The problem is in its incorrect setting. The monkey is not our direct ancestor. What, then, do humans have in common with an athletic gorilla or a creative chimpanzee? These are single roots, originating about several million years ago and represented by individuals of the species, which in the scientific literature is called Australopithecus.

It can be assumed that our common ancestor looked more like an ape than modern Homo sapiens in terms of appearance, brain size and way of life. Several branches evolved from it, including the monkeys of the Old and New Worlds, Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and finally Homo sapiens. In the crown of the historical tree, of course, there were also blind branches. They disappeared from the face of the Earth and are mentioned only in special literature. And the process of evolution itself would be naive to represent as a rectilinear movement.

When did it happen?

The evolutionary fork forever divorced man and anthropoid primates. What was at its core? Maybe a supermutation like Ralph's? There are only hypotheses. When did it happen? There is no consensus among scientists either. You can hear different numbers: 5 or 8, and even 20 million years ago.

A clear line that separates humans from other species

We live in different ecological niches, get along well with each other and do not compete for food or territory. Indeed, great apes have chosen trees on which they build dwellings and spend most of their lives. They eat plants, their fruits and seeds, various insects or small animals serve as food for them.

The direct ancestors of man, the Cro-Magnons, occupied flat territories, learned to use fire and eat thermally processed food. People began to create dwellings and tools that make life easier.

The development of speech and the emergence of writing forever drew a clear line, separating people from other biological species. The current situation allows man and great apes to be in the stage of progress, successfully develop and represent our beautiful world, called the nature of planet Earth.

And looking into the penetrating eyes of a great ape, you involuntarily ask yourself the question: does she know that a person, although not direct and not close, is still her relative?

For example, some people continue to argue that evolution is not a valid scientific theory because it cannot, in fact, be tested. This, of course, is not true. Scientists have successfully conducted numerous laboratory tests that supported the basic principles of evolution.

The researchers were able to use the fossil record to answer important questions about natural selection and how organisms change over time. However, "" remains a popular idea. They even refer to the second law of thermodynamics, in the following words: an ordered system will always be disordered, making the dimensionality of evolution impossible.

The myth rather reflects a general misunderstanding of entropy, a term used by physicists to describe the randomness or disorder of a system. The second law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, but allows parts of the system to become more ordered as long as other parts become smaller. In other words, evolution and the second law of thermodynamics can live together and in harmony.

One of the most persistent myths concerns the relationship of humans to apes, a group of primates that includes the gorilla, orangutan, and chimpanzee. Oh, yes, many are truly worried about the unpresentable relationship (?), Well, then let me remind you: we all owe something to the simplest single-celled organism.

A person who accepts evolution without external intervention will say: If the theory of evolution is correct, then people must come into being. Monkeys must have changed step by step into humans. Developing the thought, he will ask: If the monkeys have turned into people, then the monkeys should no longer exist.

MONKEY> THE ORIGIN OF MAN.

While there are several ways to dismiss this claim, the underlying rebuttal is simple—humans have not literally replaced monkeys. This is not to say that humans and apes are not related, but the relationship cannot be a straight line as one shape changes into another. This can be traced along two independent lines.

The intersection of two lineages represents something special that biologists call a common ancestor. Ape ancestors who probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in Africa gave rise to two separate lineages. One of the lines was associated with hominids - humanoid species, and the other - with the species of monkeys that live today.

To put it more clearly, we use the analogy of a family tree, where a common ancestor occupied a trunk, which then divided into two branches. The hominins evolved along one branch, and the great ape species evolved along the other branch, independent of "neighbors".

FOUND AN ANCESTOR OF MAN.

What did our common ancestor look like? Although the fossil record does not provide detailed answers, it seems logical that the animal would have had both human and ape characteristics. In 2007, Japanese scientists discovered the jaw and teeth of such an animal, which they chose to be the progenitor.

By studying the size and shape of the teeth, they determined that the monkey was the size of a gorilla and had a taste for hard nuts and seeds. They named it Nakalipithecus nakayamai, dating it to 10 million years old.

