Officially, there are two main theories of human origins - the religious one, according to which God created us in his own image and likeness, and the Darwinian theory, which suggests that we descended from apes. However, recently, both hypotheses are increasingly being questioned, since, according to many, they do not stand up to criticism. But if the divine will and monkeys did not take part in our appearance, then why and thanks to what do we still exist? Skeptics, dreamers, adherents of alternative history, and even some scientists have their own opinions on this matter.

Theories

Alien version - one of the oldest alternative versions, with many variations to suit every taste, ranging from “they created us to relieve their endless boredom” and ending with “we are a defective version of the higher intelligence.” In addition, there is an assumption that aliens made an emergency landing on Earth, and we are only their descendants. But in general, all the variations boil down to the fact that man is the fruit of the labor of some extraterrestrial civilization.

The Matrix and the like. Here everything is even more interesting. Some - obviously not without the influence of the film of the same name - suggest that our world is not real. Others believe that the entire existing physical reality, including our body, is just a kind of “playground” created by us to gain additional life experience and skills. In reality, we are either disembodied energy entities, or we simply look completely different.

aquatic theory, according to some sources, proposed by biologist Alistair Hardy. The theory is based on Darwin's hypothesis, but the difference between humans and other primates in this case is justified by the fact that one of our ancestors was a hydropithecus (amphibian monkey), who led an aquatic lifestyle.

Descendants of bats. It is said that once upon a time there lived on Earth creatures that combined the features of humans and birds, similar to the harpies from ancient myths. How exactly they evolved into humans is unknown. Let us note here that there are recorded eyewitness accounts claiming that half-humans, half-birds still exist.

Androgynes. Exists An ancient Greek legend about how the gods originally created a race of people who had both male and female characteristics. But these creatures were too strong and encroached on the power of the gods. Then Zeus decided to cut the androgynes in two to weaken them. According to legend, we are now doomed to spend our entire lives looking for our “soul mate,” which, by the way, is not far from the truth.

Giant people. The idea that our ancestors were giants has been expressed for a long time. There is a legend according to which angels used to descend to earth, take human daughters, and from such connections a tribe of giants appeared. Well, over time, their descendants shredded and became similar to modern humans.

Unusual Finds

– Several decades ago, the Belgian scientist Friedrich Meissner unearthed human skulls topped with horns in the Gobi Desert. At first he was accused of forgery, but during research no traces of adhesions were found between the horns and the skull.

– At the excavations of the Khasaot burial ground in Kislovodsk, a strange elongated skull was found. Similar skulls have been discovered many times around the world. It is assumed that the shape of such heads was artificially changed. But for what? No answer yet.

– Among the seals that belonged to the Sumerian civilization, images of flying objects, bird people and even the solar system were repeatedly found. The latter is all the more surprising, since telescopes were invented relatively recently!

Current

In connection with the end of the Mayan civilization calendar on December 21, 2012, the version about Nibiru or planet X, the tenth planet of our solar system, has now become very widespread. The planet's orbit is so elongated that the period of its orbit around the sun is 3600 years. And on it, the mythical aliens Anunaki are supposed to fly to us, who will either destroy our civilization or help us move on.

Well, the veracity of at least one of all theories will be finally clear after December 21, 2012. We wait.

Nana Blagoveshchenskaya

C article: Hypotheses of human origin.

Where are we from? From God from the Creator?
When was a spark breathed into our soul?
Or maybe the appearance of our face
Aliens from the sky dared to transmit?
What if, at the beginning of life, there was contact
Squirrel and fields – just a revolution?
Or Darwin was right when he published the treatise,
What is it all about evolution?
Of course it's very interesting to know
Where do we come from, from heaven or on earth?
But the main thing is to understand,
That we are all brothers by blood!

V.Yu. Kucharina

The origin of man on our planet is the subject of centuries-old discussions, in which more than one generation of humanity has participated, and as a result, there are many hypotheses about the origin of man. Which hypothesis has the right to exist? Which one is the most convincing?

1. Religious hypothesis ()

Views based on the fact that man was created by God or gods arose much earlier than materialistic theories of the spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of anthropoid ancestors into man. In various philosophical and theological teachings of antiquity, the act of human creation was attributed to various deities.

For example, according to Mesopotamian myths, the gods under the leadership of Marduk killed their former rulers Abzu and his wife Tiamat, the blood of Abzu was mixed with clay, and the first man arose from this clay. Hindus had their own views on the creation of the world and man in it. According to their ideas, the world was ruled by a triumvirate - Shiva, Krishna and Vishnu, who laid the foundation for humanity. The ancient Incas, Aztecs, Dagons, Scandinavians had their own versions, which basically coincided: man is a creation of the Supreme Intelligence or simply God.

This theory states that man was created by God, the gods, or divine power out of nothing or from some non-biological material. The best known biblical version is that God created the world in seven days, and the first people - Adam and Eve - were created from clay. This version has more ancient Egyptian roots and a number of analogues in the myths of other peoples.
The myths about the transformation of animals into people and the birth of the first people by gods can also be considered a variety of the theory of creation.

Of course, the most ardent followers of this theory are religious communities. Based on the sacred texts of antiquity (the Bible, the Koran, etc.), followers of all world religions recognize this version as the only possible one. This theory appeared in Islam, but became widespread in Christianity. All world religions gravitate toward the version of God the creator, but his appearance may change depending on the religious branch.
Orthodox theology considers the creation hypothesis to be self-evident. However, various evidence has been put forward for this hypothesis, the most important of which is the similarity of myths and legends of different peoples telling about the creation of man.

Modern theology uses the latest scientific data to prove the creation hypothesis, which, however, for the most part do not contradict evolutionary theory.
Since the end of the last century, the theory of evolution has dominated throughout the world, but several decades ago new scientific discoveries made many scientists doubt the possibility of the evolutionary mechanism. In addition, if the evolutionary theory has at least some explanation for the process of the emergence of living matter, then the mechanisms of the emergence of the Universe simply remain outside the scope of this theory, while religion provides comprehensive answers to many controversial issues. For the most part, creationism is based on the Bible, which provides a fairly clear diagram of the emergence of the world around us. Many people believe that creationism is a hypothesis that relies solely on faith in its development. However, creationism is precisely a science based on scientific methodology and the results of scientific experiments. This misconception arises, first of all, from a very superficial acquaintance with the theory of creation, as well as from a firmly established preconceived attitude towards this scientific movement. As a result of this, many people have a much more favorable attitude towards completely unscientific theories not confirmed by practical observations and experiments, such as, for example, the fantastic “paleovisit theory”, which allows for the possibility of artificial creation of the known Universe by “external civilizations”.

Often, creationists themselves add fuel to the fire, putting faith on a par with scientific facts. This gives many people the impression that they are dealing more with philosophy or religion than with science.

The main goal of creationism is to promote human knowledge of the surrounding world using scientific methods and use this knowledge to solve the practical needs of mankind.
Creationism, like any other science, has its own philosophy. The philosophy of creationism is the philosophy of the Bible. And this greatly increases the value of creationism for humanity, which has already seen from its own example how important the philosophy of science is for preventing the rash consequences of its development. The field of research aimed at finding scientific evidence for this version is called “scientific creationism.” Modern creationists strive to confirm the texts of the Bible with accurate calculations. In particular, they prove that Noah's ark could accommodate all the “creatures in pairs.”

Example: In particular, they prove that Noah’s ark could accommodate all “creatures in pairs” - given that fish and other aquatic animals do not need a place in the ark, and other vertebrate animals - about 20 thousand species. If you multiply this number by two (a male and a female were taken into the ark), you get approximately 40 thousand animals. A medium-sized sheep transport van can accommodate 240 animals. This means that 146 such vans would be needed. And an ark 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high would accommodate 522 such wagons. This means that there was a place for all the animals and there would still be room left - for food and people. Moreover, God, according to Thomas Heinz from the Institute for Creation Research, would probably have thought of taking small and young animals so that they would take up less space and reproduce more actively.

Now you have 2 minutes to fill out the appropriate line in the individual form.

2. Evolutionary hypothesis.

Evolutionary theory received rapid development in the second half of the 19th century. after creation by Charles Darwin theories of evolution. It is the most common in the modern scientific community. The evolutionary hypothesis assumes that humans evolved from higher primates - humanoid creatures through gradual modification under the influence of external factors and natural selection.

Scientists believe that the ancestors of humans were not modern apes, but Dryopithecus(ancient monkeys). From them, one line of evolution went to chimpanzees and gorillas, the other to humans.

Twenty million years ago, under the influence of cold weather, the jungle retreated, and one of the branches of Dryopithecus had to leave the trees and move on to life on earth. The relationship of Dryopithecus with humans was established based on a study of the structure of its jaw and teeth, discovered in 1856 in France. Scientists believe that Dryopithecus gave rise to a new branch of anthropoids: a Vstralopithecus.

Australopithecus

Australopithecus- lived 6 million years ago. Used as tools (stones, sticks). They were as tall as a chimpanzee and weighed about 50 kg, their brain volume reached 500 cm 3 - according to this feature, Australopithecus is closer to humans than any of the fossil and modern monkeys.

Homo habilis, Homo erectus

Australopithecus gave rise to a more progressive form, called Homo habilis, Homo erectus - Homo habilis, Homo erectus. They lived about 3 million years ago, knew how to make stone tools, hunted, and used fire. The teeth are human-type, the phalanges of the fingers are flattened, the brain volume is 600 cm3.

