An analysis of the craniometric (that is, those related to the measurements of the skull) indicators of modern humans indicates that all people living on Earth today descended from a relatively small group of individuals that lived in Central Africa 60-80 thousand years ago. As the descendants of these people spread across the globe, they lost some of their genes and became less and less diverse. In a work recently published in the journal Nature, the hypothesis about a single center of origin of modern man was confirmed by the analysis of not only molecular genetic data, but also phenotypic data (in this case, the size of the skull).
More and more data collected in recent years indicate that "modern" man was formed in equatorial Africa 150-200 thousand years ago. Its dispersal across the planet began about 60 thousand years ago, when a relatively small group of people moved to the Arabian Peninsula, and from there their descendants gradually began to spread across Eurasia (moving primarily eastward along the coast of the Indian Ocean), and then across Melanesia and Australia.
The process of human settlement of our planet, according to this hypothesis, should have been accompanied by a decrease in the initial stock of genetic variability. Indeed, at each stage, it is not the entire “parental” population that is embarked on the journey, but some of its small part, a sample, into which all genes could not get into. In other words, the founder's effect should be observed - a sharp decrease in the total genetic diversity with the formation of each new group of migrants. Accordingly, as a person settles, we must detect the gradual disappearance of a number of genes, the depletion of the original gene pool. In reality, this can manifest itself in a decrease in the level of genetic variability, and the farther from the source of settlement, the greater. If the center of origin of the species (in this case Homo sapiens) not one, but several, then the picture will be completely different.
The hypothesis of a single center of origin for modern humans was recently confirmed by molecular genetic data collected as part of the international Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP). Genetic diversity in human populations did decrease with distance from Central Africa, the supposed center of human origin (see, for example, Ramachandran et al. 2005). However, it remained unclear whether this effect could be identified by referring to phenotypic traits, for example, the anatomical features of modern humans.
Andrea Manica from the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge (Great Britain), together with colleagues from the Department of Genetics of the same university and the Department of Anatomy of the Saga School of Medicine (Japan), took up the solution of this problem. The material was the data of measurements of the skulls (craniometric indicators) collected around the world. A total of 4,666 male skulls from 105 local populations were analyzed, and an additional 1,579 female skulls from 39 populations. The data on male skulls are taken as a basis as more representative. Skulls older than 2000 years were not included in the analysis in order to avoid measurement errors associated with poor preservation of ancient bones.
The results of the study confirmed the hypothesis of a single center of human origin. With distance from central Africa, the variability of the main dimensions of the skull decreased, which can be interpreted as a decrease in the initial genetic diversity. Additional difficulties in the analysis were associated with the fact that, as a person assimilated new climatic zones, certain signs of it turned out (or did not turn out to be) useful and, accordingly, were supported or not supported by selection. The size of the skull was also affected by this climatic adaptation, but the use of special statistical methods made it possible to single out this “climatic” component and not take it into account when analyzing the dynamics of the initial variability.
In parallel, in the same work, the degree of heterozygosity of the genotype was assessed for 54 local populations of modern humans. For this, we used data on microsatellites (DNA fragments containing repeats), also collected within the HGDP program. When mapped, these data show a distribution very similar to that found on the basis of phenotypic traits. With distance from the center of origin of a person, heterozygosity (and this is a measure of genetic diversity) decreases as well as phenotypic diversity.
A source: Andrea Manica, William Amos, François Balloux, Tsunehiko Hanihara. The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation // Nature... 2007. V. 448. P. 346-348.
See also:
1) Why did man leave Africa 60 thousand years ago, "Elements", 30.06.2006.
2) The oldest history of mankind revised, "Elements", 02.03.2006.
3) Journey of Mankind. The Peopling of the World. Bradshaw Foundation (see the free map with animation showing the route of settlement of the ancient man from Africa).
4) Paul Mellars. Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago. A new model (full text: Pdf, 1.66 Kb) // PNAS... 20.06.2006. V. 103. No. 25. P. 9381-9386.
5) Sohini Ramachandran, Omkar Deshpande, Charles C. Roseman, Noah A. Rosenberg, Marcus W. Feldman, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa ( full text: Pdf, 539 Kb) // PNAS... 2005. V. 102. P. 15942-15947.
6) L.A. Zhivotovsky. Microsatellite variability in human populations and methods of its study // VOGiS Bulletin... 2006. T. 10. No. 1. P. 74-96 (there is a Pdf of the entire article).
Alexey Gilyarov
Show comments (29)
Collapse comments (29)
Explaining popularly about the drift of genes. Suppose there is some kind of large population, for example, 100,000 individuals of one species (let it be a human, but with the same success, maybe a white hare, a hooded crow, a forest geranium ...). If from this large population we take some small random sample of 10 individuals, then obviously not all genes present in the parental population will get there, but those that did, in case of successful reproduction and an increase in the size of the daughter population, will be reproduced in many copies. If we take some other small sample from the parental population in parallel, then other genes can accidentally get there, which will also be reproduced in a large number of individuals, if some new population comes from this sample. Accordingly, differences may arise between such daughter populations isolated from each other (which will also appear in the external appearance of individuals), which are not the result of natural selection (i.e. not adaptive, not adaptive), but obtained simply due to some random coincidence of circumstances. This phenomenon was independently discovered by Wright (who gave the name "gene drift", and our compatriots, Dubinin and Romashov, who called it "genetic-automatic processes." Populations of land animals and plants from remote oceanic islands often originate from literally a couple of individuals. the founder effect and gene drift are particularly evident.