Thanks to the find, we get the monkey in the right place on the timeline. Also, archaeologists have discovered ancient bones in the Samburu hills of northern Kenya. This places the Nakayamai in the correct geographic location, along a hominin evolutionary movement that stretched hundreds of miles into eastern Africa.

Of course, today it is an inhospitable area under the scorching desert sun. But 10 million years ago, according to paleontologists and geologists, a cool, damp forest teeming with life flourished here.

Is it possible that an ape-like creature like N. nakayamai lived in these fertile forests? Is it possible that this is where the creature began to experiment with a new lifestyle, leaving the trees and standing on its feet? Yes, we think so, scientists say, and for years they have been coming here to find out when and how the humanoid species diverged from the apes.

A unique discovery was made in Middle America in 1994, when a team of scientists led by Tim White from the University of California at Berkeley: skull, pelvis, bones of the arms and legs.

Putting the pieces of the skeleton together, the scientists identified a very early hominid that, although walking upright, still retained the opposite toe. This is a trait commonly found in tree climbing primates.

The scientists named the new species Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi for short, and determined that it lived 4.4 million years ago. In anthropological circles, Ardi enjoyed almost as much fame as Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), a 3.2-million-year-old hominid discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia.

Lucy has been cited as the earliest known human ancestor for many years. For a while, it even seemed that scientists would never be able to penetrate deeper into our mysterious past.

Opponents of Darwinism constantly remind about the absence of an intermediate species, but Ardi has already appeared, and recently other significant discoveries that reveal the "mystery of the origin of man."

MORE ARGUMENTS FOR TRADITIONAL EVOLUTION.

In 1997, scientists discovered the bones of a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba, that lived in the Middle Avahi region between 5 and 6 million years ago. And in 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senout of the College de France and a team from the Community Museums of Kenya discovered one of the oldest hominins to date.

Its official name is Orrorin tugenensis, but scientists referred to it as the Millennium Man. The chimpanzee-sized hominid lived 6 million years ago in the Tugen Mountains of Kenya, where it spent time both in the trees and on the ground. Although on the ground, he most likely walked vertically.

Now scientists are working to close the gap between the "Man of the Millennium" and the true "missing link" - a common ancestor that stood on the branch of life before the separation of the lines. Could nakayamai be this connection, or is there another kind between them?

The answer most likely lies in the dry soil of East Africa. It is also obvious that the camp of an alternative history of the origin of man will never be empty, although now it is more difficult for us to find arguments for our theory.

Meet - perhaps this is your fifth cousin nephew! Or the eighth cousin ... Look, what a handsome man: the coat is smooth, the teeth are strong. And it's great for climbing trees. Well, what is it, what is a chimpanzee? We'll have to get used to the idea that not a man once descended from a monkey, but quite the opposite - a monkey from a man. And not only the monkey, but also other vertebrates.

The traditional Darwinian teaching may be untenable. The whole history of life on Earth threatens to be turned upside down: for millions of years on our planet it was not the evolution (development) of living beings at all, but their involution (degradation).

It is this course of events that the Moscow paleoanthropologist Alexander Belov proves in his research. And he makes the following arguments.

- I believe that at a certain stage of existence, the human body could transform into the body of a vertebrate animal. Convincing proof of this is a fact that for some reason Darwin and his followers ignored, but which even a schoolboy can easily verify.

Although we are accustomed to the term "four-legged", in reality there are no four-legged animals in nature: the structure of the front and rear limbs is different. A gopher, a dog, a hippopotamus - each of them has two "legs" and two "arms" that are not similar both anatomically and functionally. The most obvious external difference: the “leg” at the knee joint bends back, and the “arm” at the elbow bends forward. Just like a human.

For Homo sapiens, this construction is quite understandable. The hand turns exactly in such a way as to take something, bring it to the face, to the mouth. And the legs bend in the opposite direction to push off the ground and take steps. But in vertebrates, the anatomy as a whole is human, and the functions are non-human. It turns out that for some reason the animals adapted their “handy” and “legged” body to move on four limbs. The same gorillas, traditionally called among our “closest relatives”, use their “human” hands mainly as an additional support when walking. And they, like other monkeys, do not really know how to move on two hind limbs.

