Darwin's theory - evidence and refutation of the theory of human origin. Ancient monkeys from which man descended

Evidence of the origin of man from animals undeniably supports the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. The system of views on anthropogenesis, which began to form in ancient times, has undergone significant changes over time.

Biology: Human Origins

Aristotle also believed that the ancestors of the species Homo sapiens were animals. The scientist Galen also agreed with this opinion. Between man and animals they placed monkeys. Their teaching was continued by the famous taxonomist Carl Linnaeus. He identified the corresponding genus with a single species. Jean Baptiste Lamarck suggested that it was speech that was an important factor in anthropogenesis. Darwin made the most significant contribution to this doctrine, providing undeniable evidence of the origin of man from animals.

Anthropogenesis occurred in several successive stages. These are the first ones. Moreover, there is evidence that they coexisted with each other, actively competing. The most ancient people did not build dwellings, but they knew how to make tools from stones and had the rudiments of speech. The next generation is the Neanderthals. They lived in groups, knew how to make clothes from skins and tools from bones. The Cro-Magnons were the first modern people to live in self-built dwellings or caves. They had already learned pottery making, began to domesticate wild animals and grow plants. Evidence of such evolutionary transformations comes from the results of paleontological excavations, similarities in embryology, anatomy and morphology of humans and animals.

Findings of paleontologists

Scientists have long been interested in this topic. The origin of man from animals is primarily proven by their fossil remains found by paleontologists. Among them there are species similar to modern ones and their transitional forms. For example, Archeopteryx is a lizard bird. For humans, these are Autralo- and Dryopithecus. In general, fossil finds indicate that the organic world became more complex over time. The result of this development is modern man.

Evidence for biogeography

The fact that man descended from apes is also evidenced by evidence from science that studies the distribution of vegetation and animals on Earth. It's called biogeography. Scientists have established a certain pattern: isolated areas of the planet are inhabited by species that are very different from others and are found only within a certain range. The process of their evolution seems to be suspended. Such species are called relict. Examples are the platypus in Australia, the tuateria in New Zealand, and the ginkgo biloba in China and Japan. In anthropogeny there is also such a species. This is one of the most interesting mysteries of nature - Bigfoot.

Similarities of embryonic development

Embryology also provides evidence of the origin of humans from animals. They are based primarily on the fact that different species have similar features of embryonic development. Thus, the embryos of all chordates are similar in anatomical and morphological structure. They have a notochord, a neural tube, and gill slits in the pharynx. And already in the process of development, each of them acquires individual characteristics. In humans, the neural tube is transformed into the spinal cord and brain, the notochord into parts of the skeleton, and the gill slits are overgrown, allowing the lungs to develop.

Comparative anatomical evidence

Biology also studies the internal structure of organisms. The origin of man from animals proves the commonality of the general structural features of man and animals. Some organs are homologous. They have a common structure, but perform different functions. For example, these are the forelimbs of birds, flippers of seals and human hands. Humans also have rudimentary, underdeveloped organs, which in the process of evolution have lost their functional significance. These are wisdom teeth, coccygeal bones, the third eyelid, muscles that move the ears and move the hair. If disturbances occur during embryonic development, these organs may develop sufficiently. Such phenomena are called atavisms. Examples of these are multiple nipples, the appearance of continuous hair, underdevelopment of the cerebral cortex, and the appearance of a tail.

Similarity of karyotypes

Genetics also shows that man descended from a monkey. First of all, it is equal to 48, and among representatives of the species Homo sapiens it is 46. This is indisputable evidence of the origin of man from animals. And the 13th pair of their chromosomes is similar. In addition, the similarity of the amino acid sequence in protein molecules of humans and chimpanzees reaches 99%.

Step towards evolution

Charles Darwin formulated the biological and social aspects of man. The first group includes natural selection and hereditary variability. On their basis, social factors develop - the ability to work, a social way of life, meaningful speech and abstract thinking. Charles Darwin thought so.

At the same time, modern man has acquired such features, thanks to which he has reached the pinnacle of evolution. This is an increase in the brain and a decrease in the facial part of the skull, the chest is flattened in the dorso-abdominal direction. The thumb of a person’s hand is opposed to the rest, which is associated with the ability to work. An important change was also upright walking. Therefore, the spine has four smooth curves, and the foot is arched. This provides shock absorption while driving. The bones of the pelvis have acquired the shape of a bowl, as it experiences pressure from all the internal organs. In connection with the appearance of speech, cartilage and ligaments develop in the larynx.

There is also a new theory of human origins. According to it, man descended from the Miocene monkey. Its peculiarity is that before appearing on earth, it lived in water for several million years. Evidence of this theory is the ability of a person to hold his breath for a long time, and when inhaling to stay on the surface of the water. Water births have become very popular recently. Proponents of this method believe that the child is much more comfortable in the conditions in which he was during pregnancy.

