Exactly 200 years ago, on February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born. In many ways, it was through his efforts that people finally understood who they were. A species of higher apes. And the clearer this, for some, unpleasant answer became, the more acute the question arose - how does a person differ from other higher primates.
And it's surprisingly difficult to answer. Although the differences from the closest of the surviving relatives, chimpanzees, are visible to the naked eye, it is not possible to present a criterion - a necessary and sufficient condition - for the belonging of any monkey to humans.
According to individual signs - even anatomical, even craniometric, even phrenological - there are more than enough differences. Which allowed for long and long years to rank peoples and races according to the “degree of perfection”, or evolutionary distance from monkeys. The ranking itself was carried out by Europeans, because the main measure of perfection was, as a rule, the whiteness of the skin. Signs on which blacks or Asians moved farther from monkeys (for example, the length of the penis or the amount of hair on the body, respectively) were not considered.
But there is no general definition that distinguishes a person from a monkey.
Don't believe? Try it yourself at your leisure to come up with such a criterion, and so that without any reservations. The time to complete this task will be limited only by your stubbornness.
But even if it was not possible to fully understand the differences, this is not a reason to abandon the search for their causes - albeit formal ones. By the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries, anthropologists became interested in genetics. And since "the genotype determines the phenotype," let's compare the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, and maybe we'll find some kind of "gene of humanity." Then we will figure out what external and internal differences this gene is translated into.
The genomes of chimpanzees and several other monkeys read in recent years - gorillas, orangutans and macaques - have somewhat disappointed those who hoped to find a person in their comparison with the genome of Craig Venter and. We consist of almost identical proteins, and even the frequency of the main type of mutations - single nucleotide substitutions ("snip") in the genes of these proteins (and this is the basis of variability and interspecies differences in many lines of living beings) in primates - on the way from a monkey to a man is steadily fell. The activity of mobile genetic elements - transposons and the like, which are sometimes associated with significant rearrangements of the genome, even in the absence of changes in the proteins themselves, also fell.
At the same time, purely subjectively, the differences between humans and even the most perfect of other primates seem to be more significant than the differences between, say, a chimpanzee from a gorilla. If only because chimpanzees and gorillas still get along with each other nearby, on the same continent, and man has captured the entire planet. And not from evil, but simply because by its activity it is able to change landscapes over vast territories, it threatens the existence of the same gorillas.
A group of American, Spanish and Italian scientists led by Ivan Eichler from the University of the US State of Washington decided to deal with the second type of mutation - gene copy number variations (CNV, copy number variations). With such mutations, unlike "snip", nothing changes in the genetic code of a protein. Instead, as the name implies, there is a change in the number of copies - a gene encoding a certain protein can be copied twice when rewriting the genome, which means that the protein itself will be synthesized twice as much. The opposite situation is also possible, when the gene is completely deleted.
Eichler and colleagues compared the CNV profiles of macaque, orangutan, chimpanzee and humans. According to modern ideas, it was in this order that the branches of the evolutionary tree grew, at the ends of which the listed species of monkeys now sit. results comparisons are published in the latest issue of Nature, dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the birth.
As it turned out when comparing monkey DNA, the rate of duplication of genes on the branch leading to chimpanzees and humans has doubled.
Between about 8 and 6 million years ago, when the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, who is not also the ancestor of the gorilla, lived, on average, 60 genes doubled per million years. In the common ancestor of all hominids, this rate, according to the analysis, is 3-4 times less. True, the time span of this older branch before branching into pongins (orangutans) and hominins (chimpanzees, gorillas and humans) is longer, so the total number of doublings is almost the same.
According to Ivan Eichler, it is striking that this acceleration of doublings occurred at exactly the same time when the rate of accumulation of single mutations, "snip", on the contrary, fell sharply for all hominids. At the same time, scientists also found examples of the independent occurrence of the same doublings in different monkeys - for example, doublings that an orangutan and a person have, but not a chimpanzee.