The structure of the hand with the thumb opposed to the other four allows a person to manipulate even small objects. But if you carefully look at the skeletons of animals, it is easy to find a similar structure of the forelimbs in a monkey, a bat, a crocodile ... Even in a whale with its front fins and in a Permian stegocephalus that lived more than 300 million years ago.

The question is - why did all these animals get on all fours and turn their arms into legs? Why do vertebrates need an anatomical structure similar to the human hand, if it is used only as a primitive support? It is much more logical to have a pair of “normal” legs in front and behind.

And that is not all. The same monkeys adapted their hind limbs to perform grasping functions, changing the anatomy of the human foot “for themselves” (in fact, disfiguring it). The big toe of the monkey is bent to the side and has a high degree of mobility. Tearing fruits with such paws, clinging to branches, of course, is convenient, but they are of little use for normal movement “on foot”. What is the evolution...

- “Hands are like legs” - is your main argument?

- There are other very killer facts. In recent years, scientists have made amazing discoveries. For example, in 2000 in Kenya, the remains of a “great man” who lived 6 million years ago were unearthed. An analysis of the discovered bone fragments showed that this creature was most likely upright - it moved on two "human" legs. Meanwhile, 6 million years is exactly the milestone when, according to evolutionary scientists, the final divergence of the line of development of anthropoid apes and humans occurred (earlier than this period, fossil remains of the ancestors of the current anthropoid apes with their characteristic “grasping” big toes are not found).

In the most ancient anthropomorphic creatures, signs of a very close relationship to the type of modern man suddenly come to light. In 2002, in the African Republic of Chad, the skull of a fossil creature was discovered, which was called "Sahelanthropus". The researchers of the find found that the prehistoric aborigine walked on two legs and had many other signs of a person, but at the same time, his skull was similar to the skull of a chimpanzee. The age of this hominid is 7 million years.

It turns out that he lived before the great apes and before the Australopithecus, which were previously considered a transitional form from apes to humans. Try to explain such a "trick" from the standpoint of Darwin's theory.

- Does your hypothesis eliminate such inconsistencies?

- Certainly. The monkey is not the ancestor of man. She is his descendant. Of course, we are not talking about our contemporaries, but maybe the anthropoid ape is, for example, a descendant of those very sahelanthropes.

I’ll make a reservation right away: I don’t know where the person came from, and I just take it for granted. It can be assumed (this version is supported by many modern scientists) that our current Homo sapiens community is by no means the first. In different geological periods, different types of people appeared on Earth independently of each other. However, these Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic people existed for a relatively short time, and therefore did not leave a trace in the planet's paleontological record known to us now.

The existence of society in each of the previous cases was cyclical: the communities of our predecessors-“humans” went through a phase of development and a phase of the so-called final transformation, after which the intelligent inhabitants of the Earth return to the source that gave birth to them. But not everyone goes there, beyond this Rubicon. Some part, not wanting to return to the non-material world, remains on Earth. These are Mowgli, who, no longer able to fully exist as a person, begin to degrade, caring only about the fulfillment of primitive personal goals - to survive, to adapt to the environment.
Such “fragments of human society”, losing their minds, turned into those whom we now call vertebrates. In this case, the human body was only a kind of matrix.

- Do you think their further transformations are possible?

Each animal species occupies its own ecological niche. An attempt to transform, to get out of it, means an inevitable collision with those creatures that occupy neighboring niches. So our smaller brothers, having adapted well to certain conditions of existence, seem to become isolated in them, preserved for thousands, millions of years ...

- Where, then, did the huge variety of vertebrate species that now surrounds us come from?

- I have already said that communities of intelligent beings appeared on our planet more than once and just as often disappeared. From each such civilization, degraded living beings were preserved, which turned into various animals as a result of the process of involution. Some of the involutionary branches led to the appearance of, for example, horses, some gave dolphins, the third - bats ...

- What about flies, spiders, mollusks?

