Since ancient times, various scientists and thinkers have speculated about where man came from. Darwin's theory of the origin of man from ape was one such hypothesis. She is today the only theory, which is recognized by scientists all over the world.
In contact with
History
Human origin hypothesis was developed by Charles Darwin based on the results of many years of research and observations. In his famous treatises, written in 1871-1872, the scientist claims that man is a part of nature. And accordingly, this is not an exception to the basic rules of the evolution of the organic world.
C. Darwin, using the main provisions of the theory of evolution, was able to solve the problem with the origin of mankind. First of all, by proving the kinship of a person with lower, in evolutionary terms, ancestors. So, humanity was included in the general evolutionary mechanism of living nature, which has been going on for millions of years.
“Man descended from ape,” said Darwin. But he not the first to guess like that. The idea of a close relationship between humans and apes was previously developed by other scientists, for example, James Burnett, who in the 18th century worked on the theory of the evolution of language.
Charles Darwin did a great job of collecting comparative anatomical, embryological data, which indicated the exact relationship between humans and apes.
The scientist substantiated the idea of their relationship, suggesting having a common ancestor, from which man and other types of monkeys originated. This was the basis for the emergence of the simial (monkey) theory.
This theory states that modern humans and primates descended from a common ancestor who lived in the "Neogene period" and was an ancient ape-like creature. This creature has been called the "missing link". Later, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel gave this intermediate form name "Pithecanthropus"... And at the end of the 19th century, the Dutch anthropologist Eugene Dubois discovered the remains of a humanoid creature on the island of Java. The scientist named him a bipedal Pithecanthropus.
These creatures were the first "intermediate forms" discovered by anthropologists. Thanks to these findings, the theory of human evolution began to acquire a large evidence base. Indeed, over time, in the next century, other discoveries in anthropogenesis were made.
Human Origins
The history of mankind began a long time ago, many millions of years ago - and still not finished... After all, people continue to develop and change further, eventually adapting to the conditions of the external environment.
Charles Darwin argued that between living organisms there is constant competition(fight for survival). It is characterized by a confrontation between different types of animals. As a result of this natural selection, only those individuals can survive that best adapt to environmental conditions.
For example, a large and fast predator (wolf) has a greater advantage over its fellows. Because of what he can better get food, and, accordingly, his offspring will have more chances for survival than the offspring of a predator with lower rates of speed and strength.
Human evolution is a rather complex science. To understand how man evolved from ape, let's go back to ancient times. This is millions of years ago, when life was just beginning to take shape.
Life began millions of years ago in the ocean. At the very beginning, these were microorganisms capable of reproduction. Living organisms have developed and improved for a long time. New forms began to appear: multicellular organisms, fish, algae and other marine flora and fauna.
After that, living things began to explore other habitats, gradually emerging onto land. There are probably many reasons why some species of fish have begun to surface, ranging from banal randomness to strong competition.
Thus, a new class of creatures appeared in the world - amphibians. These are creatures that could live and develop both in water and on land. Millions of years later, natural selection made it possible for only the fittest amphibians to remain on land.
Later, they gave more and more offspring that were better adapted to life on land. New species of animals have emerged- reptiles, mammals and birds.
For millions of years, natural selection has facilitated the survival of only those creatures that were most adapted to the conditions of the environment. Because of this, many populations of living organisms have not survived to this day, leaving behind only more adapted descendants.
Dinosaurs became one of such extinct species. Previously, they were the masters of the planet. But due to natural disasters, dinosaurs could not adapt to the dramatically changed difficult living conditions. Because of what from the dinosaurs to this day, only birds and reptiles have remained.
While dinosaurs remained the dominant species, mammals were only a few breeds no larger than modern rodents. It was their small size and unpretentiousness to food that helped mammals survive in those terrible cataclysms that killed more than 90% of living organisms.
Millennia later, when weather conditions on earth stabilized, and eternal competitors (dinosaurs) disappeared, mammals began to reproduce more. Thus, more and more new types of living beings began to appear on the earth, now referred to mammals.
One of these creatures were the ancestors of monkeys and humans. According to many studies, basically, these creatures lived in forests, hiding in trees from larger predators. Due to the influence of various factors, such as changing weather conditions (forests decreased in size, and savannahs appeared in their place), the ancestors of people, accustomed to living in trees, adapted to life in the savannah. This led to the active development of the brain, bipedal locomotion, hair reduction, etc.