Neanderthals

N Yeanderthals appeared 150 thousand years ago, they were widely settled throughout Europe. Africa. Western and South Asia. Neanderthals made a variety of stone tools, used fire, and rough clothing. Their brain volume increased to 1400 cm3. The structural features of the lower jaw show that they had rudimentary speech. They lived in groups of 50-100 individuals and during the advance of glaciers they used caves, driving wild animals out of them.

Cro-Magnons

Neanderthals were replaced by modern people - Cro-Magnons- or neoanthropes. They appeared about 50 thousand years ago (their bone remains were found in 1868 in France). Cro-Magnons form the only genus of the species Homo Sapiens - Homo sapiens. Their ape-like features were completely smoothed out, there was a characteristic chin protuberance on the lower jaw, indicating their ability to articulate speech, and in the art of making various tools from stone, bone and horn, the Cro-Magnons went far ahead compared to the Neanderthals.

They tamed animals and began to master agriculture, which allowed them to get rid of hunger and obtain a variety of food. Unlike their predecessors, the evolution of Cro-Magnons took place under the great influence of social factors (team unity, mutual support, improvement of work activity, a higher level of thinking). Today, scientists consider Cro-Magnons to be the direct ancestors of humans.

Modern molecular biology data allow us to establish that humans and modern chimpanzees have 91% similar genes, humans and gibbons have 76%, and humans and macaques have 66%. In genetic terms, the chimpanzee is considered the closest living ape to humans. However, a study of morphological characteristics indicates that humans have the greatest similarity with the gorilla - 385. Next comes the chimpanzee - 369, the orangutan - 359 and the gibbon - 117.

Graphically, hominid evolution can be represented as a tree with many branches, some of them long dead, others still alive.

Undoubtedly, scientific ideas about anthropogenesis will not only be replenished, but, possibly, will change significantly.

3. Space hypothesis (hypothesis of extraterrestrial intervention)

According to this hypothesis, the appearance of people on Earth is in one way or another connected with the activities of other civilizations. In the simplest version, people are direct descendants of aliens who landed on Earth in prehistoric times.

More complex options:

interbreeding of aliens with human ancestors;

the creation of Homo sapiens using genetic engineering methods;

the creation of the first people in a homuncular way;

control of the evolutionary development of earthly life by the forces of extraterrestrial superintelligence;

evolutionary development of earthly life and intelligence according to a program originally laid down by extraterrestrial superintelligence.

At the turn of the 50s and 60s, the topic of paleovisit received a real chance to be included in the sphere of normal scientific research. On the one hand, during this period there was a genuine revolution in the perception of the entire issue of extraterrestrial civilizations. Radio astronomy and communications technology had reached such a level of development by that time that it became clear: radio communication between humanity and its supposed “brothers in mind” from nearby star systems is already feasible today. Listening to space began in search of meaningful signals, articles and monographs about extraterrestrial civilizations and methods of contact with them poured in, in a word, the question of alien intelligence, which had hitherto seemed somewhat abstract, finally became the subject of practical concerns of science.

On the other hand, the entry of mankind into the space age had a profound impact on scientific thought, and indeed on the entire society. The conquest of near-Earth space, the rapid progress of astronautics, its boundless prospects - all this, among other things, created a solid basis for the assumption that more developed civilizations of the Galaxy could have long ago begun interstellar expeditions.

The first developer of the paleovisit hypothesis was the scientist Agreste. Having expressed the idea of ​​the possibility of repeated visits to the Earth by messengers from other worlds, the scientist called for a search for relevant evidence in myths, legends, written monuments and material culture. He drew attention to a number of facts relating mainly to the Middle East and neighboring regions: biblical texts about the coming of celestial beings to Earth, a giant stone terrace erected in Baalbek (Lebanon) by no one knows who and for what purpose, a drawing of an “astronaut” on the rocks Tassilien-Adjera (North Africa), etc. However, the theory did not receive the proper response in the scientific world. There were other attempts to return to it, but they all rested on the stereotypes of conservative science and the impossibility of presenting substantiated evidence.

In recent decades, the paleovisit hypothesis has experienced a rebirth. Every year the number of its supporters and followers is growing, and scientific research gives scientists the right to speak more and more confidently about the existence of an extraterrestrial highly developed civilization that created our world. Some ancient tribes claim to have descended from aliens who passed on their knowledge to them and visited Earth several times. This cannot be denied, since inexplicable discoveries in the field of mythology and archeology baffle conservative science, but all these mysteries of world history make sense in the context of the existence of an extraterrestrial presence. These include rock paintings depicting unknown creatures, and complex structures resting in the thickness of the earth or on its surface. And who knows, maybe the mysterious Stonehenge, sending secret signals into outer space, is an information module thanks to which extraterrestrial intelligence monitors the lives of its creations.

Today, many different hypotheses of human origins are widespread in the world.

But only one thing is clear and obvious, that none of the existing hypotheses of the origin of man is strictly proven. Ultimately, the selection criterion for each individual is belief in one or another hypothesis.

Abstract on the topic:

"Basic hypotheses of human origins."

Subject: “The concept of modern natural science.”

Completed by a second year student

Ivanova Yu.V.

Moscow, 2010

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 3

2. Theories of anthropogenesis:

2.1. Theory of evolution…………………………………….. 3

2.2. Theory of creation (creationism) …………………….. 5

2.3. Paleovisit theory ………………………………….. 7

2.4. Theory of spatial anomalies……………….. 9

3. Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 11

4. Bibliography…………………………………………… 12

Introduction.

Every person, as soon as he began to realize himself as an individual, was visited by the question “where did we come from?” Although the question sounds very simple, there is no single answer to it. Nevertheless, this problem - the problem of the emergence and development of man - is dealt with by a number of sciences. In particular, in the science of anthropology, there is even such a concept as anthropogenesis, that is, the historical and evolutionary formation of the physical type of a person. Other aspects of human origins are studied by philosophy, theology, history, and paleontology. Theories regarding the origin of life on Earth are varied and far from reliable. The most common theories of the origin of life on Earth are the following:

Evolutionary theory;

Theory of creation (creationism);

External intervention theory;

Theory of spatial anomalies.

Evolution theory.

Evolutionary theory suggests that humans evolved from higher primates - great apes - through gradual modification under the influence of external factors and natural selection.

The evolutionary theory of anthropogenesis has an extensive range of diverse evidence - paleontological, archaeological, biological, genetic, cultural, psychological and others. However, much of this evidence can be interpreted ambiguously, allowing opponents of evolutionary theory to challenge it.

According to this theory, the following main stages of human evolution take place:

Time of successive existence of anthropoid ancestors of humans (Australopithecus);

The existence of ancient people: Pithecanthropus;

The stage of Neanderthal, that is, ancient man;

Development of modern people (neoanthropes).

In 1739, the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, in his Systema Naturae, classified humans - Homo sapiens - as one of the primates. Since then, there has been no doubt among scientists that this is precisely the place of man in the zoological system, which covers all living forms with uniform classification relations based mainly on the features of the anatomical structure. In this system, primates form one of the orders within the class of mammals and are divided into two suborders: prosimians and higher primates. The latter include monkeys, apes and humans. Primates share many common characteristics that distinguish them from other mammals.

However, the theory of evolution became widespread thanks to the research of the English scientist Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection was a real breakthrough; the arguments given by Darwin and his followers led to the fact that the theory of evolution became widespread in the scientific world and the evolution of man from the animal world became the main theory of anthropogenesis.

Today in the world among ordinary people there are many who consider themselves staunch adherents of evolutionary anthropogenesis, but despite the large number of its admirers, there is a colossal number of scientists and ordinary people who recognize the theory as untenable and provide compelling, undeniable arguments against the evolutionary view of world. An authoritative part of scientists perceives evolutionary theory as nothing other than mythology, based more on philosophical fabrications than on scientific data. Thanks to this, in the modern scientific world, ongoing discussions continue about the causes of the emergence of the world and man, which sometimes even result in mutual hostility. However, the theory of evolution still exists and is the most serious and valid.

Theory of creation (creationism).

This theory states that man was created by God, the gods, or divine power out of nothing or from some non-biological material. The best known biblical version is that God created the world in seven days, and the first people - Adam and Eve - were created from clay. This version has more ancient Egyptian roots and a number of analogues in the myths of other peoples.

Of course, the most ardent followers of this theory are religious communities. Based on the sacred texts of antiquity (the Bible, the Koran, etc.), followers of all world religions recognize this version as the only possible one. This theory appeared in Islam, but became widespread in Christianity. All world religions gravitate toward the version of God the creator, but his appearance may change depending on the religious branch.

Orthodox theology considers the theory of creation to be self-evident. However, various evidence has been put forward for this theory, the most important of which is the similarity of myths and legends of different peoples telling about the creation of man.

Modern theology uses the latest scientific data to prove the theory of creation, which, however, for the most part do not contradict the theory of evolution.

Some currents of modern theology bring creationism closer to evolutionary theory, believing that man evolved from apes through gradual modification, but not as a result of natural selection, but by the will of God or in accordance with a divine program.

Creationism is thought of as God's Creation. However, at present, some view it as the result of the activity of a highly developed civilization, creating various forms of life and observing their development.

Since the end of the last century, the theory of evolution has dominated throughout the world, but several decades ago new scientific discoveries made many scientists doubt the possibility of the evolutionary mechanism. In addition, if the evolutionary theory has at least some explanation for the process of the emergence of living matter, then the mechanisms of the emergence of the Universe simply remain outside the scope of this theory, while religion provides comprehensive answers to many controversial issues. For the most part, creationism is based on the Bible, which provides a fairly clear diagram of the emergence of the world around us. Many people believe that creationism is a theory that relies solely on faith in its development. However, creationism is precisely a science based on scientific methodology and the results of scientific experiments. This misconception arises primarily from a very superficial acquaintance with the theory of creation, as well as from a firmly established preconceived attitude towards this scientific movement. As a result of this, many people have a much more favorable attitude towards completely unscientific theories not confirmed by practical observations and experiments, such as, for example, the fantastic “paleovisit theory”, which allows for the possibility of artificial creation of the known Universe by “external civilizations”.

