Homo habilis (Homo habilis) - a skilled person: characteristics, tools. Evolution in the genus Homo - species, subspecies, human races Dimensions and body weight

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 deals with the study of the processes of the formation of a person as a species, as well as intraspecific variations, anatomical and physiological (in many countries this science is called physical anthropology, different from cultural anthropology, which includes linguistics, prehistoric archeology and ethnography).

In 1739 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in his The system of nature (Systema Naturae) classified a person - Homo sapiens as one of the primates. Since then, there has been no doubt among scientists that this is precisely the place of man in the zoological system, which covers all living forms with single classification relationships 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: semi-monkeys (they include lemurs and tarsiers) and higher primates. The latter include monkeys (namely Old World monkeys, i.e. monkeys, and New World monkeys), great apes (gibbons and large great apes - orangutan, gorillas, chimpanzees) and man. Primates share many specific features that distinguish them from other mammals.

Neither Linnaeus nor other taxonomists of that time created any evolutionary theory to explain how morphological similarity unites Homo sapiens with related primates, and characteristic differences that make it possible to distinguish it into 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 the 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, 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 those whom we now recognize as the predecessors of modern man, found by that time, were either not of interest at all or were considered as anomalies. . Only after the publication Origin of Species Gibraltar Man, discovered in 1848, as well as 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 in human populations occur with a certain frequency. 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 there are mutations that are neither deadly nor clearly beneficial; their presence is almost imperceptible to the individual, but can be detected in populations. The currently observed obvious shifts in resistance to diseases, on the one hand, and the decrease in the prevalence of certain disorders of physiological functions, on the other, may be the result of not only medical advances, but also the action of mutations and other evolutionary processes.

With regard to 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, the data of experiments and observations required a revision of this point of view. For example, population studies have shown that the current distribution of genes that determine blood types has been observed to have evolved largely under the influence of natural selection.

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, and not the destruction and replacement of one population by another. This opinion is supported by the relative commonness of the situation, especially at the end of the Pleistocene, when an extremely wide variety of characters arose in a purely local population. The pace of migration increases as communications develop. At the same time, social and cultural hostility makes it difficult, but does not prevent or eliminate interbreeding, as can be seen even in the example of modern political formations.

The last of the main mechanisms of evolutionary change, genetic drift, also seems to be taking place in modern human populations. However, since drift is essentially a statistical concept, data describing the changes it causes in human populations are still scarce, 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 received. Similarly, in great 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 fittest) as the only type of selection, but noted two more of its types: artificial selection and sexual selection. The concept of artificial selection is of inestimable importance for understanding the early stages of human evolution, which is why modern theory places so much emphasis on 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 more under the heading of cultural development than natural selection. Cultural factors may also underlie sexual selection in human populations. Sexual selection in human populations is a complex phenomenon involving factors of choice not only individual, based on the concepts of beauty, strength, sexual potency and other personal qualities, but also social, based on the principle of social boundaries of ethnic formations, such as race, class, nationality and religion.

Literature:

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



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

Ancient people (archanthropes) are known from several finds in different places on the globe, the main ones are in East Africa. They existed for a very long time at the same time as Australopithecus. There are two types of archanthropes that have replaced each other.

Homo habilis - skillful person . He lived about 2.5-1.7 million years ago, adjacent to Australopithecus. Growth up to 150 cm, brain up to 800 cm 3 (1.5 times larger than that of 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, led a herd life. He was settled in Africa, the Mediterranean, in Asia. As the creator of the first, albeit primitive (pebble), culture, a skilled man overcame the line separating anthropoid apes from ancient people.

Homo erectus - Homo erectus . Having appeared about 1.7 million years ago, it did not coexist for long with a skilled man, but soon supplanted and replaced him completely. And, by the way, late Australopithecus still existed at the same time. The latest finds of Homo erectus date back to 250 thousand years. This species has widely settled 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 nevertheless belong to the same species in terms of structure. The most famous of them Pithecanthropus(literally - ape-man), found on the island of Java (Indonesia), and synanthropus(Chinese man), whose settlements have been studied in caves near the city of Beijing. Homo erectus had a height of 160 cm or more, but the shape of the body was not yet modern. The brain is 800-1300 cm 3, the left hemisphere predominates, which means that 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 in the Ice Age). Thinking and primitive speech are developed, that is, conceptual communication as a result of labor activity. Although the social factor is already at work, biological evolution also continues. Natural selection goes to physical qualities, upright posture, brain development.

Ancient people (paleoanthropes) represented a new biological species Homo sapiens - a reasonable person . Within the species, there are several subspecies or varieties that have replaced each other over the past 600 thousand years. Remains found in Africa, Europe and Asia archaic Homo sapiens- the most ancient subspecies. The volume of his brain already reached 1400 cm 3, like that of many modern people, although the shape of the skull still retained monkey features. One of the European archaic examples is heidelberg man, the remains of which were found in 1907 during excavations in Germany. We emphasize that archaic Homo sapiens lived at the same time as the later Homo erectus and, probably, were 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 (chopped, knives, etc.) of fairly regular shape. well studied Neanderthal man, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Its first remains were found near the Neandertal River in Germany in 1856. Neanderthals lived in the period 150-30 thousand years ago. About 100 thousand years ago, they met another glacial epoch (the Wurm or Valdai glaciation) and demonstrated the high adaptive qualities of the new subspecies. Neanderthals were settled in Africa, Europe, Asia. Height is 155-165 cm, the brain is about 1400-1600 cm 3, there is a chin protrusion - a witness to verbal communication. They used perfect stone tools, dressed animal skins. The fire was not only maintained, but also knew how to produce, which increased the chances of survival in the conditions of glacial cooling. Caves were used as dwellings. There is a deepening of social relations: care for others, transfer of experience, joint work and hunting. The selection for the improvement of physical characteristics, the shape of the skeleton, especially the skull, continues.

