For political news, crime chronicles and climatic changes, we somehow do not pay attention to the amazing scientific sensations. But in vain! Last Wednesday, March 21, at the Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at a regular meeting of the Interdepartmental Group on Population Research, chaired by Doctor of Biological Sciences Ariadna Filippovna Nazarova, sensations were discussed for four hours.
For scientific observers, who will certainly use or clone this information, I immediately offer several variants of the names: "The alien origin of mankind", "Human evolution? No, involution!”,“Russian scientists against Charles Darwin”.
In short, man is definitely not descended from ape. Indeed, humans and monkeys on earth have not found such ancestors that would confirm Darwin's evolutionary theory.
Let's return to the session itself at the world-recognized Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Two voluminous reports were made there.
The first report was made by the Doctor of Biological Sciences Alexander Belov.
With the second - Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Andrey Tyunyaev.
Alexander Belov's report was devoted to the discussion of new archaeological finds. It followed from the discussion that the formation of man, or the formation of man, did not proceed along the Darwinian path, that is, from ape to a man, but in the reverse order. Simply put, monkeys can be the result of human degradation.
The second option is that monkeys and humans can be independent biological branches, not connected in any way.
Promotional video:
Belov himself made such conclusions based on the study of fossil specimens of jaws, individual teeth, skulls, and other bones.
Andrey Tyunyaev's report was devoted to the problems of the African theory of the origin of man and was prepared jointly with a professor at Harvard University, Anatoly Klyosov.
The report convincingly showed that on the basis of a more thorough study of old data and new databases, the picture of human dispersal over the territory of the earth's surface took a different form, in which African human populations are not genetically the ancestors of other people on earth.
Then what are they? Just a lateral branch that left 130 thousand years ago from the territory of the present Russian Plain and Eastern Europe.
It was the main population, which was on the territory of the Russian Plain, that preceded the modern Caucasian man.
Andrey Tyunyaev proves that, from his position, human development also looks like a degradation process, in which, the further historically a person turned out to be from the Russian Plain, the more degraded.
And, from the point of view of genetics, skeletal transformations and changes in skin color are a natural result of degradation processes.
So the four-hour meeting was ultimately cemented by one common theme - human origins.
The general opinion is that the question of the initial appearance of man on earth remains rather obscure. And in this regard, even such an exotic version as the appearance of a man on earth from space cannot be dismissed.
This latest version is supported by at least two facts.
The first. In fact, no ancient biological predecessors have been found in modern man.
Second. Even the most ancient finds testify to a person's upright posture, to the fact that his toes were not set aside, like those of monkeys. And most importantly, no genetic markers older than 260 thousand years have been found in the human genome.
But in favor of the involutionary, or degradative, theory is evidenced not only by a change in appearance, but also by the structure of bones.
Degradation is clearly visible in the Australian Aborigines.
According to anthropology and genetics, modern man came to Australia about forty thousand years ago. The finds dated to that age are much more progressive in their structure than those of the current aborigines of this continent.
If the ancient skulls are only half a centimeter thick, then in modern Australian aborigines the cranial bone reaches one and a half centimeters and at the same time differs in a much more primitive structure, which, naturally, indicates the degradation of the skull formation system.
… At the meeting at the A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, there were specialists from various fields. Doctors of biological sciences, medical, leading specialists in systems analysis and others. And everyone, as they say, agreed: the speakers are most likely right.
So, we are with you, dear friends, descendants of ancient astronauts, astronauts, aliens. Or gods - as you like.
The only question is where, when and in connection with what they came to this amazing planet, which we call Earth.
But this is still an inexhaustible topic for science fiction writers.
Sergey Eremeev