Often, creationists themselves add fuel to the fire, putting faith on a par with scientific facts. This gives many people the impression that they are dealing more with philosophy or religion than with science.

Creationism does not solve the problem of a narrow, highly specialized field of scientific knowledge. Each separate science that studies its part of the world around us is organically part of the scientific apparatus of creationism, and the facts it obtains form a complete picture of creation doctrine.

The main goal of creationism is to promote human knowledge of the surrounding world using scientific methods and use this knowledge to solve the practical needs of mankind.

Creationism, like any other science, has its own philosophy. The philosophy of creationism is the philosophy of the Bible. And this greatly increases the value of creationism for humanity, which has already seen from its own example how important the philosophy of science is for preventing the rash consequences of its development.

Creationism is by far the most consistent and consistent theory of the origin of the world around us. And it is precisely its consistency with numerous scientific facts from a wide variety of scientific disciplines that make it the most promising platform for the further development of human cognition.

The theory of external intervention (paleovisit).

According to this theory, the appearance of people on Earth is in one way or another connected with the activities of other civilizations. The term paleovisit itself means a visit to Earth by extraterrestrial civilizations. In its simplest form, TVV considers humans to be direct descendants of aliens who landed on Earth in prehistoric times.

More complex TVV options involve:

a) crossing of aliens with the ancestors of people;

b) the creation of Homo sapiens using genetic engineering methods;

c) control of the evolutionary development of earthly life by the forces of extraterrestrial superintelligence;

d) the evolutionary development of earthly life and intelligence according to a program originally laid down by extraterrestrial superintelligence.

At the turn of the 50s and 60s, the topic of paleovisit received a real chance to be included in the sphere of normal scientific research.

On the one hand, during this period there was a genuine revolution in the perception of the entire issue of extraterrestrial civilizations. Radio astronomy and communications technology had reached such a level of development by that time that it became clear: radio communication between humanity and its supposed “brothers in mind” from nearby star systems is already feasible today. Listening to space began in search of meaningful signals, articles and monographs about extraterrestrial civilizations and methods of contact with them poured in, in a word, the question of alien intelligence, which had hitherto seemed somewhat abstract, finally became the subject of practical concerns of science.

On the other hand, the entry of mankind into the space age had a profound impact on scientific thought, and indeed on the entire society. The conquest of near-Earth space, the rapid progress of astronautics, its boundless prospects - all this, among other things, created a solid basis for the assumption that more developed civilizations of the Galaxy could have long ago begun interstellar expeditions.

The first developer of the paleovisit theory was M.M. Agreste. Having expressed the idea of ​​the possibility of repeated visits to the Earth by messengers from other worlds, the scientist called for a search for relevant evidence in myths, legends, written monuments and material culture. He drew attention to a number of facts relating mainly to the Middle East and neighboring regions: biblical texts about the coming of celestial beings to Earth, a giant stone terrace erected in Baalbek (Lebanon) by no one knows who and for what purpose, a drawing of an “astronaut” on the rocks Tassilien-Adjera (North Africa), etc. However, the theory did not receive the proper response in the scientific world. There were other attempts to return to it, but they all rested on the stereotypes of conservative science and the impossibility of presenting substantiated evidence.

In recent decades, the paleovisit theory has experienced a rebirth. Every year the number of its supporters and followers is growing, and scientific research gives scientists the right to speak more and more confidently about the existence of an extraterrestrial highly developed civilization that created our world. Some ancient tribes claim to have descended from aliens who passed on their knowledge to them and visited Earth several times. This cannot be denied, since inexplicable discoveries in the field of mythology and archeology baffle conservative science, but all these mysteries of world history make sense in the context of the existence of an extraterrestrial presence. These are rock paintings depicting unknown creatures, and complex structures resting in the thickness of the earth or on its surface... And who knows, maybe the mysterious Stonehenge, sending secret signals into outer space, is an information module, thanks to which extraterrestrial intelligence monitors the lives of its creations.

Theory of spatial anomalies.

Followers of this theory interpret anthropogenesis as an element of the development of a stable spatial anomaly - a humanoid triad, which is usually understood as substances, the fusion and interaction of which led to the emergence of humanity. These substances form the “Matter - Energy - Aura” chain, characteristic of many planets of the Earthly Universe and its analogues in parallel spaces. This theory considers matter and energy not as natural elements of the universe, but as spatial anomalies: ideal space contains neither matter nor energy and consists of proto-particles that are in an equilibrium state; a violation of this balance leads to the emergence of elementary particles that are in energetic interaction with each other. Aura is an information element of the universe. It is capable of influencing matter and energy, but it itself depends on them, that is, there is also interaction here. It is more like a computer, storing and processing information and calculating the plan for the development of the material world several steps ahead.

However, followers of the theory of spatial anomalies believe that the development of human civilization, and perhaps other civilizations of the universe, makes the aura more and more similar to the Universal Mind and even to a deity, whose capabilities increase as the mind develops and spreads in the Universe.

TPA assumes that the “Matter-Energy-Aura” system strives for constant expansion, complication of the structural organization, and Aura, as the controlling element of the system, strives for the creation of intelligence.

In this regard, the mind is an absolutely priceless thing. After all, it allows you to transfer the existence of mother and energy to a new level, where there is directed creation: the manufacture of objects that do not exist in nature, and the use of energy that nature stores in a latent state or wastes.

Aura is not a god, and she cannot miraculously create a sentient being. It can only in the process of complex interactions bring to life such factors that can subsequently lead to the emergence of intelligence.

TPA explains this by the fact that in its desire to complicate life forms, Aura calculates the prospects of each species several steps ahead. It allows highly specialized and therefore unpromising species to become extinct. And species that have a future pushes them to change in a given direction.

Probably, Aura has an energy or material potential that allows it to make changes to genetic structures and cause specified mutations. There are proposals that life is caused not only by biochemical processes, but also by special wave phenomena at the subatomic level. It is possible that these very phenomena are the material echo of the aura - and perhaps the aura itself.

TPA suggests that in humanoid universes on most habitable planets, the biosphere develops along the same path, programmed at the Aura level.

Given favorable conditions, this path leads to the emergence of an earthly type of mind.

In general, the interpretation of anthropogenesis in TPA does not have significant differences with evolutionary theory. However, TPA recognizes the existence of a certain program for the development of life and intelligence, which, along with random factors, controls evolution.

Conclusion.

The origin of life is one of the most mysterious questions, a comprehensive answer to which is unlikely to ever be obtained. Many hypotheses and even theories about the origin of life, explaining various aspects of this phenomenon, are so far unable to overcome the essential circumstance - experimentally confirm the fact of the appearance of life. Modern science does not have direct evidence of how and where life arose. There are only logical constructions and indirect evidence obtained through model experiments, and data in the field of paleontology, geology, astronomy and other sciences.

That is why the question of the origin of man remains unsolved, allowing numerous theories to emerge. None of them have yet taken over, becoming united, and perhaps this will never happen.

Bibliography.

1. Ya. Ya. Roginsky, M. G. Levin. Anthropology. M.: Higher School, 1978.- 357 p.

2. M.Kh. Nesturkh. Origin of Man, 2nd ed., M., 1970

3. V.V. Bunak. Theories of anthropogenesis. - M., 1978.

4. A.I. Oparin. Origin of life. - M.: Mir, 1969.

5. M.G. Levin. Life story - M.: Mir, 1977

6. http://www.help-rus-student.ru/

This question interests almost everyone. At least I don’t know a single person who wouldn’t want to know the answer to it. And it has always been like this. I thought about this problem when I was ten or eleven years old.
People have known for a very long time how specific living beings—individuals—appear. Adult animals give birth to their own kind. For this, females and males are needed, their copulation is necessary, the female from this copulation must become pregnant and after some time, having carried the fetus, give birth to a baby. The new individual appears small and weak, it needs the care of its parents, grows and after a certain time turns into an adult - male or female. And everything repeats itself. Children are born who are like their parents. At a certain stage of their ontogenesis, they produce offspring.

And so it was, so it is and so it will be. Our distant ancestors always knew about this. It seems to me that higher animals also know about this. A child asks an adult: “Dad, where do children come from?” The answer to it may sound like this: “Of course, in cabbage.” Other adults do not agree with this theory: “Of course, the stork brings.” The most theoretically advanced parents answer: “The doctor cuts the mother’s tummy and takes the children out.” A child of about 10-12 years old learns from his older friends in the yard that one mother is not enough for a child to appear in her belly. Finally, at 13-14 years old in a biology lesson at school, he learns the real answer to the question posed at 3-4 years old.

Where did the very first dad and the very first mother come from? And who took care of the very first birth of the very first woman? This is the question of the origin of Homo sapiens as a species of living beings on Earth. Religion answers it simply: “God created the first man (of course a man!) in his own image and likeness. Seeing that the man was uncomfortable alone, the same god took out a rib from him and created the first woman from this rib.” But God did not teach them how to reproduce, because he believed that he had created immortal beings, like himself. But God was wrong. The first people turned out to be mortals. Then the devil came to the rescue in the form of a serpent and taught the first people to reproduce. God realized that people would begin to multiply quickly and there would be not enough room for them in heaven; they would embarrass the Lord God. He took and drove his creatures from heaven to earth. It seems to me that this explanation of the origin of Man has the same level of plausibility as the explanation of the appearance of a little sister to an older brother by the fact that she was found in cabbage.