Human settlement of the American continent took place no earlier than 25 thousand years ago. People crossed there from the most northeastern part of Asia along the "bridge", a piece of land (Beringia), which then connected Eurasia with America. Then, 18 thousand years ago, there was the last severe glaciation (ice from the north reached the south to 55 latitude) and it completely cut off the people (descendants of Asians) who moved to the American continent from contact with the parental population. The formation of Indian culture began.
All xenophobes and nationalists of all stripes (it doesn't matter - they prefer the Aryan race, or Negroids, or Mongoloids) should be disappointed. Modern man descended from a very small group of people, and "Eve" was black. All of us, people living on Earth, are VERY CLOSE RELATIVES. For example, genetic differences between different groups of chimpanzees living in different regions of Central Africa are much more significant than differences between representatives of different races of Homo sapiens. The loss of genetic (and as shown in the discussed article and phenotypic) diversity with distance from our common homeland - Africa, is another powerful evidence in favor of the hypothesis of one center of origin of modern man. Such as in the case of humans, depleted genotypes resulting from the passage of the population through the bottle-neck (bottleneck, stage of extremely low abundance) are also found in other groups of animals. For example, among all felines, the cheetah occupies a special place. All cheetahs are also very close relatives, which cannot be said about lions, tigers, lynxes and domestic cats. I apologize for the verbosity, but I hope that now everything is clear.
To answer
Dear Alexey Gilyarov,
It so happened that I in a row read your note and the note "A SENSITIVE FIND DEFINED THE THEORY OF" EXODUS FROM AFRICA "" (http://www.inauka.ru/evolution/article74070.html)
There we are talking about the discovery in China of a skeleton about 40 thousand years old, which, on the one hand, is similar to modern humans, and on the other, it clearly differs from the African phenotype.
These data, in my opinion, are in clear contradiction with the materials of your note, and it would be interesting to know how you can resolve this contradiction.
On the other hand, data on the genetic variability of the African genotype may have not only a "historical" but also a "bio-geographical" nature - for example, it can be assumed that Africans IN PRINCIPLE, due to some local geographic or climatic reasons, are more active there is a process of genetic mutations, which, in particular, is manifested in phenotypic diversity. If a similar (not yet discovered) process really takes place, then, in theory, the thesis that the "more diverse" African genotype is a confirmation of the "seniority" of Africans should be corrected.
Personally, it seems to me that the state of affairs in the theory of the origin of man is somewhat similar to the situation with the systematics of chemical elements before the appearance of the periodic table. The problem then was that scientists tried to "naturally" arrange all the KNOWN data "in a row", leaving no room for the UNKNOWN, and therefore they did not succeed in anything good. Likewise, the presence of conflicting theories of the origin of man, based on firmly established facts, suggests that EACH of these theories leaves no "gaps" for STILL UNKNOWN facts - and therefore is incorrect.
To answer
Dear Mikhail, unfortunately, in the note you are referring to, neither the source (the name of the journal and the coordinates of the article), nor even the names of the researchers in English transcription are given. Therefore, I cannot find that original publication about the Chinese find that started it all, and it is simply impossible to judge by the journalistic text, written completely without understanding the issue. So, if you find the coordinates of the original (and not secondary) publication - report it on the site! It is likely that this is not Homo sapiens at all, but some other representative of the hominids. If earlier, for decades, they talked about missing links in human paleontology, now there is even an excess of them. In any case, all major anthropologists agree that there was a period on Earth when several hominids COEXIST at once, i.e. several types of ancient "people" (quotes - since people are understood in a broad sense, including, for example, the Neanderthals, who coexisted with Homo sapiens in Europe for a long time, but then became extinct). So the remnants of "ancestors" are mostly representatives of lateral lines (later extinct), and not at all the real ancestors of Homo sapiens.
As for the assumption of any particularly high rate of mutation of African human ancestors, there are no grounds for it. All the same, let's observe Occam's rule and we will not produce entities beyond the need.To answer
An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China
(Late Pleistocene | Neandertals | mandible | postcrania | paleopathology)Hong Shang *, Haowen Tong *, Shuangquan Zhang *, Fuyou Chen *, and Erik Trinkaus
================As for Occam's razor ... This is a VERY good trick, but you need to use it carefully, otherwise you can cut off what is clearly necessary :))
In the example with the periodic table, Mendeleev went for a very serious "violation" of this principle - and he was right.
Comparing the maps given by you with the maps of the settlement of Homo Sapiens (or at least with the dates of the settlement of Asia and Europe), I see an obvious contradiction. If we proceed from the theory of gene drift, then the later this or that territory was settled, the less there should be gene variability. According to the available data, Europe was inhabited later than Asia, and therefore should be "darker" than Asia. Or, more generally speaking, the maps you quoted MUST be "spotted". But on them we see a "continuous gradient" - as if the resettlement from Africa went from south to north (Africa-Europe), and then - from west to east (Europe - Asia). Aren't you confused by such inconsistencies? If they showed me these maps and did not give any additional explanations about what is displayed there, I would see there a clear indication of the manifestation of some planetary geophysical phenomenon and would ask how things are in another part of the world (i.e. in America).