- In a more distant, Precambrian period, non-human civilizations could well exist on Earth, replacing each other. So, as a result of the degradation of those intelligent beings unknown to us (their remains were not preserved, most likely, due to the prescription of time), insects, crustaceans, and arthropods appeared on the planet.

- According to your theory, the great-great-great-great-ancestors of the neighbor's domestic cat were representatives of some kind of human civilization, maybe even more developed than the current one? But why did they, so advanced, need to get on all fours and adapt to grab food with their mouths, if it is so convenient to walk on two legs and use their hands?

- The main thing here is the loss of reason. And as proof of my assumptions, I can give a real example from the present. Leafing through one of the scientific journals, I read that a small settlement was discovered in a remote region of Iran, all the inhabitants of which - father, mother, their children - move exclusively on all fours, doing it very quickly. But at the same time, they wear clothes, use traditional tools of labor and everyday life ... Researchers have come across a similar phenomenon in another corner of the globe, in the Dominican Republic.

- It is hard to imagine that the loss of reason can be a voluntary action ...

- According to Freud's theory, two principles are constantly fighting in a person - an animal, with its inherent passions, and a human, associated with rational behavior. Reason often inhibits the manifestation of feelings, becomes a kind of internal censor, suppresses the very idea of ​​the free manifestation of their “base” desires. An intrapersonal conflict arises, which can result in protest behavior against the dogmas and foundations of society. Further split personality is fraught with the manifestation of two mutually exclusive ways of thinking: sensual and rational. Some Homo sapiens eventually renounce the rational perception of reality, liberate their soul from the norms and decency accepted in society, and completely immerse themselves in the elements of feelings and emotions. In our time, we are already confronted with similar manifestations: drug addicts, drunkards, those “psychos” who “for no reason” arrange bloody mass executions in schools, shops, on the streets of cities ...

- This is what, the first bells of the coming bestiality? And ahead of the times when people will start to run on all fours and grow claws and tails?

- There are no standards in the process of involution itself. Everyone degrades as he can. But in my opinion, without emotions and desires, there will be no random physiological accumulations. The structure of the human body is very plastic. It must meet the internal needs of its owner, and therefore the body can change in one direction or another: for example, for the convenience of movement and getting food, you can gradually turn your hands into wings, or you can transform them into flippers; you can give up your teeth and turn your jaws into a beak, as happened in birds ... The transformation of the human body is limitless. Endowed with freedom of behavior, living beings themselves remake their bodies as they wish. In the process of involution, they acquire adaptations that are convenient for living in a specific environment, in a specific ecological niche. And they become hostages of this habitat.

- Do you have like-minded people in your correspondence duel with Darwin?

- Evolutionists have been criticized almost since the appearance of this doctrine. Even the founding father himself in his book "The Descent of Man ..." mentions a certain count who claimed that the ape is not an ancestor, but a descendant of man. The well-known American paleoanthropologist Osborne expressed the idea that the hominid (“man of the dawn”) appeared on Earth immediately, without intermediate evolutionary stages, and anthropoid apes had already descended from it ...

- It is difficult to come to terms with the idea that our future generations will face such a sad fate - turning into animals.

- I do not at all want to prophesy the inevitable fall into the abyss of involution for the human community currently existing on the planet. It is still clearly premature to talk about the reasons for degradation. It is necessary to comprehend this problem from all sides. Let us believe that with the help of the powerful intellectual potential of modern science, we will eventually be able to pick up the key to this process.

The theory of the origin of man from apes

The theory of the origin of man from a monkey is the second oldest, and therefore takes the honorable fourth place in my rating.

The essence of the theory is best described in the legends of Southeast Asia. Thus, representatives of the Indian tribe Jaivast believe that they are descended from the monkey god Hanuman. As evidence, the Hindus point out that their princes retained longer spines with tail-like processes, with which Hanuman, the hero of the epic mythology of the Ramayana, was usually depicted. The Tibetans are descended from two extraordinary monkeys sent to populate the realm of snows. The monkeys learned to plow and sow bread, but from overwork they all became shabby. Well, the tails, of course, also dried up. This is how a man appeared - a tutelka in a tutelka according to Marx.