The problem of human origins

Another concept of the appearance of the first people on Earth comes down to the fact that their ancestors flew from Space, were unable to return back, and gradually their descendants gradually settled down on Earth. Perhaps, in order to adapt to the conditions of a new world for them, these aliens “conjured” a little with the local monkeys and, using genetic engineering, created the first man and the first woman. I believe that this answer corresponds to the explanation that the stork brings children.

Charles Darwin proposed a third answer, the essence of which is simple: “Man appeared on Earth in the process of natural evolution of the animal world, and the distant ancestors of Man were apes.” He provided natural scientific evidence for his theory from the field of comparative anatomy. I equate this answer in its veracity and proximity to the truth with the explanation of the birth of children by taking them out of their mother’s tummy. It is clear that this is closer to the truth than the stork hypothesis, and even more so than the cabbage hypothesis.

Friedrich Engels decided that the monkey turned into a Man thanks to work. A bold thought, right in the spirit of Lamarck. The role of labor in humanizing the monkey reminds me of the role of the doctor, without whose help the baby cannot leave the mother’s tummy. But for some reason, chimpanzees and gorillas, despite the hard work of getting food, for hundreds of thousands of years never turned into people.

I want to offer on the pages of this site a different explanation than F. Engels of the origin of Man on Earth. Its essence is that no human labor was produced from the ape. But what then made the monkey Man? So, let’s look for the factor due to which the mother monkey, having become pregnant by the father’s monkey, gave birth to the first person.

What is evolution, and why could humans on Earth arise naturally, like many other species of living beings?

I do not believe that the evolution of living beings on our planet is a random process, and I do not believe that the emergence of a new species is a simple game of chance. What seems random to us from the “point of view of a test tube and flask” is not accidental “from the point of view of the biosphere as a whole.” We still very poorly understand the laws of large numbers, large spaces, large times and super-diversity. The lady's slipper orchid flower arose not as a quirk of Nature, not as a play of chance, but, at least, as part of the “plant - insect pollinator” system. But all living beings that make up the biocenosis evolved not separately, but together. Evolution is coevolution (joint interconnected evolution) of hundreds and thousands of species of plants, microorganisms, animals and fungi. The mode (direction or vector) of coevolution can change, and in some epochs this change can be abrupt. It is in such eras of change that fundamentally new habitats arise on our planet, accordingly new biocenoses are formed and, of course, new species and even new genera and families of living beings appear. But species populations evolve in conjunction with each other, and not separately.

Concepts of human origins

In relatively calm geological epochs, the biosphere and its constituent genetic systems—species—change little. We live in a relatively stable era, so it seems to us that species changes are rare and random. Apart from rapidly and dramatically mutating influenza viruses, hepatitis and other pathogens, little is changing in our biosphere.

Although... In the last 2-3 hundred years, many species of living beings have disappeared from the face of the Earth. Have new species appeared? I think something should appear.

Humanity has caused the extinction of many species of living beings, but it can also cause the emergence of new species as a result of genetic engineering and increased levels of radiation and chemical pollution. In general, evolution in the biosphere leads to an increase in the stability of its basic parameters, allowing it to persist in sharply changing conditions of climate, orography, background radiation, etc. Evolution in the biosphere is an anti-entropic process.

That's what scientists say. The life of the biosphere is a constant confrontation with the growth of chaos and the thermal depreciation of energy. Everything that resists chaos is evolution. By creating thermodynamics, scientists created a science that can be compared to a bird with one wing. Such a bird cannot fly, and it walks with difficulty, constantly zigzag.

Today, the second wing of scientific knowledge is being created - the theory of self-organization. Herein lies the key to understanding the process of evolution, which led to the appearance of Man on Earth. Self-organization of matter is as natural a process as its degradation. Moreover, these two processes are inextricably linked with each other, generate and support (nourish) each other. Good and evil, entropy and negentropy, God and the devil - these are all different expressions of two sides of the same coin.

This medal is the Universe, at least that part of it that is given to us in sensations and in ideas. Remember M.V. Lomonosov: “If several of the matter combine somewhere, then exactly the same amount of matter will combine in another place.” Today we take the next step and assert: “If a little chaos is added somewhere, then exactly the same amount of order will be added elsewhere.” It was the entropy processes on our planet, leading to the destruction of mountains and peneplanation of continents, to the dissipation of the internal energy of the planet and the energy of the Sun, leading to the equalization of thermodynamic gradients in the geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, which caused opposite processes - the processes of evolution of the biosphere, its constituent ecosystems and genetic systems – species.

Hypotheses of human origins

I am a supporter of the pulsating Earth hypothesis. The main provisions of which are set out on this website. Here I will try to link the theory of the origin of Man on Earth (naturally, of course!) with the hypothesis of a pulsating Earth. And then it will become clear to everyone that “We are the children of the Galaxy.”

Why should an amphibious ape arise on Earth at the beginning of the Paleogene?

Mammals appeared at the end of the Mesozoic era approximately 70-80 million years ago. But then the ecosystems of land, water and air were dominated by reptiles - dinosaurs. The first mammals that arose in the second half of the Mesozoic era occupied tertiary ecological niches and were small, most similar to modern mice. Of course, they could not compete directly with dinosaurs and did not try to do so. They were the new, which, in comparison with the mass of the old, seems pitiful and wretched.
But then a general earthly catastrophe happened. Living conditions on the planet changed dramatically, and dinosaur monsters began to die out. Not from competition with pitiful mammals, but primarily from climate change, which resulted in the destruction of their usual habitat. By dying out, reptiles vacated different ecological niches: on land, in water and in the air. It was into these niches that the mode of evolution of different animal taxa turned out to be directed, representatives who were able to survive this planetary catastrophe. The mammals survived, and in the absence of competition from Mesozoic monsters, they began to multiply intensively and fill the vacated niches, first of all on land, then in water. They were unlucky with air. Some small reptiles were able to survive the disaster and turned out to be the main contenders for capturing the air. They transformed into birds, occupied the air and held it, not allowing mammals there. Mammals simply did not have time to evolve and capture air. What happened can be formulated as follows: “Whoever did not have time was late,” - this is what the wisdom of the people says. Thus, birds are the same age as mammals in geological time.

The Alpine orogeny cycle at the beginning of the Cenozoic era is a geological era during which the Earth contracted. It was primarily the thin basaltic crust at the bottom of the oceans and deep seas that crumpled into folds, sagged in some places and piled up in huge blocks creeping on top of each other in others, the continental crust of human origin. In the center of the oceans, mid-ocean ridges rose from the bottom of the sea, and on the continents blocky mountains and arched, weakly dissected uplifts such as Tibet and the Pamirs formed. At the same time, the volume of the world's oceans decreased, and water flooded lowlands and plains. The land area has decreased, and the area of ​​shallow water has increased dramatically. Due to the predominance of the area covered by water over the land area, the climate on Earth as a whole then became more humid and less continental.

At this time, in almost all large taxa (families and orders) of mammals (and not only mammals!) the vectors of evolution changed towards tropical and subtropical forests, swamps and aquatic ecosystems. There have been migrations of species adapted to living in humid areas of the Earth, deep into the continents, where the climate has become wetter and milder. Phylogenetic adaptations towards feeding in shallow waters led to the emergence of new genera of amphibian mammals (seals, fur seals, walruses, sea lions); some mammal taxa over time almost completely lost contact with land (cetaceans).

Proof of human origin

We see phylogenetic adaptations to the aquatic environment among rodents (beavers, water voles), ungulates (hippopotamuses) and other orders. Surely, in the order of primates (and perhaps their direct ancestors) in this era, a branch also arose in the direction of mastering the aquatic environment. Most likely, these were tailless monkeys, related to the long-extinct Dryopithecus and Australopithecus, as well as modern chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. At first, shallow waters were feeding grounds for them; mollusks and frogs were found in abundance here, and they could feast on small fish and caviar. To get all this you had to go into the water, immerse yourself in it headlong (dive), swim in order to cover the distance from one shallow to another without going onto land. The new ecological niche that appeared as a result of the compression of the Earth in the form of shallow, well-warmed sea bays and estuaries was a new mode of evolution for many species of plants and animals, which, adapting to it, transformed into new species and genera and formed new communities and ecosystems. Shallow waters not only fed, but also saved these monkeys from predators that attacked both from land and from the air. It was possible to escape here in case of a forest fire. The mild, warm climate contributed to the monkeys' exploration of shallow waters.

The process of adaptation of monkeys to the aquatic environment lasted several million years, and it ended with the emergence of a new genus, which we call Homo (Man). This happened (the appearance of the genus Homo) no less than 10-15 million years ago. In all likelihood, then this genus was represented by many species that lived on different continents, in fresh, salt and brackish waters. Some of them were more adapted to life in water, others less so, some were more thermophilic, others less so. Almost all the main anatomical, physiological and morphological features of modern Man, which distinguish him from monkeys, arose 10-15 million years ago as adaptations to living in two elements at once - in water and on land. These are: loss of a significant degree of hair, upright walking, the ability to dive and see under water, the subcutaneous layer of fat as a device for protection against hypothermia, the use of all kinds of objects to extract shellfish from shells, dexterous fingers capable of fine manipulation, degradation of the toes , wide palms and feet, which arose not as adaptations for movement on land, but as adaptations for swimming, and much more. Fossil footprints of humans dating back 3.8 million years, found in fossilized volcanic ash in Africa, suggest that walking on two legs was the norm by this time.