There are quite a lot of both supporters and opponents of the theory of human origin from animals in the world. However, the evidence for this system of views on anthropogenesis is quite numerous and convincing.

The idea of ​​gradual and continuous change in all species of plants and animals was expressed by many scientists long before Darwin. Therefore the very concept evolution - the process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, which ultimately lead to fundamental, qualitative changes - the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and species, penetrated into science at the end of the 18th century.

However, it was Darwin who put forward a completely new hypothesis regarding living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one, the so-called theory of evolution, which has become widespread in the world.

During his trip around the world, Charles Darwin collected a wealth of material indicating the variability of plant and animal species. A particularly striking find was a huge fossil sloth skeleton discovered in South America. Comparison with modern, small sloths prompted Darwin to think about the evolution of species.

The richest empirical material accumulated by that time in geography, archeology, paleontology, physiology, taxonomy, etc., allowed Darwin to draw a conclusion about the long-term evolution of living nature. Darwin outlined his concept in his work "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection""(1859). Charles Darwin's book was a phenomenal success; its first edition (1250 copies) was sold on the first day. The book was about explaining the emergence of living beings without appealing to the idea of ​​God.

It should be noted that, despite its enormous popularity among the reading public, the idea of ​​the gradual appearance of new species in wildlife turned out to be so unusual for the scientific community of that time that it was not immediately accepted.

Darwin suggested that there is competition in animal populations, due to which only those individuals survive that have properties that are advantageous in given specific conditions, allowing them to leave offspring. The basis of Darwin's evolutionary theory is made up of three principles: a) heredity and variability; b) struggle for existence; c) natural selection. Variability is an integral property of all living things. Despite the similarity of living organisms of the same species, it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals within a population. This variation in characteristics and properties creates an advantage for some organisms over others.

Under normal conditions, the difference in properties remains unnoticeable and does not have a significant impact on the development of organisms, but when conditions change, especially in an unfavorable direction, even the slightest difference can give some organisms a significant advantage over others. Only individuals with properties appropriate to the conditions are able to survive and leave offspring. Darwin distinguishes between indefinite and definite variability.

Certain variability, or adaptive modification,- the ability of individuals of the same species to respond in the same way to changes in the environment. Such group changes are not inherited, and therefore cannot supply material for evolution.

Uncertain variability, or mutation, - individual changes in the body that are inherited. Mutations are not directly related to changes in environmental conditions, but it is uncertain variability that plays a crucial role in the evolutionary process. Positive changes that occur by chance are inherited. As a result, only a small part of the offspring, possessing useful hereditary properties, survives and reaches maturity.

Between living beings, according to Darwin, a struggle for existence unfolds. Concretizing this concept, Darwin pointed out that within a species more individuals are born than survive to adulthood.

Natural selection- a leading factor in evolution that explains the mechanism of formation of new species. It is this selection that acts as the driving force of evolution. The selection mechanism leads to the selective destruction of those individuals that are less adapted to environmental conditions.

Criticism of the concept of Darwinian evolution

Neo-Lamarckism was the first major anti-Darwinian doctrine that appeared at the end of the 19th century. Neo-Lamarckism was based on the recognition of adequate variability that arises under the direct or indirect influence of environmental factors, forcing organisms to directly adapt to them. Neo-Lamarckists also spoke about the impossibility of inheriting traits acquired in this way and denied the creative role of natural selection. The basis of this doctrine was the old ideas of Lamarck.

Among other anti-Darwinian teachings, we note theory of nomogenesisL. C. Berg, created in 1922. This theory is based on the idea that evolution is a programmed process of implementing internal laws inherent in all living things. He believed that organisms are endowed with an internal force of an unknown nature that acts purposefully, regardless of the external environment, in the direction of increasing the complexity of the organization. To prove this, Berg cited a lot of data on the convergent and parallel evolution of different groups of plants and animals.

Charles Darwin believed that natural selection ensures progress in the development of living organisms. In addition, he emphasized that the elementary unit of evolution is not the individual, but the species. However, it was later established that the elementary unit of evolution is not kind, A population.

The weak link of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory was the lack of an accurate and convincing mechanism of heredity. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis did not explain how the accumulation and preservation of beneficial hereditary changes occurs as a result of further crossing of living organisms. Contrary to the popular belief that when crossing organisms with useful properties and organisms that do not have these properties, there should be an averaging of useful characteristics, their dissolution in a series of generations. The evolutionary concept assumed that these traits accumulated.

C. Darwin was aware of the weakness of his concept, but was unable to satisfactorily explain the mechanism of inheritance.

The answer to this question was given by the theory of the Austrian biologist and geneticist Mendel, which substantiated the discrete nature of heredity.