All these tales would probably have remained funny myths if not for Comte de Buffon Georges-Louis Leclerc (1707-1788), a French naturalist, biologist, mathematician, naturalist and writer, who from 1749 to 1783 published a 24-volume encyclopedia "Natural History". In it, the count suggested that man descended from apes.

Such a theory caused anger among the townsfolk (the book was even publicly burned) and healthy laughter from zoologists - for all scientists perfectly understood the delusional nature of such a fantasy. Apparently, since then, there has been a joke in the scientific community that the animal world is divided into two categories: four-legged and four-armed. And since a person has two arms and two legs, only a kangaroo can be his ancestor.

Insurmountable differences in the structure of internal organs, skin and skeleton could be called serious objections. In particular, the structure of the foot:

A funny difference between the human foot and the monkey foot is that evolution can make a monkey foot out of a human — if a person starts climbing trees more than walking, the thumb will gradually stick out and acquire grasping reflexes. But the reverse process is absolutely impossible. Without a supporting toe, the monkey is not able to move confidently on the ground, constantly "clubfoot". And if you try to change your lifestyle, it will inevitably be eaten as a result of natural selection.

It would seem that the story of the "monkey incident" could have ended there - however, religion intervened in history. XVIII century - the era of free-thinking and the destruction of foundations. One of the rebels took it into his head to make the “man-monkey” a symbol of a new, progressive worldview, and a funny fake suddenly turned out to be the basic religious dogma of the fighters with the old world. The “progress” activists called the fairy tale about the origin of man from a monkey a “scientific theory” and stamped it into school textbooks with their feet, not caring in the least about the opinion of scientists.

Meanwhile, time passed. A century after the scandal over the publication of the "man-ape" theory, in 1859 a graduate of the Cambridge Christian College, the Anglican priest Charles Darwin published his Theory of the Origin of Species. It has nothing to do with the myth under discussion - except that from the end of the 19th century, the “monkeys” began to proudly call themselves “Darwinists”.

Only in In the 20th century, biologists finally made an attempt to determine human ancestors using scientific methods, rejecting religious dogmas and relying only on the theory of evolution. The famous oceanologist Professor Alistair Hardy was the first to do this in 1929. He reasoned as follows: in order to determine the ancestor of a person, we need to collect the morphological features of an organism, systematize them and determine what habitat this animal is adapted to, and what features the creature from which this animal developed should have.

And he busied himself with systematization, checking organ by organ, and proceeding along the following lines:

1) Nose. The nose has vestigial muscles that allow you to move the wings of the nose. This means that the human ancestor had full-fledged muscles that reliably close the nostrils. None of the land animals have such adaptations, but all animals that lead aquatic lifestyles have them: dolphins, sperm whales, otters, seals, etc.

2) An upper airway with a very low laryngs is a unique feature of the Homo sapiens species. None of the land animals have such an adaptation, but all marine mammals have it.

3) The ability to consciously hold your breath - similarly

4) Increased content of erythrocytes in the blood - similarly

5) Bare skin - similar

6) The ability to give birth to children in water - similarly

7) The lower limbs are in line with the spine - similarly

8) Subcutaneous fat of infants - similarly. Land babies are born skinny. And they do not know how to dive from birth, and even with an open mouth.

9) Being in water, a person reflexively delays the heart rate. Similarly, this mechanism operates in all aquatic mammals. However, land mammals, getting into the water - an aggressive environment that threatens their lives - dramatically increase the heart rate.

10) The location of the mammary glands on the chest, and not on the stomach, is most convenient for feeding a child in water - so as not to interfere with breathing air at the same time as feeding. In this, humans differ from all land mammals. But the same feature is characteristic of marine mammals (dugongs were mistaken for sea maidens precisely because of the presence of mermaid breasts). Women's breasts are generally strikingly different from the barely visible nipples of land mammals.

Well, and so on. The list of morphological differences that indicate a person’s adaptability to life in water stretches over several hundred positions and is largely anal-genital in nature, because both digestion and human sexual behavior are also characteristic only of marine animals, but by no means land.