Over the approximately 2-3 million years of the existence of a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, we have collectively accumulated 20-25 million base pairs, which are copies of other segments of the genome. Over the next 5-6 million years - only 16-17 million pairs. At the same time, doublings do not occur evenly throughout the genome, but in separate, for some reason, unstable regions.
Even more surprisingly, the main duplication spurt belongs precisely to the common branch of chimpanzees and humans.
However, Eichler and his colleagues, it seems, do not intend to draw not the most pleasant conclusions.
“There is still no definitive answer as to why humans and chimpanzees are so different,” He speaks Thomas Marc-Bone of Eichler's research group. “Maybe the difference of a person is not there at all.”
Some scientists believe that genes are really not so important for a person. As Nature columnist Erica Hayden says in a popular article, published in the same anniversary issue of Nature, an increasing number of scientists are inclined to think about the disproportionate role of the "cultural" component - as opposed to the "material", genetic, based on DNA - in the human heritage. Human abilities for technological innovation and education to some extent softened the pressure of natural selection in its "Darwinian" form, allowing us to retain many "harmful" mutations in the genome and not fix many "useful" ones in it.
A modern example of this is the Oxford geneticist Gilin McQueen. Thanks to glasses, even people with not very good eyesight can live to adulthood and pass on their genes - including poor eyesight - to the next generations. Our distant ancestors did not have such chances.
At the same time, no one is going to throw "material" genetics off its pedestal or expose its leading role in the transfer of information from generation to generation. An important role is also played by differences in the number of copies of the gene. It's just that "now it's time to figure out what all these differences mean and how they are reflected in the genes," concludes Marc-Bone.
Taxon- a classification unit in the taxonomy of plant and animal organisms.
The main evidence of the origin of man from animals is the presence in his body of rudiments and atavisms.
Rudiments- these are organs that have lost their significance and function in the process of historical development (evolution) and remained in the form of underdeveloped formations in the body. They are laid down during the development of the embryo, but do not develop. Examples of rudiments in humans can be: coccygeal vertebrae (remains of the skeleton of the tail), appendix (process of the caecum), body hair; ear muscles (some people can move their ears); third eyelid.
atavisms- this is a manifestation, in individual organisms, of signs that existed in individual ancestors, but were lost in the course of evolution. In humans, this is the development of the tail and hair on the whole body.
The historical past of people
The first people on earth. The name of the ape-man - Pithecanthropus was given to one of the earliest finds made in the 19th century in Java. For a long time, this find was considered a transitional link from apes to humans, the first representatives of the hominin family. These views were promoted by morphological features: a combination of modern-looking bones of the lower limb with a primitive skull and intermediate brain mass. However, the Pithecanthropes of Java are a fairly late group of hominids. Starting from the 20s of the twentieth century and up to the present, an important discovery has been made in southern and East Africa: the remains of bipedal Plio-Pleistocene primates (from 6 to 1 million years) have been found. They marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of paleontology - the reconstruction of these stages of hominin evolution on the basis of direct paleontological data, and not on the basis of various indirect comparative anatomical and embryological data.
The era of the bipedal apes australopithecines. The first Australopithecus of East Africa, the Zinjanthropus, was discovered by the spouses L. and M. Lika. The most striking distinguishing feature of Australopithecus is upright walking. This is evidenced by the structure of the pelvis. Bipedal locomotion is one of the oldest acquisitions of man.