Created in the 20th century. synthetic theory of evolution(STE) completed the integration of evolutionary theory with genetics. STE is a synthesis of Darwin's basic evolutionary ideas, and above all natural selection, with new research results in the field of heredity and variability. An important component of STE are the concepts of micro- and macroevolution. Under microevolution understand the totality of evolutionary processes occurring in populations, leading to changes in the gene pool of these populations and the formation of new species.

It is believed that microevolution occurs on the basis of mutational variability under the control of natural selection. Mutations are the only source of the emergence of qualitatively new characteristics, and natural selection is the only creative factor in microevolution.

The nature of microevolutionary processes is influenced by fluctuations in population numbers (“waves of life”), the exchange of genetic information between them, their isolation and genetic drift. Microevolution leads either to a change in the entire gene pool of a biological species as a whole, or to their separation from the parent species as new forms.

Macroevolution is understood as evolutionary transformations leading to the formation of taxa of a higher rank than the species (genera, orders, classes).

It is believed that macroevolution does not have specific mechanisms and is carried out only through the processes of microevolution, being their integrated expression. As they accumulate, microevolutionary processes are expressed externally in macroevolutionary phenomena, i.e. macroevolution is a generalized picture of evolutionary change. Therefore, at the level of macroevolution, general trends, directions and patterns of evolution of living nature are discovered that cannot be observed at the level of microevolution.

Some events that are usually cited as evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis can be reproduced in the laboratory, but this does not mean that they actually occurred in the past. They only indicate that these events could have happened.

Many objections to the evolutionary hypothesis are still unanswered.

In connection with criticism of Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection, it is advisable to note the following. Currently, having marked a civilizational crisis - a crisis of the basic ideological principles of humanity - it is becoming increasingly clear that Darwinism is just a particular model of competitive interaction that unjustifiably claims to be universal.

Let us take a closer look at the central link of Darwinism - the property of adaptability or adaptability of the evolutionary process. What does it mean - a more adapted individual or individuals? Strictly speaking, there is no answer to this question in Darwinism, and if there is an indirect answer, it is erroneous.

The indirect answer is as follows: the fittest individual will be the one that wins the competition and survives. The latter inevitably leads to the idea of ​​a gangster individual and an aggressor species. Populations and ecosystems with such an aggressor species would be clearly unstable: they would not be able to exist for a long time. This contradicts the facts and ideas established in biology that sustainable ecosystems are generally in equilibrium, and replacement processes do not occur in them.

The way for sustainable existence of populations, communities and ecosystems is cooperation and mutual complementarity 115].

Competition is of a private nature: it is fully involved in a non-equilibrium population moving towards equilibrium, and plays the role of a kind of catalyst, accelerating the movement of the ecosystem towards equilibrium. However, directly related to evolution, i.e. progress, this kind of competition does not exist. Example: the introduction of a species into a new area - the importation of a rabbit to Australia. There was competition for food, but no new species, much less a progressive one, arose. Another example: a litter of rabbits was also released on the island of Porto Sonto in the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike their European counterparts, these rabbits have become smaller and have different colors. When crossed with a European species, they did not produce fertile offspring - a new species of rabbits emerged. It is clear that competition was also involved in the establishment of an equilibrium population. However, speciation did not occur at its expense, but due to new environmental conditions. At the same time, there is no evidence that the emerging species of rabbits is more progressive than the European one.

Thus, the purpose of competition is completely different from that in Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection. Competition eliminates abnormal, “decay” individuals (with disturbances in the genetic apparatus). Thus, competitive interaction eliminates regression. But the mechanism of progress is not competitive interaction, but the discovery and development of a new resource: as evolution proceeds, the smarter one gets an advantage.

Darwin's concept is constructed as a negative process in which not the strongest survive, but the weakest perish.

Darwinism denies trends—patterns that are quite obvious (for example, Georgians and Ukrainians sing well), arguing that all essential properties are determined by their usefulness for survival.

Darwinism is generally pointless, since natural selection simply does not exist in nature.

As is known, Darwin did not give examples of natural selection in nature, limiting himself to an analogy with artificial selection. But this analogy is unsuccessful. Artificial selection requires the forced crossing of desired individuals while completely excluding the reproduction of all others. There is no such selective procedure in nature. Darwin himself recognized this.

Natural selection does not represent selective crossing, but selective reproduction. In nature, only a few examples have been found of how, thanks to selective reproduction, the frequency of carriers of a certain trait changes, but that’s all. It was not possible to find a single example where something new appeared as a result of this procedure (except for that boring case when turning on or off already existing gene).

The only justification for Darwinism is still the analogy with artificial selection, but also it has not yet led to the emergence of at least one new genus, not to mention the family, detachment and above. Thus, Darwinism is not a description of evolution, but a way of interpreting a small part of it (changes within a species) using a hypothetical cause called natural selection.