Having come to a completely logical conclusion on who exactly is the ancestor of a person, Professor Hardy immediately ... hid this information, knowing full well that he would become a victim of religious persecution. The dogmas of the "monkeys", alas, are considered mandatory for official science. And therefore, the first to announce the real ancestors of man in 1942 was the German biologist Max Westenhoffer, who, independently of his colleague, came to the conclusion that the ancestor of man was a hydropithecus - either an amphibian monkey, according to some scientists, or even a giant lemur, according to others (the remains of such lemurs were found in the caves of Madagascar).

For obvious reasons, the “monkeys” managed to ignore Max Westenhoffer’s publications - however, on March 17, 1960, Sir Alistair Hardy, by that day a knight and professor at Oxford University, decided that he could no longer worry about his career and published an article in The New Scientist magazine “Was the human ancestor an aquatic inhabitant?” ("Was Man More Aquatic In The Past?").

And the scientific bomb has finally exploded, shattering the myth of the origin of man from apes into small pieces!

It would seem that "Darwinists" should only rejoice at how the theory of evolution allowed science to make a radical leap forward, much closer to the mystery of the origin of man, cross out the Asian myth from school textbooks and enter scientific theory there. But it was not there! Still, religious dogmas are religious dogmas, and if a monkey is inscribed as an ancestor in the doctrine of “scientific progress,” it is the monkey that should remain there!

A wave of curses hit Alistair Hardy. The "scientific community" accused him of spoiling the whole beautiful building of Darwinism with his idiotic evolutionary theory, undermining the foundations of the doctrine and insulting Charles Darwin himself. The professor only chuckled, watching the hysteria of the "monkeys" from the side. The orthodox could not burn it publicly along with the article - by the middle of the 20th century, auto-da-fé had gone out of fashion; it was already too late to ruin a scientist's career, to anathematize him, to expel an established and very eminent professional from science. Opponents, of course, were unable to refute the scientific theory based on the basic principles of evolutionary theory. Facts are generally a damn inconvenient thing if they could not be destroyed in time. And to destroy the facts that any person sees every day in the mirror is beyond the power of any of the religions at all. "Monkeys" can only grit their teeth, send curses on biologists and prohibit new publications of scientific research.

Alistair Hardy, meanwhile, established an experienced religious research center in Oxford, stocked up on popcorn and began to watch with interest how it all ends? To get to him and avenge the free-thinking of the "scientific community" hands were short. In 1985, as if mocking his opponents, he also managed to get the Templeton Prize for his achievements.

Worst of all had the unfortunate Charles Darwin. The poor fellow, for sure, twisted in his grave, watching how a handful of obscurantists, hiding behind his name, are eagerly trying to refute his own theory. And then, quite unexpectedly, the “monkeys” got a “type of scientific” support: in 1975, Mary-Claire King and Allan Wilson published an article in Science magazine about the genetic similarity of chimpanzees and humans. King and Wilson compared the amino acid sequences of several chimpanzee and human proteins (such as hemoglobin and myoglobin) and found that the sequences were either identical or nearly identical. "... The sequences of chimpanzee and human polypeptides studied to date are, on average, more than 99% identical.“, the experts concluded.

(in it, scientists tried to explain that no one really understands how macroevolution took place). A fragment about the “almost complete identity” of chimpanzees and humans was simply pulled out of it - and a new fable about a 1% genetic difference between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes rushed over the bumps.

However, the enthusiasm of the supporters of Asian mythology has brought great, simply invaluable benefits to science. Believing that genetics is able to confirm the theory of the origin of man from monkeys, international scientific foundations have unfastened huge sums to decipher the genomes of man and the monkeys closest to him in morphology. These studies were carried out according to the general program by an international team: Tomas Marqus-Bonet (Tomas Marqus-Bonet, Evolutionary Biology Institute), Evan Eichler (Evan E. Eichler, Washington University) and Arcadi Navarro (Arcadi Navarro, ICREA-IBE Barcelona).

The unique project was completed in 2009 and gave a result that was simply amazing in its objectivity:

As it turned out, there are no more than 90% of common genes in humans and monkeys closest in kinship !!!