Millions of years later, under the influence of natural selection only the fittest groups survived. During this time, the evolution of our ancestors can be conditionally divided into several periods:
- Australopithecus 4.2 million years ago - 1.8 million years ago;
- A skilled man 2.6 million years ago - 2.5 million years ago;
- Homo erectus 2 million years ago - 0.03 million years ago;
- Neanderthals 0.35 million years ago - 0.04 million years ago;
- Homo sapiens 0.2 million years ago - modernity.
Attention! Many people find it quite difficult to understand the theory of evolution and the basic evolutionary mechanisms due to the misinterpretation of the concept of “extinction of a species”. They take this term literally, and believe that "disappearance" is an instantaneous action that occurs over a short period of time (maximum of a couple of years). In fact, the process of extinction of a species and the appearance of the next one can take place over several tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of years.
Due to this misunderstanding of evolutionary processes, the question of the origin of man has long been one of the the most difficult riddles for biologists.
And the first assumptions about the origin from the great apes were strongly criticized at all.
Now the entire scientific community agrees with the opinion that man descended from a monkey. .
The reason for this is the absence of any demonstrable and plausible alternative theories.
Human ancestors
Anthropology is the science that studies the origin of man. To date, she has accumulated a huge amount of data and facts that make it possible to determine the ancient ancestors of mankind. Among our immediate ancestors, there are:
- Neanderthals;
- The Heidelrberg Man;
- Pithecanthropus;
- Australopithecus;
- Ardopithecus.
Important! Over the past century, anthropologists around the world have found the remains of human ancestors. Many of the specimens were in good condition, and some were left with only small bones or just one tooth. Scientists were able to determine that these remains belong to different species precisely thanks to testing.
Most of our ancestors had special features that brought them closer to monkeys, and not to modern humans. Particularly prominent are the protruding superciliary arches, a large lower jaw, a different body structure, thick hair, etc.
You should also pay attention to the difference between the brain volume of a modern person and his ancestors: Neanderthals, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus, etc.
Most of our ancestors the brain was not so big and developed, as in modern people of the XXI century. The only ones we could compete with are the Neanderthals. After all, they had an average volume, the brain was larger. Development and contributed to its growth.
Scientists are still arguing about which of our ancestors can be attributed to the representatives of humanity, and who else to monkeys. At the same time, some scientists attribute, for example, Pithecanthropus to humans, and others to monkeys. Exact edge quite difficult to conduct O. Because of this, it is impossible to say unequivocally when the ancient monkey turned into a man. And accordingly, it is still difficult to determine from which of our ancestors it is possible to begin human history.
Proof
The theory confirming the origin of man from a monkey is now more than 146 years old. But still there are those who are not ready to accept the fact of kinship with other animals, and, in particular, with primates. They desperately resist and seek other "correct" theories.
During this century, science did not stand still, and found more and more facts of the origin of man from ancient primates. Therefore, one should briefly consider separately that man is descended from a monkey, and in ancient times we had common ancestors:
- Paleontological. Excavations around the world find the remains of a modern man (homo sapiens) only from 40,000 BC. and up to the present. In earlier breeds, remains of homo sapiens do not occur I am. Instead, archaeologists find Neanderthals, Australopithecus, Pithecanthropus, etc. Thus, the "timeline" shows that the further back in time, the more primitive versions of man can be found, but not vice versa.
- Morphological. Man and other primates are the only creatures in the world whose head is covered not with wool, but with hair, and nails grow on their fingers. Morphological structure of internal organs humans are closest to that of primates. Also, we are brought together by the bad, by the standards of the animal world, sense of smell and hearing.
- Embryonic. Human embryos go through all evolutionary stages. The embryos develop gills, the tail grows and the body is covered with hair. Later, the embryo acquires the features of a modern person. But in some newborns, atavisms and rudimentary organs may be found. For example, a person may have a tail, or the entire body may be covered with hair.