Ancient Homo, however, never completely lost contact with land. On land in the coastal strip, they built nests and shelters, slept, mated, spent their free time, and collected bird eggs, fruits and rhizomes of coastal plants. That is why they did not turn into seals, beavers or mermaids. Living in two elements at once contributed to the development and complexity of the nervous system, including its central part - the brain. Creatures that fed on shellfish did not need fangs and powerful jaws. They escaped from enemies on land by jumping into the water, and from enemies from the air by diving or hiding in dense coastal thickets of bushes, as well as in holes along the banks of reservoirs.

Ancient Homo females gave birth to their young in water, so the young first learned to swim, and then crawl on all fours, and only then walk on their hind limbs, first in water and then on land. The short forelimbs made it impossible to move on all fours. In general, moving on land only on two hind limbs is biomechanical nonsense, which cannot be explained if we assume that human ancestors were monkeys who lived in trees. Adapting to life in the savannah, such monkeys had to maintain movement on all fours. By the way, they did just that (chimpanzees, gorillas). When walking upright, the load on the spine sharply increases. The diseases of modern people associated with the spine are a consequence of the fact that, created for life in water, where the force of gravity is greatly reduced by the Archimedean buoyancy force, we are forced to live on land.

The origin of man from animals

Probably, every person, according to his nature, should spend at least 2-3 hours every day immersed in water, thereby giving rest to his skeleton and muscles that ensure upright walking on land. Swimming pools should be installed not only in apartments and sports complexes, they should be in offices, factories and factories. And how wonderful we feel when immersed in a pool of water or a bath! Why? Yes, because this is our native, human origin is deeply embedded in our genetic memory. And the inexplicable passion of many for fishing... For the sake of a dozen fish the size of a finger, many modern men spend many hours on the ice, in the cold, sometimes risking their lives. This, too, is nothing more than an atavistic call of genetic memory. The vast majority of people wash their faces in the morning by rinsing their hands and face with water. Have you ever wondered why we do this? Cats, for example, “wash themselves” perfectly without water. I have never seen cows, horses, dogs, or monkeys washing themselves with water. Why do we need to wet our skin with water at least once a day?

In the last 1-2 decades, an original “fashion” has appeared for women to give birth in water. They say it is not so painful and less dangerous for both the mother and the child. Have you discovered a new way to give birth? No. Genetic memory suggested that our distant foremothers did this many millions of years ago. Truly: “Everything new is well forgotten old.” It turns out that a child who leaves his mother’s womb in water does not drown or choke. He has innate instincts that allow him to stay afloat. Maybe babies scream during birth because they are out of their element? I think that obstetricians and women themselves can say more about this, so I’ll end my discussion on this topic.

Science does not know the inert remains of the oldest amphibians Homo. Why? Firstly, because in shallow waters they were very poorly preserved. Secondly, the population size of the first humans was small. Thirdly, we are looking in the wrong place. Fourthly, there is something, but we are interpreting it incorrectly. But more on that in the following sections.

When did primates appear and who could be their ancestors?

Humans belong to the Hominids family of the order Primates of the Mammals class.
Of all mammals, the most likely ancestors of primates are insectivores. Representatives of this vast order of primitive mammals, which includes shrews and hedgehogs, have a low braincase, a long snout and unspecialized limbs. And of all the insectivores, the most likely candidate for the role of our ancestor seems to be the animal tupaya; at one time, tupaya itself was classified as a primate. But these small, agile inhabitants of the forests of Southeast Asia look more like squirrels with long, pointed faces than monkeys. However, like primates, Tupaia has a large brain relative to its body size, large eyes, primitive molars, and thumbs that tend to contrast with the rest of its human origins.

A careful study of these features suggests that tupai and primates have fewer similarities than previously thought, although the hemoglobin molecules of both are surprisingly similar.
Some experts tend to look for the ancestors of primates among the long-extinct insectivores, which are called microsyopids. Perhaps the early microsyopids lived even before the first primates and were their ancestors.
But most zoologists do not accept this hypothesis either. The order of ancient primates generally lacked features that would have made it possible to establish their undoubted relationship with any other group of animals that were their ancestors.
Therefore, primates are a very ancient branch of mammals!
Plesiadapis was more like a squirrel with a long muzzle, eyes located on the sides, protruding chisel-shaped incisors, a bushy tail and claws on the paws, not adapted for grasping.

It ate leaves, jumped well, and may have lived in herds, often on the ground rather than in trees. Time – Middle Paleocene – Early Eocene. Location: Colorado (USA) and France. Family Plesiadapidae.
a – Long tail
b – Movable limbs
c – Claws, not nails
d – Jaws and teeth characteristic of rodents
d – Eyes on the sides of the head.

Evidence of human origin from animals

In the middle of the Cenozoic, more than 25 million years ago, the first primates probably appeared. It is believed that one of them - Dryopithecus - appeared 17 - 18 million years ago, at the end of the Neogene, and died out about 8 million years ago. Dryopithecus lived in tropical forests. At the same time, or a little later, Australopithecus lived, leading a terrestrial lifestyle. It seems very likely that at this time another branch of primates arose - Hydropithecus, which ultimately led to the emergence of Man.

Hydropithecus lived in the Neogene along the banks of shallow lagoons, rivers, lakes and other freshwater and brackish water bodies.

They were engaged in catching and collecting mollusks, crayfish, frogs, turtles, rodents, bird eggs, coastal berries, fruits and other fruits, roots and insects, and used split pebbles, sticks and bones to catch and open shells and shells. Their former arboreal existence, which developed in them flexible and tenacious five-fingered paws, color binocular vision, exceptional spatial coordination of movements, an enlarged occipital visual and parietal kinesthetic cortex of the brain, and therefore intelligence, well prepared them for this method of coastal life, which does not lead no other animal origins of humans.

The Oligocene was a period of radial adaptive divergence of anthropoids.
At the beginning or middle of the Paleogene, when the Earth was experiencing a cycle of strong compression, large areas of land turned out to be shallow bays due to powerful marine transgression. The land area has sharply decreased, and the area occupied by shallow waters has increased.
New ecological niches have dramatically changed the vector of macro and microevolution in all groups of animals. Then the so-called “return” of animals to the aquatic environment began. For some lines of “return” evolution, the process, which lasted several tens of millions of years, ended with the transformation into typically aquatic creatures (whales, dolphins), for others partially terrestrial, but mostly aquatic ( walruses, seals). Still others were able to balance according to the “fifty-fifty” principle.
The primate order, like many other orders of mammals, also branched out towards the amphibious way of life. In addition to Drevopithecus and Australopithecus, Hydropithecus lived on our planet.

Homo erectus formed as a species in the water origin of man

In 1987 I have come to the conclusion that the theory of the origin of man in the spirit of F. Engels does not stand up to criticism. The idea of ​​the amphibious origin of our distant ancestors haunted me, but only in May 2000 did I post thoughts on this topic on the Internet as a comment on some message about the finds of bones of ancient Human ancestors. Here's the note:
The essence of the hypothesis about the amphibian origin of our ancestors is that approximately 25 million years ago (and possibly earlier), one of the branches of primate evolution developed shallow seas as a habitat - estuaries, shallow bays. It was in this shallow-water-land environment that the human appearance was formed in one of the phylogenetic branches in the order of primates: upright walking, the ability to swim and dive, holding one’s breath for up to 8-10 minutes, omnivorousness, loss of hair. Living in two environments simultaneously required brain development. Males probably came to land more often than females. Climate change on Earth, a reduction in the area of ​​shallow water, and some other reasons have forced amphibious people to spend more and more time on land. This is where a developed brain comes in handy. Escaping from the cold (and there was a cooling on Earth in the Pleistocene), our ancestors learned to build houses, make clothes, were able to unite in groups and establish communication using gestures and sounds. Most likely, the amphibious stage of human evolution took place in Gondwana (the Southern continent), from there, reaching land, our ancestors began to spread throughout the globe. One thing is clear that 6-7 million years ago ancient people already lived on many continents, but they still strongly gravitated towards shallow seas, lakes and rivers - the aquatic environment. Hypotheses about the origin of man from arboreal and land monkeys over a period of 700-800 thousand years look very ridiculous. The anatomy, physiology and biology of man as a species are more conservative than it seemed to F. Engels.
Several practical conclusions can be drawn from this hypothesis:
1. Women should give birth in water.
2. Every day a person should spend at least 2-3 hours in water.
3. The most ancient human bones should be found in Antarctica, South Africa, Australia and South America.
4. The theory of human settlement of America should be reconsidered.

Origin of modern man

I will formulate the main provisions of the theory of the amphibian origin of Man, as opposed to traditional ones, as follows:

1. Homo sapiens is indeed a distant relative of the apes, but very distant. The phylogenetic lines that led to Man, Australopithecus, chimpanzees, gorilla and orangutan diverged at least 25-30 million years ago at the end of the Neogene.
2. The ancestors of Man were amphibious monkeys, which already lived in shallow rivers, lakes and shallow sea lagoons in the middle of the Paleogene - approximately 30-35 million years ago.
3. The appearance of Man, which distinguishes him from modern apes, was formed not under the influence of labor, as F. Engels argued, but due to living simultaneously in two environments - in water and on land.