To answer
Thanks a lot for the link. Unfortunately, only abstract is open, from which you can learn a little. If I try to log in from a university computer, I can get all the text. As for your comments on the settlement of Europe and Asia, I cannot fully argue the author's point of view. You have to ask them that. Look at the maps,
which have links on the Elements (in particular, with animation!). People went to Europe quite early (but from Asia). And in PNAS there are completely open works (if this is not the very last year). Of course, there are inconsistencies. This is not surprising, since until recently we did not know anything at all. Surprising is the progress in knowledge that has been achieved literally over the past 10-20 years.To answer
Hope to see an overview of this article in Elements.
Thank you very much for the animated map - this is exactly what I have been looking for for a long time.
Have you come across maps (static or animated) on which archaeological evidence of the technological progress of people (stone tools, dwellings, etc.) would be plotted in chronological order? Or, maybe, somewhere there are resources on which such a map could be built?
http: // site / news / 430144
To answer
Yes, I read this article at one time. Unfortunately, it does not quite accurately correspond to the topic of discussion.
It says that the theory of displacement by the latest human ancestors (3rd wave of expansion, about 100 thousand years ago) does not correspond to reality, and genetic data indicate that biologically we, humans, are the descendants of all immigrants from Africa, starting from about 2 million years ago.
If we take into account this fact (and I do not see any point in arguing with him), then I can quite agree with the statement that a group of people from Africa settled in China a couple of million years ago, which by the time Homo Sapiens appeared, had changed so much. , which no longer resembled their African ancestors at all. Maybe it was this group that gave rise to the Sinanthropus, and those, in turn, to the modern Chinese and Asians.
In fact, from my point of view, the problem is NOT whether Neanderthals could interbreed with Cro-Magnons and whether representatives of the 3rd wave could interbreed with representatives of earlier "expansion waves". All this, from my point of view, does not have ANY value in relation to the problem of the appearance of intelligence on Earth, since it refers to the evolution of the body, but not consciousness.
What does matter is figuring out the reasons for the CULTURAL EXPLOSION.
A "cultural explosion" means a SHARP time boundary (about 40-50 thousand years ago), after which people began to exponentially progress in technology, culture and the development of the environment. Actually, we can assume that Homo sapiens (that is, the modern bearer of consciousness) appeared exactly then - about 50 thousand years ago, and not 150 and even less 800 thousand years ago. From this point of view, all our ancestors (including the representatives of the third "expansion wave" mentioned everywhere) who lived before this "fatal line" have nothing in common with us in terms of the level of consciousness, although they are biologically "practically identical" to us. Arguments in favor of this assumption I gave in another discussion (see? Discuss = 430541). And no analysis of the DNA of MODERN people, unfortunately, will give an answer to the reasons for this "gap in consciousness".
To answer
: By "cultural explosion" is meant a SHARP time boundary (about 40-50 thousand years ago), after which people began to exponentially progress in technology, culture and the development of the environment.
How was the absolute value of the level of technology, culture and environment assessed? Is there somewhere an illustration of a graph on which estimates of this level are plotted based on a known fact, and from which it would be possible to draw a conclusion about exponential growth at that time, and about the point of its beginning, if any? Is there an analysis somewhere of changes in environmental conditions or other factors that could serve as subversive incentives to increase this level? Finally, it would be interesting to read what are the incentives for raising this level now. :-)
: Actually, we can assume that Homo sapiens (that is, the modern bearer of consciousness) appeared exactly then - about 50 thousand years ago, and not 150 and even less 800 thousand years ago. From this point of view, all our ancestors (including the representatives of the third "expansion wave" mentioned everywhere) who lived before this "fatal line" have nothing in common with us in terms of the level of consciousness, although they are biologically "practically identical" to us. Arguments in favor of this assumption I gave in another discussion (see? Discuss = 430541). And no analysis of the DNA of MODERN people, unfortunately, will give an answer to the reasons for this "gap in consciousness".
To answer
> How was the absolute value of the level of technology, culture and environment assessed? ...
Check out the discussion I linked to. There, the issues raised by you were partially considered, in particular, I gave an indirect method, with the help of which it would be possible to quantitatively assess the rate of development of consciousness (that is, to get just a visual graph, and not general reasoning). On this graph, if you plot it, the "start point" will be fairly well visible.
As for the "cultural explosion" itself, this is a fairly well-known fact. It's just that after this time limit, the tools became more elegant and perfect, the drawings - more realistic, the objects of everyday life and culture - more diverse, and, most importantly, over these 50 thousand years we "got" from a stone knife to spaceships (this also applies to the question of development of the environment). And ALL our ancestors for a similar period of time only slightly improved the stone knife. Read the discussion - there, perhaps, answers to most of the questions that come to mind are given.
> Is there an analysis somewhere of changes in environmental conditions or other factors that could provide incentives to increase this level?
In the same discussion, I tried to show that, firstly, these conditions should be EXTREMELY specific (namely, they should imply a very strict evolutionary selection according to the degree of development of consciousness, which we never observe in real living nature), and, -second, during the period under consideration (40-50 thousand years ago) there were no conditions on Earth at all, suggesting an increased rate of speciation. That is, based on logic and known facts, the human mind simply SHOULD NOT appear on our planet. But it did appear, and this makes one wonder about missing facts or wrong assumptions underlying logical analysis.
>> And no analysis of the DNA of MODERN people, unfortunately, will give an answer to the reasons for this "gap in consciousness".
> First of all, is he really trying to answer this question? As far as I understand, it does not concern him at all.
The fact of the matter is that it really "does not concern" at all! But in the literature related to the problem of the appearance of people, there is a persistent substitution of concepts. It equates biological evolution (i.e. OBSERVED changes in genotype and phenotype) and evolution of consciousness. Researchers simply refuse to recognize the fundamental difference between these phenomena.