- Genetic. Genes make us related to primates. Millions of years later, humans differ from chimpanzees (the most closely related primates) by 1.5%. Retroviral invasions (RI) are also common in humans and chimpanzees. RI is the inactive genetic code of a virus embedded in the genome of a creature. RI is prescribed in absolutely any part of the genome, which is why the probability that the same virus will be written in the same place in DNA in completely different animals is very low. In humans and chimpanzees, there are about 30,000 such common RIs. The presence of this fact is one of the most important proofs of the relationship between humans and chimpanzees. After all the probability of an accidental coincidence is beyond doubt about the fact that Man descended precisely from the ancient monkeys.
D Hello, dear visitors of the Orthodox island "Family and Faith"!
NS Did man come from a monkey?
TO How did humanity appear on earth if Adam and Eve had only two sons?
TO How did such a large number of people come from one pair (Adam + Eve)? Did they practice incest? Why are marriages with immediate family members now prohibited? There are examples in the Bible when, in order to procreate, daughters were given birth from their father. How should we relate to this?
O tweets Archpriest Alexander Lebedev:
- NS Did man come from a monkey?
- H no.
This could be the end of the answer, because it is quite obvious. However, too many scientists who looked like husbands said that people are just bald monkeys, and this idea is quite tenacious. Therefore, I have to say a few words about this from the point of view of science.
As far as I know, any statement (hypothesis) in science is considered reliable if it can be verified - observed: in reality, or in experiment. The transformation of a monkey into a man has not happened to be recorded either this way or that way. That is, this hypothesis has not been reliably confirmed by anything.
Moreover, the evolution from the monkey is not the only version of the origin of man. Christianity asserts that God created man, as, in fact, the entire universe. Skeptics will say that no one has seen this and it is impossible to experimentally verify the creation of man. Yes it is. But this only means that with equal grounds one can believe both in the likeness of God and in the ape origin of man. And if I am given to choose between equal opportunities, then I personally choose God the Creator. Whoever wants, let him consider himself a descendant of monkeys. In any case, what to choose is a matter of taste, not science.
- How did humanity appear on earth if Adam and Eve had only two sons?
- A common mistake. If we are going to question the content of the Bible, let's try to read it carefully. Then we will find, for example, the following information: "The days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred (700) years, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. All the days of Adam's life were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died" (Genesis 5, 4 - 5). How many people of both sexes could be born in a specified time, I think, you can imagine - a lot, respectively, and people could reproduce very, very significantly.
- How did such a large number of people come from one pair (Adam + Eve)? Did they practice incest? Why are marriages with immediate family members now prohibited? There are examples in the Bible when, in order to procreate, daughters were given birth from their father. How should we relate to this?
- Well, let's try to answer the questions in order. About Adam and Eve. Taking paper and a pencil, I calculated that five married couples, provided they give birth to three children and maintain this birth rate, in three hundred years can breed up to more than two thousand people (of which about a thousand are people of childbearing age). In three hundred years the population will increase two hundred times! In such conditions, Adam, who lived for about nine hundred years, by the end of his life, could find the population of the Earth comparable to the current number of Muscovites. Further, I think, it is not difficult to imagine a picture of the multiplication of the human race.
About incest. The laws of biology are fickle. We know, for example, that as long as the tree is young, it can be bent and shaped to shape the trunk and branches. But if we decide to straighten an already mature tree, we will simply break it. Apparently, something similar happened with genetic laws. While humanity was young, marriage between close relatives was inevitable and harmless. But over time, this state of affairs has changed: now such a marriage leads to the degeneration of the clan (children in it are born defective), and is a sin.
About daughters and father. In the Bible there is, as far as I know, the only mention of such a case. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, together with their environs, were destroyed by the Lord, who shed fire and brimstone from heaven. Only a man named Lot and his two daughters were saved. The spectacle of the death of cities and environs was, apparently, terrible and so impressed the daughters of Lot that they decided: all humanity was exterminated, only they were left with their father. “And the elder said to the younger: Our father is old, and there is no man on earth who would come to us according to the custom of all the earth; so, let us give our father wine to drink, and sleep with him, and restore the tribe from our father "(Genesis 19, 31-32). The daughters decided on this so that the Earth would not turn into an uninhabited planet. "
Many probably know the anecdote where (in different variations) the characters talk about which monkey a particular nation supposedly descended from. Less than a hundred years ago, it was not an anecdote, but a reality: certain status scientists seriously argued that different human races descended from different species and even genera of great apes (the theory of polygenism). This racist concept has long been archived. But until now, some, wanting to pin up evolutionists, ask: "What monkey did people come from?"
