Who are our ancestors? Extinct Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons officially recognized by science, biblical Adam and Eve, or so-called brothers in mind?
In school, we were taught that according to Darwin's theory, the driving forces of evolution are hereditary variability and natural selection. Variability serves as the basis for the formation of new traits in the structure and functions of organisms, and heredity fixes these traits. As a result of the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest occurs, and the fittest individuals participate in reproduction. This is how natural selection takes place, leading to the emergence of new species. However, even during Darwin's lifetime, there were many theories that denied or severely limited the role of natural selection in evolution. And there are no fewer of them today. Probably because no scientist personally observed the evolution of, say, a cat, a dog or a horse. They just accepted this theory because they believed in it and voted for it. American professor D. Raup writes: “So,we live more than 100 years after Darwin, and knowledge of fossil data has expanded significantly. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation has not changed. Evolutionary data continues to be jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary change than there were in Darwin's time. Many paleontologists of the world admit that there is no really convincing data on the evolutionary changes of animals that lived in ancient times.that there is no really convincing data on the evolutionary changes of animals that lived in ancient times.that there is no really convincing data on the evolutionary changes of animals that lived in ancient times.
Darwin said that during evolution, every living organism is improved. What about in practice? Why does evolution go first, and then suddenly stops, as if reaching a limit? Why did molluscs, squids, octopuses, crocodiles, sharks suddenly cease to improve? A similar story happened with ants. This species appeared and began to develop 130 million years ago. And then the story with sharks repeated itself. About 90 million years ago, the evolution of ants stopped, and they have survived to our time in almost unchanged form.
The very mechanism of the emergence of new species remains unclear. Any paleontological museum has a series of pictures illustrating the evolution of the horse. According to Darwinists, from a small, fox-sized animal through transitional forms for a period from 50 million years to 2 million years ago, the modern horse appeared. However, the discontinuity of this evolution is surprising. At first, one animal lived, and then improved versions appear without any transitional forms. Then this feeble explanation was refuted by the facts. It turned out that there was no evolution at all. The footprints of large equid-hoofed animals about 90 million years old, found in the area of the Gissarek Range, fully corresponded to the modern horse, which was believed to exist no more than one and a half million years!
However, individual examples may not be convincing. Therefore, the Geographical Society of London and the Paleontological Association of England have undertaken an extensive study of data on fossil animals. Responsible for this work, Dr. John Moore, now a professor at the University of Michigan (USA), reported on the results of his research: “About 120 scientists have prepared 30 chapters of monumental work … in order to provide data on fossil plants and animals, divided by about 2500 groups. Each large form or species of plants and animals has been shown to have a distinct and distinct history, dramatically different from all other forms or species! Groups of both plants and animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record … It is very likely that no transitional forms were found in the fossil record,since no transitional forms exist on the historical stage at all …”It is difficult to ignore the opinion of 120 specialists who have been working on this topic for a long time.
Darwinist research has created a lot of problems in the question of the emergence and evolution of man. We are taught that humanization started when our ape ancestor climbed down from the trees and started making tools. This is considered proven, but not indisputable: no one has seen this since millions of years ago. As the ufologist Erik von Deniken points out, the monkey did not need to go down from the tree after the club. If there was such a need, there would not be a single great ape on the trees now. But they are, and they do not care about Darwin's theory.
Biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and archaeologists also cannot come to a consensus in the debate about the time of the appearance of modern man. In textbooks on ancient history, the date of the appearance of modern man was called 40-50 thousand years ago. Then there were estimates of 100 thousand years. Now researchers are finding tools that are 100-300 million years old or more. Several hundred traces of ancient lizards were discovered in Turkmenistan, and in parallel with them, fossilized traces of a humanoid creature! The footprints are estimated to be 150 million years old.
Much controversy among biologists has caused the problem of rudimentary human organs. For a long time they seemed superfluous in the human body. Indeed, if a person is artificially created by God in his own image and likeness, then why are there unnecessary details in the human body? If man arose naturally, then nature, of course, could make mistakes. Darwin regarded vestigial organs as undeniable evidence of human evolution.
Promotional video:
There was a time when about 180 human organs were considered rudiments. Today this list has almost reached zero. Yet two organs (appendix and coccyx) are still called vestigial in textbooks. But, alas, this is also not true: it turned out that the appendix contains lymphoid tissue, which protects, especially in children, the body from infection. The tailbone serves as an important attachment point for individual pelvic muscles involved in defecation and urine output.
“The key point in the proof of human evolution was considered the appearance of changes in the human embryo,” writes the esotericist A. Petukhov. - According to evolutionists, the human embryo in its development repeats the forms of fish, lizard, rabbit. This seemed to be proof of the evolution of man from the simplest creatures to his current form.
However, Dr. D. Gin from Cornell University (USA) does not agree with this and points out that the heart of the human embryo is neither two nor three-chambered (like a frog), but four-chambered at once. The human brain develops from nerve cords, and the heart - from blood vessels without any evolutionary sequence, but immediately ready-made. From this follows an interesting conclusion that the ancient man knew how to comprehend the surrounding world, compare the changes in it and draw logical conclusions as well as us.
The presence of “gill slits” (a row of furrows in the head region) in the human embryo is also not evidence of its evolution, since these formations have only an external resemblance to gills, but never develop to gills.
About 20 years ago, the evolution of man was presented simply: Australopithecus evolved from the great ape, then a skilled man, followed by a straightened man, then a Neanderthal man, and, finally, a Cro-Magnon man, or modern man, that is, you and I. This harmonious scheme was destroyed in 1997 by gene studies of a fragment of a Neanderthal bone, about 50,000 years old. Studies by German biologists have shown that the Neanderthal could not have been our ancestor, and that he never crossed with Cro-Magnons. Therefore, the ancient races of giants, Neanderthals were different branches of evolution. But whether they were a "marriage" or other creatures that lived next to us (and where did they disappear?), Remains an open question.
All of the above had to be said to ask the most important question: who is our direct ancestor? Who is in line for parental rights to adopt humanity? Maybe we appeared immediately and ready-made, without any evolution? If so, then whose creation are we: nature, God, or space aliens? Or maybe humanity is in general an orphan of the Universe, who urgently needs guardians? It is also possible that many millions of years ago, some extraterrestrial civilization in the face of all humanoids, who are now circling over us on their UFOs, artificially brought humanity out, and now controls the development of their offspring, while not actively interfering in human affairs? And we are just inhabitants of the space zoo?..
There are many questions and ideas, but there are no clear answers, at least such as Darwin's.
P. Rastreni. »Interesting newspaper. Incredible No. 3 2009