assimilated by the autochthonous population, or it became extinct.
As a result, we see: all the archaeological material accumulated as a result of almost 30-year field research of multilayer cave and open-type sites in Altai, convincingly testifies to the autochthonous, independent formation here 50-45 thousand years ago of the Upper Paleolithic industry - one of the brightest and expressive in Eurasia. This means that the formation of the culture of the Upper Paleolithic, characteristic of modern humans, takes place in Altai as a result of the evolutionary development of the autochthonous Middle Paleolithic industry.
At the same time, genetically, they are not “our” people, right? A study carried out by the famous Svante Paabo showed that we are even less related to them than to the Neanderthals ...
We ourselves did not expect this! Indeed, judging by the stone and bone industry, the presence of a large number of non-utilitarian items, methods and techniques of life support, the presence of items obtained through exchange for many hundreds of kilometers, people who lived in Altai had modern human behavior. And we, archaeologists, were sure that genetically this population also belonged to people of the modern anatomical type.
However, the results of the decoding of human nuclear DNA, made on the phalanx of a finger from Denisova Cave at the same Institute of Population Genetics, were unexpected for everyone. The Denisovan genome deviated from the reference human genome 804 thousand years ago! And with the Neanderthals, they separated 640 thousand years ago.
- But there weren't any Neanderthals then?
Yes, and this means that the common ancestral population for Denisovans and Neanderthals left Africa more than 800 thousand years ago. And it settled, most likely, in the Middle East. And about 600 thousand years ago, another part of the population migrated from the Middle East. At the same time, the ancestors of modern man remained in Africa and developed there in their own way.
But on the other hand, Denisovans left 4-6 percent of their genetic material in the genomes of modern Melanesians. Like Neanderthals in Europeans. So, although they have not survived to our time in their appearance, they cannot be attributed to a dead-end branch in human evolution. They are in us!
Thus, in general, human evolution can be represented as follows.
The entire chain leading to the emergence of modern humans in Africa and Eurasia is based on the ancestral basis of Homo erectus sensu lato. Apparently, the entire evolution of the sapient line of human development is associated with this polytypic species.
The second migration wave of erectoid forms came to Central Asia, South Siberia and Altai about 300 thousand years ago, probably from the Middle East. From this chronological milestone, we trace in Denisova Cave and at other localities in open-type caves and sites in Altai the continuous convergent development of stone industries, and, consequently, of the physical type of man itself.
The industry here was by no means primitive or archaic compared to the rest of Eurasia and Africa. It was focused on the environmental conditions of this particular region. In the Sino-Malay zone, the evolutionary development of both industry and the anatomical type of the person himself took place on the basis of erectoid forms. This makes it possible to distinguish a modern type of man, formed in a given territory, into a subspecies of Homo sapiens orientalensis.
In the same way, Homo sapiens altaiensis and its material and spiritual culture developed convergently in Southern Siberia.
In turn, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis developed autochthonously in Europe. Here, however, a less pure case, since people of the modern type from Africa have got here. There is debate about the form of the relationship between these two subspecies, but genetics in any case shows that part of the Neanderthal genome is present in modern humans.
Thus, there remains only one conclusion: Homo sapiens is a species that includes four subspecies. These are Homo sapiens africaniensis (Africa), Homo sapiens orientalensis (Southeast and East Asia), Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis (Europe) and Homo sapiens altaiensis (North and Central Asia). All archaeological, anthropological and genetic studies, from our point of view, testify to exactly this!
Alexander Tsyganov (ITAR-TASS, Moscow)
Subsections
Today in science, hostility to the very idea of "gods" prevails, but in reality it is just a matter of terminology and religious convention. A striking example is the cult of airplanes. After all, oddly enough, the best confirmation of the Creator-God theory is himself Man is Homo sapiens. Moreover, according to the latest research, the idea of God is embedded in man at the biological level.
Since Charles Darwin shocked scientists and theologians of his time with evidence of the existence of evolution, man has been considered the final link in a long evolutionary chain, at the other end of which are the simplest forms of life, from which, since the emergence of life on our planet, over billions of years have evolved vertebrates, then mammals, primates and Man himself.
Of course, a person can be considered as a set of elements, but even then, if we assume that life arose as a result of random chemical reactions, then why did all living organisms on Earth evolve from a single source, and not from a multitude of random ones? Why does organic matter contain only a small percentage of chemical elements in abundance on Earth, and a large number of elements that are rare on our planet and our lives are balanced on a razor blade? Doesn't this mean that life was brought to our planet from another world, for example by meteorites?