Where is the line between monkey and man
This question is both pertinent, due to the common popular formula, and inappropriate, because it betrays the questioner's lack of education. Not a single modern genus of monkeys can be the ancestor of man, because they are all the same result of evolution as man himself. However, if biologists argue that humans descended from a “common ancestor with monkeys”, which, moreover, was “much more like a monkey” than a man, then this fossil ancestor should be presented to the public.
Science has dozens of missing link candidates. However, the boundary between "ape" and a man needs to be clarified. If someone asks, “when the tail fell off in the ancestors of humans,” this obviously refers to the time when the evolutionary lines of monkeys (tailed) and anthropoid (tailless) apes diverged. This was about 18 million years ago. The first known tailless monkey was the proconsul.
If we talk about when “the monkey first climbed down from the tree and stood on its hind legs,” here opinions differ among scientists. As early as 9 million years ago, Oreopithecus lived in Sicily, which walked on two legs. However, they are considered a dead-end branch of evolution that did not give rise to descendants. Among the ancestors of man, the first, perhaps, passed to the upright posture of the Sahelanthropus, who lived 7 million years ago. His remains were found near Lake Chad. It is believed that he lived only a little later than the divergence of evolutionary trunks, leading, in one direction, to humans, in the other - to modern chimpanzees. Orrorin tughenensis (6 million years ago, Kenya) and Ardipithecus cadabba (5.5 million years ago, Ethiopia) apparently walked on their hind legs.
But what is curious: the later (4.5 million years ago, Ethiopia) Ardipithecus ramidus, which stood closer to humans in a number of ways, was better adapted to climbing branches than the named species. Was it a dead-end branch that was delayed in development? Or, on the contrary, was it, like Oreopithecus, was the previously lived upright monkeys? This issue has not yet been resolved.
There is no doubt, however, that among the later (starting from 4 million years ago) erectus australopithecines was the ancestor of the genus Homo. True, there are still several candidates for this role. All these monkeys, starting with the Sahelanthropus, are ranked in one subfamily of Australopithecines, and together with modern and all fossil people - in one family of hominids.
Did the direct ancestor of man live in water?
No less important for anthropology is the question: what are the reasons that forced one of the species of great apes to "get off the tree" and go to upright posture on their hind legs. Undoubtedly, this required some preconditions (pre-adaptation). We see them even in some modern monkeys: gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans often demonstrate the ability to walk on two legs. But it has no adaptive value for them, therefore it is not fixed in the offspring in any way. Obviously, the ancestors of man were placed in such conditions that upright walking provided them with some benefits.
Usually they point to the drying up of the climate in East Africa (where the ancestors of man lived) several million years ago, as a result of which the area of forests there was sharply reduced and the area of open savannah increased. However, under such conditions, animals usually migrate following the changing boundaries of natural zones. The forests in Africa have not completely disappeared. Therefore, there must have been some other reason.
Scientists have long paid attention to a number of differences between humans and monkeys, which could develop as an adaptation to the aquatic environment: the ability to swim, dive and hold their breath (great apes fear the water element), poor development of body hair, the shape of the nose, which prevents flooding there on top of the water, etc. Such a feature, which promoted upright posture, such as a flat foot (used when swimming as a flipper), could also form in the water (it also increases stability when standing on the bottom). In water, the body weighs less, and there, walking on the bottom of shallow water, the ancestors of people could more easily adapt to bipedal movement.
In 1926, the hypothesis of the origin of humans from certain aquatic mammals was first put forward by Max Westengöfer (Germany), and he denied the relationship between humans and monkeys. In 1960, the theory of the origin of people from the "water monkey" was substantiated by Alistair Hardy (England). Most of the finds of ancient hominids in Africa are dated to the shores of large lakes. Shellfish, as it turned out, occupied a very large place in the diet of our ancestors (and, thanks to the high proportion of protein, contributed to the development of their brains). Now many scientists are inclined to conclude that, although human ancestors were not specialized aquatic animals, nevertheless, their evolution took place near water, and many human features are adaptations to life in such a biotope.