Homo habilis (“handy man”) is the oldest species of the genus Homo that is reliably known today.
Homo habilis (“handy man”) was the first known species of our genus Homo. Height 1.2-1.5 m. Weight - about 50 kg, Height no higher than 1.5 m. Foot and hand (above). This species existed about 2-1.5 million years ago. (Most likely Homo Habilis is much older! A.G.)
The face had an archaic shape with supraorbital ridges, a flat nose and protruding jaws. The brain made up half of ours and the face was smaller and less forward; The molars were also comparatively smaller, but the incisors were larger, and the dentition had an open shape, similar to the Latin letter U. The arms were shorter, and the shape of the pelvic bones made it possible to walk on two legs and give birth to children with large heads.
The bulge inside the thin-walled skull suggests they had a speech center, but the larynx was not yet capable of producing as many sounds as our larynx. The jaws were less massive than those of Australopithecus; the bones of the arms and hips seem more modern, and the legs already had a completely modern shape of human origin.
Homo habilis lived in East and Southern Africa, as well as in Southeast Asia (“Meganthropus”). In all likelihood, at that time Homo habilis was not the only species of this genus. There were species and subspecies, both more advanced and more primitive (in the sense of closeness to ape ancestors).
The remains of material culture found near the bones of Homo habilis suggest that these creatures were engaged in the manufacture of primitive stone tools, built simple shelters, collected plant foods, and hunted small and perhaps quite large game. Homo erectus probably evolved from Homo habilis. Or maybe these two species existed simultaneously, occupying slightly different habitats.
Judging by the bones of the foot and hand found, the skilled man walked on two legs, and the fingers of his hands had a strong and precise grip.

In favor of the amphibian lifestyle of the Habilis, they say: a significant brain volume, on average 650 cm3, longer legs than arms; arched feet and short toes, structure of the ankle and pelvis, free balancing of the head on the neck and other signs of upright walking; absence of a bone (saggital) crest on the crown and, therefore, weakness of the masticatory muscles; smaller than even in Pithecanthropus, the size of the face, lower jaw and teeth; unusually wide phalanges of the fingers, therefore, strong and tenacious hands, capable of powerfully clamping pebble tools. Placers of broken pebbles, mountains of shells and remains of turtles, fish, flamingos, water rabbits, frogs and other aquatic animals, the presence of habilis in clay layers formed in the coastal zone, fossilized rhizomes of papyrus - all this clearly shows that the Lower Moldova creatures were coastal amphibians life. One of the subspecies or species of Hydropithecus, as a result of further evolution, most likely became the ancestor of modern humans.

Water and busy front paws prevented Hydropithecus from going down on all fours and caused the development of upright walking. The shallow water bottom, often soft, required large, flat feet. Semi-aquatic existence led to the loss of hair by Hydropithecus. The hair on the head was preserved, as it often remained on the surface. Hair on the head prevented sunstroke. Eyebrows protected the eyes from water running down the face. Diving has developed the ability to reflexively, although not as strongly as in cetaceans, to slow down the heartbeat when immersed in water, to voluntarily control breathing, and even to some extent to oxygen-free (anaerobic) oxidation of carbohydrates with the release of lactic acid into the blood. The need to split shells and shells and the presence, as they say, of stones (pebbles) rolled in water at hand, naturally led coastal monkeys to use these stones as tools for obtaining food originating from humans. Hence the flexible, dexterous fingers and eye of human ancestors, who were far superior to other monkeys in this regard (even chimpanzees are not able to break or throw a stone any far and accurately). At first, simply selected stones, sticks and bones served as tools, then Hydropithecus moved on to selecting more convenient, pointed objects and, finally, began to make tools themselves.

The exposure of the skin in Hydropithecus was accompanied by the development of a layer of subcutaneous fat, although not as thick as in pigs, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses and other semi-aquatic mammals living in hot climates. In addition, the number of sweat glands increased (up to two to five million), which also saved them from overheating. Under the influence of sunlight, darkening of the skin occurs - tanning, caused by the increased formation of a special pigment - melanin. This protected the blood vessels lying deeper under the skin from overheating. The need to protect the nostrils from solar radiation and the oncoming flow of water when diving led to the protrusion and convexity of the nose. Human lips are distinguished by great mobility, rootedness, thickness and the ability to close tightly, preventing water from entering the mouth when swimming and diving. Other land mammals, in order not to choke while swimming, are forced to keep their heads high above the water.

Diving can explain the innate predisposition of people to myopia, although it, of course, differs from the constant myopia of fish and other inhabitants of the aquatic environment. Of course, Hydropithecus did not spend as much time under water as seals, and the adaptive change in their eyes could not be significant; But why, after all, are people the only seemingly purely terrestrial creature in need of distant vision, who have such a frequent predisposition to myopia, not only due to unfavorable vision conditions, which would be natural, but also congenital, inherited? In all human newborns, the refractive power of the eye is almost one and a half times greater than in adults with normal vision; and if, nevertheless, newborns are distinguished by some hyperopia, it is due to an even greater shortness of the eye along the optical axis. Regulation of intraocular pressure (ophthalmology) through the release of special moisture and its outflow through the sclerous sinus is supplemented in humans by a certain (of course, less than in pinnipeds and dolphins) pronounced ability to compensate for changes in external hydrostatic pressure on the eyes by filling the arterial vessels of their posterior chamber with blood, leading to redness of the eyes from diving human origin.

The need to scrape out and chew the slippery springy body of a mollusk from the shell, hold it and move it freely in the mouth led to the most important odontological differences between humanoids and monkeys (which have long served as signs for identifying the species and classification of fossils, but have not yet received an explanation): the loss of protruding parts that had become a nuisance fangs; development of spatula-shaped front teeth, necessary for scraping the contents of the shell, biting and holding what was bitten off; increase in the number of tubercles on molars from four to five; replacement of the cutting first lower premolars with two tuberculate ones; complementing up and down jaw movements with rotational movements; the location of the teeth is not along the sides of the quadrangle, but along an arc; convexity of the palatine vault; tightly closed lips and tightness of the oral cavity with the cheeks. As a result, the coastal monkeys' jaws became shorter and wider. The shortening of the jaw and the expansion of its posterior ends to the sides, as well as the straightening of the front teeth and reduction of the masticatory apparatus, led to the development of a protruding nose and the lower front part of the jaw - the chin. The latter contributed to the enlargement of the oral cavity and freer movement of the tongue in it.

A similar explanation for the transition of anthropoids to upright walking, bradycardia and hairlessness was proposed in 1960 by the English biologist A. Hardy, who suggested that the ancestors of humans were seaside monkeys that lived on the sandy shores of lagoons. As we can see, his guess about the hydrogenity of many features of the human body is very thorough. However, the marine fascination led the oceanologist to the idea of ​​a coastal settlement of human ancestors and to the excessive likening of human origins to marine mammals. As a result, this hypothesis did not find recognition in science, because it led away from the material traces of anthropogenesis known to paleoanthropology and was left without ontological evidence.

Some supporters of the theory of the amphibious origin of Man, for example L.I. Ibraev, believe that the Lower Olduvai habilis were amphibious monkeys, and that it is not legitimate to consider them themselves “people” (hominids), even the most ancient, and their pebble tools as “culture”. In all of pre-Chellian Olduvai, there was one type of tool - a chopper. Its “making” was reduced to splitting stones without any attention to the shape of the split; the variety and randomness of the chopper’s splitting shapes indicate purely animal actions, like those of beavers or birds. Pebble axes do not have any repeating, stable form; they have not undergone any improvements during the existence of thousands of generations (more than two million years). The latter indicates the absence of any continuity and accumulation of experience in the technology of making pebble tools. Consequently, there was no accumulation of experience in their manufacture and transfer of it from parents to children.

Let me disagree with this opinion. The blindness from the theory of F. Engels is obvious here. If they didn’t make perfect tools, that means they weren’t people. But if L.I. himself tried it. Ibraev to make a chopper, he would be convinced that it is not so simple. Not every rock and not every shape of pebble is suitable for this. The pebbles were not simply thrown forcefully against a larger stone so that they would crack in any way they wanted. They hit it with another pebble, many times, knocking off a small piece of the person's origin with each blow. Most of the pebbles found split by ancient man are not choppers at all. The man was looking for the right stone, for this he took a pebble and threw it forcefully against the stone, looking to see if this stone was suitable for further processing. If you judge by chips and shavings, you will never imagine what masterpieces the carpenters made. And stone tools were probably stored, since their manufacture required a lot of labor. Animals that use different objects to obtain food do not store these objects later; they are usually disposable.

With an abundance of food in the form of shellfish and fish, in a warm climate where clothing and warm housing were not required, there was no need to manufacture complex mining tools. But this does not mean that the Habilis did not communicate with each other using gestures and sounds, that they did not express their feelings in dances and songs, that they did not teach their children where to look for food, how to distinguish edible from poisonous, how to find a cure for a disease , where and how best to escape from predators, etc. The presence of very complex technologies in human society does not mean the cultural and spiritual perfection of individuals. The spiritual world of an Australian Aborigine or Eskimo is often much richer than the spiritual world of a modern European. Even if the tools were primitive, the Habilis made them themselves, while modern man uses ready-made tools bought in a store, and often cannot hammer a nail into a wall himself. A person should be considered a creature that, in appearance and level of development of the central nervous system, differed little from modern humans.

These drawings depict early stone tools - choppers - from the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (East Africa). Not every modern person without a hammer and chisel can process stone like this.
But Homo habilis 1.9 million years ago split basalt and quartzite pebbles, gave them shapes that are now called rough axes (choppers), scrapers, burins, axe-shaped tools, and according to their outlines they are divided into discoids, polyhedrons (polyhedrons) or subspheroids .
A – Rough chopper made of lava; it was used for cutting meat or splitting bones.
B – Polyhedron (polyhedron) with three or more cutting edges.
B – Discoid with sharp edges.
G – Scraper for processing hides.
D – Stone hammer.