> Secondly, the fact that it does not show some kind of fundamental gap precisely about 50 thousand years ago is already part of the answer to this question. :-)
This is TOO crude a tool to be used to find such differences. It's like measuring bacteria with a student ruler.
And then, if the emergence of human consciousness was the result of some small modification of the genome, then the analysis of the DNA of modern people WILL NOT show AT ALL when this modification occurred and whether it happened in principle, because it is present in ALL people, and it is simply impossible to understand that this is a modification of the "pre-human" genome.
> Was the transition from bacterial colonies to unicellular no less a rupture? Was the transition from unicellular to multicellular not a smaller gap? Etc.
These questions are also very interesting, but, firstly, they relate specifically to BIOLOGICAL evolution and, secondly, they have a fundamental difference from the question of the emergence of consciousness, because happened much more "naturally", i.e. over fairly long periods of time (millions of years) and by the "trial and error" method. And, besides, they were not associated with such a thing completely unnecessary for survival as Reason.
To answer
boldly as people work with statistics ... On the territory of Russia (except for the edge of Kamchatka, it seems) there is not a single fence of skulls, but then boldly paint over its territory in a very specific time zone of resettlement!
To answer
With distance from the center of origin of a person, heterozygosity (and this is a measure of genetic diversity) decreases as well as phenotypic diversity.
In other words, the farther from Africa, the more stable the heterozygous and phenotypic traits, i.e. the whole set of traits underwent a longer and more careful selection and the sample was firmly entrenched, which means that in these regions people are older than in Africa, where they are still very, very young, so they change every year, like children when they grow up.
And in Africa, people lived, more precisely on a line parallel to the equator, approximately at the latitude of North Africa, where they were periodically driven by glaciers. From there they then, not all, and returned home as the warmer warmed. Therefore, birds fly to nest in the North, also home, like people. In Kenya, where they have been digging so enthusiastically since the discovery of "Lucy", there are simply unique conditions in the form of a shift of the continental plate. They dig not where they "lost", but under the "fanar". All these remains of "ancient human ancestors" may well have nothing to do with us. By the way, genetic analysis has already knocked the Neanderthal out of the Darvinoid deck, and how they only recently imposed him on us as half-brothers! Africa, as the ancestral home of mankind, was apparently chosen from considerations of the parity of civilizations and political correctness. Most likely there were still several Adamov, "of the same type". Six basic mutations, out of 200 known today, are believed to be present in all men on Earth. Is it just about a common ancestor, or about common conditions for all of their occurrence? And are these markers of mutations? It is possible that this is really a "registration sheet", that's just what and why? I cannot accept the explanation that nature has created a useless zone, not in her traditions. Maybe 6 matches is the registration code of our "post office" - Earth? Ha ha!
To answer
Actually, if you look at the maps in the article under discussion, you can clearly see that in the Africa region "something is happening", and the intensity of this something decreases with distance from the center (ie Africa). However, this phenomenon can be explained in several ways, and the simplest of them (in accordance with Occam's principle) is that at the "epicenter" there is some MODERN geophysical phenomenon, which is reflected in biological processes, in particular, in the frequency of human mutations. genome.
This hypothesis can be easily verified - it is enough to do the same "time scan" of genes not only in humans, but also in other species that lived in Africa with him and have approximately the same distribution around the planet. If they have a similar picture, it means that the matter is in geophysical processes, if only in humans, then either the hypothesis is incorrect, or additional factors must be taken into account.
On the other hand, the molecular clock, although it does not give the exact time of the appearance of the mutation, but like it or not, it shows the SEQUENCE of mutations. Those. if this mutation is still absent in Africa, but in Asia it ALREADY exists, it means that the mutation appeared AFTER this species appeared in Asia, and it is difficult to argue here. As far as I understand, it was by the SEQUENCE of a number of mutations that we came to the conclusion that we came from Africa. Political correctness has nothing to do with it - roughly speaking, it's just counting on fingers.
Personally, in all discussions about the origin of man, I am annoyed by the fact that the conversation is conducted exclusively around the structure of the skull, skeleton or chromosomes, i.e. around what can be dug, measured, parted and weighed. It's like judging a person's rationality by the size and style of their clothes. More than size 50 is reasonable, less than size is not. There is a breast pocket - sapiens, no - a monkey.
Reasonableness is, first of all, an INFORMATION phenomenon. And the ability to process information is NOT reflected in ANY WAY in the skeleton, in the structure of the skull, or in the features of the genome structure _ known at the moment_. Although biologists have already understood that the genetic sequence itself does not mean anything yet - it is important HOW genes "interact" in the process of the LIVING organism's work, and one cannot even dream of this by the fossil DNA. So at the moment the whole "genetic history" of intelligence is not worth a penny. It just gives a rather rough picture of who appeared after whom in this world.
If we judge the appearance of this INFORMATION ABILITY (rationality) in people by the ONLY reliable (but, unfortunately, indirect) material attribute - objects of material culture, tools and rock paintings, it turns out that the mind arose SIMULTANEOUSLY across the entire planet about 40 50 thousand years ago, i.e. from ALL people who at that time were settled in an area thousands of kilometers from Africa to Australia. If we admit this fact, then all "scientific" theories of the appearance of people instantly fly into the tube, and we are faced with a very unpleasant choice - the intervention of "higher powers" or alien intelligence.? Discuss = 430541), I proposed a "reasonable compromise" - "accidental "viral introduction of" genes of the mind ", but it also does not look very convincing. Although, from my point of view, this is the best that can be offered at the moment, if you firmly adhere to the materialistic point of view.