One of the archaic Homo sapiens, so-called " Rhodesian Man", who lived in Africa, was noticeably different from other subspecies. In his appearance, he has the greatest resemblance to modern man. Apparently, this kind 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 . We are already with you. They isolated themselves 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 in the period from 40 to 35 thousand years ago. Fossil H. s. sapiens known as cro-magnons- according to the first find in the grotto of Cro-Magnon in France.

The Cro-Magnon man had all the physical properties of a modern person: height 170-180 cm, the brain part of the skull is larger than the front, 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 flint hunting and labor tools, also uses bone and horn. Characterized by complex work. Skins are used. Creates drawings on rocks, in caves, decorations and cult objects in the form of figurines - modern culture is born. The biological evolution of the species is increasingly supplemented and even replaced by the evolution of the social.

We emphasize once again that the biological and social development of Homo sapiens takes place 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 a subspecies H. s. sapiens continues in the form human races . Race - a systematic category within a single polymorphic species or subspecies. Today it is proved that all human races have a common origin. All isolated types of marker DNA of modern humans originate from one ancestral molecule, i.e. from one "foremother" of mankind (see: Tetushkin, 2000). Thus, the human races are the result of the settlement and geographical isolation of different populations of the same neoanthropic species. The last resettlement of the late 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 took place.

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

None of the races of people has reached species isolation, since from the very beginning there was a constant mixing of races at the edges of the ranges of migratory populations (there was no factor of stable isolation). In the era of great geographical discoveries and European colonization of African, American and other territories, a mixture of races began, many intermediate (small) races and subraces arose - there are more than 20 of them in total. All races interbreed freely, have the same intellectual potential. It has been established that individual genetic differences in people are on the order of 0.2%, and intra-racial (clearly adaptive) differences for some genes can be even greater than between races. These data of molecular genetics once again testify to the unity of the origin of all living people and to the secondary, adaptive nature of racial differences. Differences in the levels of culture and social relations of peoples of different races, which really take place in the modern world, are due to the social conditions for the development of primitive society, which evolved differently in the course of geographical settlement.

Peter Line

The review analyzes fossil finds related to alleged 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, which either refer to a person (for example, to Homo erectus), or to Australopithecus monkeys. If fossils such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals were fully human, then essentially the entire history of human evolution collapses, because there is an unbridgeable morphological gulf between the Australopithecus apes and these humans.

In Western society, the education system and the media teach and push 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 evidence in this that proves that man descended from monkeys, or is this another example of one-sided ideologization in science, materialistic philosophy, which requires a natural explanation of all the phenomena of the cosmos? In other words, is it possible that scientists who advocate the idea of ​​human evolution are not objective in their interpretations of fossils?

Paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpow 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 a given scientist.. Evolutionists John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas acknowledge: “... 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”. Further they write: “... We must be well aware that the popular image of a scientist as an impartial seeker of truth does not correspond to reality at all”. Finally, consider the following comment by Roger Levin, author of the book Bones of contention: disputes in the study of human origins:

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

Scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, tend to interpret what they see in the world through their particular lenses, which are their belief systems, worldviews, and ideologies. If the lenses contain evolutionary ideas, then usually the data is interpreted in such a way that they fit this belief system. The author believes that evolution is wrong, and that only "through" the biblical worldview can our true origins be understood in the right way. According to the Bible, God from one blood produced the entire human race to inhabit the whole face of the earth, assigning predetermined times and limits to their habitation ( Acts 17:26). At the same time, there is no place for ape-people who preceded man, since at the beginning of creation, God created them male and female ( Mark.10.6). Therefore, all alleged monkey-people belong to either mind Homo and are the descendants of Adam and Eve, or they belong to the extinct apes. The article provides evolutionary dates in order to correlate fossil finds with a certain evolutionary context, but this does not at all mean agreement with these dates.

Homo habilis (including Homo rudolfensis).

Skull volume Homo habilis varies from 500 cubic centimeters (cm 3 ) to about 800 cm 3 . Present Status habilis can best be described as a taxonomic confusion, as there is great controversy at least as to whether all of the fossils attributed to Homo habilis belonging to representatives of this species. Some experts divided the representatives of this kind into two groups, creating two new views: Homo rudolfensis, dated from 1.8 to 2.4 million years BC, while Homo habilis was preserved (with dating from 1.6 to 2.3 million years BC), however, it turned out that a smaller number of known specimens belong to the latter. To further confuse the picture, Wood and Collard even claimed that representatives rudolphensis(for example, skull KNM-ER1470) and habilis(for example, KNM-ER 1813) should be removed from the genus Homo and assigned to Australopithecus, but this idea has not received wide support. What habilis consist of at least two species is not universally supported, with some evolutionists arguing that the variation seen in specimens habilis can be interpreted as manifestations of intraspecific variability.

In Western society, the education system and the media teach and push 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.

