The “human” line, or family Hominidae, is characterized by the most important common feature - bipedalism (walking on two legs). It is clear that the transition to bipedal walking was associated with significant lifestyle changes.
The path from the “closest common ancestor” to Homo sapiens was quite multi-stage:
Australopithecus (~5 – 1 million years ago). Apes walking on two legs with a brain size characteristic of a chimpanzee and large teeth with thick enamel. The structure of the skull and dental system indicates that these forms are more similar to humans than to apes. They are divided into two groups – 1) the more ancient gracile Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus with a narrow pelvis. Putative ancestors of the human race; 2) more massive australopithecus A. boisii and A. robustus. "Evolutionary dead ends."
Homo habilis (handy man). The first representative of the genus Homo to appear on Earth (no later than 2-2.5 million years ago). With a slightly larger brain than that of Autralopithecines, it was capable of producing primitive axes (choppers) in the form of roughly chopped pieces of pebbles. The ability to produce very primitive vocal speech.
Homo erectus (archanthropus, erect man). It appeared on Earth approximately 1.5 million years ago. Progressive organizational features that ensure upright walking, tool making, complex social behavior, collective hunting of large game and, probably, speech are combined with primitive features (“mosaicism”). Thus, the brain volume is larger than that of H. habilis, but smaller than that of most modern people, the frontal lobes have an archaic beak-shaped shape. There was no chin, there were large brow ridges, an occipital crest, a flat nose and a low sloping forehead, a long skull, and a massive lower jaw. The morphology of the teeth and the shape of the dental arch, and the reduced size of the facial skull in comparison with more primitive forms, bring the archanthrope closer to modern man. Archanthropes made relatively complex stone tools - from hand axes and cleavers to spears (Acheulean culture). Representatives of H. erectus lived in caves or shelters made of large stones, used fire, and quickly settled over vast areas throughout the Old World. Articulate speech was made difficult by the absence of a chin protuberance and a number of features of the vocal apparatus, which resembled the vocal apparatus of infants. In Europe, in the period 0.2-0.6 million years ago, there were progressive forms of archanthropes (some of them are designated as “pre-Neanderthals”), considered as a primitive form of the next link in the history of hominids.
Neanderthal (Homo sapiens neandertalensis), paleoanthrope. Existed from about 300 to 25-35 thousand years ago. This fossil man is already considered a representative of our species (Homo sapiens), forming in it only a special subspecies “neandertalensis” according to Campbell’s classification. The Neanderthal brain was slightly larger than the brain of the modern subspecies (H. sapiens sapiens). According to his locomotor, intellectual, speech data, the Neanderthal was at the level of the modern subspecies of man. Classic Neanderthals, who lived in the harsh climate of Ice Age Europe, had a low sloping forehead and brow ridges. The chin was poorly developed, the teeth were larger than those of the modern subspecies. Neanderthals were stocky people with a massive build, strong bones and highly developed muscles. Social organization became more complex, there was big game hunting, complex rituals, including the burial of the dead, and the beginnings of religion, for example, in the form of the cult of the cave bear.
The modern subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens. The most ancient finds date back to about 100 thousand years ago. Anatomically modern people are often called “Cro-Magnons” (after the name of the place in France where they were first discovered). Cro-Magnons had domed skulls, prominent chins, and no brow ridges. “It is traditionally believed that the Cro-Magnons were tall, slender people with elongated proportions. This is true only for some populations of ancient people who lived in Europe, Western Asia and Africa. Many fossil groups had their own body features.” The stone tools of the Cro-Magnons resemble the tools used by primitive tribes that have survived to this day on Earth. The caves of the Cro-Magnons were decorated with drawings and clay sculptures. Neanderthals coexisted with Cro-Magnons for several tens of thousands. In particular, already archanthropes in some cases have distinctive features of the race Homo sapiens.
Over the many tens of thousands of years of its existence, the Cro-Magnon man has undergone only minor morphological changes in the direction of reducing the massiveness of the skeleton (gracilization) with the expansion of the skull (epochal brachycephalization) and a decrease in its facial part, as well as other changes. Therefore, the portrait of a “man of the future” (Homo futurus) predicted based on these trends with a large head, a reduced face and teeth, reduced body size, three or four toes, etc. is known. This image of “Homo futurus”, however, now seems unrealistic in light of significant difficulties, such as those associated with the birth of a large-headed baby. Human evolution also included oscillatory processes (“secular cycles”). For example, over the past 40 thousand years, the human brain first decreased somewhat, then began to increase in volume again. These relatively minor evolutionary changes in morphology occurred alongside enormous cultural changes.