The first representatives of the human race in East Africa. Along with the massive Australopithecus, other creatures lived in East Africa 2 million years ago. For the first time, this became known when the following year after the discovery of Zinjanthropus, the remains of a miniature hominid were discovered, whose brain volume was no less (and even more) than that of Australopithecus. It was later revealed that he was a contemporary of the Zinjanthropus. The most important discoveries were made in the lowest layer dating back 2-1.7 million years. Its maximum thickness is 40 meters. The climate, when this layer was laid down, was more humid and its inhabitants were Zinjanthropus and Prezinjanthropus. The latter did not last long. In addition, stones with traces of artificial processing were also found in this layer. Most often it was a pebble ranging in size from a walnut to 7–10 cm, with a few chips of the working edge. Initially, it was assumed that Zinjantrops were able to do this, but after new discoveries it became obvious: either the tools were made by a more advanced prezinjantrop, or both inhabitants were capable of such initial stone processing. The emergence of a clamp with a full opposition of the thumb must have been preceded by a period of predominance of a forceful grip, when the object was raked in a handful and clamped in the hand. Moreover, it was the nail phalanx of the thumb that experienced especially strong pressure.
Background of anthropogenesis.The common ancestors of great apes and humans were gregarious narrow-nosed monkeys that lived on trees in tropical forests. The transition of this group to a terrestrial way of life, caused by a cooling of the climate and the displacement of forests by steppes, led to upright walking. The straightened position of the body and the transfer of the center of gravity caused the replacement of the arched spinal column with an S-shaped one, which gave it flexibility. A vaulted springy foot was formed, the pelvis expanded, the chest became wider and shorter, the jaw apparatus was lighter, and most importantly, the forelimbs were freed from the need to support the body, their movements became freer and more varied, their functions became more complicated. The transition from the use of objects to the manufacture of tools is the boundary between ape and man. The evolution of the hand followed the path of natural selection of mutations useful for work. Along with upright walking, the most important prerequisite for anthropogenesis was the herd way of life, which, with the development of labor activity and the exchange of signals, led to the development of articulate speech. Concrete ideas about the surrounding objects and phenomena were generalized into abstract concepts, mental and speech abilities developed. Higher nervous activity was formed, and articulate speech developed.
Stages of human development. There are three stages in human evolution: ancient people, ancient people and modern (new) people. Many populations of Homo sapiens did not replace each other sequentially, but lived simultaneously, fighting for existence and destroying the weaker ones.
| human ancestors | Progressive features in appearance | Lifestyle | Tools |
| Parapithecus (discovered in Egypt in 1911) | They walked on two legs. Low forehead brow ridges, hairline | Considered as the oldest ape | Tools in the form of a club; hewn stones |
| Dryopithecus (bone remains found in Western Europe, South Asia and East Africa. Antiquity from 12 to 40 million years) | According to most scientists, driopithecus are considered as a common ancestral group for modern great apes and humans. | ||
| Australopithecus (bone remains of 2.6-3.5 million years old found in South and East Africa) | They had a small body (length 120-130 cm), weight 30-40 kg, brain volume - 500-600 cm 2, moved on two legs. | They consumed vegetable and meat food, lived in open areas (such as savannahs). Australopithecus is also considered as a stage of human evolution, immediately preceding the emergence of the most ancient people (archanthropes). | Sticks, stones, animal bones were used as tools. |
| Pithecanthropus (ancient man, remains discovered - Africa, Mediterranean, Java island; 1 million years ago) | Height 150 cm; brain volume 900–1,000 cm2, forehead low, with superciliary ridge; jaws without chin protrusion | public lifestyle; lived in caves, used fire. | Primitive stone tools, sticks |
| Sinanthropus (China and others, 400 thousand years ago) | Height 150–160 cm; brain volume 850–1,220 cm 3 , low forehead, with superciliary ridge, no chin protrusion | They lived in herds, built primitive dwellings, used fire, dressed in skins | Tools of stone and bone |
| Neanderthal (ancient man); Europe, Africa, Asia; about 150 thousand years ago | Height 155-165 cm; brain volume 1 400 cm 3; few convolutions; the forehead is low, with a superciliary ridge; chin protrusion is poorly developed | The social way of life, the construction of hearths and dwellings, the use of fire for cooking, dressed in skins. They used gestures and primitive speech to communicate. There was a division of labor. First burials. | Tools of labor made of wood and stone (knife, scraper, polyhedral points, etc.) |