Discussing this discussion of multiple species, Woolpow noted that some scientists used habilis as a trash bag. Tatersell and Schwartz described the status Homo habilis, as a kind of "wastebasket", where it was possible to conveniently dump all the heterogeneous diversity of fossil remains. Homo habilis often presented as an intermediate between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, but even some evolutionists admit that this concept is a simplification. According to Bernard Wood: “Advances in absolute dating techniques and the reassessment of fossils have made a one-line model of human evolution according to which Homo habilis, following the Australopithecus, subsequently evolved into Homo erectus and further into Homo sapiens, - unusable. From a creationist point of view, habilis is an invalid taxon, representing a collection of diverse fossils that can be assessed as either human (for example, belonging to Homo erectus in particular) or belonging to Australopithecus monkeys. To illustrate this, the following examples are given below.

According to Woolpow, who attributes erectus name "early Homo sapiens', a KNM-ER 1813 skull from Koobi Fora in Kenya 'composed of a base of the skull and a fronto-facial region which is so human-like and characteristic of the early Homo sapiens that some authors, in particular T. White, included ER 1813 in the same taxon (for T. White this H. erectus)". Woolpow describes the KNM-ER 1813 as "very similar to an early H. sapiens really indistinguishable from it, in its dental structure and frontofacial architecture (except for the narrow middle part of the face), but at the same time having a much smaller brain in comparison. If White and Woolpow's assessment of KNM-ER 1813 is correct, then this skull, with a cranial volume of only about 509 cm 3 , could have belonged to a very small individual.

The interpretation of the fossil skull KNM-ER 1470 from Koobi Fora, Kenya, which has a cranial volume of about 752cm 3 , has been a problem for both evolutionists and creationists. In 1999, creationist Bill Mellert's analysis, focusing on a controversial facial reconstruction of the 1470 skull, led him to believe that the skull "looks more like that of a gracile australopithecine with an enlarged brain." However, creationist Mervyn Lubenov has long argued for his human status, and in his updated and revised book Bones of discord, most recently stated that "comparisons show that the 1470 skull looks more modern than any Homo erectus fossil, and even more modern than the Khao Swamp material, which is only about 10,000 years old." Creationist Malcolm Bowden also championed the idea that the KNM-ER 1470 is "just a small human skull". Although there are certain differences between the KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 specimens, most of them, according to the evolutionist Woolpow, can be explained "if we allow that the large size of the skull and face with powerful teeth located posterior to the fangs, (and their structural implications) 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 the KNM-ER 1470, its skull is certainly more human than ape.

It is not the intention of this article to provide a detailed overview of all instances that are characterized by evolutionists as representatives habilis. However, let us present one illustration - habilisa, which most likely belongs to Australopithecus (possibly 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 skull that is "narrow and limited in the frontal region". Also, computed tomography (CT) images 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 Australopithecus." This seems to leave no stone unturned in the human status of this specimen, whose poor skeletal preservation makes estimating its brain volume difficult. a copy from Swartkranz in South Africa (SK 847), attributed to habilis, had channel sizes "similar to modern man" As noted by the authors of this article and other researchers, SK 847, should have been attributed to erectus, among them Johanson, who made a comparison with the erectus specimen KNM-ER 3733. So, erectus is the most appropriate 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, Woolpow estimated the volume of the skull of SK 847 to be less than 500cm 3 , but since most of the skullcap is missing, this estimate seems to have little basis.

When considering the remains of the postcranial part of the skeleton (the rest of the skeleton, in addition to the skull - approx. transl.) Homo habilis, it should be noted that the human-looking KNM-ER 1472 and KNM-ER1481 femurs are often judged to be Homo habilis(or rudolfensis), especially since they were found in the same area of ​​Koobi Fora as the skull of KNM-ER 1470, but due to the fact that they were all recovered from different geological layers (formed at different times), there is no direct connection between they do not 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 refer to it as Homo habilis, but this seems to be done more to protect the establishment from getting erectus too early, since this hip is dated by evolutionists as being about 2 million years old. It is obvious that under the generally accepted fictitious scenario, the farther back in the timeline the erectus recedes, the less time is left for habilisa in order to become it.

Above are samples of fossil skulls. The Sangir and Ngandong specimens are classified as Homo erectus; hominids from Wilandrak Leiths (WLH-5Q) and Khao Swamp are modern humans; the status of the skull from the Narmada is unclear, as there is no certainty about its "evolutionary" age (it is usually given between 0.15 and 0.6 million years BC), but it can be classified as Homo heidelbergensis or how archaic Homo sapiens. Studies have shown a greater resemblance of the modern WLH-50 human skull to the Ngandong erectus than to modern humans living in the late Pleistocene of Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. This casts doubt on the assessment Homo sapiens and Homo erectus as representatives of different species.

The most significant (by their completeness - in translation) postcranial remains attributed to habilisu, belong to the partially preserved skeleton of individual OH 62 from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, who was "assessed to be the smallest hominid of all known hominids, or even smaller than all others." An analysis of the proportions of the limb bones showed that the value of the shoulder-to-hip ratio index is even closer to monkeys than that of Lucy's skeleton (Australopithecine Afar), but this result depends on how accurate the limb length estimates were. Most of the distal OH 62 femur is missing, so its length can only be determined by comparison with other femurs. Using a different femur (OH 34) than the traditional Lucy femur (AL 288-1), which is often used in evaluations, as shown recently by Heusler and McHenry, the humero-femoral index of the OH 62 specimen is consistent with that of modern humans. Therefore, if the proportion between the upper and lower limbs in OH 62 depends on which femur is taken 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 found to be greater than that of modern humans and more consistent with Australopithecus 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 classified as a habilis. Since Stw 53 appears to be an ape (see above), this seems to be the most appropriate status for OH 62 as well.

