Who is called Homo sapiens Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is a species that combines biological and social essence

Today there is a prevailing hostility in science towards the very idea of ​​"gods", but in reality this is simply a matter of terminology and religious convention. A striking example is the cult of airplanes. After all, oddly enough, the best confirmation of the theory of the Creator-God is himself Man - Homo sapiens. Moreover, according to the latest research, the idea of ​​God is embedded in humans at the biological level.

Since Charles Darwin shocked the scientists and theologians of his time with evidence of the existence of evolution, man has been considered to be the final link in a long evolutionary chain, at the other end of which are the simplest forms of life, from which life has evolved over billions of years since the emergence of life on our planet. vertebrates, then mammals, primates and Man himself.

Of course, a person can also be considered as a set of elements, but even then, if we assume that life arose as a result of random chemical reactions, then why did all living organisms on Earth develop from a single source, and not from many random ones? Why does organic matter contain only a small percentage of chemical elements that are abundant on Earth, and a large number of elements that are rarely found on our planet, and our life balances on a razor’s edge? Does this mean that life was brought to our planet from another world, for example by meteorites?

What caused the Great Sexual Revolution? And in general, there are many interesting things in a person - sensory organs, memory mechanisms, brain rhythms, mysteries of human physiology, a second signaling system, but the main topic of this article will be a more fundamental mystery - the position of man in the evolutionary chain.

It is now believed that the ancestor of man, the ape, appeared on Earth approximately 25 million years ago! Discoveries in East Africa made it possible to establish that the transition to the type of ape (hominid) took place about 14,000,000 years ago. The genes of humans and chimpanzees separated from a common ancestral trunk 5 - 7 million years ago. Even closer to us were the dwarf chimpanzees “bonobos”, which separated from chimpanzees about 3 million years ago.

Sex occupies a huge place in human relationships, and bonobos, unlike other monkeys, often copulate in a face-to-face position, and their sex life is such that it overshadows the promiscuity of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah! So it is likely that our common ancestors with apes behaved more like bonobos than like chimpanzees. But sex is a topic for a separate discussion, and we will continue.

Among the skeletons found, there are only three contenders for the title of the first fully bipedal primate. All of them were discovered in East Africa, in the Rift Valley, cutting through the territories of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

About 1.5 million years ago, Homo erectus (upright man) appeared. This primate had a much larger cranium than its predecessors, and it was already beginning to create and use more complex stone tools. The wide range of skeletons found suggests that between 1,000,000 and 700,000 years ago, Homo erectus left Africa and settled in China, Australasia and Europe, but disappeared altogether between about 300,000 and 200,000 years ago for unknown reasons.

Around the same time, the first primitive man appeared on the scene, dubbed by scientists a Neanderthal, after the name of the area where his remains were first discovered.

The remains were found by Johann Karl Fuhlrott in 1856 in the Feldhofer Cave near Düsseldorf in Germany. This cave is located in the Neandertal Valley. In 1863, the English anthropologist and anatomist W. King proposed the name for the find Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthals inhabited Europe and Western Asia from 300 thousand to 28 thousand years ago. For some time they coexisted with anatomically modern humans, who settled in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. Previously, based on a morphological comparison of Neanderthals with modern humans, three hypotheses were proposed: Neanderthals are the direct ancestors of humans; they made some genetic contribution to the gene pool; they represented an independent branch, which was completely supplanted by modern man. It is the latter hypothesis that is confirmed by modern genetic research. The existence of the last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals is estimated at 500 thousand years before our time.

Recent discoveries have forced us to radically reconsider the assessment of Neanderthals. In particular, in the Kebara Cave on Mount Carmel in Israel, the skeleton of a Neanderthal man who lived 60 thousand years ago was found, whose hyoid bone was completely preserved, completely identical to the bone of a modern person. Since the ability to speak depends on the hyoid bone, scientists were forced to admit that the Neanderthal had this ability. And many scientists believe that speech is the key to unlocking the great leap in human development.

Nowadays, most anthropologists believe that the Neanderthal was a full-fledged man, and for a long time, in terms of his behavioral characteristics, he was quite equivalent to other representatives of this species. It is quite possible that Neanderthal was no less intelligent and human-like than we are in our time. It has been suggested that the large, coarse lines of his skull are simply the result of some kind of genetic disorder, like acromegaly. These disturbances quickly dissipated into a limited, isolated population through interbreeding.

But, nevertheless, despite the huge period of time - more than two million years - separating the developed Australopithecus and the Neanderthal, both used similar tools - sharpened stones, and the features of their appearance (as we imagine them) were practically no different.