The use of primitive tools by amphibian habilis lasted several million years, but this does not mean that the evolution of ancient people stopped. Over these many millions of years, a plan for the internal and external structure of man has been formed. And this was much more complex and important than the improvement of tools and the origin of man. Without developed dexterous hands and a perfect brain, no evolution in the manufacture of tools would be possible. This does not at all mean that the use of tools is not at all a sign of the difference between humans and animals. But the making of tools is not the cause of the appearance of man, but a consequence! According to many modern anthropologists, the mental basis of learning in animals is imaginative thinking and imitation. I dare to assure my opponents that in Man, especially in childhood, the situation is exactly the same. Logical thinking is based on figurative thinking, not on speech. Thoughts in the human brain are first born and then formulated in the form of words.

The Habilis of the second Shellian layer of Olduvai (their remains were found at a depth of 90-60 m) used tools like bifaces - pebbles, chipped more thinly and on both sides. The crushed bones of giraffes, antelopes, and elephants scattered around indicate that the Habilis at that time were forced to move, and perhaps had already switched to life on land, which was caused by the expansion of the globe, global regression of the sea and significant climate change. The land area has increased, the climate on the continents has become drier and more continental, the area of ​​shallow water has sharply decreased, and many lakes within the continents have dried up. Tropical and subtropical rainforests gave way to savannas, prairies and steppes. Different species of monkeys lived in the savannas - Australopithecus. They were well adapted to the life of human origin in new conditions. Their body was covered with fur, they moved on four limbs, their jaws and teeth allowed Australopithecines to chew grass and leaves. Phylogenetically, Australopithecines are related not to Hydropithecus, but to Dryopithecus. By the way, modern chimpanzees and gorillas are the result of the evolution of australopithecines.

What about Hydropithecus habilis? What happened to them? In all likelihood, a significant part of the Habilis died out, a few remained to live in the surviving bodies of water - mainly in the estuaries of large rivers and in shallow lakes. Few were able to begin adapting to terrestrial life. Here they had to enter into competition with australopithecines. This is evidenced by the discovered features of the then fauna and palynological data. In connection with the transition to life on land, the physical appearance of the Habilis naturally changed. The remains of a new species, the Olduvai Pithecanthropus (Homo erectus), were discovered in the layers of Olduvai at approximately 60 meters depth. What was a man like who walked upright?

Homo erectus - A man who walks upright Homo erectus had a height of 1.5-1.8 m, a body weight of 40-73 kg. Its brain and body were larger than those of Homo habilis, and in many respects it would have been similar to modern humans. The brain volume averaged 880-1100 cm3, which is more than that of Homo habilis, although less than that of modern humans. The Origin of Man Homo erectus is believed to have lived between 1.6 million and 200 thousand years ago, but he most likely appeared much earlier.
His skull retained archaic features, was long and low-set, with a bony bulge at the back, with a sloping forehead, thick supraorbital ridges, with a flatter facial part than ours, with large jaws pushed forward, more massive teeth than ours. (but still slightly smaller than that of Homo habilis); the chin was missing.
Strong muscles at the back of the neck were attached to the posterior cranial tubercle and supported the head with a heavy facial part, preventing it from sagging forward.
Appearing for the first time, probably in Africa, individual groups of this species later spread to Europe, East Asia (Sinanthropus) and Southeast Asia (Pithecanthropus). Apparently, the rates of evolution of individual isolated populations of Homo erectus were different.
Advanced technology, including the use of a standard set of tools, hunting large game, the use of fire, and improved methods of building housing and temporary shelters, advanced Homo erectus far ahead compared to the hominids that preceded him, giving this species the opportunity to exist in new natural and climatic conditions. Adapting to life on land, the ancient hydropithecus was no longer able to return to moving on four limbs. They could escape from predators and hunt successfully thanks to the improvement of tools and methods of hunting, and for this they had free and dexterous forelimbs and a developed brain.

Hunting tools of Pithecanthropus found in Spain and their possible use.
Pithecanthropus could kill game at a considerable distance. They used wooden spears and knew how to sharpen them using stone scrapers and fire. A stone tool with teeth along the cutting edge (the so-called “denticle”). quartzite jib; its length is 25cm. double-sided scraper made of jasper. The cutting of carcasses of large mammals was carried out using stone tools, since the teeth and jaws inherited by Pithecanthropus from Hydropithecus did not allow them to do this otherwise. Pithecanthropus knew how to remove fat from skins and used them to build houses, and possibly also to make primitive clothing.

However, progress in the structure and volume of the brain of Homo erectus during their transition from an amphibian lifestyle to life on land was combined with a regression of their skull and hands: chewing tough raw meat of large animals required an increase in the jaws and thickening of the supraorbital ridge and the walls of the skull almost twice as compared to with Hydropithecus, which greatly reduced the possibilities of speech articulation, and the absence of a wooden handle in Acheulean stone tools, squeezing them directly with the hand led to a monstrous strengthening of the hand. The brushes became wide and paw-shaped, which prevented fine manipulation of objects.

Pithecanthropus, judging by the animal bones found at their sites, hunted wild boars, rams, antelopes, horses and even elephants. This became possible thanks to the improvement of tools: the production of large axes (which, as the experiment showed, can remove the skin from an animal and dismember the carcass), as well as a scraper and piercing tools for processing skins. Perhaps the origin of man, at that time the first spears appeared - simple poles with a fire-burnt and pointed end. Of course, even then, hunting large animals remained difficult and dangerous - ancient people rarely dared to attack them openly, preferring to set up ambushes or drive the animal to swamps and cliffs. Man at that time successfully used traps, all kinds of traps and winepresses. Animals were driven into traps and pits using fire, setting fire to dry grass, birch bark, using torches, etc.
It is characteristic that it was at this time that Australopithecus disappeared, partly unable to withstand competition with unprecedentedly armed hunters, partly because they were exterminated by them as game. Many broken skulls and burnt bones of australopithecines have been found at Homo erectus sites. It is possible that cannibalism was also characteristic of Homo erectus.

Fire has been familiar to people since the species Homo habilis: near Lake Tukana in Kenya, a site of charred soil 2.5 million years old is known. A person could save and maintain fire that arose as a result of a lightning strike or a volcanic eruption. But it can be argued that it was Homo erectus who first began to systematically use fire for heating, hunting, cooking and protection from enemies.

The transition to hunting large animals was associated with the resettlement of people in the steppe. Therefore, the tools of Pithecanthropus were often made not from pebbles, but from unrolled hard rocks: quartzite, quartz, lavas.
This resettlement took place under the pressure of climatic changes; it was possible only thanks to the development of new means of production by people. Very often, the most successful were not the strongest, but the smartest, able to unite in large groups.

The progress of tools and methods of hunting also changed the relationships between individuals in a group. If individual activity predominated in the gathering and catching of small animals, now a herd arises. It is formed not only and not so much on the basis of sexual and parental ties, but on the need for collective hunting and collective defense from enemies. The connecting function is performed by orientation to the behavior of the neighbor and the leader, which makes it easier to find food and self-defense from enemies. All people in the primitive herd act as mutual guides and mutual guards. Ambush and driven hunting is the first cooperation with a division of roles in the search for prey, rutting, encirclement, and attack. However, if predators hunt animals, which are most often much weaker than each of them individually, and their cooperation is purely situational, then ancient people even hunted elephants, rhinoceroses, cave bears and other giants that were tens of times larger, stronger and faster than every single person.

Concluding this article, I can say that the origin of man in the evolution of Man is very much unclear and contradictory. Most likely, new phenomenal discoveries await us in the coming years. Even more ancient than the Uruguayan remains and traces of the life activity of our very distant ancestors will be found. It turns out that the genus Homo was once represented by dozens of different species, that Homo sapiens is only the surface part of a huge iceberg. We do not yet know what ancient people lived in Antarctica before its glaciation.

The problem of the origin of man has worried him since ancient times.

Introduction

Where did we come from? This question was raised by both philosophers and natural scientists. The branch of biology that studies humans is called anthropology, and the origin of human evolution is called anthropogenesis.

The evolutionary theory of anthropogenesis has an extensive range of diverse evidence - paleontological, archaeological, biological, genetic, cultural, psychological and others. However, much of this evidence can be interpreted ambiguously.

As in the problem of the origin of the Universe and the origin of life, there is a creationist idea of ​​​​the divine creation of man. Views based on the fact that man was created by God or gods arose much earlier than the materialistic theories of the spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of apes into humans.

In various philosophical and theological teachings of antiquity, the act of human creation was attributed to various deities. For example, according to Mesopotamian myths, the gods under the leadership of Marduk killed their former rulers Abzu and his wife Tiamat, the blood of Abzu was mixed with clay, and the first man arose from this clay. Hindus had their own views on the creation of the world and man in it. According to their views, or rather, according to the ancient manuscripts that have reached us, the world was ruled by a triumvirate - Shiva, Krishna and Vishnu, who laid the foundation for humanity. The ancient Incas, Aztecs, Dagons, Scandinavians had their own versions, which basically coincided: man is a creation of the Higher Mind or simply God.

The second, quite widespread in recent times, hypothesis is the cosmic one: people were brought to Earth by representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations (the UFO hype, some more serious and scientifically based arguments related to the cave paintings of prehistoric people, the still unsolved mysteries of the construction of monumental structures during the times of early civilizations ). This hypothesis has not yet been refuted by anyone, and therefore has the right to exist.

The generally accepted one in modern science is based on the work of Charles Darwin. In 1871, Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection” was published, which shows not only the undoubted similarities, but also the kinship of humans and primates. Darwin argued that the ancestor of man could be found, according to the modern classification, among forms that might even be lower than the great apes.

