Species: Homo sapiens (lat. Homo sapiens). Tools of Homo habilis

Peter Line

The review analyzes fossil finds related to putative monkey-people belonging to the genus Homo. It is believed that differences in the morphological properties of fossil indus view minds classified as Homo, with the exception of representatives of an invalid taxon Homo habilis, reflect (among other factors) genetic variability within a single human kind. Representatives Homo habilis are a collection of heterogeneous fossil remains that either relate to humans (for example, to Homo erectus), or to australopithecus monkeys. If fossil creatures such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals were fully human, then essentially the entire history of human evolution fails because there is an unbridgeable morphological gap between the apes and these humans.

In Western society, the education system and the media teach and promote the idea that man is, at best, nothing more than a highly evolved ape. And as a trump card, a sequence of hypothetical fossil ape-men is shown, which is intended to deal a knockout blow to all those who dare to doubt this tale. Is there really any convincing information in this that proves that man descended from monkeys, or is this another example of one-sided ideologization in science, materialist philosophy, which requires a natural explanation of all cosmic phenomena? In other words, is it possible that scientists who advocate human evolution are not objective in their interpretations of fossil remains?

Paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpov writes: “From my point of view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even when searching for data, decisions about which data to consider and which to ignore reflect the theoretical framework of the scientist.". Evolutionists John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas admit: “...We must admit that the history of paleoanthropology does not represent a brilliant example of the search for truth, especially when it came to the problem of the true origin of man”. Next they write: “...We should be well aware that the popular image of the scientist as an impartial seeker of truth does not correspond to reality at all”. Finally, consider the following commentary by Roger Levine, author of Bones of Contention: Disputes in the Study of Human Origins:

“The assertion that in the search for objective truth the data dictate the conclusions is in fact a common fantasy, disseminated mainly by professional science itself. If this were actually the case, then all scientists dealing with the same set of facts would necessarily come to the same conclusions. However, as we have already seen above and as we will see further and further, very often this does not happen. Data are often interpreted to fit the conclusions that are favored. And then an interesting question arises: “What determines the preferences of a scientist or group of researchers?”, but not “What is truth?”

Scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, tend to interpret what they see in this world through their specific lenses, which are their belief systems, worldviews, and ideologies. If the lenses contain evolutionary ideas, then usually the data are conceptualized in a way that fits the given frame of reference. The author believes that evolution is false and that only “through” the biblical worldview can our true origins be properly understood. According to the Bible, God from one blood brought forth the entire human race to inhabit the entire face of the earth, assigning predetermined times and limits to their habitation ( Acts 17:26). At the same time, there is no place for the ape-people who preceded man, since at the beginning of creation, God created them man and woman ( Mark.10.6). Consequently, all supposed monkey-people belong to either mind Homo are the descendants of Adam and Eve, or they belong to the extinct apes. The article provides evolutionary dating in order to correlate fossil finds with a specific evolutionary context, but this does not at all mean agreement with these datings.

Homo habilis (including Homo rudolfensis).

Volume of the cranium Homo habilis varies from 500 cubic centimeters (cm 3) to approximately 800 cm 3. Current status Habilis is best characterized as a taxonomic confusion, as there is great debate as to whether all fossil remains attributed to Homo habilis belonging to representatives of this species. Some experts divided the representatives of this kind into two groups, creating two new species: Homo rudolfensis, dated from 1.8 to 2.4 milline years BC, while Homo habilis was preserved (dating from 1.6 to 2.3 million BC), however, it turned out that fewer known specimens belong to the latter. To further confuse the picture, Wood and Collard even argued that representatives rudolfensis(eg skull KNM-ER1470) and habilis(e.g. KNM-ER 1813) should be removed from the genus Homo and classified as Australopithecus, but this idea has not received widespread support. What habilis consist of at least two species is not unanimously supported, with some evolutionists arguing that the variations observed among specimens habilis can be interpreted as manifestations of intraspecific variability.

In Western society, the education system and the media teach and promote the idea that man is, at best, nothing more than a highly evolved ape. And as a trump card, a sequence of hypothetical fossil ape-men is shown, which is intended to deal a knockout blow to all those who dare to doubt this tale.

In discussing this debate about multiple species, Vulpov noted that some scientists used habilis as a "garbage bag". Tattersel and Schwartz described the status Homo habilis, as a kind of “trash can” into which all the heterogeneous diversity of fossil remains could be conveniently thrown. Homo habilis often presented as an intermediate between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, however, even some evolutionists admit that this concept is simplistic. According to Bernard Wood: "Advances in absolute dating techniques and re-evaluations of fossil remains have produced a unilinear model of human evolution in which Homo habilis, which followed the Australopithecines, subsequently evolved into Homo erectus and further into Homo sapiens, is unsuitable.” From a creationist point of view, habilis is an invalid taxon, representing a collection of diverse fossil remains that can be assessed as either human (for example, belonging to Homo erectus in particular) or belonging to australopithecus apes. To illustrate this, below are the following examples.

According to Vulpov, who attributes erectus title "early" Homo sapiens", skull KNM-ER 1813 from Koobi Fora in Kenya "is composed of a skull base and frontofacial region that is as human-like as it is characteristic of early Homo sapiens that some authors, in particular T. White, included ER 1813 in the same taxon (for T. White this H. erectus)". Vulpov describes specimen KNM-ER 1813 “as very similar to an early H. sapiens in fact indistinguishable from it in its dental structure and frontofacial architecture (except for the narrow midface), but at the same time having a much smaller brain size in comparison.” If White and Wolpow's estimate of KNM-ER 1813 is correct, then this skull, with a cranium volume of only about 509 cm 3, could belong to a very small person.

The interpretation of fossil skull KNM-ER 1470 from Koobi Fora, Kenya, which has a cranial volume of about 752cm 3 , has been a challenge for both evolutionists and creationists. In 1999, creationist Bill Mellert's analysis, focused on the controversial facial reconstruction of skull 1470, led him to believe that the skull "looks more like a gracile Australopithecus with increased brain volume." However, creationist Mervin Lubenow has long argued for his human status, and in his updated and revised book Bones of discord, most recently stated that "comparisons indicate that skull 1470 appears more modern than any Homo erectus fossil, and even more modern than the material from Khao Swamp, which is only about 10,000 years old." Creationist Malcolm Bowden also championed the idea that KNM-ER 1470 is "just a little human skull." Although there are some differences between specimens KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813, most of them, according to evolutionist Wolpov, can be explained “if we assume that the larger size of the skull and face with powerful teeth located posterior to the canines, (and their structural consequences) of a specimen such as ER 1470 reflect differences in body size." Although a gorilla skull has been found with the same cranial volume (752cm3) as KNM-ER 1470, its skull is certainly more human-like than ape-like.

This article does not purport to provide a detailed overview of all the specimens that evolutionists have characterized as representatives habilis. However, let us present one illustration - habilis, which most likely belongs to Australopithecus (possibly to A. africanus) is Stw 53 from Sterkfontein in South Africa. Kewman and Clarke list several important morphological features of Stw 53 that they believe warrant its inclusion in the genus Australopithecus, these include teeth that are very large and a braincase that is "narrow and limited in the frontal region." Also, images obtained from computed tomography (CT) of the bony labyrinths of the inner ear showed that the dimensions of the semicircular canals of the skull of Stw 53 “are even less consistent with upright posture than in australopithecines.” This appears to leave no stone unturned regarding the human status of this specimen, whose poor skeletal preservation makes assessment of its brain volume difficult. specimen from Swartkranz in South Africa (SK 847), attributed to habilis, had canal dimensions “similar to modern humans.” As noted by the authors of this article and other researchers, SK 847 should have been classified as erectus, among them Johanson, who compared it with erectus specimen KNM-ER 3733. So, erectus is the most suitable status for SK 847, but the skull is too incomplete to make a definitive diagnosis. Based on data relating to the base of the skull, Vulpov estimated the volume of the skull of SK 847 to be less than 500cm 3 , but since most of the cranial vault is missing, this estimate appears to have little justification.