“If you put a hungry lion, a man, a chimpanzee, a baboon and a dog in a large cage, then it is clear that the man will be eaten first!”

African folk wisdom

The emergence of Homo sapiens is not just an incomprehensible mystery, it seems incredible. For millions of years there was only slight progress in the processing of stone tools; and suddenly, about 200 thousand years ago, it appeared with a cranial volume 50% larger than before, with the ability to speak and a body anatomy quite close to modern one. (According to a number of independent studies, this happened in Southeast Africa.)

In 1911, anthropologist Sir Arthur Kent compiled a list of the anatomical features inherent in each of the primate species that distinguish them from each other. He called them "common features." As a result, he got the following indicators: gorilla - 75; chimpanzees - 109; orangutan - 113; gibbon - 116; humans - 312. How can you reconcile Sir Arthur Kent's research with the scientifically proven fact that the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is 98%? I would reverse this relationship and ask the question - how does a 2% difference in DNA determine the striking difference between humans and their primate cousins?

We must somehow explain how a 2% difference in genes gives rise to so many new characteristics in a person - brain, speech, sexuality and much more. It is strange that the Homo sapiens cell contains only 46 chromosomes, while the chimpanzee and gorilla have 48. The theory of natural selection was unable to explain how such a major structural change - the fusion of two chromosomes - could occur.

In the words of Steve Jones, “...we are the result of evolution - a series of successive mistakes. No one would argue that evolution has ever been so abrupt that an entire plan for the restructuring of an organism could be realized in one step.” Indeed, experts believe that the possibility of a successful large evolutionary leap, called macromutation, is extremely unlikely, since such a leap is likely to be harmful to the survival of species that are already well adapted to the environment, or in any case ambiguous, for example due to mechanism of action of the immune system, we have lost the ability to regenerate tissue like amphibians.

Catastrophe theory

Evolutionist Daniel Dennett describes the situation elegantly with a literary analogy: someone is trying to improve a classic literary text by making only proofreading changes. While most editing—placing commas or correcting misspelled words—has little effect, significant text editing in almost all cases spoils the original text. Thus, everything seems to be stacked against genetic improvement, but a favorable mutation can occur in a small isolated population. Under other conditions, favorable mutations would have dissipated into the larger mass of “normal” individuals.

Thus, it becomes obvious that the most important factor in the splitting of species is their geographical separation to prevent mutual crossing. And as statistically unlikely as it may be for new species to arise, there are currently about 30 million different species on Earth. And earlier, according to calculations, there were another 3 billion, now extinct. This is only possible in the context of the catastrophic development of history on planet Earth - and this point of view is now becoming increasingly popular. However, it is impossible to give a single example (with the exception of microorganisms) in which any species has recently (during the last half a million years) improved as a result of mutations or split into two different species.

Anthropologists have always sought to present the evolution from Homo erectus to as a gradual process, albeit with sharp leaps. However, their attempts to adjust archaeological data to the requirements of a given concept each time turned out to be untenable. For example, how can we explain the sharp increase in skull volume in Homo sapiens?

How did it happen that Homo sapiens gained intelligence and self-awareness, while its relative the ape spent the last 6 million years in a state of complete stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom been able to advance to a high level of mental development?

The usual answer to this is that when a person rose to his feet, both hands were freed and he began to use tools. This advancement accelerated learning through a feedback system, which, in turn, stimulated the process of mental development.

Recent scientific research suggests that in some cases, electrochemical processes in the brain can promote the growth of dendrites—tiny signal receptors that connect to neurons (nerve cells). Experiments with experimental rats have shown that if toys are placed in a cage with rats, the mass of brain tissue in rats begins to grow faster. Researchers Christopher A. Walsh and Anjen Chenn were even able to identify a protein, beta-catenin, that is responsible for why the human cerebral cortex is larger than that of other species. Walsh explained the results of their research: “The brain cortex of mice is normally smooth. In humans, it is very wrinkled due to the large volume of tissue and lack of space in the skull. It can be compared to putting a piece of paper in a ball. We found that mice with increased production of beta. Catenin’s cerebral cortex was much larger in volume, it was wrinkled in the same way as in humans.” Which, however, did not add clarity. After all, in the animal kingdom there are a lot of species whose representatives use tools, but at the same time do not become intelligent.