Evolution not according to Darwin

The direction of evolution is determined by whose set of genes is introduced into the next generation, not by whose set of genes disappeared in the previous one.

The “modern” theory of evolution - the synthetic theory of evolution (STE), based on the synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics, proves that the cause of variability is mutations - sudden changes in the hereditary structure of an organism that occur randomly, also doesn't solve the problem.

IN evolution is based not Darwinian selection, not mutations (as in STE), but individual intraspecific variability, which exists constantly in all populations. It is individual variability that provides the basis for the preservation of certain functions in the population. It’s as if aliens arrived and started beating us with a huge colander, into the holes of which the smartest (smartest) would slip. Then those who think worse would simply disappear.

Horizontal gene transfer has been known for many years, i.e. acquisition of hereditary information in addition to the process of reproduction. It turned out that in the chromosomes and cytoplasm of the cell there are a number of biochemical compounds that are in a chaotic state and are capable of interacting with the nucleic acid structures of another organism. These biochemical compounds were called plasmids. Plasmids are capable of being incorporated into a recipient cell and activated under the influence of certain external factors. The transition from a latent state to an active state means the combination of the donor's genetic material with the recipient's genetic material. If the resulting construct is functional, protein synthesis begins.

Based on this technology, insulin was synthesized - a protein that helps fight diabetes.

In unicellular microorganisms, horizontal gene transfer is decisive in evolution.

Migrating genetic elements show significant similarity to viruses. Discovery of the phenomenon of gene transduction, i.e. transfer of genetic information into plant and animal cells using viruses that include part of the genes of the original host cell, suggests that viruses and similar biochemical formations occupy a special place in evolution.

Some scientists express the opinion that migrating biochemical compounds can cause even more serious changes in cell genomes than mutations. If this assumption turns out to be correct, then it will be necessary to significantly revise current ideas about the mechanisms of evolution.

Hypotheses are now being put forward about the significant role of viruses in the mixing of genetic information of different populations, the occurrence of leaps in the evolutionary process, in a word, we are talking about the most important role of viruses in the evolutionary process.

Viruses are among the most dangerous mutagens. Viruses- the smallest of living creatures. They do not have a cellular structure and are not capable of synthesizing protein themselves, so they obtain the substances necessary for their life activity by penetrating a living cell and using foreign organic substances and energy.

In humans, as in plants and animals, viruses cause many diseases. Although mutations are the main suppliers of evolutionary material, they are random changes that obey probabilistic laws. Therefore, they cannot serve as a determining factor in the evolutionary process.

Nevertheless, the idea of ​​the leading role of mutations in the evolutionary process formed the basis theory of neutral mutations, created in the 1970s and 1980s by Japanese scientists M. Kimura and T. Ota. According to this theory, changes in the functions of the protein-synthesizing apparatus are the result of random mutations that are neutral in their evolutionary consequences. Their true role is to provoke genetic drift - a change in the purity of genes in a population under the influence of completely random factors.

On this basis, the neutralist concept of non-Darwinian evolution was proclaimed, the essence of which lies in the idea that natural selection does not work at the molecular genetic level. And although these ideas are not generally accepted among biologists, it is obvious that the direct arena of natural selection is the phenotype, i.e. living organism, ontogenetic level of life organization.

Recently, another concept of non-Darwinian evolution has emerged - punctualism. Its supporters believe that the process of evolution proceeds through rare and rapid leaps, and 99% of its time the species remains in a stable state - stasis. In extreme cases, the leap to a new species can occur in a population of only a dozen individuals within one or several generations.

This hypothesis rests on a broad genetic basis laid by a number of fundamental discoveries in molecular genetics and biochemistry. Punctualism rejected the genetic-population model of speciation, Darwin's idea of ​​varieties and subspecies as emerging species, and focused its attention on the molecular genetics of the individual as the bearer of all the properties of the species.

The value of this concept lies in the idea of ​​the disunity of micro- and macroevolution (as opposed to STE) and the independence of the factors controlled by them.

Thus, Darwin's concept is not the only one trying to explain the evolutionary process. However, Darwin was made into an icon, and Darwinism into a religion (the word “selection” is used colloquially, like bread and water). If a religion can only be superseded by another religion, then what religion can replace Darwinism today with benefit to people? Classical religions cannot do this because they profess creationism, and it contradicts science and therefore alienates precisely those on whom one should rely.

The religion of veneration of nature as a whole can supplant Darwinism, to the common benefit(where man is only a part of nature, a product of it). This is the only way to replace the ideology of “fight against nature” that the dominance of Darwinism asserts on planet Earth.

The seeds of reverence for nature as a whole are already visible in the emerging environmental movements.

The temporary establishment in the world of the Darwinian worldview, supplemented by economic market mechanisms, was one of the main ideological causes of the modern civilizational crisis.