When considering the remains of the postcranial part of the skeleton (the rest of the skeleton, in addition to the skull - approx. translation) Homo habilis, the following should be noted: the human-looking femurs KNM-ER 1472 and KNM-ER1481 are often assessed as belonging to Homo habilis(or rudolfensis), especially since they were found in the same area of ​​Koobi Fora as skull KNM-ER 1470, but since they were all recovered from different geological layers (formed at different times), there is no direct connection between they don't exist. Analysis of the structure of the femur KNM-ER1481 identified it as belonging to an erectus, which therefore means that it belonged to some person. However, some evolutionists prefer to classify it as Homo habilis, but this seems to be done more to protect the establishment from the appearance of erectus too early, since this femur is dated by evolutionists as being about 2 million years old. Obviously, in the generally accepted fictitious scenario, the further back on the timeline the erectus recedes, the less time remains for habilis in order to turn into it.

Above are examples of fossil skulls. The Sangir and Ngandong specimens are classified as Homo erectus; hominids from Vilandrak Leiths (WLH-5Q) and Khao Swamp are modern humans; the status of the Narmada skull is unclear as its "evolutionary" age is uncertain (usually given as between 0.15 and 0.6 Ma), but it may be classified as Homo heidelbergensis or as archaic Homo sapiens. Studies have shown a greater similarity between the modern human skull WLH-50 and Erectus from Ngandong than with modern humans who lived in the late Pleistocene in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. This calls into question the assessment Homo sapiens And Homo erectus, as representatives of different species.

The most significant (in its completeness - in translation) postcranial remains attributed to Habilis, belong to the partially preserved skeleton of individual OH 62 from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, which was "estimated to be of the smallest size of all known hominids, or even smaller than all others." Analysis of the proportions of the limb bones showed that the value of the index of shoulder-to-hip ratios is even closer to monkeys than that of the Lucy skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis), but this result depends on the extent to which the limb length estimates were correct. Most of the distal femur of OH 62 is missing, so its length can only be determined by comparison with other femurs. As Heusler and McHenry recently showed, using a different femur (OH 34) than the traditional Lucy femur (AL 288-1) that is often used in assessments, the shoulder-femoral index of specimen OH 62 is consistent with that of modern humans. Therefore, if the proportion between upper and lower limbs in OH 62 depends on which femur is used as a model, this indicator does very little to determine its taxonomic status. However, the measured brachial proportion, due to the presence of a relatively long forearm, was greater than that of modern humans and more consistent with australopithecines and chimpanzees. As Levin noted, there is a similarity in the structure of the palate of the skull of OH 62 and Stw 53, which had a decisive influence on the fact that OH 62 was ranked among habilis. Since Stw 53 appears to be an ape (see above), this seems to be the most suitable status for OH 62 as well.

Homo erectus(including Homo ergaster).

Homo habilis appears to us to be a variety of fossil specimens that can be either classified as extinct australopithecine apes or humans, some of which had features Homo erectus. Fossil remains assessed as belonging to Homo erectus, according to the belief of evolutionists, this is the next stage of evolution towards modern man; in this scenario habilis act as probable ancestors erectus. Following the laws of logic, it must be recognized that if the fossil remains attributed to erectus are not the remains of ape-men, but of real people, then the attempt to prove human evolution essentially fails, since there is an insurmountable morphological gap between australopithecus apes and erectus-men and no no missing intermediate links between them.

Fossils erectus have been found in many countries around the world, and are dated by evolutionists to ages ranging from 1.8 million to perhaps less than 100,000 years. Fossils Homo erectus from Java in Indonesia have been dated to 27,000 years ago, which would appear to be almost modern in the evolutionary scenario. Multiregional evolutionist Vulpov calls erecti early Homo sapiens, since “to this day there is not a single definition that would allow us to distinguish between Homo sapiens (traditionally defined as a descendant Homo erectus) from Homo erectus in all places where fossil remains are found" and "there is no distinct beginning for Homo sapiens, as long as the existence is recognized Homo erectus" Other authors take an approach in which the presence of several species is stated; in its simplest form, this approach “highlights early African Homo erectus(mostly remains from Koobi Fora and West Turkana) in the species Homo ergaster, but leaves other Africans Homo erectus s (for example, OH 9) and Asian fossil finds within Homo erectus in the proper sense. In our publication, erectus will be considered in a broad sense, including fossil finds that correspond, according to narrow definitions, as Homo erectus, so Homo ergaster.

An exhibit at the San Diego Museum of Man shows a replica of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, accompanied by a pair of ape-men.

Averaging about 973 cm 3 , the size of the erectus brain is smaller than that of modern humans - the average is about 1,350 cm 3 for people living today. The range of erectus cranial capacity (727-1251 cm 3) recorded by Reitmeier is at the lowest end of Molnar's broadest definition of the modern human range (700-2200 cm 3). However, Molnar did not provide any source for the lower limit (700 cm 3 ), and thus it is possible that the smallest recorded brain size for a normal adult was that of a Melanesian with a cranial capacity of 790 cm 3 .

Skulls attributed to erectus Reitmeyer, included sets of remains from Ngandong, sets from Djoukoudian, OH 9, OH 12, sets from Buri, Trinil and Sangir, Dmanisi 2280, KNM-ER 3883, KNM-ER 3733, remains from Buia, Gongwangling, Sale, Hexian, Seprano and KNM-WT 15000.43, Skull volume table erectus Reitmeier did not include the 'older adolescent or young adult' skull from Dmanisi D2282 (~650 cm 3) and the recently found skull from Dmanisi - D2700 (~600 cm 3), whose age is stated to be between childhood, like KNM-WT 15000 and age D2282. The capacity of the skull of these two, although not fully adult, specimens from Dmanisi, classified as erectus is expected to increase significantly with age. Another skull from Dmansi (D2280) has a measured cranial capacity of 775 3 . However, there is also a lower jaw (D2600), unearthed in 2000, which was described as 'huge' and 'too large to easily fit any of the previously discovered skulls'. These large variations in size have led to proposals that more than one species was represented by the Dmanisi fossils (dated by evolutionists to 1.75 Ma), but since the fossils were found at the same stratigraphic level, it is more likely that all of them are members of the same population. Stone tools found during excavations at Dmanisi indicate human presence, and the Dmanisi specimens most likely represent the makers of these tools. The large variation in skull size that appears to occur within the human population from Dmanisi, (assuming that the huge lower jaw, D2600 belonged to a much larger skull than the others), is consistent with the enormous variations in skull size that exist and among modern people. A similar, or perhaps greater, degree of size variability than in the Dmanisi fossils is likely present in the human fossils from Clazies River Mouth in South Africa (dated to approximately 0.12 to 0.09 Ma), assessed by evolutionists as 'nearly modern', at as indicated by variations in the size of the mandibles, with one mandible (KRM 16424) described by Klein as 'the smallest adult human jaw ever recorded'.

Brain size and intelligence.

Is the difference in size, as such, between the average modern human brain and the average erectus brain, supporting the evolutionary notion that the brain increased in size during the proposed period of hominid evolution? The answer is no! According to evolutionist Holloway:

‘The range of changes in the capacity of the skull of modern Homo sapiens is approximately 1,000 cubic meters. see, in the absence of a correlation between this capacity and behavior, which is easy to prove. This number almost corresponds to the size of the increase in cranial volume from the level of australopithecus to the level of modern humans.’