Here are some examples: the Egyptian kite throws stones from above at ostrich eggs, trying to break their hard shells. The Galapagos woodpecker uses cactus twigs or needles in five different ways to pluck tree beetles and other insects from rotten trunks. A sea otter on the Pacific Coast of the United States uses one stone as a hammer and another as an anvil to break the shell to obtain its favorite delicacy, the bear's ear shell. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, also make and use simple tools, but do they reach our level of intelligence? Why did humans become intelligent, but chimpanzees not? We always read about the search for our earliest ape ancestors, but in reality it would be much more interesting to find the missing link of Homo super erectus.

But let's return to man. According to common sense, it should have taken another million years to move from stone tools to other materials, and perhaps another hundred million years to master mathematics, civil engineering and astronomy, but for inexplicable reasons man continued living a primitive life, using stone tools, only for 160 thousand years, and about 40-50 thousand years ago, something happened that caused the migration of humanity and the transition to modern forms of behavior. Most likely it was climate change, although the issue requires separate consideration.

A comparative analysis of the DNA of different populations of modern people suggested that even before leaving Africa, about 60-70 thousand years ago (when there was also a decrease in numbers, although not as significant as 135 thousand years ago), the ancestral population was divided at least into at least three groups, which gave rise to the African, Mongoloid and Caucasian races.

Some racial characteristics may have arisen later as an adaptation to living conditions. This applies at least to skin color, one of the most significant racial characteristics for most people. Pigmentation provides protection from solar radiation, but should not interfere with the formation, for example, of certain vitamins that prevent rickets and are necessary for normal fertility.

Since man came out of Africa, it would seem to go without saying that our distant African ancestors were similar to the modern inhabitants of this continent. However, some researchers believe that the first people who appeared in Africa were closer to the Mongoloids.

So: just 13 thousand years ago, Man settled almost throughout the entire globe. Over the next thousand years, he learned to farm, and after another 6 thousand years he created a great civilization with advanced astronomical science). And finally, after another 6 thousand years, man goes into the depths of the solar system!

We do not have the means of determining an accurate chronology for the periods where the carbon isotope method ends (about 35 thousand years before our time) and further into history throughout the middle Pliocene.

What reliable data do we have about Homo sapiens? At a conference held in 1992, the most reliable evidence obtained at that time was summed up. The dates given here are averages for a number of all specimens found in the area and are given with an accuracy of ±20%.

The most significant discovery, made in Kaftsekh in Israel, is 115 thousand years old. Other specimens, found in Skule and Mount Carmel in Israel, are 101 thousand-81 thousand years old.

Specimens found in Africa, in the lower layers of the Border Cave, are 128 thousand years old (and using ostrich egg shell dating, the age of the remains is confirmed to be at least 100 thousand years old).

In South Africa, at the mouth of the Klasis River, dates range from 130 thousand to 118 thousand years before the present (BP).
And finally, in Jebel Irhoud, in South Africa, specimens with the earliest dating were discovered - 190 thousand-105 thousand years ago.

From this we can conclude that Homo sapiens appeared on Earth less than 200 thousand years ago. And there is not the slightest evidence that there are earlier remains of modern or partially modern humans. All specimens are no different from their European counterparts - the Cro-Magnons, who settled throughout Europe about 35 thousand years ago. And if you dressed them in modern clothes, they would be practically no different from modern people. How did the ancestors of modern humans appear in Southeast Africa 150-300 thousand years ago, and not, say, two or three million years later, as the logic of evolution would suggest? Why did civilization begin in the first place? There is no obvious reason why we should be more civilized than the tribes in the Amazon jungle or the impenetrable forests of New Guinea, who are still at a primitive stage of development.

Civilization and Methods of Controlling Human Consciousness and Behavior

Resume

• The biochemical composition of terrestrial organisms indicates that they all developed from a “single source,” which, however, does not exclude either the hypothesis of “random spontaneous generation” or the version of “the introduction of the seeds of life.”
• Man is clearly out of the evolutionary chain. Despite the huge number of “distant ancestors,” the link that led to the creation of man has never been found. At the same time, the speed of evolutionary development has no analogues in the animal world.
• It is surprising that modification of just 2% of the chimpanzee's genetic material caused such a radical difference between humans and their closest relatives, the apes.
• Features of the structure and sexual behavior of humans indicate a much longer period of peaceful evolution in a warm climate than determined from archaeological and genetic data.
• The genetic predisposition to speech and the efficiency of the internal structure of the brain strongly indicate two essential requirements of the evolutionary process - its incredibly long period, and the vital need to achieve an optimal level. The course of the supposed evolutionary development does not at all require such efficiency of thinking.
• Infants' skulls are disproportionately large for safe delivery. It is quite possible that we inherited the “skulls” from the “race of giants”, so often mentioned in ancient myths.
• The transition from gathering and hunting to agriculture and cattle breeding, which occurred in the Middle East about 13,000 years ago, created the preconditions for the accelerated development of human civilization. Interestingly, this coincides in time with the supposed Great Flood, which destroyed the mammoths. By the way, around that time the Ice Age ended.

