Ways Of Human Development: Is It Time For Us To Get Into The Water?

Video: Ways Of Human Development: Is It Time For Us To Get Into The Water?

Video: Ways Of Human Development: Is It Time For Us To Get Into The Water?
Video: 2020 Human Development Report - Turkey Launch 2023, March
Ways Of Human Development: Is It Time For Us To Get Into The Water?
Ways Of Human Development: Is It Time For Us To Get Into The Water?
Ways of human development: is it time for us to get into the water? - water monkey, water man
Ways of human development: is it time for us to get into the water? - water monkey, water man

A version with evidence that a person, in the process of his formation as a species, was an amphibian creature, living mainly in water.

To begin with, let's try to brush up on some of the well-known laws of biology and the facts set out in biology textbooks. One of these laws is the law of the dependence of appearance and modes of movement on external conditions.


As an example, we can cite the kangaroo and the jerboa - animals belong to completely different subclasses of mammals: kangaroos - to marsupials, and jerboas - to placentals, their habitats are located on different continents. But both the jerboa and the kangaroo live in arid semi-deserts and deserts with very high temperatures during the day (summer) and very little water. This determined the same way of movement - on the hind legs, jumping, which means that the appearance is similar: the body rests on powerful long hind legs vertically with a slight slope, the front legs are small and weak, the tail is long, the ears are large (for better cooling body).

It is clear that the size of these animals varies greatly, in addition, what they eat is also different, so the similarity is not as strong as in the marsupial wolf and some canines. The list of such examples of animals that exist today is very large.

What is interesting is that the similarity in appearance dictates the similarity (in something) of behavior: the cat and the tiger are predators, their main prey is smaller than themselves, the animal lives alone; the hyena and the dog are predators, eagerly eat carrion, live in flocks, noisy, a strict hierarchy is maintained in the flock.

If you look at a person as a biological species, using modern anthropology as a guide, you get the following: a person is a species completely unlike all other species on Earth. Man appeared from a monkey through intermediate species: Australopithecus, Pithecanthropus, Heldelberg man, Cro-Magnon (perhaps there were others: Sinanthropus, Neanderthal, but it seems that these species are related to man, but not his ancestors, but parallel in development with the main ancestors).

Man at the same time:

a) became more upright in order to see better on the plains, and therefore, to provide greater safety;

b) his teeth became smaller and weaker, and his jaws were less massive;

c) in human ancestors, the brain volume increased;

d) their hand changed in order to better hold the tools of labor made by them (humanoid creatures);

e) our ancestors increased muscle mass relative to body weight;

f) the amount of hair on the body has decreased;

g) female monkeys, having turned into a man, have lost the ability to give birth relatively painlessly (monkeys, even anthropoid, give birth much easier and less painful than women);

h) the foot has changed in people - it has lost grasping capabilities, it has adapted more to running.

Something is wrong here!

Let's try to deal with each of these arguments separately and together.

A. Better vision on the plains due to a better view from above does not provide, in the case of a man, greater safety - being in an upright position all the time, he himself is perfectly visible to predators. In addition, upright walking does not provide an opportunity to escape from danger: there is neither a very fast jerk, like in an antelope (more than 60 km / h), nor the ability to run for a long time at a moderate speed (about 40 km / h), like a zebra.

After all, this small running speed of a zebra (in comparison with an antelope) at a distance of 200-300 m for a larger number of members of the flock of anthropoid creatures (mainly cubs and females) was inaccessible, which means that the flock was doomed to be exterminated by hyenas, dogs or cats, after all, any of these creatures are able to run at a speed close to 40 km / h, up to 1 km (and the zebra is more, due to which it survives).

B. It is not clear what reason caused the teeth of our distant ancestors to decrease in size and to lighten the jaws, because on the plains the vegetation is harder than in the forest, so the jaws should become more massive, and the teeth are larger and stronger.

IN. The person's brain volume has increased, and hence the weight of the head. To better hold it, the person became upright. But why, then, dinosaurs, owners of very large heads (tyrannosaurs, styracosaurs, allosaurs, triceratops, etc.), were not bipedal? After all, even the closest to upright posture, the tyrannosaurus walked on two legs, holding the body and head almost horizontally.