Humans and apes undergo similar psychological and physiological processes in courtship, reproduction, fertility, and caring for offspring. The Russian translation of this book appeared in the same year.

Next year, Darwin’s book “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals” is published, in which, based on the study of facial muscles and means of expressing emotions in humans and animals, their kinship is proven with another example.

Hypotheses of human origins

The ancestral home of humans is considered to be South Africa, where the remains of primates called Parapithecus (the Latin root Pithecus meaning “monkey”) were found. These remains date back to approximately 4 - 5 mil. years. It is in this region that there are powerful deposits of uranium and an increased background radiation, which could cause mutations in these primates. Thus, high background radiation could become one of the first facts of anthropogenesis.

Monkeys, as great apes, have long attracted the attention of people (naturally, including scientists). But active study of primates began only in the 50s of the 20th century, and research interest in them increased especially sharply in the 70s. There are now approximately 70 centers for the study of primates in the world, 50 of them in the United States.

Aristotle also noted the similarity of the great apes to humans, while believing that the monkey is “less beautiful than a horse, it is more similar to a person.” Carl Linnaeus, in the first edition of his “System of Nature” (1735), united humans and apes into one order and gave it the name “primates” (one of the first). J.B. Lamarck in “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809) outlined the hypothesis of the origin of man from monkeys through the historical development of organisms, but fearing the church, he reserved: “This is what the origin of man could look like if it were not different.”

The original translation in primatology was made by Charles Darwin, who in 1781 published the book “The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection” with the substantiation of the idea of ​​the natural (without any intervention of any non-material forces) origin of man from ancient extinct apes in the process of natural and sexual selection .

The first representatives of the primate order appeared on Earth more than 70 million years ago. There are approximately 210 species of living primates.

They are divided into two suborders - the suborder of monkeys, lower primates and the suborder of great apes.

The lower primates include mainly small animals (the largest of them reach the size of a dog): bankan tarsier, lepilimur, etc. (length about 10 cm, weight 40-60 g).

The suborder of higher primates, along with humans, includes all monkeys, divided into broad-nosed monkeys (all of them are lower monkeys: capuchins, howler monkeys, etc.) and narrow-nosed monkeys (monkey-shaped lower monkeys, higher monkeys and humans).

The great apes (gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) and humans form a special superfamily.

Unlike all other mammals, the vision of primates is three-dimensional, stereoscopic, and color (2-3 colors are distinguished).

During the evolution of primates, the acuity of perception of high-frequency sounds and smell decreased. The high quality of vision with a developed forelimb (in higher primates it can be called a hand), and the eye-hand relationship, inaccessible to other animals, created exceptional opportunities for primates for complex forms of behavior. Most primates live in herds (but not all; gibbons live in pairs).

The herd lifestyle helps protect against enemies, promotes the mutual exchange of skills, and the education of young animals. The highly developed ability to imitate is valuable; mutual assistance and cooperation are observed (especially in groups of lower monkeys, for example, monkeys).

Within the general herd, groups are formed on the basis of family and friendly ties. Apart from monkeys, this is not typical for other animal species. There are herds of monkeys with one adult male and several. There is dominance in groups and females.

Hamadryas (a type of baboon belonging to the lower apes) use almost 20 different vocal signals, and it is estimated that they use seven types of looks and ten gestures. In the summer of 1977, at the Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, employees witnessed how a huge male baboon, seeing that the laboratory assistant was in no hurry to wipe off his blood after an injection, took cotton wool and did it himself.

All apes, like humans, are characterized by a rounded head with a protruding facial region, a large, highly developed brain, rich facial expressions, long and developed forelimbs (arms) with nails, a similar number of vertebrae and ribs, and walking on two legs. The gibbon is somewhat different, having a smaller brain and a more ancient mechanism of movement.

All anthropoids lack a tail and cheek pouches. The largest anthropoids are gorillas (height up to 2 m, weight up to 300 kg). Chimpanzees (height up to 150 cm, weight up to 80 kg) are the genus closest to humans.

Brain development is one of the main factors for survival. They feed on plants, but have also been observed to engage in predation and even cannibalism. Let us note that hunting and meat consumption played a huge role in the development of man.

Great apes (for example, chimpanzees) are characterized by the “humanity” of everyday behavior in the wild: they hug when they meet, pat each other on the shoulder or back, and touch each other with their hands.

In special, experimental conditions, great apes make sticks by splitting a board with a sharp stone, learn the sign language of the deaf and dumb and other methods of non-verbal communication, draw quite purposefully, find paths in labyrinths, etc.

The immunological and biochemical relationship of humans with monkeys has been established. Great apes are closer to humans than to lower apes in terms of brain parameters, leukocyte structure, etc.

There are known cases of successful chimpanzee blood transfusions to people with the appropriate blood type, and vice versa. For the lower narrow-nosed monkeys, human blood turns out to be too alien. Blood exchange is not possible here.

But the anatomical differences between humans and anthropoids are still significant. The main ones are those that provide a person with the opportunity for full-fledged work. In monkeys, even the highest ones, there are still only hints of such a thing.

The remains of Australopithecus (lit. from Latin - southern monkey) date back to approximately 3 mil. years. It is believed that it was at this time, under the influence of cold weather, that the jungle began to retreat, the African forest-steppe - savanna - appeared, and the monkeys found themselves in open spaces. This forced them, in order to survive, to stand on their hind limbs: this way they could better see the surroundings and it would be easier to notice the danger.

The second factor of anthropogenesis was bipedalism. Having stood on their hind limbs, human ancestors freed their front limbs and began to use them to make tools (and, of course, protection).

In the middle of the 20th century, the remains of “Homo habilis” (the age of the remains are 2 million years old) were found in East Africa, next to which tools made from broken river pebbles were discovered. Labor has become the third factor of anthropogenesis.

In the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic era, the evolutionary lines of humans and primates diverged.

The remains, found at the end of the 19th century by the French anthropologist Dubois on the island of Java, were called Pithecanthropus (lit. - ape-man). The existence of this intermediate link in human evolution was predicted back in the 60s. years of the 19th century, the founder of ecology Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). These creatures used knives, scrapers, and hand axes. The remains were dated to approximately 500 thousand years ago, the brain volume was about 900 cubic meters. see In the 20s. years of the 20th century, the outstanding French anthropologist P. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) found remains similar to Pithecanthropus in the vicinity of Beijing, calling this creature Sinanthropus (Chinese man).

The discovery of Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (the most ancient people) indicated that approximately 500 thousand years ago man left the African continent and began to settle around the planet.

Even earlier, during the life of Charles Darwin, in the valley of the Neander River in Germany, the remains of a creature that lived 150 - 50 thousand years ago were discovered. This man was called a Neanderthal (ancient people), had a fairly large brain volume, a sloping forehead, brow ridges, and a low cranium; he hunted mammoths, that is, he began to eat meat (there is even a hypothesis that Neanderthals exterminated mammoths), lived in caves, learned to use fire, but did not yet know how to make it. Neanderthals first began to bury the bodies of their dead relatives.

Ten years after the discovery of Neanderthals, the remains of creatures similar in appearance and skull volume (about 1600 cubic cm) to modern humans were found in the Cro-Magnon cave in France.

The Cro-Magnons knew how to make fire, build houses, and the structure of their larynx indicated that they had articulate speech. They lived approximately 40 - 15 thousand years ago, dressed in the skins of killed animals (this indicated that they had completely lost their hair). Cro-Magnon is already a “reasonable man”.

Thus, the next factors of anthropogenesis were the mastery of fire and articulate speech as a means of communication.

Some anthropologists believe that biological evolution ended with the Cro-Magnon man. After Cro-Magnon man, man did not change genetically (although the process of evolution is unlikely to end).

The fact is that 40 thousand years for evolution is a very short time interval, which is unlikely to provide an opportunity to directly accumulate evolutionary changes.

Around the era of the Cro-Magnons, racial differences began to emerge; isolated groups of people developed special characteristics due to living conditions.

Several years ago, already in the 21st century, very interesting chromosomal observations of the blood of the inhabitants of Kenya were carried out (from ancient times, this country was a crossroads of many trade routes, and a “great mixing” of peoples took place there).

A “male” Y chromosome was observed. Based on the diversity of the structure and the nature of the changes in this chromosome, it was concluded that the progenitor of humanity (conditional Adam) lived in Kenya approximately 60 thousand years ago, when there was no division of people into races, and then his descendants settled throughout Europe and Asia. Some of these branches may have become Cro-Magnons.

conclusions

The origin of man is the subject of study of several sciences (anthropology, theology, philosophy, history, paleontology, etc.).

In accordance with this, there are many theories of the origin of man, in particular, as a social individual, a biological being, a product of the activities of extraterrestrial civilizations, etc.

None of the existing theories of human origins has been strictly proven. Ultimately, the criterion of choice for each individual is belief in one theory or another.

There are several options for choosing your own point of view on human origins:

1. In various philosophical and theological teachings of antiquity, the act of human creation was attributed to various deities.

2. The second hypothesis, quite widespread in recent times, is the cosmic one: people were brought to Earth by representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations.

3. The generally accepted one in modern science is based on the work of Charles Darwin. He told and proved with his works that not only undoubted similarity, but also kinship unites humans and primates.

In my opinion, the last, most realistic and subject to our consciousness proof.

Bibliography

1. E.R. Razumov “Concepts of modern natural science” 2006

2. S.S. Batenin “Man and His Origins” 1979

3. I.L. Andreev “The Origin of Man and Society” 1986

4. E.F. Solopov “Concepts of modern natural science” 1998

Hypotheses of human origins