| Cro-Magnon - the first modern man (everywhere; 50-60 thousand years ago) | Height up to 180 cm; brain volume - 1 600 cm 2; high forehead; convolutions are developed; lower jaw with chin protrusion | Ancestral community. They looked like a reasonable person. Settlement construction. The emergence of rites The emergence of art, pottery, agriculture. Developed. Developed speech. Domestication of animals, domestication of plants. They had rock art. | A variety of tools made of bone, stone, wood |
Modern people. The emergence of people of the modern physical type occurred relatively recently (about 50 thousand years ago), who were called Cro-Magnons. Increased brain volume (1 600 cm 3), well-developed articulate speech; the construction of dwellings, the first rudiments of art (rock painting), clothing, jewelry, bone and stone tools, the first tamed animals - all indicate that a real person finally separated himself from his animal-like ancestors. Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and modern humans form one species - Homo sapiens. Many years passed before people moved from the appropriating economy (hunting, gathering) to the producing economy. They learned how to grow plants and tame some animals. In the evolution of the Cro-Magnons, social factors were of great importance, the role of education and the transfer of experience grew immeasurably.
Races of man
All modern humanity belongs to the same species - Homo sapiens. The unity of mankind follows from the common origin, the similarity of the structure, the unlimited interbreeding of representatives of different races and the fertility of offspring from mixed marriages. Inside view - Homo sapiens- five large races are distinguished: Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, American. Each of them is divided into small races. Differences between races are reduced to the features of skin color, hair, eyes, the shape of the nose, lips, etc. these differences arose in the process of adapting human populations to local natural conditions. It is believed that the black skin absorbed ultraviolet rays. Narrow eyes protected from sharp solar exposure in open spaces; a wide nose cooled the inhaled air faster by evaporation from the mucous membranes, on the contrary, a narrow nose warmed the cold inhaled air better, etc.
But man, thanks to labor, quickly got out of the influence of natural selection, and these differences quickly lost their adaptive significance.
Human races began to form, it is believed, about 30-40 thousand years ago, in the process of human settlement of the Earth, and then many racial traits had an adaptive value and were fixed by natural selection in a certain geographical environment. All races of man are characterized by common species features of Homo sapiens, and all races are absolutely equivalent in biological and mental relations and are at the same level of evolutionary development.
There is no sharp border between the main races, and there are a number of smooth transitions - small races, whose representatives have smoothed out or mixed the features of the main masses. It is assumed that in the future the differences between races will completely disappear and humanity will be racially homogeneous, but with many morphological variants.
The races of man should not be confused with the concepts nation, people, language group. Different groups can be part of one nation, and the same races can be part of different nations.
In Ethiopia found the remains of a new species of upright creatures that lived 4.4 million years ago.
What can the find change in the idea of the origin of man? We are talking about this with paleoanthropologist Alexander Belov.
AiF: - Alexander Ivanovich, will a new candidate for the role of our ancestor be suitable?
Alexander Belov:- It will depend on how his foot looks. For a century and a half, science has been under the spell of the theory (it would be more correct to call it a hypothesis) of Charles Darwin that the great ape was the ancestor of man. Followers of Darwin still share this opinion.
However, this hypothesis has obvious weaknesses. Here is one of them: in the human foot, the main supporting function is performed by the big toe, which accounts for 30-40% of the weight. The structure of the foot of a gorilla, an orangutan, a chimpanzee - the most seemingly "smart" and human-like monkeys - is different: their thumb is at an angle from the foot. This difference is key, it proves that even the great ape is incapable of prolonged upright posture, but only of moving on all fours.
"AiF": - But does this argument really contradict Darwin? The monkey developed - and its foot improved.
A. B.:- According to this logic, the more ancient ancestors of apes and humans should have a foot even less similar to ours.