Physical anthropologist John Relethford admits that, 'Although its brain size was somewhat smaller than ours today, Homo erectus had largely human skeletal features from the neck down, made complex stone tools, and possibly used fire.’ The ability to make complex stone tools indicates that the smaller brain size did not prevent the erectus from possessing human intelligence. It should be recalled that Anatole France, who had a brain size of approximately 1,000 cm 3, which is only slightly larger than the average for erecti, received the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1921. Therefore, why would evolution (if there was one) try at great expense to develop ever larger brains if the increase provided no obvious additional benefit over smaller brains? All evolution is supposed to be driven by the adaptive value of new acquisitions (having the ability to produce even momentary benefit), which are believed to be due to random, strangely improbable genetic mutations. Therefore, if a larger brain has no obvious adaptive significance, then it is clear that it could not have arisen through evolution even if evolution had occurred. It has not yet been demonstrated how even 'beneficial' genetic changes can increase the functional information content of the genome, since these DNA changes generally only involve sorting and loss of information. Therefore, the mechanism of 'bottom-up' evolutionary development is a mysterious "black box". The brain is almost infinitely complex, and to believe that some little-known natural force has driven it to continually increase in size over the period of supposed human evolution, without any supposed adaptive significance of this increase, is to believe in zero probability. Something else must have been at work to account for the incredible variability in brain size among humans; that factor was the intelligent design of the Creator. The following quotation from Holloway's work illustrates what poses a dilemma for this evolutionist:

‘On the other hand, there are certain difficulties in assuming that natural selection favors the preservation of larger brains if no connection has been established between the neural structures of the cortex and increased behavioral adaptation. That is, the very units that measure the gradual increase in cranial volume during the Pleistocene, cubic centimeters, cannot be clearly related to real differences in behavior. The current state of affairs, in which variations of nearly 1,000 cc, unaccompanied by differences in behavior, can be analyzed, cautions that some additional factor(s) must be used when attempting to explain the increase in cranial capacity over the course of hominid evolution. '

Louis Leakey found a skull Homo erectus OH 9 in 1960 in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It dates back to 1.2 million years ago and has a cranial capacity of 1067 cm 3 . He has huge brow ridges. CT scans of the bony labyrinth of the inner ear of this specimen indicate modern human morphology, reflecting a human mode of locomotion. The photo was taken at the Museum of Man in San Diego.

This has not stopped the flow of evolutionary "true stories" about how we may have evolved large human brains, culminating in the ultimate absurdity that our "huge human brains were created by memes." However, some may question whether the smallest specimens had erectus a brain capable of human intelligence. If a recently discovered fossil classified as Homo floresiensis (see below) is taken as a basis - then the answer must be affirmative, since in the words of evolutionist Kate Wang: 'Who would have guessed that a creature with a skull the size of a grapefruit might have had cognitive abilities comparable to those of anatomically modern people?' According to erectus specialist Philip Rightmire of the University of Birmingham: 'If Homo floresiensis was capable of creating complex instrumental tools, then we must say that the size of the brain is not decisive.’ It must be remembered that, as Holloway stated: ‘One cc. The chimpanzee's cerebral cortex is not equivalent to one cc. human cortex, and it seems incredible that any equivalent measure can be found.’ It therefore appears that neural organization is much more important than brain size itself. Additionally, as discussed above, there is no demonstrable correlation between cranial volume and behavior, including measures of intelligence, as indicated by Clark's following statement:

‘As far as it has been possible to apply appropriate tests, there is no clear correlation within these limits between brain size and intelligence. For the paleoanthropologist this lack of correlation is particularly disorienting because it means that he has no reliable method for estimating the mental capacity of extinct hominid types based solely on cranial volume.’

Locomotion and the postcranial skeleton.

Computed tomograms of the bony labyrinth of the inner ear, in several studied specimens erectus(OH 9, Sangiran 2 and 4), showed modern human morphology, reflecting their human locomotion. As already mentioned, evolutionists recognize that the postcranial skeleton erectus was mostly human. First significant postcranial part of the skeleton erectus was discovered in 1973 (KNM-ER 1808), dated to 1.7 Ma, but due to the bone disease, hypervitaminosis A, it was useless for clearly representing normal morphology erectus. The female skeleton, KNM-ER 1808, was estimated to be 173 cm tall, and at the time the postcranial skeleton erectus was more abundant in specimen KNM-ER 1808 than in all previous erectus postcranial remains combined.

Most information about postcranial anatomy erectus we obtained from the later discovery near western Lake Turkana in Kenya, in 1984, the almost complete skeleton of a 1.68 m tall Nariokatom boy (KNM-WT 15000), dated to 1.6 Ma. This skeleton is also known as the Turkana Boy, and is classified by the 'dividers' as Homo ergaster. The morphology of the skull of the Nariokatom boy was erectus type, but Vulpov describes this individual's postcranial skeleton as 'mostly modern'. KNM-WT 15000 limb proportions, especially the shoulder-to-hip ratio index and the shoulder index, were similar to those observed in modern humans. According to Levin, information obtained from the Nariokotom boy's skeleton indicates that the postcranial skeleton of this erectus 'is similar to that of modern humans, but more massive and muscularized', which 'implies a history of constant heavy physical exertion'. The boy, estimated to be 11 years old, had a skull volume of approximately 880 cm 3 at the time of his death, and an estimated brain size as an adult of 909 cm 3 . As pointed out by Mehlert, there is no way to establish with certainty his height as an adult, however 185 cm is one estimate given for KNM-WT 15000.65

Finding such a high representative erectus with a modern postcranial skeleton appearing at such an early stage in the putative evolutionary history erectus- a problem for evolutionists. If evolution did occur, then one would expect a more intermediate character of the postcranial skeleton, which would indicate something more of an intermediate stage between members of the genus Australopithecus and modern humans, and would not correspond to the modern human stage. Consequently, there is a huge morphological gap between erectus and representatives of the genus Australopithecus; taxon Habilis, as discussed earlier, may be considered invalid. In an almost desperate attempt to dehumanize the Nariokatom boy, it seems to us that some evolutionists have emphasized that the man's spinal canal was smaller than that of modern humans. Also, they argue that his nervous system was not sufficiently developed to perform all the subtle breathing maneuvers required for fully human speech, and conclude that at the time this boy lived: 'Language, as we understand, probably has not yet fully developed.' However, the discovery that the axial skeleton of KNM-WT 15000 had significant abnormalities of a pathological nature leads to the idea that there was some form of abnormal development of the axial skeleton of the Nariokotom boy; and this invalidates any such argument, and may explain the narrowness of the spinal canal. This verdict, however, is still not accepted by some evolutionists.

Features of the skull

The Broken Hill skull from Kabwe, Zambia is considered by most evolutionists to be from Homo heidelbergensis. Photo taken from the Museum of Man in San Diego.

Skulls classified as erectus leg, evolutionists believe, exhibit some key features that distinguish them from the skulls of modern humans. Key features include: prominent brow ridges; slightly pronounced chin; large lower jaw; jaws protruding forward; flat, receding forehead; long and low-vaulted skull; occipital torus; relatively large teeth; relatively large facial bones; and a thick-walled skull. The main problem for evolutionists is that many (if not all) of the above-mentioned features that possibly differentiate erectus from modern humans are also found among modern humans. This can be illustrated by the example of almost contemporary Australian Aborigines - the prominent brow ridges of skull 3596 from Euston, and the greater proximity of the modern human skull from Australia, WLH-50, with erectus from Ngandong than with modern humans from Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean who lived in the late Pleistocene. According to Shreve:

'While some of the early modern humans from Australia look quite like humans today, others bear all the hallmarks of the cruder human type, with thick skull bones, swollen brow ridges and huge teeth, even larger in some specimens. than the representatives Homo erectus’.

Examples of other typical features erectus leg-type among modern people, such as the smooth receding forehead and slightly developed chin, can be seen in a photograph of living Australian Aborigines published in late Victorian times, when there was terrible racism in anthropology. Australian Aborigines are as 'human' and 'modern' as any other people, and thus the above features erectus leg-type cannot be considered ‘primitive’.