Homo erectus(including Homo ergaster).

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

fossils erectus have been found in many parts of the world, and have been dated by evolutionists to ages ranging from 1.8 million to perhaps less than 100,000 years. fossils Homo erectus from Java, Indonesia, have been dated at 27,000 years, which, according to the evolutionary scenario, seems to be almost modern. Multiregional evolutionist Wolpov calls erectus early Homo sapiens, because "to this day there is not a single definition that would allow us to distinguish between Homo sapiens, (defined traditionally as a descendant of Homo erectus) from Homo erectus wherever fossils are found" and "there is no distinct beginning for Homo sapiens, as long as the existence Homo erectus". Other authors use 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 view Homo ergaster, but leaves other African Homo erectus c (e.g. OH 9) and Asian fossils within Homo erectus in the proper sense. In our publication, erectus will be considered in a broad sense, including fossil finds corresponding, according to narrow definitions, as Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster.

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

Meaning about 973 cm 3 , erectus brain size is smaller than that of modern humans - an average of about 1,350 cm 3 for people living today. The erectus skull capacity range (727-1251 cm 3 ) recorded by Reitmeier is at the lowest end of the broadest definition of the modern human range (700-2200 cm 3 ) given by Molnar. However, Molnar did not give 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 in a Melanesian with a skull capacity of 790 cm 3 .

Skulls assigned to erectus Reitmyer, included sets from Ngandong, sets from Joukoudian, OH 9, OH 12, sets from Buri, Trinil and Sangir, Dmanisi 2280, KNM-ER 3883, KNM-ER 3733, remains from Buiyi, Gongwangling, Sale, Hexian, Seprano and KNM-WT 15000.43, Table of skull volumes erectus Rightmeyer did not include the 'older juvenile or young adult' skull from Dmanisi D2282 (~650 cm 3) and the recently found Dmanisi skull - D2700 (~600 3), which is claimed to be between childhood, similar to KNM-WT 15000 and age D2282. The capacity of the skull of these two, although not quite adult specimens from Dmanisi, classified as erectus, it is hypothesized whether it would have increased significantly with age. Another skull from Dmansi (D2280) has a measured skull capacity of 775 3 . However, there is also a lower jaw (D2600) recovered from the ground in 2000 which has been described as 'enormous' and 'too large to easily match any of the previously discovered skulls'. These large variations in size have led to suggestions that more than one species was represented by the Dmanisi fossils (evolutionist-dated 1.75 Ma), but since the fossils were found at the same stratigraphic level, it is more likely that they all are members of the same population. Stone tools found during excavations at Dmanisi indicate a human presence, and the Dmanisi specimens most likely represent the makers of these tools. The large variation in skull size that seems to occur within the Dmanisi human population (assuming the huge lower jaw, D2600, belonged to a much larger skull than the others) is consistent with the huge variation in skull size that exists and modern people. A similar, or possibly greater, degree of size variation than that found in the Dmanisi fossils is likely present in the Clasies River Mauf human fossils in South Africa (dated to approximately 0.12 to 0.09 Ma), estimated by evolutionists to be 'nearly modern', at indicating variation in the size of the mandibles, with one mandible (KRM 16424) being 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 supposed period of hominin evolution? The answer is no! According to the evolutionist Holloway:

‘The skull capacity range of modern Homo sapiens is approximately 1,000 cu. 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 the volume of the skull from the level of Australopithecus to the level of modern man.’

Physical anthropologist John Relethford acknowledges that, ‘Although his brain size was somewhat smaller than ours today, Homo erectus had mostly quite 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 remembered that Anatole France, who had a brain size of approximately 1,000 cm 3 , only marginally larger than the erectus average, received the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1921. Therefore, why on earth would evolution (if there was one) try at great cost to develop ever larger brains if that increase did not provide any obvious additional benefit over a smaller brain? All evolution is supposed to be driven by the adaptive value of new acquisitions (having the ability to provide at least a momentary benefit), which are thought to be driven by random, strangely improbable genetic mutations. Therefore, if a larger brain has no apparent adaptive value, then it is clear that it could not have evolved even if evolution had taken place. Until now, 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 ‘upward’ 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 a constant increase in size over a period of supposed human evolution, without any supposed adaptive significance of this increase, is to believe in zero probability. Something else must have been going on to explain the incredible variability in brain size among humans, this factor was the intellectual design of the Creator. The following quote from Holloway's work illustrates what presents a dilemma for this evolutionist:

‘On the other hand, there are some difficulties in assuming that natural selection favors the maintenance of larger brains if no connection has been established between the neural structures of the cortex and increased behavioral adaptation. That is, the units themselves, which measure the gradual increase in skull volume during the Pleistocene, cubic centimeters, cannot be obviously related to real differences in behavior. The current state of the art, in which variations of nearly 1,000 cc without accompanying 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 hominin evolution. '

Louis Leakey found the skull Homo erectus OH 9 in 1960 in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It dates back to 1.2 million years and has a skull 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 the human mode of locomotion. The photo was taken at the Museum of Man in San Diego.