But it is precisely this logic that has cracked at the seams after the high-profile discoveries of recent decades. At the end of the 70s. In the 20th century, a fossilized Australopithecus foot was found that lived about 4 million years ago. And then it became clear that he did not “fall off the tree” at all, as the evolutionary hypothesis would require. This primate had a foot much more human-like than that of the great apes.
In 2000, the bones of the Sahelanthropus Chadian, who lived 7 million years ago, were found. According to the peculiarities of the attachment of the occipital muscles to the base of the skull, it turned out that he was upright. The conclusion is striking: Sahelanthropus is even more human-like than Australopithecus, and even more so than monkeys.
"AiF": - Apparently, under the pressure of facts, it was necessary to "correct" Darwin's concept: not a man - from a monkey, but both of them - from some common ancestor?
A. B.:- Darwinists would like to cling to this idea, but it doesn’t work out: why then did man improve the forms of his ancestor, and the monkey lost all its advantages and climbed back into the tree? It turns out that the monkey showed the opposite direction of development - involution?
"AiF": - Your books are devoted to the hypothesis of involution. According to it, it turns out that the forms of living matter develop from more complex to simpler ones. That is, the living world is degrading. Let's assume it is. But then where did complex shapes come from? Who created man?
A. B.:- Scientists are not yet ready to answer this crucial question. Homo sapiens is a relatively young species, it has about 60 thousand years. Against several million years separating us from the found anthropoids, this is a trifle. It turns out that homo sapiens is located outside the line of development of primates - at least evolutionary, at least involutionary. Therefore, it is more honest, in my opinion, to call our species homo incognitos - an unknown person, than to make him related to monkeys and their more perfect ancestors.
"AiF": - Maybe a new Ethiopian find will put everything in its place?
A. B.:- Doubtful. After all, we talked only about the inconsistency "monkey - man." But even more eloquent are the inconsistencies between any two rungs on the ladder of evolution. For example, a pig and even a bat are in some ways closer to humans than a monkey.
"AiF": - But you reject the assumption that a more ancient human ancestor was found?
A. B.:- I am ready to argue with arguments that the dog and the bear are the descendants of man. For example, the bear does not come from small tree-climbing animals such as raccoons (as paleontologists believe). And he is not related to monkeys, although outwardly he looks a bit like them. The bear's foot resembles a human's and is much more perfect than a monkey's: there is not even a hint of a retracted thumb in it. Obviously, some degrading human being never climbed trees, but gained fat, staggering between trees, first on two legs, then on four. The legs of the bear's ancestor were shortened to make it more convenient to step on the entire foot. It turns out that the bear descended from man? ..
Dossier
Alexander Belov, was born in 1963. An animal biologist by training. Author of the book "The Mystery of the Origin of Man Revealed."
Grade: 11
Lesson Plan Date
Lesson 41-42 biology
Lesson topic: Directions of human evolution, common ancestors of humans and great apes
Lesson type: learning lesson.
Target: to form knowledge about the main directions of human evolution.
Tasks.
Educational : to introduce the development of placental mammals, the appearance and development of monkeys, the appearance of representatives of the People family, the main directions of human evolution;
Educational: to continue the formation of skills to compare, generalize, draw conclusions, structure the material being studied, develop the ability of students to work independently and in groups, objectively assess knowledge;
Educational: to cultivate a culture of communication, a sense of responsibility for the results of their work, a sense of collectivism, empathy; improve group work skills.
Forms of organization of cognitive activity: frontal, group, steam room.
Equipment: presentation, invirtual school of Cyril and Methodius
During the classes
Lesson stage
Content of educational material
MO
FOPD
Preparation for EAEA, UNT
Tasks for the development of functional literacy
Individual correctional work
I . Org.
moment
The lesson is interactive
The student is not passive
He's in the thick of things
Makes many discoveries
What does he learn in class
Leads to development
Collective
II .