Stringer and Gumble, defenders of the "African" theory of human origins, explained the presence of features erectus leg- such as the Australian Aborigines as possibly having 'obvious evolutionary reversions', which prompted a heated response from another group who said 'such claims and their implications are unfortunate'. This debate aside, this statement clearly illustrates the chameleon nature of the theory of evolution, which is flexible enough to adapt to almost any scenario. It is clear that there is no valid basis for denying that the erectus remains are fully human, due to features of the skull that some evolutionists regard as 'primitive' features. Creationists are not the only ones who oppose narrow definitions of our species. In connection with the "African" theory of the origin of modern man, evolutionists of the multiregional school have expressed the following concerns about the too narrow definition species Homo sapiens:

‘We believe that the unfortunate aspect of the debate is the definitions Homo sapiens, used by some theorists. They appear to exclude many of the Pleistocene and more recent Australian Aborigines from our species (Wolpoff, 1986; P. Brown, 1990). Further examination of these indies view minds and collections of skeletal remains of recently living Aboriginal people, forces us to assess that these definitions of modern Homo sapiens exclude from the human population between 40,000 and 60,000 living Aboriginal Australians. We feel there is great danger in this. It is the duty of specialists to show that they include all living people in any definition of our kind. If we really define humans so minimally as to include all living humans, then many of the fossil forms that these theorists claim to have left no descendants, including Neanderthals, would be counted among those who bear the name Homo sapiens’.

The Neanderthal Gibraltar I skull was found in the Forbes Quarry in Gibraltar before 1848, and is dated to be between 45,000 and 70,000 years old. It is said to be the first skull of an adult Neanderthal discovered, but was not recognized as such until the discovery of classic Neanderthal remains at Fetdhofer Cave in Germany in 1856.

For the sake of analysis, we've looked at erectus as a separate group, but are they really different from other fossil humans? For example, fossil specimens attributed to erectus, are classified in this way only because of their particular cranial morphology, or there is a tendency to classify specimens with smaller cranial volumes as erectus, and large specimens are attributed to other taxa, for example, Homo heidelbergensis or Neanderthals? As our discussion moves toward the next group of fossil humans, this comment from evolutionist Harry Shapiro is revealing:

‘If one examines the classic Neanderthal skull (of which there are now a large number), one cannot escape the conviction that its basic anatomical structure is an enlarged and more developed version of the skull of Homo erectus. Like Homo erectus, it has a protrusion on the back of the head, shaped like a bun, massive brow ridges, a relatively smoothed crown, which, when viewed from behind, is seen as a gable roof, which is steeper. Its widest part is low, just above the ears, and there is typically no prominent chin.

Homo heidelbergensis(archaic Homo sapiens).

Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg man)- a category invented to fill the supposed taxonomic vacuum between Neanderthals and erectus. Previously, these fossil creatures were designated as archaic Homo sapiens. The evolutionist Shreve referred to this taxon as 'the big trash can into which you throw everyone who is not obviously erectus, nor obviously modern Homo sapiens’. Heidelberg type skulls are described as being 'more roughly constructed' than modern human skulls and 'sharing some, but not all, of the skull's features H. erectus, but they lack the characteristic features of Neanderthal skulls. The legality of using individual classification varieties for erectus and H omo heidelbergensis looks doubtful, given that, for example, erectus skulls from Ngandong were also classified as archaic Homo sapiens(that is Homo heidelbergensis), and some evolutionists even defend the inclusion of the Ngandong fossils within Homo sapiens. With skulls like these showing similar ability to move up and down the ranks of the genus Homo, it's hard for evolutionists to complain about creationists considering the above species together. Range of skull volumes Homo heidelbergensis- between 1,100 and 1,390 cm 3 (average - approximately 1,206 cm 3), they are dated to ages between 200,000 and 700,000 years. List of instances classified as Homo heidelbergensis, includes Dali, Broken Hill, Bodo, Arago, Djiniuschan, Ndutu, Petralona, ​​Stenheim and Sima de Los Juezos 4 and 5. The above arguments for attributing human status to erecti apply equally to Homo heidelbergensis, especially since evolutionists regard them as 'more modern' than erectus.

Homo antecessor

The tendency to split the genus Homo into an ever-increasing number of species is demonstrated particularly by the way in which fragmentary remains from Gran Dolina in Spain, which include a partially preserved juvenile face (ATD6-69) that had a 'fully modern facial topography', are named after a new species. Homo antecessor. Of course, it would have been possible to find room in the Heidelberg 'garbage bin' to accommodate the remains from Gran Dolina... Given the evolutionary age of these remains (approximately 0.78 million years), which appear to be older than any member of the European Heidelberg team, one can assume that the temptation to give these “oldest known Europeans” a new name was too great at that time, especially since the antecessor was then “claiming a key place on the human family tree.”

Homo neanderthalensis(Neanderthals).

The habitat of Neanderthals is believed by evolutionists to have been limited to Europe, western Asia and the Middle East. They lived between approximately 30,000 and 150,000 years ago, and are regarded by most evolutionists as 'a side branch of the human evolutionary tree that subsequently disappeared'. The relatively long history of the discovery and emergence of new information about Neanderthals has been recounted many times, although mainly from an evolutionary point of view, it will not be repeated here. Neanderthals had a whole real cultural inventory, and buried their dead. To anyone not blinded by evolutionary bias, this in itself should be ample evidence that the Neanderthals were human in the full sense of the word. Classic Neanderthal specimens include Neanderthal, La Chapelle au Saint, La Ferrassie 1, Spy 1, Le Moustier, Saccopastore II, Shanidar 1 and 5, Tabun and La Quina, while 'progressive' specimens include Spy II, Saccopastore I, Monte Sirseo, otsanki from Krapina, Shanidar 2 and some of the specimens of Skhul and Qafzeh. Neanderthals, referred to as 'classical', are believed by some evolutionists to be more 'primitive'.

The average Neanderthal brain size, approximately 1,485 cm 3 (range: 1,245–1,740 cm 3 ), is at least on par with modern humans, if not slightly larger. In addition to the large capacity of the skull, Lyubenov lists the following distinctive features of Neanderthal morphology:

‘(2) the shape of the skull, low, broad, and elongated; (3) the back of the skull is somewhat pointed, with a “bun”; (4) large, heavy brow ridges; (5) low forehead; (6) wide, long faces with the center of the face protruding forward; (7) weakly defined, rounded chin; and (8) the postcranial skeleton is rough with very thick bones.’

Other features of an adult Neanderthal include a retromolar space, a wide nasal opening and large teeth. While evolutionists regard Neanderthals as a separate species, creationists believe that the erectus is only a smaller version of the Neanderthal, and the only unique aspect of both is their skull shape. There are also non-evolutionary explanations for some of the features (anatomy) of Neanderthals, for example they could have been caused by biomechanical forces that influenced the morphology of the skull. In addition to the above, in his book, Buried Alive, Jack Cuozzo demonstrates disturbing cases of fake reconstructions of Neanderthal specimens. In one example, he illustrates how the specimen from Le Moustier was assembled to make the jaw appear more simian than it actually was, and in another, Cuozzo presents evidence that the chin of specimen La Quina 5 was truncated to betray he has a more “monkey” appearance.

As mentioned above, many of the features that are supposed to distinguish erectus and Neanderthals from modern humans, are also found in some modern humans. For this reason, proponents of the multiregional view of human evolution, in contrast to proponents of the “African” approach, believe that Homo erectus, the archaic Homo sapiens (Homo heidelbergensis) and Neanderthals "must be reclassified and combined into one species, Homo sapiens, which is divided only into separate races" because they are not sufficiently different from Homo sapiens Consider the following statement by proponents of the multiregional school:

‘Neanderthals have much larger brow ridges than living Europeans, and they always extend continuously across the forehead. A significant number of recent and living Australian Aborigines have large, continuous brow ridges. Does this make them more primitive than Europeans? Does this make Neanderthals more modern?’

If you believe that certain features of the skull indicate a 'more primitive' status, then the above questions constitute a real problem. According to Stringer and Gambler:

‘Neanderthals were neither ape-men nor missing links – they were as much human as we are, but they represented a special type of human, with a specific mixture of primitive and advanced features.’