To answer
True, counting is just the same on the fingers, more precisely on point mutations of the nongenic zone of the chromosome. But there is one thing! If we take, say, Egypt, the Middle East or Southern Europe as the conditional point of origin of the "most ancient mutation" - M168, then the strategic plan for the capture of planet Earth by progressive mankind in the form of arrows on the map is drawn just as correctly. The fact is, for example, that 10-15% of non-Africans do not have the M89 (Arabian) mutator. And if we take the "exodus" through the Red Sea to the Arabian Peninsula as a basis, then everyone should have this "SNIP". The genetic base at the time of the study included only about 50 thousand data, from, as you understand, 3 billion men on earth. Is this a sufficient sample? Do not know. I think no. But she already shows that the version of the thousand-year swim across the Red Sea is not accurate. The aborigines of Australia have the last M9 mutation, i.e. for almost 40 thousand years there were simply no others. The Indians still have M3 and also silence. How, in this case, the route of movement in time can be described from the assumption - one snip per 5 thousand years. All of these studies are conducted only in the United States. USA is the ideologist of globalism. The most important principle of globalism is "all people are brothers". It is also important that there is no elder among them. Only Australia, Antarctica, and Atlantis would be more ideal than Africa. But it won't fit. And who prompted the idea to place the ancestral home of man in Africa? Yes, still the same Mr. Darwin. "Monofilist" fucking. The Neanderthal (nomo sapiens) was included in the linear chain of development of modern man (nomo sapiens sapiens) as, generally speaking, the progenitor. This is recorded in the Bol. Sov. Ents. black, damn it, "in Russian".
To answer
Dear Michael! There is no unambiguous picture of dispersal based on the study of mutations. With the same success, the starting control point can be placed, for example, in Spain or Egypt, and even in the Middle East. The picture will be the same. A "relatively small group" makes their way across Gibraltar to Africa, retreating in front of the glacier. Receives a basic mutation, and then divides into southern migration, along the western coast of Africa, periodically "budding", say along rivers, inland. And to the east - along the Mediterranean coast to Egypt, where it is again divided into South African, migrating upstream of the Nile, and into the Middle East. Up to this point, all mutations are the same. Then part goes to the Middle East (there is no M89 mutation), and the other part, spinning around the Arabian Peninsula, receives it. Then you can continue, as scheduled today. The picture of mutations is the same. You also need to take into account global historical processes. The conquests of Macedonian, Rome, Arab and Crusades, Mongol and others. They could very seriously correct the picture of inheritance of mutations in the male line. There are also many other points and ambiguities. Point mutations (SNPs) are strictly sequentially recorded or may occur within an interval (retroactively). For example, repetitions of markers in the so-called. haplotypes can change in any direction. What is the nature of snips? Why do they arise? What, finally, is recorded in the nongenic zone of the Y chromosome, what information? After all, it is recorded and rather strictly betrayed with minor but stable corrections. In general, it is too early to make global generalizations.
In passing, I would like to note one more interesting point. It turns out that Slavic haplotypes do not have Mongolian sources. Considering that the Y chromosome is transmitted clearly along the male line in a cross-cutting manner, this means that there are no Mongols among the Slavic ancestors (in a reasonable time interval). So, "no matter how much Russian you scratch, you won't find a Mongol." What a gift from Fomenko, proving, if I understand him correctly, that the Mongol yoke is a fiction! Funny, is not it?To answer
Dear Vagant,
It is not entirely clear to me the increased emphasis given to genetics in historical research. Well, we found out that Genghis Khan did his best and today 2 million of his descendants are running around the world, but so what? Is that a line in the Guinness Book of Records, a curious fact, but nothing more. And as for the Slavs and Mongols, maybe they really managed to take samples from those whose ancestors did not interbreed with the Mongol-Tatars. Again, so what? Does this cancel the historical chronicle and the results of the excavations? An interesting addition to the existing data, and nothing more. It is quite possible that the Tatars simply took "their" children to the Horde, and, accordingly, we should not look for Mongolian genes from the Slavs, but Slavic genes from the descendants of the Horde. A funny slogan turns out - "Russia is the homeland of the Tatars!" :) But for me personally, these "genetic excavations" are completely uninteresting.
But what is really interesting is the mystery of the appearance of Reason on our planet. And here the question of whether the mind first appeared in one place and from there spread across the planet, or independently - in several places, is fundamentally important, including from a genetic point of view.
If the carriers of the mind appeared in only one place (the theory of monocentrism), then this allows us to explain why all people are one biological species and have approximately the same level of consciousness. At the same time, it does not matter at all where exactly he appeared for the first time and what paths his expansion took. But this theory does not allow explaining how the Mongoloids and Caucasians appeared, since there is no evidence of the transformation of Africans into these races (there are no transitional forms). In addition, the archaeological evidence does not support the "capture" of Asia and Europe by Africans. However, the same problem arises if we accept that the mind has arisen in any other, but only center.
If the polycentrists are right, and the mind appeared in several places on the basis of the "local population" (and this is exactly what is confirmed by the data of archeology!), Then it is completely incomprehensible how clearly different in genotype creatures that gave rise to the peoples of Africa, Asia and Europe, managed to turn into the same species. And it is all the more incomprehensible what could have caused such a transformation. This fundamentally contradicts everything that is known to genetics today. But maybe what we know is not all that really is?