That hasn't 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 found fossil classified as Homo floresiensis (see below) is taken as a basis - then the answer must be yes, because in the words of evolutionist Keith Wang: 'Who would have guessed that a creature with a skull the size of a grapefruit could possibly have had cognitive abilities comparable to those of anatomically modern people?' According to erectus specialist Philip Wrightmire of the University of Birmingham: 'If Homo floresiensis was capable of making complex tool-tools, then we must say that the size of the brain is not decisive. It must be remembered that, as Holloway stated: the cerebral cortex of a chimpanzee is not equivalent to one cc. of the human cortex, and it seems improbable that any equivalent measure could be found for it.’ Therefore, it seems that neural organization is far more important than brain size as such. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is no demonstrable correlation between cranial volume and behavior, including measures of intelligence, as indicated by Clarke's following statement:

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

locomotion and postcranial skeleton.

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

Most information about postcranial anatomy erectus we have received from a later discovery at the western Lake Turkana in Kenya, in 1984, an almost complete skeleton of a boy from Nariokatoma, 1.68 meters tall (KNM-WT 15000), dated at 1.6 million years old. This skeleton is also known as the Turkan boy, and is classified by the 'dividers' as Homo ergaster. Morphology of the skull of a Nariokatom boy was erectus type, but Woolpow describes this man's postcranial skeleton as 'mostly modern'. The limb proportions of the KNM-WT 15000, especially the shoulder-to-hip ratio index and the shoulder index, were similar to those seen in modern humans. According to Lewin, information derived from the Nariokotome boy's skeleton indicates that the postcranial skeleton of this erectus 'is similar to that of modern humans, but more massive and muscular', 'implying that there was constant heavy physical exertion'. The boy's cranial volume, estimated at 11 years old, was approximately 880 cm 3 at the time of his death, and the estimated adult brain size is 909 cm 3 . As pointed out by Mehlert, there is no way to establish his height as an adult with certainty, however 185 cm is one of the estimates 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 supposed evolutionary history erectus is a problem for evolutionists. If evolution did indeed take place, then one would expect a more intermediate character of the postcranial skeleton, which would tell something more about the intermediate stage between the representatives of the Australopithecus genus and modern humans, and would not correspond to the modern human stage. Therefore, there is a huge morphological gap between erectus and representatives of the genus Australopithecus; taxon habilis, as discussed earlier, can be regarded as invalid. In an almost desperate attempt to dehumanize the Nariokatoma boy, it seems to us that some evolutionists emphasize that this man's spinal canal was smaller than that of modern humans. Also, they argue that his nervous system was not developed enough to perform all the subtle breathing maneuvers required for fully human speech, and conclude that at the time this boy lived: 'Language, in the sense that we understand, probably not fully developed yet.' However, the discovery that the axial skeleton of KNM-WT 15000 had significant abnormalities of a pathological nature suggests that there was some form of maldevelopment of the axial skeleton of the Nariokotom boy; and this nullifies any such argument, and may explain the narrowness of the spinal canal. This verdict, however, is still not accepted by some evolutionists.

Skull Features

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

Skulls classified as erectus are believed by evolutionists to 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; protruding jaws; flat, receding forehead; long and low-arched skull; occipital torus; relatively large teeth; relatively large facial bones; and thick-walled skull. The main problem for evolutionists is that many (if not all) of the above features that arguably differentiate erectus from modern humans are also found among modern humans. This can be illustrated by the example of almost contemporary Australian Aborigines - the protruding superciliary ridges of the skull 3596 from Euston, and the greater proximity of the modern human skull from Australia, WLH-50, with erectus from Ngandong than with modern people 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 marks of a cruder human type, with thick skull bones, swollen brow ridges, and huge teeth, even larger in some specimens, than representatives Homo erectus’.

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

Stringer and Gumble, defenders of the "African" theory of human origins, explained the presence of features erectus-type in the Australian Aborigines as possibly 'obvious evolutionary regressions', which provoked a warm response from another group who stated that 'such claims and their implications are unfortunate'. This argument aside, this statement clearly illustrates the chameleon nature of the theory of evolution, which is malleable enough to accommodate almost any scenario. Clearly, there is no valid basis for denying that 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 the narrow definition of our species. In connection with the "African" theory of the origin of modern man, the evolutionists of the multiregional school expressed the following concern in connection with a 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 ums and collections of skeletal remains of recently living aborigines, leads us to appreciate that these definitions of modern Homo sapiens exclude from the ranks of the 40,000 to 60,000 living Australian Aborigines. We feel that there is a great danger in this. It is the duty of the specialists to show that they include all living men as such 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 left no descendants, including the Neanderthals, fall into the category of those who bear the name Homo sapiens’.

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

For the sake of analysis, we have considered 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 should be assigned to other taxa, for example, Homo heidelbergensis or Neanderthals? As our discussion approaches the next group of fossil humans, the evolutionist Harry Shapiro's comment in this regard is quite revealing:

‘If one examines the classic Neanderthal skull (of which there are now a large number), one cannot avoid the belief that its basic anatomical structure is an enlarged and more developed version of the skull of Homo erectus. As with Homo erectus, it has a protrusion on the back of the head, shaped like a bun, massive brow ridges, a relatively smooth crown, which, when viewed from behind, is seen as a gable roof, which is steeper. Its widest part is set low, just above the ears, and the absence of a prominent chin is typical.

Homo heidelbergensis(archaic Homo sapiens).

Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg man)- a category invented in order to fill the alleged taxonomic vacuum between Neanderthals and erectus. Previously, these fossil creatures were referred to as archaic Homo sapiens. The evolutionist Shreve referred to this taxon as ‘the big wastebasket into which you throw everyone who isn’t obviously erectus, nor obviously modern Homo sapiens'. Heidelberg-type skulls are described as 'rougher' than those of modern humans, and 'having some, but not all, of the features of the skull. H. erectus, but they lack the characteristic features of Neanderthal skulls. The legality of the use of certain classification varieties for erectus and H omo heidelbergensis looks doubtful, despite the fact that, for example, erectus skulls from Ngandong were also classified as archaic Homo sapiens(i.e Homo heidelbergensis), and some evolutionists even defend the inclusion of Ngandong fossils within Homo sapiens. With such skulls showing a similar ability to move up and down the ranks of the Homo genus, it's hard for evolutionists to complain about creationists considering the aforementioned varieties together. Skull volume range Homo heidelbergensis- between 1,100 and 1,390 cm 3 (average is approximately 1,206 cm 3), they date from ages between 200,000 and 700,000 years. List of instances classified as Homo heidelbergensis, includes Dali, Broken Hill, Bodo, Arago, Giniushchan, Nduta, Petralona, ​​Stenheim, and Sima de los Huezos 4 and 5. The above arguments for assigning human status to erectus apply equally to Homo heidelbergensis, especially as evolutionists regard them as 'more modern' than erectus.

Homo antecessor

The tendency to split the genus Homo into an increasing number of species is shown in particular by the fact that fragmentary remains from the Gran Dolina in Spain, which include a partially preserved juvenile face (ATD6-69), which had a 'totally modern facial topography', are named after a new species, Homo antecessor. Of course, it was possible to find a free place in the "Heidelberg" 'wastebasket' to place the remains from the Gran Valley ... Given the evolutionary age of these remains (approximately 0.78 million years), which turn out to be older than any member of the European team of Heidelberg people, it can be assumed that the temptation to give these "most ancient known Europeans" a new name was at that time too great, especially since the antecessor then 'claimed a key place on the human family tree'.

Homo neanderthalensis(Neanderthals).

The place of residence of Neanderthals, as evolutionists believe, was 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 set out many times, although, mainly from an evolutionary point of view, will not be repeated here. The Neanderthals had a whole real cultural inventory, and they buried their dead. For anyone not blinded by evolutionary prejudice, this in itself should be ample evidence that Neanderthals were human in the fullest sense of the term. Classical Neanderthal specimens include Neanderthal, La Chapelle aux Seine, La Ferrassi 1, Spy 1, Le Moustier, Saccopastore II, Chanidar 1 and 5, Tabun and La Quina, while 'progressive' specimens include Spy II, Saccopastore I, Monte Circeo, otsanki from Krapina, Shanidar 2 and some of the Skhul and Qafzeh specimens. Neanderthals, labeled 'classic', are considered by some evolutionists to be more 'primitive'.

The average Neanderthal brain size of approximately 1485 cm3 (range: 1245-1740 cm3) 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) broad, long faces with the center of the face projecting forward; (7) slightly pronounced, rounded chin; and (8) the postcranial skeleton is rough with very thick bones.’

Other features of the adult Neanderthal include a retromolar space, a wide nasal opening, and large teeth. While evolutionists regard the Neanderthal as a separate species, the creationist view ‘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 the Neanderthals, for example, they could be caused by the effects of biomechanical forces that influenced the morphology of the skull. In addition, in his book, Buried Alive, Jack Cuozzo demonstrates disturbing cases of fake reconstructions of Neanderthal specimens. In one example, he illustrates how the Le Moustier specimen was assembled to make the jaw appear more ape-like than it actually was, and in another, Cuozzo provides evidence that the chin of the La Quina 5 specimen was truncated to betray he looks more "monkey".

As mentioned above, many of the features that are thought to distinguish erectus and Neanderthals from modern humans are also found in some modern humans. For this reason, supporters of the multiregional view of human evolution, in contrast to the supporters of the "African" approach, believe that Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens (Homo heidelbergensis) and Neanderthals "should 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 claim by proponents of the multi-regional school:

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

If you believe that certain features of the skull indicate a 'more primitive' status, then the above questions present 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 peculiar 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 'to the same extent human as we are', and then this statement is immediately followed by 'they represented a special type of man'? Either they were human or they were not. As Lubenov so aptly puts it, ‘the problem of the Neanderthals is first and foremost a problem of the evolutionists. Simply put, evolutionists don't 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 kind, and because there have never been any ape people.

Homo floresiensis

Media headlines at the end of October 2004 such as ‘Lost race of human ‘hobbits’ unearthed on Indonesian island’ must have surprised everyone on our planet who is following the emergence of hominids. This time, the incredible gop-la media accompanying the announcement of yet another alleged 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 very well be descendants of Adam. The hobbits must have had substantial seafaring skills to reach the island of Flores and sophisticated cognitive abilities, ‘as indicated by the technology of stone artifacts associated with Homo floresiensis Liang Bua'. If the instruments belonged Homo floresiensis, which seems very likely, then these people obviously possessed human intelligence.

The discovery of fossil remains of hobbit-sized humans who appear to have possessed human intelligence (with one specimen (LB1), evolutionarily dated at approximately 18,000 years, being 1 meter tall and with a cranial volume 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), which 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 floresiensisc the Indonesian island of Flores are a very small indicator if this creature is human. However, when considering the size of the brain, one must also take into account the size of the body. This is done if an indicator known as the encephalization coefficient (EQ) is calculated. Assuming that the body of the instance Homo floresiensis LB1 was skinny and narrow, the supposedly obtained EQ easily places LB1 within the range typical of erectus.