This seems to be a confusing statement at best, since it is not clear how one can say that Neanderthals were 'just as human as we are' and then immediately follow that statement with 'they represented a special type of human'? Either they were human or they weren't. As Lyubenov accurately said, ‘the problem of the Neanderthals is primarily the problem of evolutionists. Simply put, evolutionists do not know where Neanderthals came from or where they went.’ According to creationists, Neanderthals were fully human. There is no reason to regard some features of the skull as more primitive than others, because we are all equally human, despite the diversity of features that exists within the human race. kind, and because there never were any ape-people.

Homo floresiensis

Media headlines in late October 2004 such as 'Lost Race of Human 'Hobbits' Unearthed on Indonesian Island' must have surprised everyone who follows the emergence of hominids on our planet. This time, the incredible media "go-la" that accompanied the announcement of yet another supposed new form hominid, Homo floresiensis, were not an exaggeration, although attributing the name of a new species to these hobbits seems to have been a little premature, since, despite their small size, the fossil creatures may well turn out to be descendants of Adam. Hobbits must have had significant seafaring skills to reach the island of Flores and sophisticated cognitive abilities, as evidenced by the technology of stone artifacts associated with Homo floresiensis Liang Bua'. If the tools belonged Homo floresiensis, which seems very likely, then these people obviously possessed human intelligence.

The discovery of hobbit-sized fossils of individuals who appear to have had human intelligence (with one specimen (LB1), evolutionarily dated at approximately 18,000 years old, being 1 meter tall and with a cranial capacity of approximately 380 cm 3 ) calls into question the concept conventional brain rubicon (at least the rubicon indicating 600-800 cm 3 for brain size) that must be overcome in order to have human mental abilities. People with microcephalic brains (400–600 cm 3), like dwarfs (517 cm 3), also have measured brain sizes below this arbitrary rubicon. The average brain size of a chimpanzee is 383 cm 3 , an orangutan is 404 cm 3 , and a gorilla is 504 cm 3 . Therefore, 380 cm 3 brain sizes Homo floresiensis Indonesian island of Flores are a very small indicator if this creature is human. However, when considering brain size, one must also take body size into account. This is done by calculating a metric known as the Encephalization Quotient (EQ). If we assume that the body of the instance Homo floresiensis LB1 was skinny and narrow, the resulting supposed EQ easily places LB1 within the range typical for erectus.

Compared to the others, LB1 is described as follows: ‘As regards the general shape of the skull and its teeth, this creature most closely resembles Homo erectus.’ Despite its small stature and cranial capacity, LB1 had little in common with members of the Australopithecus genus. According to the authors of the article about Homo floresiensis:

‘... It does not have large teeth located posterior to the canines, a deep and prognathic facial skeleton, and those chewing devices that are typical for representatives of this genus. On the contrary, facial and dental proportions, postcranial skeletal anatomy compatible with human-type bipedal posture, and a masticatory apparatus generally similar in relative size and function to that of modern humans all support placement in the genus Homo—which follows from phylogenetic history, which suggests local transformation Homo erectus into a dwarf form.’

Peter Brown, paleoanthropologist and lead author of the paper on Homo floresiensis In the magazine Nature, regarding the small hobbit skull, commented: "The internal structure of the brain - the neural pathways - must have been more human-like than ape-like in order for it to be able to make these types of tools." And an even more likely scenario is that the internal structure of the brain Homo floresiensis was human, as was the brain architecture of many other fossil specimens with small skulls, in particular those classified as erectus.

The team of scientists who discovered this find claims that Homo floresiensis may be descendants of Erectus from the neighboring island of Java, where they believe Erectus lived for as long as 1.6 million years. They explain that the first hominid immigrants to Flores 'may have had a similar body size to H. erectus and early Homo, with subsequent transformation into dwarfs; or, an unknown hominin with a small body and a small brain may have arrived on Flores from the Sunda Shelf'. Alternative representation - Homo floresiensis is a 'miniature man, showing part of the range of human variations that took place after the Babel, and which includes the larger Homo erectus’. However, pathologist Maciesz Enneberg of the University of Adelaide has argued that Homo LB1 suffered from a growth disorder called secondary microcephaly, and 'the skull of the Flores hominid is very similar to a modern microcephalic human skull found on the island of Crete. which is 4,000 years old'. Additionally, Indonesian paleoanthropologist Teuku Jacob is reported to have said that the skeletal remains of LB1, belonging to 'modern man, Homo sapiens, who lived approximately 1,300 to 1,800 years ago', were a member of the 'Australo-Melanesian race, which was distributed throughout almost all Indonesian islands',124 and that the people of Flores suffered 'from microcephaly, which shrank their brain volume to that of a chimpanzee'. However, the more remains of these tiny humans are found, the more the argument against LB1 being a diseased individual becomes stronger, and there is another report of another mandible identical in shape and size to LBl's.

The Hobbit controversy could very well result in two competing camps warring over the issue.

So, about 3-4 million years ago, apparently, it separated from the lateral progressive branch of Australopithecus or Ardipithecus genusHomo - man . In anthropological history, three stages of development of modern man are conventionally distinguished: ancient people, ancient and modern. In biological nomenclature they correspond to several species and subspecies people, existing practically on the same territory and replacing each other as a result of intense competition.

The most ancient people (archanthropes) known from several finds in different places around the world, the main ones in East Africa. They existed for a very long time at the same time as the australopithecines. There are two types of archanthropes, which replaced each other.

Homo habilis - a skilled person . Lived approximately 2.5-1.7 million years ago, neighboring Australopithecus. Height up to 150 cm, brain up to 800 cm 3 (1.5 times larger than its predecessors!), human-type teeth, the first toe is parallel to the rest (a sign of walking on the ground). He made primitive tools from pebbles and led a herd lifestyle. It was distributed throughout Africa, the Mediterranean, and Asia. As the creator of the first, albeit primitive (pebble), culture, skilled man overcame the line separating apes from ancient people.

Homo erectus - Homo erectus . Appearing about 1.7 million years ago, it coexisted briefly with Homo habilis, but soon supplanted and replaced him completely. And, by the way, at the same time the late australopithecines still existed. The latest finds of Homo erectus date back to 250 thousand years ago. This species spread widely in isolated groups not only in Africa, but also in Eurasia, despite the fact that the northern regions were already covered with glaciers. Several fossil forms (subspecies) of Homo erectus have been found, which in structure still belong to the same species. The most famous of them Pithecanthropus(literally - ape-man), found on the island of Java (Indonesia), and Sinanthropus(Chinese man), whose settlements were studied in caves near the city of Beijing. Homo erectus had a height of 160 cm or more, but the body shape was not yet modern. The brain is 800-1300 cm 3, the left hemisphere predominates, which means right-handedness is developed. He improved stone tools, hunted, used fire from forest fires and knew how to maintain it for a long time (this allowed him to survive during the Ice Age). Thinking and primitive speech are developed, that is, conceptual communication as a consequence of work activity. Although the social factor is already at work, biological evolution continues. Natural selection goes towards physical qualities, upright posture, and brain development.

Ancient people (paleoanthropes) represented a new biological species Homo sapiens - Homo sapiens . Within the species there are several subspecies or varieties that have replaced each other over the past 600 thousand years. Remains have been found in Africa, Europe and Asia archaic Homo sapiens- the most ancient subspecies. The volume of his brain had already reached 1400 cm 3, like that of many modern people, although the shape of the skull still retained ape-like features. One of the European archaic samples is heidelberg man, whose remains were found in 1907 during excavations in Germany. We emphasize that archaic Homo sapiens lived simultaneously with the later Homo erectus and were probably their rivals in the struggle for existence. One of the later subspecies - Steinheim man, Homo sapiens steinheimensis- lived during a period of relative warming from 350 to 200 thousand years ago in Western Europe. He made stone tools (chops, knives, etc.) with fairly regular outlines. Well researched Neanderthal man, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. His first remains were discovered near the Neanderthal River in Germany in 1856. Neanderthals lived in the period 150-30 thousand years ago. About 100 thousand years ago, they encountered another glacial era (the Würm, or Valdai, glaciation) and demonstrated the high adaptive qualities of the new subspecies. Neanderthals were settled throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia. Height is 155-165 cm, the brain is about 1400-1600 cm 3, there is a chin protuberance - a witness to verbal communication. They used advanced stone tools and tanned animal skins. They not only maintained the fire, but also knew how to make it, which increased the chances of survival in conditions of glacial cooling. Caves were used as housing. There is a deepening of social relations: caring for others, sharing experience, joint work and hunting. Selection continues to improve physical characteristics, the shape of the skeleton, especially the skull.