Sometimes it just begins to irritate when official science is silent or does not provide rational explanations for obvious facts. For example, how old is the species Homo Sapiens? Wikipedia officially provides data that “Comparison of mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms and dating of fossils allows us to conclude that Homo sapiens in the female line (from “Mitochondrial Eve” - a group of women who had the same Mitochondrial DNA in a species population of about 10-20 thousand individuals) appeared about 200,000 years ago,” and also: “In 2003, remains were described that were approximately 160,000 years old (Pleistocene). The anatomical differences between the specimens prompted researchers to identify a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu (“Elder”).”. That is, official science, if you believe the links provided in Wikipedia, now believes that the species Homo Sapiens is at least 160 - 200 thousand years old. But, at the same time, in the same Wikipedia, in the section “Cro-Magnon Man” (the closest ancestor of man), absolutely crazy data is given: "Cro-Magnons (French Homme de Cro-Magnon) are the early representatives of modern humans in Europe and partly beyond its borders, who lived 40-10 thousand years ago (Upper Paleolithic period)". Moreover, these figures are given not only in Wikipedia links, but also in many other sources, including in foreign languages. I checked it myself. So they were completely stunned there or what? This even contradicts Darwin’s theory, so beloved by official science! Homo Sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, but its closest ancestor, Homme de Cro-Magnon, is only 40,000 years old?! This has given rise to serious controversy today. on the forum thread on LJ MGER with user ryslav66 .
Moreover, such incidents happen all the time in our science. The reason is that many facts are either simply hushed up by official science or not fully systematized. Well, just a couple of days ago the material came out "Ancient pyramids discovered at the bottom of a lake in China." So the approximate age of those once above-ground structures is from 5,000 to 12,000 BC. Official science still cannot (or does not want) to explain how it turned out that the same type of temple buildings can be found in almost all corners of the globe: from South America to Japan.
The same is true with the origin of man. Now there are many reliably studied artifacts that directly indicate that the species Homo Sapiens is not even 200,000 years old, as scientists have already begun to admit, but at least more than one million. Moreover, no one really knows how much. There are some absolutely sensational finds. Here is a link to a fully scientifically verified list of such artifacts: "The main human sites in the Paleolithic". Here, there is also interesting scientific material on the same topic: “Is man really three million years old?”. Also in the material "Who are the Cro-Magnons" Interesting data is also provided: "In Eastern and Southern Africa, the roots of the Cro-Magnons can be traced back to earlier eras: they may have lived as early as 1.6 million years ago (an archanthropist boy from Kenya). It is assumed that the ancestors of the Cro-Magnons - the "proto-Cro-Magnons" - penetrated the Middle East and Southern Europe during the last glaciation, about 100 thousand years ago."
There is also a whole list of recorded and, accordingly, genuine artifacts, which official science also stubbornly continues to hush up. There are materials on this topic: "10 Most Mysterious Ancient Artifacts" And "ARTIFACTS OF ANCIENTITY".
All the above materials can again testify to only one thing - we simply do not know our history. Answers to the questions of how old our species, our civilization really are, and whether there were other civilizations on Earth millions of years ago cannot now be given. The only thing that can be asserted so far is that official science, often on many of these issues, gets off with simply nonsense in conclusions, dates and conclusions... It would seem, why???!

MAN IS REASONABLE(Homo sapiens) is a modern type of man.

The course of evolution from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, i.e. to the modern human stage is as difficult to document satisfactorily as the original branching stage of the hominid lineage. However, in this case, the matter is complicated by the presence of several contenders for such an intermediate position.

According to a number of anthropologists, the step that led directly to Homo sapiens was the Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Neanderthals appeared no later than 150 thousand years ago, and different types flourished until the period of c. 40–35 thousand years ago, marked by the undoubted presence of well-formed H. sapiens (Homo sapiens sapiens). This era corresponded to the onset of the Wurm glaciation in Europe, i.e. ice age closest to modern times. Other scientists do not connect the origin of modern humans with Neanderthals, pointing out, in particular, that the morphological structure of the latter’s face and skull was too primitive to have time to evolve to the forms of Homo sapiens.