Motivation
You will evaluate your work in class according to the criteria
Evaluate your work in class according to the following criteria
Grade "2" - I did not participate in the work of the group, I did not put forward ideas, I was passive.
"Today is just not my day."
Grade "3" - I answered 1 - 2 questions or participated in the discussion of a new topic, but not in full force or asked questions from the group.
"I wanted to do something for my band, but I'm not doing well yet."
Rating "4" - I answered most of the questions and participated in group work at almost all stages of the work.
“I did a lot for our group, but I could do more”
Rating "5" - I answered all the questions, spoke in the group, suggested ideas, asked questions, I participated in all types of work offered to our group.
"I did everything I could for our group."
MK
Collective
III .
Motivation:
In the past lessons, we got acquainted with the development of the organic world.
No less interesting is the question “The origin of man”, which has always interested man. The history of human origin is complex and contradictory.
Where did we come from?
Stars of distant offspring?
Or is it our planet
Do we owe birth?
Has the Creator endowed it with a soul?
Or the mind is like lightning
Flashed in the body of our ancestors?
How could we have appeared?
All hidden forever.
But no matter where we come from
Once, having arisen as a Human,
We need to stay with them.
Lesson topic: Directions of human evolution, common ancestors of humans and great apes.
R
PP
state of emergency
Collective
IV .
Study n/m:
BUT). Development of placental mammals.
Using the material of paragraph 41 on pages 190 - 191 of the textbook edited by R. Satimbekov, consider, discuss, answer questions and speak to the class:
Who is the ancestor of mammals? (ancient Paleozoic reptiles)?
What subclass, detachment of reptiles belongs to the ancestral group of mammals? (subclass of animal-like, detachment of animal-toothed).
List the signs of similarity between representatives of the order of mammals and mammals?
teeth are differentiated into incisors, canines and molars;
had a secondary bony palate.
What is the basis for assuming that the most ancient mammals descended from small animal-toothed: Ictidosaurus? (small sizes).
During what period did the first mammals appear? (Triassic, Mesozoic era).
Representatives of what group of mammals dominated from the end of the Triassic to the first half of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic era? (multi-tubercular).
Describe the polytuberculates? (small size, the presence of tubercles on the molars - hence their name, the absence of fangs, the incisors were well developed).
Describe the ancestors of marsupials and placentals (probably these are pantotheres - a representative of trituberculates: small animals, close to insectivores, ate partly plant and animal food).
What branches did predators divide into on the verge between the Eocene and Oligocene? (larger - terrestrial predators and smaller - pinnipeds).
From whom did the ancient ungulates originate? (from ancient predators - creodonts, who switched to eating plant foods in the paleocente).
Describe ancient ungulates (marten to wolf size, omnivores with moderately long fangs, tuberculate molars, five-fingered limbs, in which the middle finger was more developed than the others, and the first and fifth were weakened).
What groups of mammals gave rise to insectivores? (rodents and primates).
B). The appearance of the monkeys.
The first orders of primates appeared 65 million years ago.
Work in groups on assignments:
1 group
Using the material of paragraph 41 on pages 191 - 192 of the textbook edited by R. Satimbekov, consider diagram 6, discuss in groups and prepare material about the ancestors of monkeys, answer the questions and speak to the class:
What sense organ is well developed in narrow-nosed monkeys? (smell).
What group separated from narrow-nosed monkeys 30 million years ago? (great apes).
The first insectivorous mammals
Monkey
Humanoid higher monkey
half-monkeys
narrow-nosed
broad-nosed
2 group:
Using the material of paragraph 41 on page 192 of the textbook edited by R. Satimbekov and Appendix No. 1, consider diagram 7, discuss in groups and prepare material on the classification of great apes, answer the questions and speak to the class:
How did narrow-nosed and anthropoid apes calve from each other 30 million years ago? (divergences).