This means that we are genetically as close to chimpanzees as we are to mice, pigs, or chickens. And all that we have in common with monkeys is the distant common ancestors that look suspiciously like lemurs.

This is how scientific discoveries XXI centuries have completely killed a theory that has existed for almost two millennia and is still not removed from the pages of textbooks. Modern schoolchildren are completely wasting study hours on cramming the signs of their similarity to furry poison dart frogs.

The theory of the origin of man from apes no longer exists.

The full article is

There are many theories of the origin of mankind, according to some, the ancestors of people could be aliens or even crocodiles

On July 10, 1925, the most famous trial in US history, the so-called “monkey trial,” began. judged John Scopes, a young teacher, for breaking the law against teaching Darwin. Today, students in most schools know who Darwin is - but there are still enough doubters in his theory. Until now, even among scientists, there are disputes whether people really evolved from monkeys, not to mention the fact that pre-Darwinian and mythological theories that we originated are still in use in many countries:

From aliens

According to the theory of external interference, aliens are involved in the appearance of people on Earth. Maybe we are their descendants, maybe we were bred artificially, or maybe we crossed the inhabitants of other planets with our ancestors at one time? There are very interesting versions: people are the fruit of a mistake by alien scientists in experiments on animals; humans were bred in test tubes from alien DNA.

From the beasts

The beliefs of primitive people are called totemism. Remember how in "Twilight" Jacob Blake assured Bell that representatives of his family are descendants of wild wolves? These are also echoes of totemism. According to these ideas, each tribe had its own progenitor animal. For example, the same wolf, or raven, or lion. Ancient people considered totem animals to be their patrons - although they did not deify them.

From androgynes

The ancient Greeks were convinced that the very first people were unlike us - they were androgynes, that is, genderless creatures with spherical bodies, eight limbs and two faces. Once these handsome men became so proud of themselves that they decided to remove the gods from Olympus; Zeus, of course, got angry and cut each androgyne in half. This is how you and I came into being, men and women.

From the dust of the earth

Three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - teach that the first man was created by one God - from dust and dust. At the same time, Jews and Christians believe that their first ancestor was created in the image and likeness of God, while Muslims do not agree with them - according to Islam, a person does not have a divine nature. Hindus who worship Brahma, are sure that Brahma created people, and animals too, from himself. And in the Vedas it is written that it is generally unknown where a person came from on earth.

Of the kindHomo

Centuries passed, science developed, and even the most religious scientists could not close their eyes to the fact that man gradually evolved from a lower being. Thus was born theistic evolutionism; its supporters said that God did not create man himself, but the material for his cultivation - the genus Homo. Evolution is a tool in divine hands.

From the monkey ancestor

In fact, Charles Darwin never claimed that we evolved from apes. He said that the monkeys and I probably had the same ancestor. About three and a half million years ago, anthropoid apes originated from him in Africa, and from them about 200 thousand years ago we are already with you - but not according to the plan of the Almighty, but according to the laws of natural selection. Like, those who used tools, slowly mastered articulate speech and socialized, were more likely to survive.

From hydropithecus

The aquatic theory of the origin of man, proposed by a marine biologist, looks very interesting. Alistair Hardy. If you take it for granted, you and I are descended from hydropithecus - an aquatic monkey that felt great in the water and came out on land quite late. It is this factor that Hardy explains why humans, unlike, say, chimpanzees, do not have significant body hair. Proponents of the theory say that the loss of hair among the inhabitants of the savannas does not make sense - and the waterfowl monkeys did not need thick body hair.

From crocodiles

Not so long ago, American scientists from Northwestern University said that in fact, people could have evolved from reptiles - crocodile-like creatures that lived on Earth about 400 million years ago. According to researchers who studied the remains of animals of that period, it was the evolution of the organs of vision that first led to the development of limbs in waterfowl, and then, when they got out onto land and turned into terrestrial vertebrates, to an increase in the brain. After millions of years, the size of the "gray matter" in some of the inhabitants of the planet has finally developed so much that the appearance of a "reasonable person" has become possible.