Neanderthaloids are usually imagined as stocky, hairy, beast-like people with bent legs, with a protruding head on a short neck, giving the impression that they had not yet fully achieved upright walking. Paintings and reconstructions in clay usually emphasize their hairiness and unjustified primitiveness. This image of the Neanderthal is a big distortion. First, we don't know whether Neanderthals were hairy or not. Secondly, they were all completely upright. As for evidence of an inclined position of the body, it was probably obtained from the study of individuals suffering from arthritis.

One of the most surprising features of the entire Neanderthal series of finds is that the least modern of them were the most recent in appearance. This is the so-called the classic Neanderthal type, the skull of which is characterized by a low forehead, a heavy brow, a receding chin, a protruding mouth area and a long, low cranium. However, their brain volume was larger than that of modern humans. They certainly had a culture: there is evidence of funerary cults and possibly animal cults, since animal bones are found along with the fossil remains of classical Neanderthals.

At one time it was believed that classical Neanderthals lived only in southern and western Europe, and their origin was associated with the advance of the glacier, which placed them in conditions of genetic isolation and climatic selection. However, apparently similar forms were later found in some regions of Africa and the Middle East and possibly in Indonesia. Such a widespread distribution of the classical Neanderthal makes it necessary to abandon this theory.

At the moment, there is no material evidence of any gradual morphological transformation of the classical Neanderthal type into the modern type of man, with the exception of finds made in the Skhul cave in Israel. The skulls discovered in this cave differ significantly from each other, some of them having characteristics that place them in an intermediate position between the two human types. According to some experts, this is evidence of the evolutionary change from Neanderthals to modern humans, while others believe that this phenomenon is the result of mixed marriages between representatives of the two types of people, thereby believing that Homo sapiens evolved independently. This explanation is supported by evidence that as early as 200–300 thousand years ago, i.e. before the appearance of the classical Neanderthal, there was a type of person most likely related to early Homo sapiens, and not to the “progressive” Neanderthal. We are talking about well-known finds - fragments of a skull found in Swan (England), and a more complete skull from Steinheim (Germany).

The controversy regarding the “Neanderthal stage” in human evolution is partly due to the fact that two circumstances are not always taken into account. First, it is possible for the more primitive types of any evolving organism to exist in a relatively unchanged form at the same time that other branches of the same species undergo various evolutionary modifications. Secondly, migrations associated with shifts in climatic zones are possible. Such shifts were repeated in the Pleistocene as glaciers advanced and retreated, and humans could follow shifts in the climate zone. Thus, when considering long periods of time, it must be taken into account that the populations occupying a given habitat at a given time are not necessarily the descendants of populations that lived there at an earlier period. It is possible that early Homo sapiens could migrate from the regions where they appeared, and then return to their original places after many thousands of years, having undergone evolutionary changes. When fully formed Homo sapiens appeared in Europe 35-40 thousand years ago, during the warmer period of the last glaciation, it undoubtedly displaced the classical Neanderthal, which occupied the same region for 100 thousand years. Now it is impossible to accurately determine whether the Neanderthal population moved north, following the retreat of its usual climatic zone, or mixed with Homo sapiens invading its territory.

Illustration copyright Philipp Gunz/MPI EVA Leipzig Image caption Reconstruction of the skull of the earliest known Homo sapiens, made using scans of numerous remains from Jebel Irhoud

The idea that modern humans emerged from a single “cradle of humanity” in eastern Africa some 200,000 years ago is no longer tenable, says a new study.

Fossils of five early modern humans discovered in northern Africa show that Homo sapiens appeared at least 100,000 years earlier than previously thought.

A study published in the journal Nature suggests that our species has evolved across the continent.

According to Professor Jean-Jacques Hublen from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, the scientists' discovery could lead to rewriting textbooks on the origins of our species.

“We cannot say that everything developed quickly in some kind of Eden somewhere in Africa. In our opinion, the development was more consistent, and it happened throughout the continent. So if there was a Garden of Eden, then it was all of Africa,” - he adds.

• Scientists: Our ancestors left Africa earlier than expected
• Mysterious Homo naledi - our ancestors or cousins?
• Primitive man turned out to be much younger than previously thought

Professor Hublen spoke at a press conference at the Collège de France in Paris, where he proudly showed journalists fragments of human fossil remains found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. These are skulls, teeth and tubular bones.