You should also pay attention to the review of Darwinism made back in the 19th century. the leading pathologist R. von Virchow, at the congress of naturalists in Munich. He demanded that the study and dissemination of the ideas of Darwinism be prohibited, since its spread could lead to a repetition of the Paris Commune.

Perhaps in the future, STE and non-Darwinian concepts of evolution, complementing each other, will unite into a new single theory of life and development of living nature.

Where did people come from on Earth? The answer to this question was found in the 19th century, when Charles Darwin's work on the origin of species was published. Darwin's theory of human origins confirmed early scientists' assumptions that the ancestors of humans were apes. And although religious people to this day do not agree with this idea, today the evolutionary theory is the only one recognized in the world of science.

Science vs Religion

The Mystery of Human Origins has been interesting to humanity at all times. But for quite a long time, science was not developed enough to answer the question of where people came from. As always, religion came to the rescue: for centuries and even millennia, any incomprehensible phenomena were explained by divine providence.

Different religions have offered different explanations for the appearance of man. There were versions that the first people were created from clay, dust, air and other substances. Some religions believed that men and women were created differently. For example, in Christianity it is believed that the first woman, Eve, was created from the rib of the first man, Adam.

The first reports that humans might be related to monkeys were met with hostility by the clergy. At first, these ideas did not find understanding among the general public, although the entire circulation of Darwin's book was sold out in a few days. However, the scientist did a great deal of work, systematizing various information about living organisms, and as a result, Darwin’s theory of the origin of man turned out to be very convincing. The scientist was able to overcome the skepticism of his colleagues and provide irrefutable evidence that all living organisms on the planet have common features and, therefore, are in one way or another related. The man was no exception.

From that moment on, a serious confrontation between science and religion began. If before this, religious leaders were calm about scientific research, then the origin of man from apes was the last straw for many: the priests and their flock could not agree with this idea. And if some religious figures partially accepted the evolutionary theory with the obligatory proviso that the emergence of man was nevertheless facilitated by higher powers, then the orthodox denied it in principle. This denial continues to this day: there are people who prefer to believe in the divine origin of man, ignoring anthropology as a science.

History of human origin

So, how did man appear? This story began millions of years ago and has not ended yet - people continue to change slowly but surely, adapting to the changing conditions around them. Darwin suggested that there has always been competition among different species of living organisms. As a result of natural selection, only those species and only those individual individuals could survive that were optimally adapted to the environment.

It has been proven that life originated in the ocean. But at some point the fish began to move onto land. Perhaps this happened by accident, or perhaps the ocean simply became too crowded. One way or another, we had to explore new territories. This led to the emergence of amphibians capable of living on land, albeit in close proximity to water. As a result of natural selection, only those most adapted to life in new conditions survived on land: they gave birth to offspring that turned out to be even more adapted to life on land. Later, reptiles, birds and mammals appeared in a similar way.

Not all species and populations have survived to this day - many have died out, leaving behind only more adapted descendants. For example, dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the earth , who were once the real masters of the planet, but smaller reptiles and birds remained.

The disappearance of some species greatly complicates the understanding of the chronology of evolution. In particular, the origins of man have long remained a mystery. The first assumptions that man became a descendant of apes were criticized. Later, scientists came to the conclusion that humans and apes had a certain common ancestor, more similar, perhaps, to modern apes than to modern humans. His offspring began to develop in different ways depending on living conditions: some turned out to be more adapted to life in trees, others chose upright walking and life on the ground. The idea of ​​a common ancestor explains why none of the many attempts to cross apes into humans have been successful.

Human ancestors

The science of human origins - anthropology - has now accumulated enough data to name several possible direct ancestors of humans. These are Neanderthals , Heidelberg people, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus and “a skilled man.” Over the last century, many remains of ancient people have been discovered, including well-preserved ones. Human ancestors had quite specific features - they had much more in common with monkeys than modern humans. The body structure, prominent brow ridges, powerful lower jaw are only the most noticeable differences between Pithecanthropus, Neanderthals and other primitive people from the man of the 21st century.

There are still ongoing debates about whether, say, Neanderthals should be considered apes or humans. The ancient representatives of the human race are so close to their anthropoid relatives that no one can draw a clear line and determine at what exact moment the ancient ape turned into an ancient man. The classification of transitional forms from a common ancestor with apes to Homo sapiens is periodically revised as new finds are discovered. However, modern scientists have no doubt that man originated in this way, although Darwin’s theory is periodically criticized and supplemented.

Maria Bykova

The theory of the origin of man from the ape

The theory of the origin of man from the ape is the second oldest, and therefore takes an honorable fourth place in my ranking.