Compared to 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 skull capacity, LB1 had little in common with members of the Australopithecus genus. According to the authors of the article on 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 of representatives of this genus. On the contrary, the facial and dental proportions, the postcranial skeletal anatomy consistent with the upright posture of the human type, and the masticatory apparatus largely similar in relative size and function to those of modern humans all support its placement in the genus Homo – which follows from phylogenetic history that suggests local transformation Homo erectus into dwarf form.’

Peter Brown, paleoanthropologist and lead author of a paper on Homo floresiensis in the journal Nature, of the hobbit's small skull, commented: "The internal structure of the brain - the nerve pathways - must have been more human-like than ape-like in him in order for him 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, attributed to erectus.

The group of scientists who discovered this find claims that Homo floresiensis may be descendants of erectus from the neighboring island of Java, where they believe the erectus lived for as much as 1.6 million years. They explain that the first hominin immigrants to Flores ‘may have had a similar body size to H. erectus and early Homo, with subsequent transformation into dwarfs; or, an unknown small-bodied, small-brained hominin may have come to Flores from the Sunda Shelf. Alternative representation - Homo floresiensis is a ‘miniature human’ showing part of the range of human variations that took place after the Babylonian pandemonium, and which includes a larger Homo erectus'. However, pathologist Maciesz Enneberg of the University of Adelaide has raised an objection that the LB1 human suffered from a pathological change in the growth process called secondary microcephaly, and 'the skull of the Flores hominid is very similar to the modern human skull of microcephalus found on the island of Crete, which is 4,000 years old. In addition, Indonesian paleoanthropologist Teuku Jacob is reported to have said that the LB1 skeletal remains belonged to 'modern man, Homo sapiens, who lived approximately 1,300 to 1,800 years ago', was a member of the 'Australomelanesian race, which was distributed over almost all Indonesian Islands',124 and that Flores people suffered 'microcephaly, which reduced their brain volume to that of a chimpanzee'. However, the more remnants of these tiny humans are found, the stronger the argument against LB1 being a diseased individual, and there is already another report of the discovery of another mandible identical in shape and size to that of LBl.

The Hobbit controversy may well lead to two rival camps feuding over the issue.

General information

Homo sapiens (lat. Homo sapiens; there are also transliterated variants of Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens) is a species of the genus Homo from the family of hominids in the order of primates. Presumably, as a species of Homo sapiens appeared 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 hominin family, its range already covers almost the entire Earth. From modern anthropoids, in addition to a number of anatomical features, it differs in a significant degree of development of material and non-material culture (including the manufacture and use of tools), the ability to articulate speech and developed abstract thinking. Man as a biological species is the subject of study of physical anthropology.

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

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

Fossil humans had a somewhat more massive skeleton than modern humans. Ancient people created a rich Late Paleolithic culture (various tools made of stone, bone and horn, dwellings, sewn clothes, polychrome painting on cave walls, sculpture, engraving on bone and horn). The oldest known neoanthrope bone remains are dated by radiocarbon dating at 39 thousand years, 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 superciliary arches, the presence of the mastoid process of the temporal bone, the absence of the occipital protrusion - the "bone chignon", the concave base of the skull, the presence of a chin protrusion on the mandibular bone, "kynodont" molars, a 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 Neanderthal genome, 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 suggested that Neanderthals be considered a subspecies of H. sapiens - H. sapiens neanderthalensis. The basis for this was the study of the physical appearance, lifestyle, intellectual abilities and culture of Neanderthals. In addition, Neanderthals were often considered as the immediate ancestors of modern man. 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 Neanderthal origin of modern humans, since the evolutionary lineage of modern humans separated 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 are about 195,000 years old (Pleistocene). The anatomical differences between the specimens prompted researchers to identify a new subspecies of Homo sapiens idaltu ("Elder").

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

Human Origins

Comparison of DNA sequences shows that the closest living relatives of humans are two species of chimpanzee (common and bonobo). The phylogenetic line with which the origin of modern man (Homo sapiens) is connected 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 well established ancestor of Homo sapiens was Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis, a direct descendant of Homo erectus and an ancestor of the Neanderthals, does not appear to have been an ancestor of modern humans, but rather a lateral evolutionary lineage. Most modern theories attribute the origin of Homo sapiens to Africa, while Homo heidelbergensis originated in Europe.

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

• 1. Structural transformations of the brain
• 2. Enlargement of the brain cavity
• 3. Development of bipedal locomotion (bipedalism)
• 4. Development of the grasping hand
• 5. Omission of the larynx 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 fossil dating suggest that Homo sapiens appeared c. 200,000 years ago (this is the approximate time when "Mitochondrial Eve" lived - a woman who was the last common ancestor of all living people on the maternal side; the common ancestor of all living people on the paternal side - "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 the peoples of Africa in the journal Science. They found that the most ancient branch, which has experienced the least amount of mixing, as previously assumed, is the genetic cluster to which the Bushmen and other Khoisan-speaking peoples belong. 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 (about 2,000 people) that survived the consequences of a very powerful volcanic eruption (~20-30 years of winter), presumably the Toba volcano in Indonesia, became the ancestor of modern people 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, it is problematic to study the evolution of specific human abilities, such as a developed consciousness, intellectual abilities and language, since their changes cannot be directly tracked by 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 these abilities evolved (speech, religion, art), and what their role was in the emergence of a complex social organization and culture of Homo sapiens, remain the subject of scientific discussions to this day.