What caused the Great Sexual Revolution? Anyway, there are many interesting things in a person - sense organs, memory mechanisms, brain rhythms, riddles of human physiology, the second signaling system, but the main topic of this article will be a more fundamental mystery - the position of a person in the evolutionary chain.
It is now believed that the ancestor of man, the monkey, appeared on Earth about 25 million years ago! Discoveries in East Africa made it possible to establish that the transition to the type of great apes (hominids) took place about 14,000,000 years ago. Human and chimpanzee genes split from the common trunk of their ancestors 5-7 million years ago. Bonobos pygmy chimpanzees, which separated from chimpanzees about 3 million years ago, turned out to be even closer to us.
Sex takes a huge place in human relationships, and bonobos, unlike other monkeys, often copulate in a face-to-face position, and their sex life is such that it overshadows the licentiousness of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah! So our common ancestors with monkeys probably behaved more like bonobos than like chimpanzees. But sex is a topic for a separate trial, and we will continue.
Among the skeletons found, there are only three contenders for the title of the first fully bipedal primate. All of them were found in East Africa, in the Rift Valley, cutting through the territories of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.
About 1.5 million years ago, Homo erectus (erect man) appeared. This primate had a significantly larger skull than its predecessors, and was already beginning to create and use more sophisticated stone tools. The wide range of skeletons found suggests that between 1,000,000 and 700,000 years ago, Homo erectus left Africa and settled in China, Australasia and Europe, but between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, for unknown reasons, it disappeared altogether.
Around the same time, the first primitive man appeared on the scene, baptized by scientists as a Neanderthal, after the name of the area where his remains were first discovered.
The remains were found by Johann Karl Fulrott in 1856 in the Feldhofer Cave near Düsseldorf in Germany. This cave is located in the Neandertal Valley (Neander Tal). In 1863, the English anthropologist and anatomist W. King suggested the name for the find Homo neanderthalensis... Neanderthals inhabited Europe and Western Asia from 300 thousand to 28 thousand years ago. For some time they coexisted with a person of the modern anatomical type, who settled in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. Earlier, on the basis of a morphological comparison of Neanderthals with modern humans, three hypotheses were proposed: Neanderthals - the direct ancestors of humans; they have made some genetic contribution to the gene pool; they represented an independent branch which had been completely supplanted by the modern man. It is the latter hypothesis that is confirmed by modern genetic research. The lifetime of the last common ancestor of man and Neanderthal is estimated at 500 thousand years before our time.
Recent discoveries have prompted a radical revision of the assessment of the Neanderthal. In particular, in the Kebara cave on Mount Carmel in Israel, the skeleton of a Neanderthal man who lived 60 thousand years ago was found, in which the hyoid bone is completely preserved, which is completely identical to the bone of modern man. Since the ability to speak depends on the hyoid bone, scientists were forced to admit that the Neanderthal had this ability. And many scientists believe that speech is the key to unraveling the great leap forward in human development.
Nowadays, most anthropologists believe that the Neanderthal was full-fledged, and for a long time, in terms of its behavioral characteristics, it was quite equivalent to other representatives of this species. It is possible that the Neanderthal was no less intelligent and humanoid than we are in our time. It has been suggested that the large, rough lines of his skull are simply the result of some kind of genetic disorder, like acromegaly. These disturbances quickly dissolved in a limited, isolated population as a result of crossing.
But, nevertheless, despite the huge period of time - more than two million years - separating the developed Australopithecus and the Neanderthal, both used similar tools - sharpened stones, and their appearance features (as we imagine them) practically did not differ in any way.
"If you put a hungry lion, man, chimpanzee, baboon and dog in a large cage, then it is clear that the man will be eaten first!"
African folk wisdom
The emergence of Homo sapiens is not just an incomprehensible mystery, it seems incredible. For millions of years there has been little progress in the processing of stone tools; and suddenly, about 200 thousand years ago, he appeared with a volume of the cranium 50% larger than the previous one, with the ability to speak and quite close to the modern anatomy of the body. (According to a number of independent studies, this happened in Southeast Africa.)