The essence of the theory is best expressed in the legends of Southeast Asia. Thus, representatives from the Indian Jayvast tribe believe that they descend from the monkey god Hanuman. As evidence, Hindus point out that their princes retained longer spines with tail-like appendages, with which Hanuman, the hero of the epic mythology Ramayana, was usually depicted. The Tibetans trace their origins to two extraordinary monkeys who were sent to populate the kingdom of snow. The monkeys learned to plow and sow grain, but from overwork they all became shabby. Well, the tails, of course, also dried up. This is how man appeared - exactly like Marx.

All these tales would probably have remained funny myths if not for the Count de Buffon Georges-Louis Leclerc (1707-1788), a French naturalist, biologist, mathematician, naturalist and writer, who from 1749 to 1783 published a 24-volume Encyclopedia "Natural History". In it, the count suggested that man descended from a monkey.

Such a theory aroused anger among ordinary people (the book was even publicly burned) and healthy laughter from zoologists - for all scientists perfectly understood the delusion of such a fantasy. Apparently, since then there has been a joke in the scientific community that the animal world is divided into two categories: four-legged and four-armed. And since a person has two arms and two legs, only a kangaroo can be his ancestor.

Serious objections included insurmountable differences in the structure of internal organs, skin and skeleton. In particular, the structure of the foot:

A funny difference between the human and ape feet is that evolution can make a monkey’s foot out of a human one - if a person starts climbing trees more than walking, the big toe will gradually protrude and acquire grasping reflexes. But the reverse process is absolutely impossible. Without a supporting toe, the monkey is not able to confidently move on the ground and constantly “bumps.” And if you try to change your lifestyle, you will inevitably be eaten as a result of natural selection.

It would seem that this could be the end of the story about the “monkey incident” - but religion intervened in the story. XVIII century - an era of freethinking and destruction of foundations. Some of the rebels decided to make the “monkey man” a symbol of a new, progressive worldview, and the funny fake suddenly turned out to be the basic religious dogma of the fighters against the old world. Activists of “progress” called the fairy tale about the origin of man from ape a “scientific theory” and hammered it into school textbooks, not caring at all about the opinion of scientists.

Meanwhile, time passed. A century after the scandal of the ape-man theory, in 1859 Cambridge Christian College graduate and Anglican priest Charles Darwin published his Theory of the Origin of Species. It has nothing to do with the myth under discussion - except that since the end of the 19th century, “monkey people” began to proudly call themselves “Darwinists.”

Only in In the 20th century, biologists finally made an attempt to determine human ancestors using scientific methods, rejecting religious dogma and relying only on the theory of evolution. The first to do this was the famous oceanographer Professor Alistair Hardy in 1929. He reasoned like this: in order to determine the ancestor of a person, we need to collect the morphological characteristics of the organism, systematize them and determine what habitat this animal is adapted to, and what characteristics the creature from which this animal evolved should have.

And he set about systematizing, checking organ by organ and following something like this:

1) Nose. There are vestigial muscles in the nose that allow the wings of the nose to move. This means that the human ancestor had full-fledged muscles that reliably closed the nostrils. None of the land animals have such adaptations, but all animals leading an aquatic lifestyle have them: dolphins, sperm whales, otters, seals, etc.

2) The upper respiratory tract with a very low larynges is a unique feature of the species Homo sapiens. None of the land animals have such an adaptation, but all marine mammals have it.

3) The ability to consciously hold your breath - similar

4) Increased content of red blood cells in the blood - similar

5) Bare skin - similar

6) The ability to give birth to children in water - similar

7) The lower limbs are in line with the spine - similar

8) Subcutaneous fat layer of infants - similar. Land cubs are born skinny. And they don’t know how to dive from birth, and even with their mouths open.

9) While in water, a person reflexively slows down the heart rate. This mechanism operates in exactly the same way in all aquatic mammals. However, land mammals, when entering water - an aggressive environment that threatens their lives - sharply increase their heart rate.

10) The location of the mammary glands on the chest, and not on the stomach, is most convenient for feeding the baby in water - so as not to interfere with air breathing at the same time as feeding. This is how people differ from all land mammals. But this same feature is characteristic of marine mammals (dugongs were mistaken for sea maidens precisely because of the presence of mermaid breasts). Women's breasts are generally strikingly different from the barely noticeable nipples of land mammals.

Well, and so on. The list of morphological differences indicating a person’s adaptability to life in water extends to several hundred positions and is largely of an anal-genital nature, since both digestion and human sexual behavior are also characteristic exclusively of marine animals, but not of land animals.

Having come to a completely logical conclusion about who exactly the man’s ancestor was, Professor Hardy immediately... hid this information, well aware that he would become a victim of religious persecution. The dogmas of the “monkeys,” alas, are considered mandatory for official science. And therefore, the first to announce the real ancestors of man in 1942 was the German biologist Max Westenhoffer, who, independently of his colleague, came to the conclusion that the ancestor of man was Hydropithecus - either an amphibian monkey, according to some scientists, or even a giant lemur, according to others (the remains of such lemurs were found in the caves of Madagascar).