Appearance

The head is big. On the upper limbs there are five long flexible fingers, one of which is somewhat spaced from the rest, and on the lower limbs there are 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.

Dimensions and body weight

The average body weight of a man is 70-80 kg, women - 50-65 kg, although there are also larger people. 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 the physiological development of a person - acceleration (an increase in average height, the duration of the reproductive period).

The dimensions of the human body can change with 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 at 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 covered with little hair, except for the areas of the head, and in sexually 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 typical for men.

Like other hominids, the hairline does not have an undercoat, that is, it is not fur. With old age, a person's hair turns gray.

Skin pigmentation

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

sexual dimorphism

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

human physiology

• Normal body temperature perishes.
• The maximum temperature of solid objects with which people can contact for a long time is about 50 degrees Celsius (a burn occurs at a higher temperature).
• The highest recorded indoor air temperature at which a person can spend two minutes without harm to the body is 160 degrees Celsius (experiments of British physicists Blagden and Chantry).
• Jacques Mayol. A 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, at that age the Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment died in 1997. The age of older centenarians is disputed.

reproduction

In comparison with other animals, human reproductive function and sexual life have a number of features. Sexual maturity occurs at 11-16 years of age.

Unlike most mammals, whose reproductive capacity is limited by periods of estrus, women have a menstrual cycle lasting about 28 days, which makes 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 have sex, which is uncharacteristic for mammals, but is found among primates. However, reproductive function is limited by age: women lose their ability to reproduce at an average of 40-50 years (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 child weighs 3-4 kg, his vision is not focused, and he is not able to move independently. As a rule, both parents participate in the care of 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, certain aspects of the process, such as mental loss, are of greater importance to humans. In addition, the psychological, social and economic aspects of aging are of great importance.

Lifestyle

bipedalism

Humans are not the only modern mammals that 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 posture - the back muscles of the neck are somewhat weakened, the spine is rebuilt, the hips are enlarged, and the heel is substantially shaped. Some primates and semi-primates are also capable of walking upright, but only for a short time, as their anatomy does little to help this. So, on two limbs, some lemurs and sifakas jump sideways. Bears, meerkats, and some rodents periodically use “upright standing” in social actions, but they practically do not walk in such a position.

Nutrition

To maintain the normal course of physiological processes of life, a person needs to eat, that is, to absorb food. People are omnivorous - they eat fruits and root crops, 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 particular culture. A significant part of food is subjected to heat treatment. There is also a wide variety of drinks.

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

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

An amazing find of the Leakey spouses

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

And so, in November 1960, they stumbled upon what would become one of the most controversial discoveries of the 20th century. While excavating in 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, there was something nearby that made their heart beat a hundred times faster.

A couple of steps away from the tiger, they saw the remains of an unknown hominid. Among them was a fragment of the skull, collarbone and part of the leg. After a thorough analysis of the bones, the Leakeys 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

The discovery of Louis and Mary 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 the bones of the hominid were found in South and East Africa. In this regard, scientists came to the conclusion that this species appeared in these lands and only at the end of its existence migrated to other lands.

Given the age of the found remains, 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 matters. What is more curious is that this species already knew how to stand firmly on two legs, as evidenced by the toes brought together.

Otherwise, homo habilis looked more like primates than humans. On average, his height did not exceed 130 cm, and his weight should have fluctuated between 30-50 kg. Against the background of the body, long arms stood out strongly, which in the recent past helped higher primates climb trees. However, as the species developed, their upper limbs decreased, while the lower ones, on the contrary, became more muscular.

Family ties

For almost half a century there has been heated debate about the role assigned to Homo habilis in the general spectacle of evolution. It is only known for certain that he appeared at the sunset of the existence of Australopithecus. Given their many similarities, scientists have concluded that Homo habilis has become the next step in the extinct species. However, there are those who believe that these are two completely different hominins that have a common ancestor in the past.

Equally controversial is the legacy of Homo habilis. According to the generally accepted version, Homo erectus, the first upright descendant of man, became his successor. The evidence for this theory is the similarity of the remains found, as well as the time frame in which both species existed.

The thing that 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 above other creatures, namely the ability to think logically.

Such changes occurred due to the fact that the brain of a skilled person has increased significantly 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, which is responsible for instincts, has decreased, while the frontal, temporal and parietal, 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 beginnings 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 they began to use combinations of sounds, which later grew into a full-fledged language.

Lifestyle Features

Unlike their ancestors, Homo habilis rarely climbed a tree. Now the former "home" served only as a source of food or a temporary haven for rest. The reason for this was the deformation of the hind limbs, which adapted to long transitions on the ground, but because of this they lost their former grip. But as a refuge, a skilled person more and more often began to use caves that can protect him from bad weather and wild animals.

However, a tribe of hominids 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 were mainly moving from one place to another.

social structure

Scientists are sure 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 gathered berries and mushrooms. At the same time, the tribe equally divided all the products obtained among themselves, thereby taking care of the offspring and disabled individuals.

Also, scientists are inclined to believe that one leader stood at the head of all men. Such a statement is based more on logic than on facts. But most experts adhere to it, since a similar behavioral model is inherent in almost all higher primates.

Homo habilis tools

This species is not in vain called a skilled man. 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 meager, but the mere fact of the existence of a craft is already a great achievement.

All tools were made of stone or bones ground on other objects. Most often, archaeologists came across scrapers and knives that were clearly used for butchering 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 holding objects tightly.