In 1911, anthropologist Sir Arthur Kent compiled a list of the anatomical features inherent in each of the primate monkeys that distinguish them from each other. He called them " common features". As a result, he got the following indicators: gorilla - 75; chimpanzees - 109; orangutan - 113; gibbon - 116; human - 312. How can the research of Sir Arthur Kent be reconciled with the scientifically proven fact that genetically the similarity between humans and chimpanzees is 98%? I would flip that ratio and wonder how a 2% difference in DNA determines the striking difference between humans and their primate cousins?
We must somehow explain how the 2% difference in genes gives rise to so many new characteristics in a person - brain, speech, sexuality and much more. It is strange that the cell of Homo sapiens contains only 46 chromosomes, while the chimpanzee and gorilla have 48. Natural selection theory has failed to explain how such a major structural change - the fusion of two chromosomes - could have occurred.
According to Steve Jones, “... we are the result of evolution - a series of successive mistakes. No one will argue that evolution has ever been so abrupt that a whole plan of restructuring the organism could be implemented in one step. " Indeed, experts believe that the possibility of a successful implementation of a great evolutionary leap, called macromutation, is extremely unlikely, since such a leap is most likely to be detrimental to the survival of species that have already adapted well to the environment, or at least ambiguous, for example, due to mechanism of action immune system we have lost the ability to regenerate tissues like amphibians.
Catastrophe theory
Evolutionist Daniel Dennett gracefully describes the situation with a literary analogy: someone is trying to improve a classic literary text by making only proofreading. While most of the edits — commas or word mistakes — have little effect, tangible edits in almost all cases spoil the original text. Thus, everything seems to be against genetic improvement, but a favorable mutation can take place in a small isolated population. In other conditions, favorable mutations would dissolve in a larger mass of "normal" individuals.
Thus, it becomes obvious that the most important factor in the splitting of species is their geographical separation, to prevent crossbreeding. And no matter how statistically unlikely the emergence of new species is, there are currently about 30 million different types... And earlier, according to calculations, there were another 3 billion, now extinct. This is possible only in the context of the catastrophic development of history on planet Earth - and this point of view is now becoming more and more popular. However, it is impossible to give a single example (with the exception of microorganisms) when a species has recently (during the last half a million years) improved as a result of mutations or has split into two different species.
Anthropologists have always sought to present the evolution from Homo erectus to a gradual process, albeit with abrupt leaps. However, their attempts to fit archaeological data to the requirements of a given concept each time turned out to be untenable. For example, how can the sharp increase in the volume of the skull in Homo sapiens be explained?
How did it happen that Homo sapiens gained intelligence and self-awareness, while his relative, the ape, spent the last 6 million years in a state of complete stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom been able to advance to a high level of mental development?
The usual response to this is that when the person got to his feet, both hands were freed and he began to use tools. This promotion has accelerated learning through the system “ feedback”, Which, in turn, stimulated the process of mental development.
Recent scientific research confirms that in some cases, electrochemical processes in the brain can promote the growth of dendrites - tiny signal receptors that connect to neurons (nerve cells). Experiments with experimental rats have shown that if toys are placed in a cage with rats, the mass of brain tissue in rats begins to grow faster. Researchers (Christopher A. Walsh and Anjen Chenn) have even been able to identify a protein called beta-catenin, which is responsible for why the human cerebral cortex is larger than other species. Walsh explained the results of his research: "The cerebral cortex of mice is normally smooth. In humans, it is severely wrinkled due to the large volume of tissue and the lack of space in the skull. This can be compared to putting a sheet of paper in a ball. We found that mice with increased production of beta the catenin of the cerebral cortex was much larger in volume, it was shriveled in the same way as in humans. ”That, however, did not add clarity, because in the animal kingdom there are many species, representatives of which use tools, but at the same time do not become intelligent.
Here are some examples: An Egyptian kite throws stones at the ostrich eggs from above, trying to break their hard shell. A woodpecker from the Galapagos Islands uses twigs or cactus needles in five different ways to scoop tree beetles and other insects out of rotten trunks. The sea otter on the Pacific coast of the United States uses one stone as a hammer and another as an anvil to break the shell to get its favorite treat, the bear's ear shell. Our closest relatives, chimpanzee monkeys, also make and use simple tools, but do they reach our level of intelligence? Why did man become intelligent, but chimpanzees did not? We read all the time about the search for our oldest ape ancestors, but in reality it would be much more interesting to find the missing link in Homo super erectus.
