We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
In the science of evolution, an important place is occupied by the issues of human development. The development of the exact sciences made it possible to learn aspects of the distant past, which until recently seemed simply unthinkable.
Human evolution is developing very quickly, because new discoveries are covered in the press and attract the attention of many people. Only now the mass consciousness, as usual, simply does not keep up with science.
As a result, numerous myths appear that scientists have long proved, but did not manage to convey to ordinary people. Here are the most popular myths that have been around for decades.
In fact, anthropologists have very few fossil finds, and they are also fragmentary. So Darwin's followers simply do not have enough material to build their theory. Proponents of this myth argue that there is so little real evidence of human evolution that it can all fit into one little box. For example, Seraphim Rose wrote this from the perspective of Orthodoxy back in 1974. However, even then this statement was not true, the priest was simply mistaken. Even by 1974, scientists had made many finds, including well-preserved ones. So many Neanderthals have been found that a separate cemetery would be required to bury them. The remains of Pithecanthropus were found in South and North America, in China, Europe and Java. Australopithecus were found in South and East Africa, a skilled man - in the east and south of the same continent, the remains of a Heidelberg man were found in Europe, Asia and the same Africa. The list goes on. And in order to locate the fossil remains of our ancestors, found over the past 30 years, not only a box, but a whole museum will not be enough. The number of only fresh finds, testifying to human evolution, has exceeded several hundred.
Almost all of the fossil evidence of human evolution is actually fake. Indeed, human evolution knows stories of counterfeiting. Rather, just one. We are talking about the famous Piltdown skull, the true history of which became known back in 1953. True, many scientists initially doubted the truth of this find, it painfully stood out from the rest. Therefore, for half a century no anthropologist has used the Piltdown skull as an argument in his theories. This is not necessary, because there are enough other materials found. The story about this forgery is interesting mainly to the very fighters against Darwinism, because it is almost their only weapon.
Reconstruction of the appearance of human ancestors is just a fantasy of scientists. This myth can be interpreted as follows: "I do not understand how the reconstruction is carried out, which means that it is incorrect." In fact, since the 19th century, scientists have begun to develop methods for reconstructing the appearance using bone remains. In Russia, the famous anthropologist, scientist and sculptor Mikhail Gerasimov was engaged in this area. He collected a large collection of statistics, studying both primates and humans. The scientist identified a pattern in the formation of soft tissues of the head, depending on the characteristics of the bones. Gerasimov proved that these patterns work in the same way for both humans and chimpanzees. Consequently, the approach is valid for humanoid fossils as well. Therefore, the scientist was able to create the already classical reconstructions of the faces of our ancestors, starting with the Australopithecines and ending with the first Homo sapiens. It should be noted that the technique developed by Gerasimov has been repeatedly proven through experiments. The scientist restored the appearance of a person whose photograph was available, but was not shown to the anthropologist himself. As a result, the created reconstructions were very similar to the original. The first to recognize the scientist's technique was the Criminal Investigation Department. But this is a serious organization that will not work only with the fantasies of scientists. Since 1939, Gerasimov's techniques have been used in forensic medical examination. The reconstructions helped to identify the missing people. So in 1939, in the Leningrad region, far from the place of human habitation, the skeleton of a boy was found with traces of the teeth of a predator on the bones. Gerasimov was able to restore a sculptural portrait from the skull, he was photographed from different angles in a cap and cloak for persuasiveness. The father of the lost boy immediately identified his son, although he noticed that he did not have such clothes. So those who consider this technique to be quackery should contact the Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and tell them that they are doing nonsense.
The age of the ancient bones was obtained using rather dubious methods based on a number of assumptions. Not everyone believes that it is possible to accurately indicate the millionth age of some finds. Usually, doubters talk about inaccurate radiocarbon analysis. But this approach is wrong from the start. After all, such a technique can in no way testify to millions of years, it is used to process much younger finds. Over the past half century, scientists have developed many methods for determining the age of ancient remains. These include the uranium-thorium method, the potassium-argon method, the uranium series method, the fission track method, the thermoluminescence method, the optical method, the electro-spin resonance method, and others. We know from the school course that the solutions of the equation must be checked. Likewise, the age of the remains revealed by various methods in different cities and laboratories should be the same. For example, the famous Australopithecus Lucy skeleton was found in a breed whose samples were sent to different laboratories. The track division method showed the age of the remains to be 2.58 million years, and the potassium-argon method - 2.63 million years. The results are pretty much the same, but could two different methods be equally wrong?
All fossil human ancestors are described based on only one dubious find. There is a first cell effect in human memory. We all remember only the first heroes, representatives of trade marks. The same effect works in anthropology. As a result, all the knowledge of ordinary people about Australopithecines fits into a fleeting memory of some monkey Lucy, who was once heard somewhere. In fact, Lucy was simply one of the first, and therefore the most famous find of Afar Australopithecus. It was discovered back in 1974. Since then, scientists have found several hundred more similar remains. A similar story with other human ancestors, we have heard only about one, the most famous. But to get into the scientific jungle and learn about the latest findings, there are not so many who want to.
At the end of his life, Charles Darwin renounced his theory. Stories about the remorse of a person just before his death are quite common. There is a similar legend about Charles Darwin. Allegedly, at the end of his life, he himself doubted his theory. Only the source of such a story remains unclear. In fact, the story of Darwin's alleged abdication surfaced many years after his death, in 1915. Such a moralizing story about the spiritual transformation of a scientist was published in an American Baptist magazine. Allegedly, Darwin himself reported his doubts personally to the preacher Elizabeth Hope. Only there are no real facts to support this story. Shortly before his death, the scientist published an autobiography, which does not contain any doubts about the works of his entire life. And the relatives of the great naturalist do not mention anything about Darwin's hesitation regarding his theory. The scientist's children, Francis and Henrietta, generally stated that Lady Hope had never met their father. So this story is a fairy tale invented by a preacher upon her arrival in America.