In addition, there is the problem of space-time. According to archaeological data, the transformation of Homo Sapiens into Homo Sapiens Sapiens took place about 50 thousand years ago. A reliable indicator of this transformation is the "cultural explosion" - the change in household items, tools, the emergence of painting and art. People at that time occupied a vast territory - from Africa to Australia. And, apparently, this transformation took place almost instantly - over several thousand years. What kind of Genghis Khan had to walk along the coast for everyone to have "genes of consciousness" at the same time?
Thus, today we have the situation "Wherever you throw - everywhere there is a wedge." And the genetic search for a "historical homeland" pursues only one goal - in no case does not allow the public to think about the problems mentioned above. After all, if the solution is "found", then you can declare that all problems have disappeared, and simply ignore their existence. Instead of a painful search for answers to difficult questions, there is a reference to "the latest scientific data", which, despite their accuracy, in fact, do not prove or explain anything at all.
To answer
Dear Mikahail! You even raised the bar to 50,000 years. I remember being taught that it happened 35-40 thousand years ago. But that's not the point. It is important that there really was some kind of sharp "reincarnation" or something. Then who (or what?) Left Africa 80 thousand years ago? What should you call it? It is clear that this is not yet Homo sapiens sapiens, but there must be some kind of neoanthrope. If this is not a Neanderthal, then who? No answer! Geneticists say it's none of our business. But the sites of other neoanthropines 80-100 thousand years old simply do not exist. The common "Eve" is generally attributed to 140-160 thousand years. And who is she then? She could mate with "Adam", since there is a "common" offspring, then one species. But this is closer to the point of intersection with the last archantropus. Is it possible that the mutations under study, common to all, are those "tumblers" that turned on the mind, and that arose as a result of a planetary cataclysm, regardless of place of residence and origin? There are still more questions to geneticists than answers. A hypothesis, it is a hypothesis. That's just too much of her "PR".
To answer
For me personally, there is no doubt that every living organism (roughly speaking, capable of reproducing independently) is a "receiver" of certain "subtle fields", about which Western science is still unknown. In my opinion, we are just on the verge of opening these fields. Maybe they will be able to detect and describe them in another 100-200 years. But so far for "orthodox scientists" they are the strictest taboo - like everything that cannot be entered into the existing scientific paradigm.
In fact, there are more than enough indications that biological organisms - from unicellular to humans - constantly "listen" to the external environment. The most interesting and convincing argument in favor of this is the treatment of diseases using very weak millimeter radiation (units to tens of microwatts per square centimeter), which does not have ANY thermal effect on tissues and, moreover, has a clearly resonant nature. The theory of this effect has not yet been built, although the effect itself has been known for almost 30 years and thousands of people have been cured by this method. I spoke about this in order to show that living things have very complex mechanisms operating at the molecular-genetic level, which are responsible for the "perception" of radiation coming from the surrounding space. Moreover, these mechanisms are so sensitive and selective that they can receive signals that are much lower than the thermal noise level (which is also nonsense for orthodox physicists who are not familiar with the tricks of living systems). And from here it is already a stone's throw to the "reception" of signals carried by YET by unknown superweak, and therefore not measurable by hardware fields.
To answer
Write a comment
Modern Homo sapiens or homo sapiens arose on Earth about 60-70 thousand years ago. However, our species was preceded by many ancestors that have not survived to this day. Humanity is a single species, the number of individuals of which today amounts to more than 6.8 billion people and continues to grow. It is projected to reach 7 billion people in 2011. However, such a rapid growth in the number of mankind began quite recently - about a hundred years ago (graph). For most of its history, the number of people was no more than a million individuals on the entire planet. Where did man come from?
There are several scientific and pseudo-scientific hypotheses of its origin. The dominant hypothesis, which in fact is already a theory of the emergence of our species, is the one that asserts that humanity arose in the equatorial about 2 million years ago. At this time, the genus Man (Homo) stands out in the animal world, one of the types of which modern people are. The facts confirming this theory, first of all, should be attributed to the paleontological findings in this area. On no other continent of the world, except Africa, have the remains of all ancestral forms of modern people been found. In contrast to this, it can be said that fossilized bones of other species of the genus Man were found not only in Africa, but also in. However, this hardly testifies to the existence of several centers of the emergence of mankind - rather, to several waves of dispersal across the planet of various species, of which, in the end, only ours survived. The closest form of man to our ancestors is the Neanderthal man. Our two species split from a common ancestral form about 500,000 years ago. Until now, scientists do not know for sure whether the Neanderthal is an independent species or a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, it is known for certain that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (ancestors of modern people) lived on Earth at the same time, perhaps even their tribes interacted with each other, but Neanderthals died out several tens of thousands of years ago, and Cro-Magnons remained the only human species on the planet. ...
It is assumed that the strongest Toba took place on Earth 74,000 years ago. It got very cold on Earth for several decades. This event led to the extinction of a large number of animal species and greatly reduced the human population, but, perhaps, was the impetus for its development. Having survived this catastrophe, humanity began to settle throughout the planet. 60,000 years ago, modern man migrated to Asia, and from there in. Populated Europe 40,000 years ago. By 35,000 BC, it reached the strait and migrated to North America, finally reaching the southern tip 15,000 years ago.
The dispersal of people across the planet led to the emergence of numerous human populations that were already too far from each other to interact with each other. Natural selection and variability led to the emergence of three large human races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (often the fourth is considered here - the Australoid race).