One of the archaic Homo sapiens, so-called " Rhodesian man", which lived in Africa, was noticeably different from other subspecies. In appearance, he has the greatest resemblance to modern man. Apparently, this variety of archaic people is the direct ancestor of our subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens.

So, modern, or new, people (neoanthropes) - subspeciesHomo sapiens sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens . This is you and me. They became isolated as an independent subspecies about 100-150 thousand years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia, from where they settled throughout the Earth. Europe was settled between 40 and 35 thousand years ago. Fossils H. s. sapiens known as Cro-Magnons- based on the first discovery in the Cro-Magnon grotto in France.

Cro-Magnon had all the physical properties of a modern person: height 170-180 cm, the cerebral part of the skull is larger than the facial part, the supraorbital ridge is divided into two parts (brow ridges), a developed chin protrusion, developed frontal lobes of the brain (speech and thinking). Cro-Magnon creates and improves silicon hunting and labor tools, and also uses bone and horn. Characterized by complex work activities. Clothes made from skins are used. Creates drawings on rocks, in caves, jewelry and religious objects in the form of figurines - modern culture is born. The biological evolution of the species is increasingly complemented and even replaced by the evolution of social.

Let us emphasize once again that the biological and social formation of Homo sapiens occurs against the backdrop of the events of the last ice age, which began in the northern hemisphere about 100 thousand years ago, reached its peak at 17 thousand years ago and ended quite recently - 10 thousand years ago. Under these conditions, biological variability within the subspecies H. s. sapiens continues in the form human races . Race is a systematic category within a single polymorphic species or subspecies. Today it has been proven that all human races have a common origin. All identified types of marker DNA of modern people come from one ancestral molecule, i.e. from one “foremother” of humanity (see: Tetushkin, 2000). Thus, human races are the result of the settlement and geographic isolation of different populations of one species of neoanthropes. The last settlement of the later H. s. sapiens, took place about 10 thousand years ago, at the end of the last ice age. At the same time, morphological and functional adaptations to different climatic conditions occurred.

During migration in three general directions, modern people formed three main races: 1) Caucasian (Eurasian) race- population of Europe, South Asia, North Africa; 2) Negroid (Australian-Negroid; equatorial) race- population of Central and Southern Africa and Australia; 3) Mongoloid (Asian-American) race- indigenous people of Central and East Asia, Siberia, North and South America.

None of the human races have achieved species differentiation, since from the very beginning there was a constant mixing of races at the edges of the areas of migrating populations (there was no factor of stable isolation). During the era of great geographical discoveries and European colonization of African, American and other territories, mixing of races began, many intermediate (small) races and subraces arose - there are more than 20 of them in total. All races interbreed freely and have the same intellectual potential. It has been established that individual genetic differences between people are about 0.2%, and intraracial (obviously adaptive) differences in some genes can be even greater than between races. These data from molecular genetics once again indicate the unity of origin of all living people and the secondary nature and adaptability of racial differences. The differences in the levels of culture and social relations of peoples of different races, which actually take place in the modern world, are determined by the social conditions of the development of primitive society, which developed differently during the course of geographic settlement.

General information

Homo sapiens (lat. Homo sapiens; transliterated variants Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens are also found) is a species of the genus People (Homo) from the family of hominids in the order of primates. Homo sapiens is believed to have emerged as a species in the Pleistocene about 200,000 years ago. At the end of the Upper Paleolithic, about 40 thousand years ago, it remains the only representative of the hominid family; its range already covers almost the entire Earth. In addition to a number of anatomical features, it differs from modern anthropoids in a significant degree of development of material and non-material culture (including the manufacture and use of tools), the ability for articulate speech and developed abstract thinking. Man as a biological species is the subject of research in physical anthropology.

Neoanthropes (ancient Greek νέος - new and ἄνθρωπος - man) is a generalized name for modern people, fossils and living people.

The main anthropological features of humans that distinguish them from paleoanthropes and archanthropes are a voluminous cerebral skull with a high arch, a vertically rising forehead, the absence of a supraorbital ridge, and a well-developed chin protrusion.

Fossil humans had somewhat more massive skeletons than modern humans. Ancient people created a rich Late Paleolithic culture (a variety of tools made of stone, bone and horn, dwellings, sewn clothing, polychrome painting on cave walls, sculpture, engraving on bone and horn). The oldest currently known bone remains of neoanthropes are radiocarbon dated at 39 thousand years ago, but it is most likely that neoanthropes arose 70-60 thousand years ago.

Systematic position and classification

Together with a number of extinct species, Homo sapiens forms the genus Homo. Homo sapiens differs from the closest species - Neanderthals - in a number of structural features of the skeleton (high forehead, reduction of the brow ridges, the presence of a mastoid process of the temporal bone, the absence of an occipital protrusion - a “bone chignon”, a concave base of the skull, the presence of a mental protuberance on the mandibular bone, “kynodont” molars, flattened chest, as a rule, relatively longer limbs) and the proportions of the brain regions (“beak-shaped” frontal lobes in Neanderthals, widely rounded in Homo sapiens). Currently, work is underway to decipher the genome of Neanderthals, which allows us to deepen our understanding of the nature of the differences between these two species.

In the second half of the 20th century, a number of researchers proposed to consider Neanderthals a subspecies of H. sapiens - H. sapiens neanderthalensis. The basis for this was research into the physical appearance, lifestyle, intellectual abilities and culture of Neanderthals. Additionally, Neanderthals have often been viewed as the direct ancestors of modern humans. However, a comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of humans and Neanderthals suggests that the divergence of their evolutionary lines occurred about 500,000 years ago. This dating is inconsistent with the hypothesis of the origin of modern humans from Neanderthals, since the evolutionary line of modern humans became distinct later than 200,000 years ago. Currently, most paleanthropologists tend to consider Neanderthals a separate species within the genus Homo - H. neanderthalensis.

In 2005, remains were described that were approximately 195,000 years old (Pleistocene). The anatomical differences between the specimens prompted researchers to identify a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu (“Elder”).

The oldest Homo sapiens bone from which DNA has been isolated is approximately 45,000 years old. According to the study, the same number of Neanderthal genes were found in the DNA of the ancient Siberian as in modern people (2.5%)

Human Origins

Comparison of DNA sequences shows that the closest living species to humans are two species of chimpanzee (common and bonobo). The phylogenetic lineage with which the origin of modern humans (Homo sapiens) is associated separated from other hominids 6-7 million years ago (in the Miocene). Other representatives of this line (mainly Australopithecus and a number of species of the genus Homo) have not survived to this day.

The closest relatively reliably established ancestor of Homo sapiens was Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis, a direct descendant of Homo erectus and ancestor of the Neanderthals, appears not to have been the ancestor of modern humans, but rather a member of a lateral evolutionary line. Most modern theories link the origin of Homo sapiens to Africa, while Homo heidelbergensis originated in Europe.

The emergence of humans was associated with a number of significant anatomical and physiological modifications, including:

• 1.Structural transformations of the brain
• 2. Enlargement of the cerebral cavity and brain
• 3. Development of bipedal locomotion (bipedalism)
• 4.Development of the grasping hand
• 5.Descent of the hyoid bone
• 6.Reducing the size of fangs
• 7.The appearance of the menstrual cycle
• 8. Reduction of most of the hairline.

Comparison of mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms and dating of fossils suggests that Homo sapiens appeared ca. 200,000 years ago (this is the approximate time when "Mitochondrial Eve" - ​​the woman who was the last common maternal ancestor of all living humans - lived; the paternal common ancestor of all living humans - "Y-chromosomal Adam" - lived several Later).