Describe the anthropoid apes (Egyptopithecus).
great apes
hominids
gibbons
hominins
Pongins
Gorilla
People
Chimpanzee
orangutans
3rd group:
Using the material of paragraph 41 on page 193 of the textbook edited by R. Satimbekov, consider diagram 8, discuss in groups and prepare material about driopithecus, answer the questions and speak to the class:
What group of monkeys does the Dryopithecus belong to?
Describe driopithecus.
IN). Humanoid apes.
Related species of Dryopithecus include Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus.
Ramapithecus (student communication).
Australopithecus (student communication).
“A skillful person” (student report).
G). Directions of human evolution.
1. In your opinion, what factors played a major role in the beginning of human evolution and explain why?
MK
R
IP
state of emergency
IP
Group work
Group work
Individual
Collective
VI.
Anchoring
Why are animal-toothed reptiles considered the ancestors of ancient mammals?
What mammals appeared first?
When did the first orders of primates appear?
What families are great apes divided into?
Describe Dryopithecus.
2. What factors play a major role in the transformation of great apes into humans?
Describe Australopithecus.
Why are chimpanzees classified as apes?
Frontal
VII.
Summarizing
( Students draw their own conclusions from the lesson.
Evaluation of the work of each student in groups according to the criteria.
Group work
VIII.
Homework:
and the functions of the respiratory organs (table).
Creative task:
Hypotheses about the origin of man (work in groups).
Individual
IX.
Reflection
Who got a 5 today?
Who got "4"?
Who is not happy with their grade? What do you need to do to improve your score?
Give an emotional assessment of the lesson.
It is always useful to assess yourself, identify difficulties and find ways to overcome them.
Formulate a conclusion about the degree of achievement of the goal of the lesson.
Carry out with self-analysis of activities in the lesson and self-assessment at
Individual
Literature and Internet sources:
R. Satimbekov. Biology. Almaty: Mektep, 2015 - 352 p.
Bogdanova T.L., Solodova E.A. Biology. Directory. M.: "AST - PRESS". 2001 - 815 p.
Application No. 1
F. Nesturkh considered propliopithecus also the original form of all modern anthropoids and humans. And there seems to be a reason for this. But now another fossil ancestor is already claiming such a role - found in the 60s and 70s. Egyptopithecus (Aegiptopithecus ).
The exact age of Egyptopithecus is 27 million years, the boundary of the late Oligocene and Miocene. Homeland - Africa. Lived in trees, descended to the ground. The brain was progressive compared to its predecessors. Large development of the visual cortex, a noticeable reduction (reduction) of the olfactory bulbs. In the brain, the central sulcus is distinguished, which divides the cortex into sensory (perceiving) and motor zones. In a word, in terms of the brain it is an anthropoid ape, although in appearance it looks like a massive cat or ! But according to the structure of the bones, especially the limbs, Egyptopithecus is connected ... with broad-nosed, with modern howler monkeys.
Something else is much more important: the features of the Egyptithecus skeleton allow us to think that it could be the ancestor of Dryopithecus, as it was believed, the original form of hominids and anthropoids ...
Application No. 2
So, about 60-50 million years ago, semi-monkeys separated from the oldest insectivorous mammals. They are descended from Old World narrow-nosed monkeys and American broad-nosed monkeys. It was this branch of the development of primates that culminated in the emergence of man.
The ancient semi-monkeys gave rise to the pliopithecus, the remains of which have been found in a number of European countries. The descendants of the pliopithecus were the modern gibbons and the fossilized dryopithecus monkeys, which gave rise to two evolutionary lines: pongids and hominids. The descendants of the pongids - gorillas and chimpanzees - live today, and descended from hominidsRamapithecus who lived 15-7 million years ago. The Ramapitecus, according to modern science, could become the direct ancestors of the Australopithecus, and they, in turn, gave rise to the most ancient people. It is difficult for scientists to trace how human ancestors developed and evolved: there are too few fossils at their disposal, and even those are very incomplete. Therefore, there are different versions of the evolution of hominids.