More than a million years have passed since the birth of the human race and people began to explore the globe. This process was very long and difficult: even now, when, it would seem, our planet has been studied up and down, there are still places on it where no human has stepped. Let's find out how the development of the Earth by man took place.
The first steps
In the course of numerous archaeological excavations, scientists have established that East Africa is the cradle of all mankind.
Ancient people tried to build their settlements near large rivers, which provided them with food and water. The first civilizations on Earth arose along the mouths of such large rivers as the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, and they were called river. Gradually, small settlements expanded, strengthened and subsequently became the centers of the state.
Rice. 1. Ancient river states.
The settlement in close proximity to rivers was of great importance. In the spring, full-flowing rivers overflowed their banks. When the water evaporated, large areas of moist soil remained, which were ideal for farming. In another way, in hot climates, people could not sow cereals.
Settlement across the continents
Having gradually mastered the continent, people began to move in different directions in search of new, more comfortable places of existence. Thus began the conquest of a new continent - Eurasia.
Over time, mankind has successfully mastered all the continents, with the exception of one - Antarctica.
- Thousands of years ago, there was land on the site of the Bering Strait, and it was not difficult to move from Eurasia to North America.
- Having safely mastered North America, the ancient people moved to its southern part.
- Australia was mastered by people who managed to get to the mainland from Southeast Asia.
Rice. 2. Residents of Australia.
Land development by man by countries of the world
People living together in the same territory are united by a common culture and language. This is how an ethnos is formed, which may consist of a small tribe or a large people, a nation.
In the distant past, powerful ethnic groups gave birth to great civilizations. Currently, the structure of human society looks a little different.
There are more than 200 different states on Earth, large and small, strong and weak. There is a state that occupies the whole continent - this is Australia. And there is a very tiny state, consisting of one single city - this is the Vatican.
Rice. 3. Vatican.
Population density in countries depends on several factors:
- geographic location;
- age of settlement;
- the level of development of the economy.
The most densely populated countries are Western Europe, East and South Asia, and the eastern part of North America.
What have we learned?
When studying the topic "How did the development of the Earth by man" on the geography program for the 7th grade, we learned which continent scientists consider the birthplace of the human race. We found out how the ancient people mastered the continents and countries.
Assessment of the report
Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 22.
Today, the number of inhabitants of the Earth exceeds 7 billion people, and the most rapid growth in the number began to occur only in the century before last. Now it is difficult to imagine that at the dawn of civilization the planet was inhabited by a few tribes of primitive hunters, who gradually settled throughout the entire territory suitable for habitation.
Most archaeologists and historians today agree that equatorial Africa was the birthplace of the ancestors of modern man. On this continent, more than two million years ago, the human race emerged from the animal world, as evidenced by numerous paleontological finds. Africa is the only continent where scientists have found almost all transitional forms from a primitive human being to its modern form. From here began the man's journey to other continents.
There is, however, evidence that suggests that in ancient times there were several centers of civilization on the planet. For example, on the territory of Eurasia, the remains of representatives of one of the oldest human species have been found. But these findings have little to do with the characteristics of the branch from which modern mankind. It is quite possible that in this case it would be more correct to speak not about the second independent center of the emergence of Homo sapiens, but just about a series of waves of dispersal, stretching over many thousands of years.
Archaeological and geological studies suggest that 70 thousand years ago, an extremely strong volcanic eruption took place on the planet. The consequence of this event was climate change and a sharp decline in the number of animals. In search of food, people were forced to settle in very vast territories.
The first big wave of migration, which began 60 thousand years ago, was directed towards Asia. From here the man got to Australia and the islands of Oceania. About 40 thousand years ago, people appeared in Europe. After another five millennia, man reached the Bering Strait and ended up on the territory of America, the complete settlement of which took about 20 thousand years.
The long-term dispersal of mankind across all continents led to the formation of several large groups different from each other, called races. Being very distant from each other, these groups gradually became isolated, and their representatives acquired characteristic external features. The isolation of peoples also affected the characteristics of their culture.
Related Videos
The message of genetic scientists that all mankind descended from one foremother was recently confirmed once again. The study of the Xq13.3 gene made it possible to assume that the "mother Eve", who possessed all the genes of Homo Sapiens, met with Adam about 200 thousand years ago.
Africa - the ancestral home of modern people
The most ancient representative of the Homo sapiens species lived on Earth about two million years ago. Such a recent conclusion by scientists contradicts the conclusion of other researchers that the Homo sapiens species is not more than 200 thousand years old. These experts believe that the genus Homo originated and developed rather quickly. His ancestor was an isolated group of African hominids. These are two hypotheses that are debating among themselves - the polyregional one and the hypothesis of the “foremother Eve”. The adherents of both theories agree that the ancestors of humans appeared in Africa, and the migration of humans from the African continent began about a million years ago.
In accordance with the hypothesis of the "foremother Eve", the modern species of Homo Sapiens quickly adapted to the changing environment and, as a result, supplanted other subspecies. "Eve" lived about 200 thousand years ago. The polyregional theory says that the genus Homo originated two million years ago and gradually spread throughout the planet. Evolution proceeded on its own, and groups of the human race that lived in cold lands acquired a thicker build and blonde hair. Among the people who inhabited the steppes, the advantage was given to individuals with a developed upper eyelid, which protected their eyes from wind and sand. And those who lived in a hot, humid climate began to differ in their dark skin color and a "head" of curly hair, which could protect them from the harmful effects of the scorching sun. Thus, races appeared on Earth - established groups of people, united by common hereditary characteristics.