In 2009, a group of scientists led by Sarah Tishkoff from the University of Pennsylvania published the results of a comprehensive study of the genetic diversity of African peoples in the journal Science. They found that the oldest lineage that had experienced the least amount of mixing, as previously expected, was the genetic cluster to which the Bushmen and other Khoisan-speaking peoples belonged. Most likely, they are the branch that is closest to the common ancestors of all modern humanity.

About 74,000 years ago, a small population (ca. 2,000 people) that survived the effects of a very powerful volcanic eruption (~20-30 years of winter), presumably the Toba volcano in Indonesia, became the ancestors of modern humans in Africa. It can be assumed that 60,000-40,000 years ago people migrated to Asia, and from there to Europe (40,000 years), Australia and America (35,000-15,000 years).

At the same time, the evolution of specific human abilities, such as developed consciousness, intellectual abilities and language, is problematic to study, since their changes cannot be directly traced from the remains of hominids and traces of their life activity. To study the evolution of these abilities, scientists integrate data from various sciences, including physical and cultural anthropology, zoopsychology, ethology, neurophysiology, genetics.

Questions about how exactly the mentioned abilities (speech, religion, art) evolved, and what their role was in the emergence of the complex social organization and culture of Homo sapiens, remain the subject of scientific debate to this day.

Appearance

The head is big. The upper limbs have five long flexible fingers, one of which is slightly spaced from the rest, and the lower limbs have five short fingers that help balance when walking. In addition to walking, humans are also capable of running, but, unlike most primates, the ability to brachiate is poorly developed.

Body size and weight

The average body weight of a man is 70-80 kg, a woman - 50-65 kg, although larger people are also found. The average height of men is about 175 cm, women - about 165 cm. The average height of a person has changed over time.

Over the past 150 years, there has been an acceleration of human physiological development - acceleration (increase in average height, duration of the reproductive period).

The size of a person's body can change due to various diseases. With increased production of growth hormone (pituitary tumors), gigantism develops. For example, the maximum reliably recorded human height is 272 cm/199 kg (Robert Wadlow). Conversely, low production of growth hormone in childhood can lead to dwarfism, such as the smallest living person - Gul Mohamed (57 cm with a weight of 17 kg) or Chandra Bahadur Danga (54.6 cm).

The lightest person was the Mexican Lucia Zarate, her weight at the age of 17 was only 2130 g with a height of 63 cm, and the heaviest was Manuel Uribe, whose weight reached 597 kg.

Hairline

The human body is usually sparsely covered with hair, with the exception of the areas of the head, and in mature individuals - the groin, armpits and, especially in men, the arms and legs. Hair growth on the neck, face (beard and mustache), chest and sometimes on the back is characteristic of men.

Like other hominids, the hair does not have undercoat, that is, it is not fur. As a person ages, his hair turns grey.

Skin pigmentation

Human skin can change pigmentation: when exposed to sunlight, it darkens and a tan appears. This feature is most noticeable in the Caucasian and Mongoloid races. In addition, vitamin D is synthesized in human skin under the influence of sunlight.

Sexual dimorphism

Sexual dimorphism is expressed by the rudimentary development of mammary glands in men compared to women and a wider pelvis in women, wider shoulders and greater physical strength in men. In addition, adult men tend to have more facial and body hair.

Human physiology

• Normal body temperature dies.
• The maximum temperature of solid objects with which people can come into contact for a long time is about 50 degrees Celsius (at a higher temperature, a burn occurs).
• The highest recorded indoor air temperature at which a person can spend two minutes without harm to the body is 160 degrees Celsius (experiments by British physicists Blagden and Chantry).
• Jacques Mayol. The sports record in free diving without restrictions was set by Herbert Nietzsch, diving to 214 meters.
• July 27, 1993 Javier Sotomayor
• August 30, 1991 Mike Powell
• August 16, 2009 Usain Bolt
• November 14, 1995 Patrick de Gaillardon

Life cycle

Lifespan

Human life expectancy depends on a number of factors and in developed countries averages 79 years.

The maximum officially recorded life expectancy is 122 years and 164 days, the age at which Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment died in 1997. The age of older centenarians is disputed.

Reproduction

Compared to other animals, human reproductive function and sex life have a number of features. Puberty occurs at 11-16 years of age.

Unlike most mammals, whose reproductive capacity is limited to periods of estrus, women have a menstrual cycle that lasts about 28 days, making them capable of pregnancy throughout the year. Pregnancy can occur at a certain period of the monthly cycle (ovulation), but there are no external signs of a woman’s readiness for it. Women, even during pregnancy, can be sexually active, which is not typical for mammals, but is common among primates. However, reproductive function is limited by age: women lose the ability to reproduce on average at 40-50 years of age (with the onset of menopause).

A normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks (9 months).

A woman, as a rule, gives birth to only one child at a time (two or more children - twins - occur approximately once in 80 births). A newborn baby weighs 3-4 kg, his vision is unfocused, and he is not able to move independently. As a rule, both parents participate in caring for the offspring in the first years of the child: the cubs of no animal require as much attention and care as a human child requires.

Aging

Human aging, like the aging of other organisms, is a biological process of gradual degradation of parts and systems of the human body and the consequences of this process. While the physiology of the aging process is similar to that of other mammals, some aspects of the process, such as the loss of mental abilities, are of greater importance to humans. In addition, the psychological, social and economic aspects of aging are of great importance.

Lifestyle

Upright walking

Humans are not the only modern mammals to walk on two limbs. Kangaroos, which are primitive mammals, use only their hind legs to move. The anatomy of humans and kangaroos has systematically changed to maintain upright walking - the posterior muscles of the neck have been somewhat weakened, the spine has been rebuilt, the hips have been enlarged, and the heel has been significantly shaped. Some primates and semi-primates are also capable of walking upright, but only for a short time, since their anatomy does not help this much. This is how some lemurs and sifakas jump on two limbs half-sideways. Bears, meerkats, and some rodents periodically use “upright standing” in social actions, but they practically do not walk in this position.

Nutrition

To maintain the normal course of physiological processes of life, a person needs to eat, that is, absorb food. Humans are omnivores - they eat fruits and roots, the meat of vertebrates and many marine animals, eggs of birds and reptiles, and dairy products. The variety of food of animal origin is limited mainly to a specific crop. A significant part of food is subjected to heat treatment. Drinks also have a wide variety.

Newborn babies, like the cubs of other mammals, feed on their mother's milk.

(Homo habilis) is one of the most controversial representatives of the human species. This is due to the fact that, even having multiple paleontological finds, they could not finally determine its place on the evolutionary tree. And yet, today its direct relationship with man remains undeniable.

Amazing find of the Likas

Louis and Mary Leakey were anthropologists to the core. Their friends often joked about who they loved more: science or each other. Indeed, the family of scientists spent all their time studying fossil remains and on multiple archaeological excavations, which they carried out in all corners of the planet.

And then, in November 1960, they stumbled upon what would become one of the most controversial discoveries of the 20th century. While on excavations in the Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), the couple unearthed a well-preserved skeleton of a saber-toothed tiger. It would seem, what could be interesting in such a find? But no, nearby lay something that made their hearts beat a hundred times faster.

A couple of steps from the tiger, they saw the remains of a hominid unknown to science. Among them was a fragment of a skull, a collarbone and part of a leg. After a thorough analysis of the bones, the Leakes came to the conclusion that in front of them was a child of 10-12 years old who died more than 2 million years ago, who, most likely, was the progenitor of the entire human race.

Homo habilis: characteristics of the species

Louis and Mary's discovery was the first, but not the last. Soon other archaeologists also began to dig up the remains of Homo habilis. It is noteworthy that almost all hominid bones were found in Southern and Eastern Africa. In this regard, scientists came to the conclusion that this species appeared precisely in these lands and only at the end of its existence migrated to other regions.