Huxley (1942*) distinguishes between progress and specialization in evolution: “Specialization... is the increasing efficiency of adaptation to a particular mode of life...”. But "specialization... always involves the need to sacrifice some organs or functions in order to make others more efficient." Consequently, improvements associated with specialization to a particular adaptive zone usually limit the possibility of future changes that may be necessary to continue existing in that same adaptive zone. Specialization is inherently self-limiting. Organic evolution is reduced mainly to the development of specializations, and therefore it very often ends in a dead end (Huxley, 1942*).
Meanwhile, progress in evolution is an improvement in the overall efficiency of the mechanisms of life; it is “general biological improvement” (Huxley, 1942*). Therefore, progressive evolution represents a direction in which past changes and present characteristics do not limit future possibilities. It does not end in a dead end (Huxley, 1942*).
As noted earlier, Huxley (1942*) equates progressive evolution with human evolution. In doing so, he interprets progressive evolution in too narrow a sense. The evolution of the organic world is a collection of very diverse major evolutionary trends. The biological aspect of human evolution is undoubtedly an important result of organic evolution; however, important results are also achieved in other phyletic lineages. Progressive development is observed, for example, in other mammals, in birds, in social insects, and also in the plant kingdom.
Moreover, the era of man will not last forever. It is possible that organic evolution will achieve new successes in the future, when man has left the stage. At present it is impossible to predict what the organisms that will occupy a dominant place in the future will be.
Let's try to reformulate the concepts of progress and specialization based on the types of evolutionary directions. On this basis, three main types of evolutionary directions can be distinguished: 1) short-term directions of specialization, an example of which is one of the lateral branches of the Hawaiian flower girls (Chapter 30); 2) long-term areas of specialization, exemplified by the evolution of the horse's hoof (Chapter 26) (these two areas are canalized and self-limiting); 3) progressive evolutionary directions that entail a general improvement of biological organization. The series “terrestrial reptiles - warm-blooded mammals - mammals with the capacity for higher nervous activity - intelligent anthropoids” represents only one example of progressive evolution; Another example is the series “ferns - seed plants - woody angiosperms - annual herbaceous angiosperms”.
Progressive areas can be thought of as ultra-long-term areas of specialization, thereby eliminating the discrepancy between progress and specialization. Progressive directions are directions of specialization in which organisms become specialized to adaptive zones common on land, but very distant from the ancestral nutrient soup.
Life began in waters rich in nutrients. The depletion of nutrients in the seas gave rise to the development of photosynthetic aquatic forms, as well as forms that feed on these photosynthetic forms, and predators that feed on the latter. After the seas filled with living organisms, several phyletic groups moved onto land. Terrestrial organisms gradually moved from warm, moist areas of land to dry, cold areas. Some terrestrial groups also colonized the air. Man crowns one of the progressive trends; but rodents, birds, winged insects, desert shrubs, and desert annuals crown other such trends.