When man became sane
The question of what counts as reason is no less speculative than the question of where the ape ends and man begins. The famous Soviet scientist B.F. Porshnev argued that before the appearance of Homo sapiens 40 thousand years ago. (now it is believed that more than 150 thousand years ago) the ancestors of people made stone tools, hunted, etc. according to an instinctive program that rarely and accidentally changed over hundreds of thousands of years.
The English psychologist N. Humphrey came to a similar conclusion. In his opinion, only with the advent of symbolic art, that is, cave painting, can we talk about the emergence of reason in people. Cro-Magnons were the first to draw in Europe about 35 thousand years ago, before that there were no drawings; therefore, the older people were not intelligent. At the same time, Humphrey considers the drawings of the ancients as a means of communication and evidence that people did not yet have articulate speech. Then, on the basis of its origin, the line between humans and ape-like ancestors already lay at the stage of Homo sapiens, approximately 25-20 thousand years ago. This statement is surprisingly consistent with the hypothesis of the reconstruction of proto-languages, according to which all existing languages of mankind can be reduced to a single ancestral language that existed about 20-15 thousand years ago.
So, the question "from which monkey did man come?" makes no sense until we have determined exactly what counts as the main difference. On the other hand, the answer to it allows us to develop a picture of the long evolution of the ancestors of mankind, where everyone can choose a candidate for the key “missing link” according to their taste.
So, if humans evolved from monkeys ... sorry, from the ancient non-human apes, then why didn't all the other non-human apes turn into humans?
They did not do this for the same reason that not all fish came out on land and became quadrupeds, not all unicellular organisms became multicellular, not all animals became vertebrates, not all archosaurs became birds. For the same reason that not all flowers have become daisies, not all insects are ants, not all mushrooms are white, not all viruses are influenza viruses. Each type of living creature is unique and appears only once. The evolutionary history of each species is determined by many reasons and depends on countless accidents. It is absolutely incredible that two evolving species (for example, two different species of monkeys) had exactly the same fate and they came to the same result (for example, both turned into humans). It is as incredible as the fact that two writers will write two identical novels without collusion, or that two identical peoples, speaking the same language, will arise independently on two different continents.
It seems to me that this question is often asked simply because they think: well, how can it, after all, being a person is more fun than jumping on branches without pants. The question is based on at least two errors. First, it assumes that evolution has some goal to which it stubbornly strives, or at least some "main direction." Some people think that evolution is always directed from the simple to the complex. The movement from simple to complex in biology is called progress. But evolutionary progress is not a general rule; it is characteristic not for all living things, but only for a small part of them. In the course of evolution, many animals and plants do not become more complex, but, on the contrary, simplify - and at the same time they feel great. In addition, in the history of the development of life on earth, it happened much more often that a new species did not replace the old ones, but was added to them. As a result, the total number of species on the planet gradually increased. Many species died out, but even more new ones appeared. So man - added to the primates, to other monkeys, and did not replace them.
Secondly, many people mistakenly believe that man is precisely the goal towards which evolution has always strived. But biologists have not found any support for this assumption. Of course, if we look at our pedigree, we will see something very similar to the movement towards a predetermined goal - from unicellular to the first animals, then to the first chordates, the first fish, the first four-legged, then to the ancient synapsids, animal-toothed dinosaurs, the first mammals. , placental, primates, monkeys, anthropoid and, finally, to humans. But if we look at the pedigree of any other species - for example, a mosquito or a dolphin - we will see exactly the same "purposeful" movement, but not towards a person, but towards a mosquito or a dolphin.
By the way, our genealogies with the mosquito coincide all the way from unicellular to primitive worm-like animals and only then diverge. We have more common ancestors with the dolphin: our pedigree begins to differ from the dolphin only at the level of ancient placental mammals, and our more and more ancient ancestors are at the same time the ancestors of the dolphin. We are pleased to consider ourselves "the pinnacle of evolution," but the mosquito and the dolphin have no less reason to consider themselves the pinnacle of evolution, and not us. Each of the living species is the same pinnacle of evolution as we are. Each has the same long evolutionary history, each boasting many diverse and amazing ancestors.