But back to man, according to common sense, it should have taken another million years to switch from stone tools to other materials, and perhaps another hundred million years to master mathematics, civil engineering and astronomy, but for inexplicable reasons, man continued live a primitive life, using stone tools, only for 160 thousand years, and about 40-50 thousand years ago, something happened that caused the migration of mankind and the transition to modern forms behavior. Most likely these were climatic changes, although the issue requires separate consideration.
A comparative analysis of the DNA of different populations of modern people suggested that even before the exit from Africa, about 60-70 thousand years ago (when there was also a decrease in numbers, although not as significant as 135 thousand years ago), the ancestral population was divided at least at least three groups that gave rise to the African, Mongoloid and Caucasian races.
Some of the racial characteristics may have arisen later as an adaptation to habitat conditions. This applies at least to skin color - one of the most significant racial characteristics for most people. Pigmentation provides protection from sun exposure, but should not interfere with the formation of, for example, some vitamins that prevent rickets and are necessary for normal fertility.
Since man came out of Africa, it would seem to go without saying that our distant African ancestors were similar to the modern inhabitants of this continent. However, some researchers believe that the first people who appeared in Africa were closer to the Mongoloids.
So: only 13 thousand years ago, Man settled almost all over the globe. Over the next thousand years, he learned to farm, after another 6 thousand years he created a great civilization with advanced astronomical science). And now, finally, after another 6 thousand years, man goes into the depths of the solar system!
We do not have the means to determine the exact chronology for the periods where the possibilities of using the carbon isotope method end (about 35 thousand years before our time) and further into the depths of history during the entire Middle Pliocene.
What reliable data do we have about Homo sapiens? A conference held in 1992 summed up the most reliable evidence obtained by that time. The dates given here are the average of a number of all specimens found in the area and are given with an accuracy of ± 20%.
The most significant find, made in Kaftseh in Israel, is 115 thousand years old. Other specimens found in Skula and on Mount Carmel in Israel are 101 thousand-81 thousand years old.
The specimens found in Africa, in the lower layers of the Pogranichnaya Cave, are 128 thousand years old (and using the dating of ostrich eggshells, the age of the remains is confirmed at least 100 thousand years).
In South Africa, at the mouth of the Klasis River, dates range from 130,000 to 118,000 years to the present (BP).
And, finally, in Jebel Irhud, South Africa, specimens with the earliest dating were found - 190 thousand-105 thousand years BP.
From this we can conclude that Homo sapiens appeared on Earth less than 200 thousand years ago. And there is not the slightest evidence that there are earlier remains of modern or partially modern humans. All specimens are no different from their European counterparts - Cro-Magnons, who settled in Europe about 35 thousand years ago. And if you dress them in modern clothes, then they would practically be no different from modern people. How did the ancestors of modern man appear in Southeast Africa 150-300 thousand years ago, and not, say, two or three million years later, as the logic of the evolutionary movement suggests? Why did civilization even begin? There is no obvious reason why we should be more civilized than the tribes in the Amazon jungle or the impenetrable forests of New Guinea, which are still at a primitive stage of development.
Civilization and Methods of Managing Consciousness and Behavior
Summary
- The biochemical composition of terrestrial organisms indicates that they all developed from a "single source", which, incidentally, does not exclude either the hypothesis of "accidental spontaneous generation" or the version of the "introduction of the seeds of life."
- Man is clearly out of the evolutionary chain. With a huge number of "distant ancestors", the link that led to the creation of man has not been found. At the same time, the rate of evolutionary development has no analogues in the animal kingdom.
- It is surprising that the modification of only 2% of the genetic material of chimpanzees caused such a radical difference between humans and their closest relatives - apes.
- The features of the structure and sexual behavior of humans indicate a much longer period of peaceful evolution in a warm climate than determined by archaeological and genetic data.
- Genetic predisposition to speech and the efficiency of the internal structure of the brain strongly indicate two essential requirements of the evolutionary process - its incredibly long period, and the vital necessity of reaching an optimal level. The course of the supposed evolutionary development does not at all require such efficiency of thinking.
- Infants' skulls are disproportionately large for a safe delivery. It is quite possible that the "skulls" were inherited from the "race of giants", so often mentioned in ancient myths.
- The transition from gathering and hunting to agriculture and cattle breeding, which took place in the Middle East about 13,000 years ago, created the preconditions for the accelerated development of human civilization. Interestingly, this coincides in time with the alleged Flood that destroyed the mammoths. By the way, the Ice Age ended approximately then.