- Regional Conference (Seminar (workshop)):
- Conference dates: March 12-13, 2016
- Report date: March 12, 2016
- Type of talk: Invited
- Speaker: Voeikov Vladimir Leonidovich
- Location: School of Effective Communications “Repnoe” (Voronezh). , Russia
- Abstract of the report:
There are two alternative concepts of the evolution of living matter - the (neo)Darwinian concept and the Lamarckian concept. According to the first (“Natural selection” → “Survival of the fittest”), novelty arises due to random mutations, and if mutations provide an advantage to their carriers in given environmental conditions, they become winners in the “struggle for life.” Since there are not enough resources for everyone, those without competitive advantages die out. According to Darwin, living organisms are essentially passive objects, whose activity is limited by the “desire” to reproduce. The emergence in the course of evolution of more and more highly organized forms (“macroevolution”) is not provided for by this concept and is not a necessity. According to Lamarck, living organisms have an inherent tendency to develop, to complicate their organization, which occurs as a result of “the use and disuse of organs.” Progressive evolution occurs due to the consolidation in heredity of those skills developed by living organisms that contribute to their more effective adaptation to their environment. Lamarck's concept implies that living systems have their own activity, due to which living organisms use the free energy they themselves generate, both to maintain viability and for self-development. Possessing their own activity, organisms actively extract energy (and matter) from the environment, concentrate energy, increasing their energy potential, and transform it into useful work. Lamarck's concept actually served as the basis for the formulation by Erwin Bauer in the 30s of the last century of the principles of theoretical biology, in particular, the “Principle of stable disequilibrium” and the evolutionary “Principle of increasing external work as a historical pattern.” It is noteworthy that Bauer did not cite Lamarck as a predecessor, since Lamarck's concept of the internal activity of living systems was rejected as vitalistic. At the same time, the principles of Bauer’s theoretical biology have not been accepted by biological science until our time. Perhaps one of the reasons for such skepticism is that, within the framework of modern concepts of physicochemical biology, it remains unclear how a stable excited state of living matter could initially arise. Bauer also does not give a convincing answer to the question about the nature of that substance, which can remain in a stable non-equilibrium state, and after transitioning to the ground state with the release of energy necessary for the implementation of life activities, is capable of returning again to an excited non-equilibrium state. From our point of view, satisfactory answers to these questions can be obtained if we take into account that the main material substance of all living systems is water, the content of which in any organism exceeds the content of all other substances combined. Water must play a key role in all aspects of life. Recently, convincing evidence has been obtained that aqueous systems are two- and multiphase systems in which potential differences of different nature exist between the different phases. Such systems are capable of extracting scattered energy of low density and low degree of organization from the environment, concentrating, organizing it, and using it as free energy to perform various types of work. Such systems can develop in the direction of increasing their complexity, reducing entropy and increasing the ability to perform both internal and external work. Under certain, far from exotic conditions, water systems meet Bauer’s principle of stable disequilibrium (“All and only living systems are never in equilibrium [with the environment] and, at the expense of their free energy, perform constant work against the equilibrium required by the laws of physics and chemistry under existing external conditions"). Their physicochemical properties thus serve as a natural basis for the Lamarckian concept of the internal activity of living systems. It follows from this that any living system or their combination belongs to the philosophical category of “Subject” (actively acting and cognizing, possessing the consciousness and will of an individual or social group), and not “Object”, as follows from the currently dominant molecular biological , physiological, ecological and evolutionary concepts of living systems.
The presence of evolutionary progress in living nature is beyond doubt, primarily due to the presence of paleontological data showing that in real evolution, more and more advanced animals appeared. Figure 5, for example, shows data on the time of appearance of different classes of vertebrate animals in the process of evolution (Carroll, 1992). As can be seen from this figure, skullless fish appeared in the Cambrian, cartilaginous and bony fish - in the Silurian, amphibians - in the Devonian, reptiles - in the Carboniferous, mammals - in the Triassic and birds - in the Jurassic. The time when more and more advanced animals appeared on Earth was separated by millions of years, so progressive evolution, in any case
In the case of mammals, it did not go so quickly, although its direction is obvious (Fig. 5).
Most Russian authors believe that progressive evolution is equivalent to the concept of morpho-physiological progress - arogenesis. It would seem that after clarifying the concept of progress, domestic evolutionists would have to explore the possible mechanisms of this grandiose process. But this did not happen, apparently as a result of pressure from the authorities of the founders of the theory of natural selection, who believed that the direction of evolutionary processes does not exist and there is no need to highlight the mechanisms of macroevolution in any way. And yet, the evidence for the direction of many evolutionary changes and especially progressive evolution (Fig. 5) is so obvious that Darwinists were forced to look for explanations for these phenomena.
It is usually believed that the direction of evolution of individual groups of animals and plants is associated with the presence of a number of restrictions that determine this direction. A.S.Severtsov (1990), for example, identifies the following factors that limit the possibilities of evolution of a particular group of organisms: 1) physical and chemical laws; 2) morphological features of the structure of organisms; 3) restrictions imposed by ontogeny; 4) environmental restrictions.
It is obvious that such limiting factors cannot explain the fact of progressive evolution of animals and plants. Therefore, many scientists generally deny the presence of directionality in organic evolution and do not distinguish morpho-physiological progress from other evolutionary changes in organisms, believing that in this case the same patterns apply as during speciation or the emergence of the appropriate structure and behavior of organisms. In fact, this kind of explanation of real processes occurring in living nature is an attempt to get away from
solution to the problem, which is the reason for the persistence of Lamarckian theories of progressive evolution.