Peoples of the earth
In those days, Homo lived in a few isolated communities. To obtain food and survive, such communities needed to control rather large areas, which provided natural barriers to rapid population growth. Even the transition from hunting and farming to cattle breeding also did not provide the opportunities necessary for the rapid growth of settlements. There were practically no contacts with representatives of other settlements, since the presence of a neighbor meant, first of all, the presence of a direct competitor and a threat to the survival of the community. Thus, groups of people settled in large territories developed in isolation for very long periods of time, quite sufficient for them to develop their own languages of communication, specific rules of behavior, beliefs, traditions, that is, unique cultural characteristics. Thus, peoples began to appear as communities differing in language, culture and traditions. That is, those characteristics that are not inherited.
Today, a person's belonging to a particular nation is determined not only and not so much by the geographical place of his birth or residence, but by the upbringing and cultural heritage that this person carries.
How and why did people settle on the continents? Where is currently the densest population? How do various types of economic activities of the population affect natural systems?
The question of the place of origin of humanity is one of the most difficult. Where the first people originated is not yet clear. Most scientists believe that the birthplace of mankind is Africa and Southwest Eurasia. On this territory, our distant ancestors became real people from the prehuman. It was here that the long journey from animal to human began, which took more than 3 million years.
Gradually, people settled on all continents of the Earth, with the exception of Antarctica. It is believed that at first people mastered the territories of Eurasia and Africa, convenient for life, and then other continents. On the map (Fig. 40), you can determine where once there were land "bridges" between the continents, through which ancient hunters and gatherers penetrated from one continent to another.
Rice. 40. Prospective ways of human settlement Main areas of settlement.Humanity is distributed unevenly on the planet. Most of all people populated the Eastern and Northern Hemispheres and much less of them in the Western and Southern. In Antarctica, temporary residents appeared only in the twentieth century. Most people live on the coast of the World Ocean, its seas or near them, on the plains within the temperate, subtropical and subequatorial climatic zones.
There are four most densely populated territories on Earth - South and East Asia, Western Europe and the eastern part of North America. This can be explained by the favorable natural conditions, the prescription of the settlement. Ancient tribes moved from one place to another in search of better conditions for life. The settlement of new lands accelerated the development of animal husbandry and agriculture. For example, in South and East Asia, people have long been engaged in agriculture on irrigated land and collect several crops a year. Western Europe and eastern North America are industrialized territories with a predominantly urban population.
Humanity is peoples. Since ancient times, humanity has been composed of peoples. Each of us is not only an earthling, but also a particle of one or another people, a bearer of a certain culture, which is expressed in speech, behavior, and traditions. All these traits are called ethnic, "ethnos" in Greek - "people".
How many nations are there on Earth? It has not yet been possible to count them all. It is known that there are thousands of them - large and small and that they speak thousands of languages. Language is one of the most important features of a particular people. It is impossible to establish the total number of languages of the peoples of the world, there are about 4-6 thousand of them. As a rule, each nation speaks its own language. However, it also happens that several peoples speak the same language. So, English is spoken not only by the British, but also by Australians, Anglo-Canadians, American Americans and some other peoples. Spanish is the native language of most of the peoples of South America, as well as Mexico and other countries of Central America.
Language is not the only sign of a people. Peoples living in different natural conditions also differ in other features: traditional dwellings (pile and floating structures, log huts, stone tower houses, yurts, plague, etc.), tools, clothing and footwear, composition and method of cooking. Now the clothes of different peoples are becoming the same type, losing their ethnic character. However, the national costume is preserved by many peoples as festive clothing. Differences between peoples are manifested in customs and rituals, in folk art. For example, folk musical culture differs significantly, and certain types of art exist only among some peoples (bone carving among the Eskimos, processing of birch bark among residents of the North, etc.). The peoples also differ in the prevailing religious beliefs.
The main types of economic activities of people and their impact on natural systems. The nature of the Earth is the environment for human life and activity. And he, with his way of life and activity, invades nature, violating its laws. At the same time, different types of economic activities affect natural systems in a different way.
Agriculture especially strongly changes natural complexes.
For cultivation of cultivated plants and breeding of domestic animals, significant areas are required. As a result of the plowing of land, the area under natural vegetation is reduced. The soil is losing its fertility. Artificial irrigation helps the farmer to obtain high yields, but in arid areas this often leads to salinization of the soil and reduced yields. Pets also change vegetation and soil: they trample vegetation and compact the soil. In arid climates, pastures can turn into desert areas.
Under the influence of human economic activity, forest complexes are experiencing great changes. As a result of uncontrolled felling, the area under forests around the globe has significantly decreased. In tropical and equatorial zones, forests are still being burned out, making room for fields and pastures.
The rapid growth of industry is having a devastating effect on nature, polluting air, water and soil. Gaseous substances enter the atmosphere, and solids and liquids enter soil and water. During the development of minerals, especially in the open pit, a lot of waste and dust arise on the surface, deep large open pits are formed.
Cities need more and more new land areas for the construction of residential buildings, roads, industrial enterprises. Environmental pollution adversely affects human health.
Thus, in a significant part of the world, the economic activity of people has changed natural complexes to one degree or another.
Human economic activity is clearly reflected on thematic geographical maps. Using their conventional signs, you can determine: a) places of mining; b) features of land use in agriculture, etc.