Ramapitek. A number of scientists believe that only 14 million years ago a monkey appeared on our planet, which can be attributed to the hominid family. Thisramapitec. He lived on the territory of modern India, Eastern Europe, Russia. Unlike the first great apes, the back teeth of Ramapithecus were wider and flatter, and fangs appeared between the back and front teeth. Ramapithecus ate plant food: seeds of cereals, roots, leaves and stems of plants. They had to be searched for, plucked or dug up, brought to the mouth, while making many movements with the forelimbs, constantly bending over, unbending and straightening the back.
Australopithecus . Ramapithecus was replaced by other hominids, of which the best studiedaustralopithecines . Numerous remains of them have been found in South and East Africa. The age of Australopithecus remains ranges from 5.5 to 1 million years. Australopithecus were much more human-like than their predecessors. They were small, upright creatures (height 120-130 cm, weight 25-45 kg), with a flat face and a brain volume of 530 cm on average. 3 (which is somewhat larger than that of modern great apes). However, Australopithecus cannot be considered the ancestor of man, since no, even primitive, tools that he used have been found (after all, it is known that the manufacture and use of tools is one of the main signs of man)
skillful man . In the same historical period, there was an animal that outwardly very similar to Australopithecus. The volume of his brain was much larger - up to 650 - 1100 cm 3 . The foot, like that of a modern person, had an arch, i.e. he walked freely on two legs. The hands of this hominid were more perfect, the thumb was opposed to the index finger. This means that he could hold stone tools in his hands and use them in his work. Indeed, scientists managed to find several primitive stone tools at their sites. Scientists have given this hominid a nameskillful man . It is believed that he is the first representative of the most ancient people.
Among the first small mammals - insectivorous - in the Mesozoic era, a group of such animals stood out that did not have sharp teeth and claws, wings, or hooves. They lived both on the ground and on trees, eating fruits and insects. From this group originated branches that led to semi-monkeys, monkeys and man.
The most ancient higher apes, from which the ancestors of man originate, are considered parapithecus. These ancient, unspecialized apes diverged into two branches: one led to modern gibbons and orangutans, the other to dryopithecus, extinct arboreal apes. Dryopithecus divergence in three directions: one branch led to the chimpanzee, the other - to the gorilla and the third - to man. Man and apes are closely related. But these are different branches of a common pedigree trunk.
Scientists suggest that the ancestral home of mankind was somewhere in the territory, including the northeastern part of Africa, South Asia, southeastern Europe, from where people settled throughout the Earth.
What were the initial forms from which the most ancient people originated? To date, such forms have not been discovered, but a well-studied group of South African monkeys, Australopithecus ("Australus" - southern), gives an idea of them. This group lived on Earth at the same time as the most ancient people, therefore it cannot be considered the direct ancestors of people.
Australopithecus lived among the rocks on flat treeless spaces, were bipedal, walked slightly bending over, knew meat food; their skull had a volume of approximately 650 cm 3 .
In the early 60s of our century, the English scientist Louis Leakey in the Oldowai Gorge on the territory of modern Tanzania (East Africa) found fragments of skulls, bones of the hand, foot, lower leg, and collarbone. The fossil creatures to which they belonged were somewhat closer to humans than Australopithecus in the structure of the foot and hand, but their brain volume did not exceed 650 cm3. Pebbles of a pointed shape and stones that left the impression of artificially processed were also found there. According to most Soviet anthropologists, these creatures should also be considered Australopithecus. Morphologically, they differed little from the great apes. The difference consisted in the appearance of the first flashes of consciousness associated with the use of natural objects as tools, which prepared the transition to their manufacture.
It is assumed that the ancestors of the most ancient people were a species of bipedal apes close to African Australopithecus, which, on the basis of hereditary variability, in the process of natural selection, developed the ability to often and variously use sticks and stones as tools.
