In the science of evolution, an important place is occupied by questions of human development. Every year we learn more about how we have been formed for thousands of years. The development of exact sciences made it possible to learn aspects of the distant past, which until recently seemed simply unthinkable.
The evolution of a person develops very quickly, because new discoveries are highlighted in the press and attract the attention of many people. Only here the mass consciousness, as usual, for science simply does not have time.
In the end, and there are numerous myths that scientists have long proven, but did not have time to convey to ordinary people. Some “experts” even publish books in which they debunk the achievements of science in the field of human evolution. Here are the most popular myths that have been living for more than a decade.
In fact, anthropologists have very few fossil finds, they are also fragmented. So the followers of Darwin simply do not have enough material to build their theory.
Supporters of this myth claim that the real evidence of human evolution is so small that they can all be placed in one small box. For example, Serafim Rose wrote in this way from the position of Orthodoxy in 1974. However, even then this statement did not correspond to reality, the priest simply was mistaken. Even by 1974, scientists made a lot of discoveries, including well-preserved ones. So many Neanderthals were found that it would take a separate cemetery 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 man of skill – in the east and south of the same continent, the remains of a Heidelberg man found in Europe, Asia and the same Africa. This list can be continued. And in order to locate the fossil remains of our ancestors, found over the past 30 years, not enough is not enough that the box, but the whole museum. The number of fresh finds, evidencing the evolution of man, has exceeded a few hundred.
Almost all fossil evidence of human evolution is actually fake.
Indeed, the evolution of man knows the history of fakes. Or rather, only one. This is also the famous Piltdown skull, the true story of which became known as far back as 1953. True, many scientists initially doubted the truth of this find, it was painfully different from the others. Therefore, for half a century, no anthropologist in his theories has used a skull from the Piltdown as an argument. This is not necessary, because there are enough other materials found. The history of this fake is interesting mainly to those fighters with Darwinism, because this is almost their only weapon.
Reconstruction of the appearance of man’s ancestors is simply a fantasy of scientists.
This myth can be interpreted as follows: “I do not understand how the reconstruction is carried out, it means – it is incorrect.” In fact, scientists since the XIX century began to develop methods for reconstructing the appearance with the use of bone remains. In Russia, this direction was occupied by the famous anthropologist, scientist and sculptor Mikhail Gerasimov. He collected a large collection of statistical data, studying both primates and humans. The scientist revealed a regularity in the formation of soft tissues of the head, depending on the characteristics of the bones. Gerasimov proved that these laws act in the same way for both man and chimpanzee. Consequently, the approach also applies to fossil anthropoids. Therefore, the scientist was able to create the already classic reconstruction of the faces of our ancestors, starting with australopithecines and ending with the first homo sapiens. It should be noted that the method developed by Gerasimov has been repeatedly proved through experiments. The scientist restored the appearance of a man whose photograph was available, but the anthropologist himself was not shown. As a result, the reconstructions were very much like the original. The first method of the scientist was the Criminal Investigation.But this is a serious organization that will not work only with the fantasies of scientists. Already since 1939 Gerasimov’s methods are used in forensic medical examination. Reconstruction helped identify the missing people. So in 1939 in the Leningrad region in the distance from the human habitation was found the skeleton of a boy with traces of teeth of a predator on the bones. Gerasimov was able to recover a sculptural portrait on the skull, he was photographed in different angles in a cap and raincoat for persuasiveness. The father of the lost boy immediately identified his son, though, noticing that he did not have such clothes. So those who consider such a technique quackery, it is worth to turn to the Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and tell them that they are engaged in nonsense.
The age of the ancient bones was obtained using rather questionable methods on the basis of a number of assumptions.
Not everyone believes that you can accurately indicate the millionth age of some finds. Usually doubters talk about inaccurate radiocarbon analysis. But this approach is wrong initially. After all, such a technique can not in any way attest to millions of years, it is used to process much more young finds. Over the past half century, scientists have developed many techniques 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 thermoluminescent method, the optical method, the electro-spin resonance method, and others. From the school course, we know that the solutions of the equation must be checked. Similarly, the age of the remains, identified by different methods in different cities and laboratories, should coincide. For example, the famous skeleton of Australopithecus Lucy was found in the breed, whose samples were sent to different laboratories. The method of dividing tracks showed the age of the remains at 2.58 million years, and the potassium argon method – 2.63 million years. The results are almost the same, but can two different methods be equally incorrect?
All fossil human ancestors are described by one dubious finding.
In human memory, there is an effect of the first cell. We all remember only the first heroes, representatives of trademarks. Such an effect also exists in anthropology. As a result, all the knowledge of ordinary people about australopithecines fit into a fleeting memory of some monkey Lucy, who once heard somewhere. In fact, Lucy was just 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 of these remains. A similar story with other human ancestors, we have heard of only one, the most famous. But to get into the scientific jungle and find out about the last finds of those who wish is not so much.
At the end of his life, Charles Darwin renounced his theory.
Stories of a person’s repentance before his very 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 here the source of such a story remains unclear. In fact, the story of the alleged abdication of Darwin emerged many years after his death, in 1915. This moralizing story of the spiritual transformation of the scientist was published in the American Baptist magazine. Allegedly, Darwin himself reported his doubts personally to the preacher Elizabeth Hope. Only here there are no real facts in support of this story. Shortly before his death, the scientist published an autobiography in which there was no doubt about the labors of his entire life. And close to the great naturalist do not mention anything about Darwin’s hesitation about his theory. Children of the scientist, Francis and Henrietta in general stated that Lady Hope with their father had never met. So this story is a fairy tale invented by a preacher upon arrival in America.