The essence of Lamarck's (1937) ideas regarding progressive evolution was the assertion that there is a special law of self-improvement specific to living organisms (the principle of gradation), which leads to a gradual complication of their organization. The statement about a special force or law acting in the direction of increasing the degree of perfection of organisms in the process of progressive evolution underlies most neo-Lamarckian theories (Zavadsky, 1973; Filipchenko, 1977; Nazarov, 1984). This kind of theory cannot satisfy most scientists, since the presence of special laws or forces requires, as is customary in science, special evidence. It is possible, of course, to introduce statements of this kind as postulates or axioms, but in this case, consequences that can be verified must be indicated. There is also the so-called principle of complementarity, which states that new principles or theories should not contradict old, firmly established truths, but only complement and generalize them. As shown above, the theory of natural selection cannot be refuted, since it is based on obvious axioms, therefore any theory of macroevolution, and, especially, the theory of progressive evolution, must contain natural selection at some stage.
1. The most ancient stages of hominization - the origin of the genus Homo. A. Ramopethecus descended from one of the 6 species of Dryopetecs - fossil apes - 14 million years ago. b. Australopethecines appeared 4 million years ago, used tools, and there are remains of 3 species. V. 2-3 million years ago - skilled man arose and used stone tools made from pebbles. The study of this stage is carried out using the methods of paleontology and comparative anatomy.
This stage is purely biological evolution. Thanks to the action of evolutionary factors, an upright gait was developed, and the functions of the arms and legs were separated.
3. The evolution of modern man. 100-50 thousand years ago modern people appeared (neoanthropes, Cro-Magnons). The main methods of studying human evolution at this stage are biochemical, cytogenetic, population-statistical, because evolutionary events occur mainly through the molecular genetic method. Structural genes in humans and chimpanzees are the most similar (about 99% of the proteins are the same). Morphophysiological differences are caused mainly by transformations of regulatory genes. At this stage, the social factor becomes dominant. Social evolution developed on the basis of biological evolution. Man is a biosocial being and in his development two types of information are used: 1. Biologically appropriate information. It is assembled during the process of evolution and is found in DNA. Complete biological information is a necessary prerequisite for the formation of a person as a full-fledged social being. 2. Social information. The sum of knowledge that is created, preserved and used by generations of people. This is a program of social inheritance, the development of which occurs in the process of training and education.
The “human” line, or family Hominidae, is characterized by the most important common feature - bipedalism (walking on two legs). It is clear that the transition to bipedal walking was associated with significant lifestyle changes.
The path from the “closest common ancestor” to Homo sapiens was quite multi-stage:
Australopithecus(~5 – 1 million years ago). Homo habilis(skillful person). The first representative of the genus Homo to appear on Earth (no later than 2-2.5 million years ago). Homo erectus(archanthropus, erect man). Arose on Earth approximately 1.5 million years ago...as the "Pre-Neanderthals", considered as a primitive form of the next link in the history of hominids.
Neanderthal (Homo sapiens neandertalensis), paleoanthrop. Existed from approximately 300 to 25-35 thousand years ago. This fossil man is already considered a representative of our species (Homo sapiens), forming in it only a special subspecies “neandertalensis” according to Campbell’s classification. The modern subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens. The most ancient finds date back to about 100 thousand years ago. Anatomically modern people are often called “Cro-Magnons” (after the name of the place in France where they were first discovered). Cro-Magnons had domed skulls, prominent chins, and no brow ridges.
Over the many tens of thousands of years of its existence, the Cro-Magnon man has undergone only minor morphological changes in the direction of reducing the massiveness of the skeleton (gracilization) with the expansion of the skull (epochal brachycephalization) and a decrease in its facial part, as well as other changes. Therefore, the portrait of a “man of the future” (Homo futurus) predicted based on these trends with a large head, a reduced face and teeth, reduced body size, three or four toes, etc. is known. This image of “Homo futurus”, however, now seems unrealistic in light of significant difficulties, such as those associated with the birth of a large-headed baby. Human evolution also included oscillatory processes (“secular cycles”). For example, over the past 40 thousand years, the human brain first decreased somewhat, then began to increase in volume again. These relatively minor evolutionary changes in morphology occurred alongside enormous cultural changes.