For obvious reasons, the “monkey people” managed to ignore the publications of Max Westenhoffer - however, on March 17, 1960, Sir Alistair Hardy, by that day a knight and professor at Oxford University, decided that he no longer had to worry about his career and published in The New Scientist magazine » article “Was the human ancestor an aquatic dweller?” ("Was Man More Aquatic In The Past?").

And the scientific bomb finally exploded, scattering the myth of the origin of man from the ape into small pieces!

It would seem that “Darwinists” should only rejoice at how the theory of evolution allowed science to make a radical leap forward, significantly closer to the mystery of human origins, to erase the Asian myth from school textbooks and write a scientific theory there. But it was not there! Still, religious dogmas are religious dogmas, and if the doctrine of “scientific progress” includes a monkey as an ancestor, it is the monkey that should remain there!

A wave of curses fell on Alistair Hardy. The “scientific community” accused him of spoiling the entire beautiful edifice of Darwinism with his idiotic evolutionary theory, undermining the foundations of the doctrine and insulting Charles Darwin himself. The professor just chuckled, watching the hysteria of the “monkeys” from the sidelines. The orthodox could not burn it publicly along with the article - by the middle of the twentieth century, auto-da-fe went out of fashion; It was already too late to ruin the scientist’s career, anathematize him, and expel an accomplished and very eminent professional from science. Naturally, opponents were unable to refute the scientific theory based on the basic principles of evolutionary theory. Facts are generally a damn inconvenient thing if they were not destroyed in time. And destroying the facts that every person sees in the mirror every day is beyond the power of any religion. The “monkey people” can only grind their teeth, curse biologists and ban new publications of scientific research.

Alistair Hardy, meanwhile, founded an experimental religious research center in Oxford, stocked up on popcorn and began to watch with interest how it would all end? The “scientific community” was too short to get to him and take revenge for his freethinking. In 1985, as if mocking his opponents, he also managed to receive the Templeton Prize for his achievements.

The worst thing happened to the unfortunate Charles Darwin. The poor guy was probably twisting in his grave, watching how a handful of obscurantists, hiding behind his name, eagerly tried to refute his own theory. And then, quite unexpectedly, the “monkey people” had “sort of scientific” support: in 1975, Mary-Claire King and Allan Wilson published an article in the journal Science about the genetic similarity of chimpanzees and humans. King and Wilson compared the amino acid sequences of several chimpanzee and human proteins (such as hemoglobin and myoglobin) and found that the sequences were either identical or nearly identical. "... The sequences of chimpanzee and human polypeptides studied to date are on average more than 99% identical.“, the experts concluded.

(in it, scientists tried to explain that no one truly understands how macroevolution occurred). A fragment about the “almost complete identity” of chimpanzees and humans was simply pulled out of it - and a new fable about the 1% genetic difference between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes rushed through the hummocks.

However, the delight of supporters of Asian mythology has brought enormous, simply invaluable benefits to science. Believing that genetics is capable of confirming the theory of the origin of man from ape, international scientific foundations have donated huge sums of money to decipher the genomes of humans and the monkeys closest to them in morphology. These studies were carried out according to a common program by an international team: Tomas Marqus-Bonet, Evolutionary Biology Institute, Evan E. Eichler, Washington University and Arcadi Navarro, ICREA-IBE Barcelona.

The unique project was completed in 2009 and produced a result that was simply stunning in its objectivity:

As it turned out, humans share no more than 90% of their genes with their closest relatives!!!

This means that genetically we are as close to a chimpanzee as we are to a mouse, pig or chicken. And all we have in common with monkeys are distant common ancestors that look suspiciously like lemurs.

This is how scientific discoveries are XXI centuries completely killed a theory that had existed for almost two millennia and was still not removed from the pages of textbooks. Modern schoolchildren completely waste their school hours cramming signs of their resemblance to furry poison dart frogs.

The theory of the origin of man from the ape no longer exists.

The full article can be found

Theories about the origin of man appear more and more often, each time becoming more complex and interesting. This question has been relevant for many thousands of years. Even before our era, people tried to find out about the nature of their origin. Perhaps they managed to achieve their goal, but this does not matter, because the knowledge has not reached us. In any case, most people think so, including you and me. We propose to consider the 10 most interesting and most likely theories regarding how man appeared on Earth.

10 theories about human origins

Currently only one theory, Darwin's, about the origin of man is recognized. Of course, no one can reliably say that we came from monkeys. There are simply more facts pointing to this:

• Primates are most similar to humans in terms of anatomy;
• Darwin noticed similarities in the expression of emotions;
• facial expressions, gestures, movements are similar;
• We are similar not only in brain, teeth, blood, but also in the psychology of behavior.

