MYTH # 10: Found fossils passed off as human ancestors are actually "degradants", degraded people
It's easy to believe! After all, we do not see how a monkey turns into a person, but to see how a person turns into a monkey, it is enough to go out in the evening in a residential area of any Russian city.
Everything would have been smooth if paleoanthropology had not been combined with chronology. If known finds are plotted on the time axis, degradation does not work, alas! Quite the opposite. We have already given one illustration above.
And here is a diagram (see right): how the brain volume of ancient hominids (our predecessors) changed over time. There are about 300 points here. Strange degradation accompanied by rapid brain growth, isn't it? Undoubtedly, the volume of the brain is only one of the parameters that characterize a person, but it alone is enough to see: the idea of “degradation” (“involution”) has a very shaky foundation …
Promotional video:
MYTH # 11: The ancient "human ancestors" lived at the same time, and did not descend from one another
This is usually argued by the fact that the finds of the ancestor species are known that are synchronous with those of the descendant species. For example, various finds of the remains of Homo habilis date from 2.3 million to 1.5 million years ago, and the species Homo ergaster, which is believed to be descended from Homo habilis, appeared 1.8 million years ago. Thus, as we can see, the lifetime of these species partially overlaps (but only partially, and, of course, not completely!). There is nothing surprising. Most often, a new species appears in one of the isolated populations of the ancestor species, and never completely "replaces" it immediately. Thus, the ancestral form can exist for a long time and, moreover, give rise to not one, but many species (as happened, for example, with the Afar Australopithecines, which, apparently,are the ancestors of several groups of hominids at once - see here).
In the end, no one is confused by the simultaneous existence of a wolf and a dog, although it is known that the wolf is the ancestor of our pets …
MYTH # 12: A pig is genetically much closer to a person than a monkey (it's not for nothing that pork organs are transplanted to a person …)
Readers have asked us so many times about the genetics of pigs that some time ago we asked 3 qualified geneticists to explain the situation to the readers. The answer of scientists is unequivocal: this statement is complete nonsense (see details here). From the point of view of genetics, as well as anatomy, man was and remains a primate (and not artiodactyl). For that matter, genetically, MOUSE is much closer to humans than pigs (by the way, stem cells from mice - not pigs! - are now being used to create artificial human skin).
"But why, then, are organs transplanted from pigs?"
First of all, we must disappoint you: so far, things are not going further than a porcine heart valve transplant. Whole organ transplants are likely in the not too distant future.
Secondly: I do not know, dear reader, if you eat pork. But many of your compatriots do eat. Ask such a compatriot - he would agree to eat soup from … chimpanzees. A separate question is how much such a soup would cost.
It's not just genetic affinity. For mass organ transplantation (and this is exactly the task for transplant doctors) you need a donor animal:
- well-studied (preferably long and widely bred in captivity, without unexpected "sores");
- easily breeding in captivity;
- suitable in size;
- cheap;
- experiments on which would not cause violent protests from the world community …
Any monkey here loses to a pig in most articles (see details here).
Fact: Several hundred million pigs are slaughtered every year in the world. For comparison: the total number of gorillas on the planet does not exceed 100 thousand individuals, chimpanzees - 300 thousand.
MYTH # 13: Most scientists around the world "have long refuted the theory of the origin of man from ape …"
"A scientist in general" is as real a phenomenon as "a fruit in general" or "an athlete in general". A fencing champion is unlikely to show good results in freestyle wrestling. And a highly qualified linguist who wants to conduct research at the intersection of linguistics and genetics invites a geneticist-consultant. Otherwise, actual errors and inaccuracies are inevitable.
Many people like to talk about human evolution. If you look at what the editor of the portal ANTHROPOGENEZ. RU had to do at one time, then real specialists on this topic (i.e. scientists who have been professionally engaged in this area for many years and have their own scientific results) in Russia can literally be counted on one hand … This is the “small majority” whose opinion matters in this case.
Fact: such specialists (anthropologists, geneticists, archaeologists, primatologists) may disagree on many particular issues, but in the main points: the reality of evolution; the origin of man from ancient anthropoids; African ancestral home of humanity - none of them doubts.