In the 1960s, at this one of the oldest sites of modern humans, remains were discovered, the age of which was estimated at 40 thousand years. They were considered an African form of Neanderthals, close relatives of Homo sapiens.

However, Professor Hublen was always troubled by this interpretation, and when he began working at the Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, he decided to reassess the fossil remains from Jebel Irhoud. More than 10 years later, he tells a very different story.

Using modern technology, he and his colleagues were able to determine that the age of the new finds ranges from 300 thousand to 350 thousand years. And the found skull is almost the same in shape as that of a modern person.

A number of significant differences are noticeable in the slightly more prominent brow ridges and smaller cerebral ventricles (cavities in the brain filled with cerebrospinal fluid).

Excavations also revealed that these ancient people used stone tools and learned to start and make fire. Therefore, they not only looked like Homo sapiens, they behaved the same.

To date, the earliest fossil remains of this type have been discovered at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia. Their age is about 195 thousand years.

"We now need to reconsider our understanding of how the first modern humans came to be," says Professor Hublen.

Before the emergence of Homo sapiens, there were many different primitive human species. Each of them looked different from the others, and each of them had their own strengths and weaknesses. And each of these species, like animals, evolved and gradually changed its appearance. This happened over hundreds of thousands of years.

The previously accepted view was that Homo sapiens evolved unexpectedly from more primitive species in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. And by this moment, modern man had formed in the most general terms. Moreover, it was only then that the modern species was thought to have begun to spread throughout Africa, and then throughout the planet.

However, Professor Hublen's discoveries may dispel these notions.

The age of finds in many of the excavation sites in Africa dates back to 300 thousand years. Similar tools and evidence of the use of fire have been discovered in many places. But there are no fossil remains on them.

Since most experts based their research on the assumption that our species appeared no earlier than 200 thousand years ago, it was believed that these places were inhabited by more ancient, other species of humans. However, the findings at Jebel Irhoud suggest that it was actually Homo sapiens who left their mark there.

"This shows that there were many places across Africa where Homo sapiens emerged. We need to move away from the assumption that there was one cradle of humanity," said Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who was not involved in the study.

According to him, there is a high probability that Homo sapiens could even exist at the same time and outside of Africa: “We have fossil remains from Israel, probably of the same age, and they have features similar to those of Homo sapiens.”

Professor Stringer says it is possible that primitive humans with smaller brains, larger faces, and strong brow ridges - nonetheless belonging to Homo sapiens - could have existed in earlier times, perhaps even half a million years ago. This is an incredible change in the until recently dominant ideas about the origin of man,

“20 years ago I said that only those who are like us can be called Homo sapiens. There was an idea that Homo sapiens suddenly appeared in Africa at a certain time and he laid the foundation for our species. But now it seems that I was wrong "Professor Stringer told the BBC.

Homo sapiens ( Homo sapiens) - a species of the genus People (Homo), family of hominids, order of primates. It is considered the dominant animal species on the planet and the highest level of development.

Currently, Homo sapiens is the only representative of the genus Homo. Several tens of thousands of years ago, the genus was represented by several species at once - Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and others. It has been established for certain that the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens is (Homo erectus, 1.8 million years ago - 24 thousand years ago). For a long time it was believed that the closest ancestor of humans is, but in the course of research it became clear that Neanderthal is a subspecies, a parallel, lateral or sister line of human evolution and does not belong to the ancestors of modern humans. Most scientists are inclined to believe that the direct ancestor of man was the one who existed 40-10 thousand years ago. The term “Cro-Magnon” defines Homo sapiens, who lived up to 10 thousand years ago. The closest relatives of Homo sapiens among the primates existing today are the Common chimpanzee and the Pygmy chimpanzee (Bonobo).

The formation of Homo sapiens is divided into several stages: 1. Primitive community (from 2.5-2.4 million years ago, Old Stone Age, Paleolithic); 2. The ancient world (in most cases determined by the major events of ancient Greece and Rome (First Olympiad, foundation of Rome), from 776-753 BC); 3. Middle Ages or Middle Ages (V-XVI centuries); 4. Modern times (XVII-1918); Modern times (1918 - present day).

Today Homo sapiens has populated the entire Earth. At last count, the world population is 7.5 billion people.

Video: The Origins of Humanity. Homo Sapiens

Do you like to spend your time in an exciting and educational way? In this case, you should definitely find out about museums in St. Petersburg. You can learn about the best museums, galleries and attractions of St. Petersburg by reading Viktor Korovin’s blog “Samivkrym”.