According to his theory, people evolved from monkeys, leaving distant ancestors behind beyond the boundaries of civilization. A colossal amount of research is currently being conducted. Filmmakers have already released the film “Planet of the Apes,” which talks about the war between primates and humans. Probably, until this issue is resolved, people will not stop abusing animals.

Along with Darwin's theory there is an aquatic theory about the origin of man. It indicates that people came out of the seas. What facts indicate this?

1. 70-80% of the human body consists of water;
2. The underwater world has not been explored;
3. About 90% of the ocean is unexplored;
4. Dolphins are similar to humans almost like monkeys;

Indeed, dolphins know about 14,000 signals. They are able to communicate and save people. In history there has not been a single case of attack by this animal. Dolphins are not fish because they are warm-blooded and breathe oxygen. You can learn more interesting things from the article “10 facts about dolphins” on our portal.

The theory of the origin of man as a result of the Big Bang is quite complex. We will not go into the scientific explanation of all the chains of interaction between atoms and molecules (if only because we don’t understand). In general, something went wrong and a celestial body exploded, as a result of which molecules and atoms began to move so chaotically that people appeared. Perhaps everything is completely wrong or partially, but the essence is the same - this theory does not explain at all why we appeared. If this is a coincidence, then it is very difficult to believe that such advanced and complex organisms could arise as a result of an explosion. One hair consists of a colossal number of atoms.

Many believe that we are not the only race in the Universe. Probably the creators of the Transformers franchise are among such people. In general, there is a hypothesis about the origin of man from aliens. Some people think that we were brought in a test tube and populated the Earth. Others believe that we are children of UFOs. Still others believe that we are being exploited by aliens. It’s as if we are slaves, so we don’t know the meaning of life. Probably, in this way they simply explain the misunderstanding of their nature. However, it is not for us to judge whether this is a fairy tale or reality.

How man appeared: myths about the Gods

When talking about the origin of man, one cannot fail to mention religion. Perhaps the answer is in the Bible. Since time immemorial, the book has been passed down from old people to their heirs. At the same time, one truth can be seen among different peoples, calling to value their neighbors, do good and not commit sins. And most importantly, the Lord created us. We do not encourage you to choose a religion; we do not intend to offend the feelings of believers. In this article we only emphasize that one of the most popular theories of origin is the belief in God.

In my opinion, the most interesting theory of human origins. It says that evolution is nothing more than “dust in the eyes” of modern society. In fact, there were civilizations and developed technologies before us. We just don’t understand them, since knowledge was lost along with the Apocalypse. Our predecessors may have known the answers, but something happened. How else can we explain the fact that pyramids have existed on Earth for a huge number of years? Moreover, they are arranged end to end. Even current technologies do not allow the creation of such structures. Not to mention the fact that inside the pyramids there is a favorable atmosphere for the development of plants. They do not contain viruses and microbes. Amazing, isn't it?

It is quite difficult to explain this hypothesis. Briefly speaking about how man appeared, it is worth highlighting the following assumptions:

• thoughts materialize;
• our dreams are sent to the center of the Universe, after which they return to our world, materializing;
• there is invisible energy;
• everything we come up with exists, but in other realities.

Thus, this hypothesis says that all previous theories are real. That is, every law and assumption is a partial truth. Moreover, parallel worlds are different segments of the time line. It's difficult, isn't it?

Another complicated theory. According to this hypothesis, there are several worlds. Some scientists indicate the number 9, others 3. Someone believes that there are countless parallel worlds. Imagine there is a time machine. Now you are reading this text (captured the picture). After some time, we traveled back in time and went for a walk. What about the story when you read the text? According to this theory, all time periods are fixed. With your journey you have created 2 stories. One of them is in one world, the second in another.

In general, another complex theory, in which a certain logic is still visible.

Perhaps the most modern theory about the origin of man. What if the world is a game? Osho, Khayyam, many successful people said to treat life as a game, a performance. Maybe they wanted us to take these phrases literally? Imagine that all emotions, our conclusions and views are a built-in program. This brings to mind the movie "The Matrix". Imagine that everything in the world is fiction, a game in which we only carry out our tasks. In such a case there is no fate. All this is a cold calculation of the creators. It's hard to believe, but a certain essence is visible.

10

Carlos Castaneda studied the “Art of Dreaming” with a shaman named Don Juan Matos for a long time. According to his theory, sleep is an integral part of life. It is as real as our reality. It also talks about parallel worlds and the materialization of thoughts.

The point is this. The creator, the center of the universe, or god laid down the program. Our task is to study, learn new things, discover knowledge and create something unprecedented. After death, all our knowledge, along with memory, goes to the creator. This is the essence of our existence. This is why man appeared. You can find out more by reading the works of Carlos.