At the end of his life, Eugene Dubois admitted that he had discovered in Java not at all Pithecanthropus, but simply a huge python. This story of "repentance" by a prominent scientist strongly resembles the previous one. Meanwhile, it is very popular on the Internet. It is said that a military doctor from Holland, Eugene Dubois, visited the island of Java in 1890-1891. There he found the remains of Pithecanthropus - a femur, skull bones and teeth. The anthropologist announced to the whole world that he had found a human ancestor, a transitional species. However, most scientists simply did not believe him. The scientific community, after consultation, came to the conclusion that the remains actually belonged to Pithecanthropus. Tired of arguing with the majority, Dubois eventually admitted that he was initially wrong. This story has several inconsistencies. First of all, it is worth asking how exactly Dubois realized his recognition? Whispered to a loved one or wrote in your will? Or maybe he made a public confession? There is no clear answer and cannot be. Skeptics refer to the August 1935 journal Nature. One, in fact, there are no confessions and repentances from Dubois. There is only a link to the scientist's report, which told about the place of Pithecanthropus in human evolution. Supporters of myths should also ask the following question: "Has anyone other than Dubois found the remains of such a huge gibbon in Java or somewhere else?" It turns out that no more such creatures have been found. Maybe they simply did not exist in nature? But since the 30s of the last century in Java, as well as in Africa, Asia and southern Europe, people have found many remains of Pithecanthropus, or Homo erectus. In total, some 250 individuals fell into the hands of scientists.
The theory of the origin of man from a monkey is based only on our external similarity. External similarity became the basis for the classification of living things many centuries ago. Thanks to him, the whale, which is a mammal, has long been considered a fish. Today, in addition to external similarities, anatomical, biochemical, embryological, behavioral, paleontological and genetic factors are eloquent evidence of the relationship between humans and great apes.
The fossil remains found by scientists actually belong to ancient monkeys. Formally, this statement is true, because once upon a time our ancestors were not people in a modern way, they were ancient monkeys. For a long time, the difference between the ancestors of humans and apes was clear to any scientist. However, as more and more samples and remains were found, the line between the concepts narrowed. Looking at the skulls of humanoid creatures, you cannot immediately understand when the monkey became a man. The fact is that at one point the creature learned to think and became rational. So a new evolutionary branch appeared.
The found fossils do not belong at all to the ancestors of man, but to the degraded branches of his evolution. It is easy to believe in this, because no one saw with their own eyes how a monkey became a man. But the degradation and descent of a person to an animal state is often observed. Only paleoanthropology works in close collaboration with chronology. If you plot all known found remains on the time axis, you get a clear picture. The brain of the ancient hominids progressed continuously over time. It took 300 points to get such an eloquent graph. If it is degradation, then it is very strange, accompanied by brain growth. Although its volume is only one of the characteristics describing human evolution, the picture rather quickly destroys the myth of human degradation.
The ancient ancestors of man did not descend from one another, but lived simultaneously. The argument is the fact that there are known finds of the ancestor species, which coincide in time with the age of the descendant. For example, there are remains of the species Homo habilus, dating from 1.5-2.3 million years ago. From him came the species Homo ergaster, which appeared about 1.8 million years ago. As you can see, on the timeline, the time of habitation of these species on the planet partially overlaps. However, only partial, not complete, intersection occurs. There is nothing strange about this. After all, a new species usually appears in one of the isolated populations of the ancestor species, but a quick and complete replacement never happens. That is why, after the appearance of a descendant species, the ancestors still live on the planet for a long time, moreover, they can give rise to not even one, but several species. A similar story happened with the Afar Australopithecines, which spawned several groups of hominids at once. No one is embarrassed by the fact that both a wolf and a dog live on the planet at the same time. But the second subspecies is part of the first species, its descendant.
Genetically, a pig is much closer to a person than a monkey. Proponents of this theory cite the transplantation of pork organs to humans as an argument. From the point of view of genetics, this statement is absolutely absurd. There are hundreds of thousands of differences between the pig and human genomes. We take a firm place in the primate order, and the pig is among the artiodactyls. A mouse is much closer to humans, by the way, it is its stem cells that are used to create artificial human skin. The choice of pigs for organ transplantation is quite understandable. In this matter, genetic affinity is not so important. Transplant doctors have the task of mass organ transplantation. Which animal to choose as a donor? It is necessary that it be well studied, bred in captivity and not having new unexplained diseases and deviations. The donor should be of comparable size, it should be relatively cheap, and experiments with it should not be criticized by international organizations. In this regard, the monkey loses to the pig in all respects. We love pork soup, but how many of us are ready to eat chimpanzee soup? And how much would it cost? Every year, a person kills several hundred million pigs. There are only 15 thousand gorillas on the planet, and chimpanzees are only several times larger.
Most scientists around the world have long refuted the theory of the origin of man from ape. There are many people in our life who consider themselves, if not scientists, then certainly experts in any field. In fact, a runner will hardly be able to achieve records in weightlifting. Likewise, a scientist working at the intersection of sciences is simply obliged to invite a consultant. Many people like to talk about evolution. A lot of time can be spent in search of real specialists in this field. There are not so many scientists professionally engaged in anthropology and having their own scientific works. In our country, there are only a few. In fact, this is the "majority" whose opinion is important in this matter. Let primatologists, archaeologists, anthropologists and geneticists sometimes disagree on private issues. However, the main provisions (the reality of evolution, the origin of man from ancient anthropoids, Africa, as the birthplace of mankind) are beyond doubt.