Eugene Dubois at the end of his life confessed that he discovered in Java is not Pithecanthropus, but simply a huge python.
This story of “repentance” of a major scientist strongly resembles the previous one. Meanwhile, on the Internet it is very popular. It is said that the military doctor from Holland, Eugene Dubois, visited the island of Java in 1890-1891. There he found the remains of Pithecanthropus – the femur, the skull bones and teeth. The anthropologist declared to the whole world that he had found an ancestor of man, a transitional form. However, most scientists simply did not believe him. Scientific circles, having conferred, came to the conclusion that the remains actually belonged to the Pithecanthropus. Charter to argue with the majority, Dubois eventually admitted that he was initially mistaken. This story has several inconsistencies. First of all, it is worth asking, how did Dubois realize his confession? Whispered a loved one or wrote in a will? Or maybe he made a public statement with a confession? A clear answer is not and can not be. Skeptics refer to the journal Nature in August 1935. One in fact, there are no confessions or remorse for Dubois. There is only a reference to the report of the scientist, in which he was told about the place of Pithecanthropus in the evolution of man. Supporters of myths should also ask this question: “Did anyone except Dubois find in Java or somewhere else the remains of such a huge gibbon?”. It turns out that more such creatures were not found. Maybe they simply did not exist in nature? But since the 30-ies 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. A total of about 250 individuals fell into the hands of scientists.
The theory of the origin of man from the monkey is based only on our external similarity.
External similarity became the basis for the classification of living beings many centuries ago. Thanks to him, the whale, which is a mammal, has long been considered a fish. Today, in addition to external similarity about the relationship of humans and anthropoid apes, anatomical, biochemical, embryological, behavioral, paleontological and genetic factors eloquently testify.
The fossils found by scientists actually belong to ancient monkeys.
Formally, this statement is true, because once upon a time our ancestors were not people in the modern image, they were ancient monkeys. For a long time, the difference between the ancestors of humans and monkeys was clear to any scientist. However, as all new samples and remains were found, the line between concepts narrowed. Considering the skulls of anthropoid creatures, you will not immediately understand when a monkey has become a human being. The fact is that at one point the creature learned to think and became reasonable. So there was a new evolutionary branch.
Found fossils do not belong 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 his own eyes how a monkey became a man. But the degradation and omission of man to the animal state is often observed. Only here paleoanthropology works in close cooperation with chronology. If you apply all known remains on the time axis, you get a clear picture. The brain of ancient hominids progressed continuously over time. To obtain such eloquent graphics, 300 points were needed. If it is degradation, then it is very strange, accompanied by the growth of the brain. Although its volume is only one of the characteristics that describe the evolution of man, the picture quite quickly destroys the myth of human degradation.
Ancient human ancestors did not occur from one another, but lived simultaneously.
As an argument, the fact that known finds of the ancestor species, which coincide with the age of the descendant, are heard. For example, there are remains of the species Homo habilus, dating from 1.5-2.3 million years ago. From it there was a kind of Homo ergaster, which appeared about 1.8 million years ago. As can be seen, on the time scale, the habitat on the planet of these species partially overlaps. However, only partial and not complete intersection occurs. In this there is nothing strange.After all, a new species usually appears in one of the isolated populations of the ancestor species, but a fast and full substitution never happens. That is why, after the appearance of the descendant species, the ancestors still live for a long time on the planet, moreover, they can give rise to not even one, but several species. A similar story occurred with afar australopithecines, which spawned several hominid groups at once. No one bothers about the fact that both the wolf and the dog live on the planet at the same time. But the second subspecies is part of the first species, its descendant.
Genetically, a man is much closer to a pig than a monkey.
Supporters of this theory as an argument lead to the transplantation of the pig organs to humans. From the point of view of genetics this statement is absolute absurdity. Between pig and human genomes, hundreds of thousands of differences. We occupy a firm place in the order of primates, and the pig is among the cloven-hoofed. The mouse is much closer to man, by the way, it is her stem cells that are used to create artificial human skin. The choice of pigs for organ transplantation is quite understandable. In this matter, genetic proximity is not so important. Physicians-transplantologists 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 abnormalities. The donor should have comparable sizes, it should be relatively cheap, and experiments with it would not cause criticism of international organizations. In this regard, the monkey is losing 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 man kills several hundred million pigs. Gorillas on the planet only 15 thousand, and chimpanzees are only several times larger.
Most scientists around the world have long denied the theory of the origin of man from the monkey.
In our life there are many people who consider themselves, if not scientists, then certainly experts in any field. In fact, the runner is unlikely to achieve records in weightlifting. Similarly, a scientist working at the intersection of sciences is simply obliged to invite a consultant. Many people like to talk about evolution. In search of the same experts in this area, you can spend a lot of time. Scientists, professionally engaged in anthropology and having their own scientific works, not so much. In our country there are only one. In fact, this is the “majority”, whose opinion is important in this matter. Let the primatologists, archeologists, anthropologists and geneticists in private matters sometimes disagree. However, the main provisions (the reality of evolution, the origin of man from ancient humanoid, Africa, as the birthplace of mankind) are not subject to doubt.