Yes, a powerful heavy tail helped the dinosaurs in this. But why modern owners of heavy heads - elephants, rhinos, hippos - living in the same conditions as humans, did not become erect on two legs. What such conditions acted on the great apes several hundred thousand years ago that they did not switch to walking on four limbs, but became erect on two legs? Why did these conditions affect only the great apes? Anthropology, together with biology and zoology, cannot give an answer.

G. This position, along with the previous one, simply delights me: after all, the great ape either became intelligent enough (i.e. increased the volume of its brain) to be able to make tools that are comfortable to hold with its hand, or, while remaining generally unreasonable, it must biologically change - adapting itself hand to the tools of labor existing in nature - a stick and a stone. By the way, it is much more convenient for a monkey to hold a stick, while a stone is really a human hand. But man, according to anthropologists, did not arise in the mountains, where there are many stones, but there are practically no sticks.

Again, there is a discrepancy. And one more less noticeable, but more significant error of the existing theory: we do not make the buttons and keys of modern remote controls convenient for other, non-human hands. The tool of labor is made for oneself. And if a monkey (albeit an anthropoid one) processes a stone, then it, ready-made, will be convenient for holding it with a monkey's paw, but not with a human hand, because It is highly doubtful that the monkey systematically made the tools of labor such that in 100-200 thousand years, thanks to them, it would turn into a man, because few of us think that it will be in 100-200 thousand years. And monkeys, according to anthropologists, are stupider than humans.


D. To be honest, such a large mass of muscles per unit mass (for animals close to human weight) is completely uncommon. Consequently, the person had to constantly work most of the muscles. When a person runs, no more than 1/4 of his muscles work, and even less when walking. And when swimming, most of the muscles work in a person (as it is written in the swimming manual).

In addition, muscles do not work against each other in water, as on land (this also makes us different from land animals). This means that a person was forced to spend a very significant time (from 30 to 60%) in the water, swimming, otherwise it is too expensive to maintain such excesses as muscles - too much food is needed, and their effectiveness when working against each other is extremely low.

E. It is not clear why a person should have a decrease in the amount of body hair? Indeed, for land life, hair (wool, bristles) is probably the most effective protection against:

one. Cold (everyone knows that a normal fur coat retains heat well);

2. Insects (of course, not all, but from mosquitoes, horseflies, even partially from bees: where do all these insects bite us?

3. Knots and thorns of plants (whoever walked through the forest will not let you lie - the head covered with hair is scratched much less).

4. Short-term moisture (at the beginning of the rain, the wool does not get wet immediately and allows the animals to find shelter);

5. Dust and dirt - they get on the coat, not on the skin. After molting, the animal remains relatively clean. Of course, the coat also needs to be cleaned, but it's easier than dealing with irritated skin. In addition, dogs and cats have been in the same conditions as humans for more than 5 thousand years, but they are in no hurry to lose their hair. She seems to be more comfortable in her than without her.

There is, perhaps, a more perfect biological defense against all of the above adverse factors - a bird's feather. But for mammals, this protection is unattainable.

Therefore, hair on the body is simply necessary for life on land. Another thing is the aquatic or "amphibious" way of life - in the water or on the edge of the reservoir, respectively. Here the hairline is only a hindrance - it gets wet and becomes heavy, cold. In addition, in water, hair interferes with the movement of water and, most importantly, sharply increases hydrodynamic resistance. Yes, any zoologist can point out exceptions to this rule: beavers, sea otters, etc. But, apparently, these species have mastered the semi-aquatic way of life quite recently (for the species) and did not have time to fully adapt. Other explanations seem too far-fetched and should not be given.

J. Indeed, the female monkey is relieved of the burden much more easily than the female. This is not entirely clear at all - after all, all living beings, according to Darwin, adapt, and here is such an embarrassment! You can hear the explanation - a person, they say, is an intermediate type, so the shortcomings turned out. It goes without saying that in this case it is necessary to know in advance the final result - we come to the thought of God. But man also has a mind, but now anthropologists cannot understand where the biological evolution of man is moving.

Sometimes another explanation is given: a person appeared as a result of a gene mutation. This idea is very interesting. It is especially interesting if the authors of this thought know how many percent of women die during childbirth without additional medical assistance? In one of the books on gynecology, it is written up to - 70%! How many simultaneously mutated monkeys should be in order to preserve the species (even if the given data are incorrect and overestimated by 2 times).

Popular by topic