Given the age of the remains found, it becomes clear that the first Homo habilis appeared approximately 2.5 million years ago. Its further evolution took no less than 600 thousand years. But that's not what's important. What is more curious is that this species already knew how to stand firmly on two legs, as evidenced by the toes brought together.

In other respects, Homo habilis was more similar to primates than to humans. On average, his height did not exceed 130 cm, and his weight should have fluctuated between 30-50 kg. Long arms stood out against the background of the body, which in the recent past helped great apes climb trees. However, as the species developed, their upper limbs became smaller, and the lower ones, on the contrary, became more muscular.

Family ties

For almost half a century, there have been heated debates about what role is assigned to Homo habilis in the general spectacle of evolution. What is certain is that it appeared at the end of the existence of Australopithecus. Considering their many similarities, scientists came to the conclusion that Homo habilis became the next step in an extinct species. However, there are those who believe that these are two completely different hominids, having a common ancestor in the past.

No less controversial is the issue of the heritage of Homo habilis. According to the generally accepted version, his successor was Homo erectus - the first erect descendant of man. Proof of this theory is the similarity of the found remains, as well as the time frame in which both species existed.

What changed the world

Despite all the controversy, one fact has always remained the same. The day the first Homo habilis appeared, the world changed forever. The reason for this is a new skill that exalted these hominids over other creatures, namely the ability to think logically.

Such changes occurred due to the fact that the brain of Homo habilis significantly increased in size compared to its ancestors. On average it was about 500-700 cm³, which was quite impressive by those standards. In addition, its structure has also changed: the occipital part, responsible for instincts, has decreased, and the frontal, temporal and parietal parts, on the contrary, have increased in size.

But a much more impressive discovery was that the brain of Homo habilis, it turns out, had the rudiments of Broca's center. And, as science knows, it is this appendage that is responsible for processing speech. And, most likely, it was for the first time that combinations of sounds began to be used, which later grew into a full-fledged language.

Lifestyle Features

Unlike its ancestors, Homo habilis rarely climbed a tree. Now the former “home” served only as a source of food or a temporary shelter for rest. The reason for this was the deformation of the hind limbs, which adapted to long journeys on the ground, but because of this they lost their former grip. But skilled people increasingly began to use caves as a shelter, capable of protecting him from bad weather and wild animals.

However, a hominid tribe rarely stayed in one place, especially if it consisted of many families. And all because our ancestors did not yet know how to grow food, and natural resources were depleted too quickly. Therefore, they drove mainly by moving from one place to another.

Social structure

Scientists are confident that in the Homo Habilis tribe there was a hierarchy and distribution of responsibilities. In particular, men were engaged in hunting and fishing, and women collected berries and mushrooms. At the same time, the tribe divided all the obtained products equally among themselves, thereby taking care of the offspring and disabled individuals.

Scientists are also inclined to believe that all men were led by one leader. Such a statement is based more on logic than on facts. But most experts adhere to it, since a similar model of behavior is inherent in almost all higher primates.

Tools of Homo habilis

It is not for nothing that this species is called a skilled person. In truth, he was the first representative of the human race to learn how to use and make various tools. Naturally, their quality and variety are very poor, but the very fact of the existence of the craft is already a great achievement.

All tools were made of stone or bones sharpened on other objects. Most often, archaeologists came across scrapers and knives that were clearly used for cutting meat. The use of such objects led to the fact that over the next 500 thousand years of evolution, the hand of Homo habilis was completely transformed into a palm capable of firmly holding objects.

The content of the article

HUMAN EVOLUTION. The fundamental processes of genetic variation, adaptation and selection that underlie the vast diversity of organic life also determine the course of human evolution. Anthropology studies the processes of formation of man as a species, as well as intraspecific variations, anatomical and physiological (in many countries this science is called physical anthropology, distinguished from cultural anthropology, which includes linguistics, prehistoric archeology and ethnography).

In 1739, the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in his Nature's system (Systema Naturae) classified a person – Homo sapiens- like 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 (including lemurs and tarsiers) and great apes. The latter include monkeys (namely, Old World monkeys, i.e., apes, and New World monkeys), apes (gibbons and great apes - orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees) and humans. Primates share many common characteristics that distinguish them from other mammals.

Neither Linnaeus nor other taxonomists of that time created any evolutionary theory to explain both the morphological similarities that unite Homo sapiens with related primates, as well as characteristic differences that make it possible to distinguish it as a separate species. Despite this, the classification created by Linnaeus played a significant role in the emergence of the theory of evolution. Some evolutionary concepts were formulated even before publication in 1859 Origin of species (On the Origin of Species) Darwin. At the end of the 18th century. Diderot, Kant and Laplace wrote on these topics, and at the beginning of the 19th century. works in which the diversity of the organic world was explained by the evolutionary process were published by Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin.

Although these early concepts suggested that modern man may have evolved from more primitive ape-like species, the fossil remains of what we now recognize as the ancestors of modern man that had been discovered by that time were either of little interest or considered anomalies. . Only after publication Origin of species Gibraltar Man, discovered in 1848, and a Neanderthal skull excavated in 1856 have attracted attention as evidence of human evolution.

Let's start with such a mechanism of evolution as mutations. Many of them occur with a certain frequency in human populations. Most known mutations are either dangerous or fatal to the individual, and only very rarely are they beneficial. According to a number of geneticists, continued experiments with nuclear weapons will significantly increase the currently estimated mutation rate.

There is no doubt that mutations exist that are neither deadly nor clearly beneficial; their presence is practically invisible to the individual, but can be detected in populations. The currently observed obvious shifts in resistance to diseases, on the one hand, and a decrease in the prevalence of certain disorders of physiological functions, on the other, may be a consequence not only of medical advances, but also of the action of mutations and other evolutionary processes.

As for natural selection, until recently it was widely believed that with the development of culture the influence of this powerful force in biological evolution was completely eliminated. However, experimental and observational data required a revision of this point of view. For example, population studies have shown that the observed modern distribution of genes that determine blood groups has developed mainly under the influence of natural selection mechanisms.

Another mechanism of evolution, known as migration, explains the spread of genetic traits formed in a local population to a wider population. The study of fossil hominids shows that beneficial local changes spread very quickly to neighboring populations, and then to more distant ones. This was probably the result of interbreeding rather than the destruction and replacement of one population by another. This opinion is supported by the relative commonality of the situation, especially at the end of the Pleistocene, when an extremely wide variety of characters arose in a purely local population. The rate of migration increases as communications develop. At the same time, social and cultural hostility makes interbreeding difficult, but does not prevent or eliminate it, as can be seen even in the example of modern political entities.

The last major mechanism of evolutionary change—genetic drift—also appears to be occurring in modern human populations. However, since drift is an essentially statistical concept, data describing the changes it causes in human populations is still limited, although several important and apparently universal trends have been identified. Thus, the shape of the skull undergoes a gradual change from dolichocephaly to brachycephaly, but a complete explanation of the functional reasons for this process has not yet been obtained. In the same way, in apes there is a decrease in the number of teeth from thirty-two to twenty-eight due to the fact that four molars - the so-called. Wisdom teeth often do not erupt.

Darwin himself did not consider natural selection (survival of the fit) as the only type of selection, but noted two other types: artificial selection and sexual selection. The concept of artificial selection is of inestimable importance for understanding the early stages of human evolution, and that is why modern theory places so much emphasis on the fact of the early production of tools according to established standard patterns. To the extent that artificial selection involves changing behavioral patterns, it remains an important force, but can be considered under the rubric of cultural development rather than natural selection. Cultural factors may also underlie sexual selection in human populations. Sexual selection in human populations is a complex phenomenon involving not only individual selection factors, based on the concepts of beauty, strength, sexual potency and other personal qualities, but also social selection, based on the principle of social boundaries of ethnic entities, such as race, class, nationality and religion.

Literature:

Johanson D., Eady M. Lucy. Origins of the human race. M., 1984
Foley R. Another unique view. Ecological aspects of human evolution. M., 1990