Richard Ferle is a classic example of a “free thinker”, a restless and “inconvenient” lover of truth, the author of the book “Erectus Wanders Among Us”, which was sensational in the West. This fundamental work on almost the entire body of modern data affecting the problem of the evolution of man and his races fully reflects the intensity of discussions in the scientific community, as well as the degree of interest of engaged circles of politicians, lawyers and representatives of the mass media.

Name: Erectus wanders among us. Conquest of the white race
Author:
Year:
Genre:

Download
Excerpt

Erectus wanders among us. Conquest of the white race
Richard D. Ferle

This book produced the effect of a bomb exploding in many Western countries, and all because it is dedicated to one of the most pressing issues - the racial differences of humanity. R. Förle systematizes and cites in his book numerous scientific data on genetic, anatomical-physiological, psychological, behavioral, and cultural differences between the main races. Being a staunch opponent of the theory of the origin of man from Africa (the inconsistency of which is obvious to many today), the author, based on the data he provides from various scientific fields (including physical anthropology, population genetics, psychology, medicine, sociology, criminology), develops the concept of the origin of modern person from Eurasia.

According to this theory, at least four races of australopithecines existed before the advent of man, and from them the modern human races (possibly) evolved. The author suggests that Caucasians and Mongoloids evolved separately, starting from the Australopithecines who lived 2 million years ago, although significant interbreeding occurred between them (denied, at least until recently, by adherents of the African concept). One of the author’s main theses is that not all people living today belong to the modern anthropological type (Homo sapiens sapiens): a number of Africans from tropical Africa and the aborigines of the South Pacific Islands are, in his opinion, hybrids of Homo sapiens sapiens with Homo erectus or even late Homo erectus. Thus, the author turns out to be close to the position of polygenism, i.e., the independent origin of human races. Let us note that the polycentric theory of human origin is defended by our compatriot, State Prize laureate Academician Anatoly Derevianko, according to whom modern humanity does not represent one species. The book presents a lot of evidence, diagrams, graphs, and studies confirming the position that, in principle, it is incorrect and anti-scientific to talk about a single humanity - it is very heterogeneous, the differences between different races are sometimes simply fatal.

However, the author also paid attention to the problem that certain forces, ignoring the facts of significant differences between different races, do their best to promote and impose their equality, which is not true and is misleading the public. Races are not interchangeable. No one denies that heredity determines differences in intelligence among dogs, but in our day it would be a sin to say that the same is true of the human races. In 1950, the UN stated in an official declaration that “all races are equal in intelligence.” Although losing contact with reality is a psychosis, let's be generous and say that this statement was due to ignorance or deception. The fact that all human populations, living throughout the world for at least hundreds of thousands of years in completely different environments, turned out, albeit by chance, to be the same in intelligence, although they differ in thousands of other traits, contradicts the results of any intelligence test presented to them. Egalitarianism is clearly false - human populations are not genetically the same, and this is obvious even to young children. To hold a view that is so clearly contrary to reality is clear psychopathology, that is, these people are mentally ill. But this is not a trivial disease, since it perverts their most important biological function - passing on their alleles to the next generation. And it is only because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the same psychopathology that egalitarians do not have their own special section in the Manual.

How can creatures evolve that are capable of not loving themselves? Undoubtedly, such creatures should have died out long ago, having been replaced by similar, but self-loving creatures. A partial answer to this question is that humans, unlike most other animals, do not fully follow their instincts. A person perceives his instincts as impulses, but since he has free will, he is able to overcome these impulses through exertion of will and often does this, sometimes choosing maladaptive behavior instead of biologically programmed adaptive behavior. This is why we commit suicide, intermarriage, and engage in many other maladaptive behaviors.

Racism and ethnocentrism are very different. Of course, taking care of your family is adaptive because family members have more of your alleles than outsiders, so by helping relatives you are helping to spread your own alleles. In contrast, not caring for one's family is usually maladaptive. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has shown—surprisingly—that members of your ethnic group have more of your alleles than members of other ethnic groups, and the same applies to members of your race. Thus, using your resources to help people of your own race is adaptive, but using them instead to help people of other races is maladaptive, unless it is a quid pro quo. In other words, it is antiracists, not racists, who should be labeled as “mentally ill.”

"...Today white men are militarily superior to everyone in the world, but they do not fight for the one thing most important to the survival of their race - who impregnates their women. They not only tolerate the impregnation of white women by men of other races, not only make it easier, but actually rejoice over it!If they do not throw off the shackles of egalitarianism and fulfill their biological destiny, then soon there will be no more white children and no more white people left.... Since so many whites are genetically programmed for altruism, they it's hard to resist funding your own extinction, billions of dollars every yearare redistributed from whites to blacks, supporting them and their children, while whites refuse to have children, delay their birth and limit the number of their children due to the high cost of living. These redistributions include not only government welfare payments, housing subsidies, food stamps, preferential health care, and aid to black schools and community organizations, but also international aid to Africa. In addition, individual whites make enormous contributions to black foundations in the form of donations to organizations and scholarships to black students, and white businessmen lose money by complying with affirmative action laws and paying blacks for moral damages due to discrimination... The conquering tribe lays claim to the territory , resources and women conquered. The massive redistribution of wealth from whites to blacks around the world, the widespread birth of mulattoes by white women, and tens of millions of Mexicans claiming the western United States as their territory are all evidence that whites have been conquered.

“...African Americans...are clearly dominant over whites. There is a colossal and ongoing redistribution of property, land and women from the subordinate to the dominant race” (Whitney, 1999).

There is no doubt that whites in their own countries could have avoided becoming a defeated race if they had only believed in their right to exist and had acquired the will to resist. It was their own conscience and decency that brought them down. Could there be a better way to crush a conscientious enemy by convincing him that he is the cause of other people's suffering and therefore has no right to exist? Whites are convinced that they are evil - responsible for the poverty and suffering of others, for the destruction of habitats and bloody wars. Even crimes committed by people of other races against whites are blamed on whites - these crimes are declared to be a legitimate reaction to white racism. The unspoken but important thought that arises in the mind of whites regarding the crimes of non-whites is that the crimes of non-whites are proof of white oppression of other races. Both morally and physically, whites are demonized, demoralized, and disarmed by the incessant self-serving wrath of non-whites and the fifth column of their white egalitarian allies. Since non-whites benefit from the defeat of whites, no one can save whites except themselves... Ultimately, the most valuable thing whites have is their genome. They may lose territory and wealth, but if they preserve the integrity of their genome, they will be able to survive and regain everything they have lost. These days, however, it is racist and immoral for whites to love and cherish their racial uniqueness. Thus, we are heading towards the abyss. It will not be a pleasant descent, but the wise and well prepared are likely to survive and, after great suffering, rise again."

The book also separately examines many extremely important and topical issues - segregation, eugenics, morality and double standards, individualism, crossbreeding, neoteny (the ability of an individual who has not yet reached sexual maturity to leave offspring), selectors (sexual selection), reproductive strategies, as well as a whole series of studies of different races of haplogroups, DNA, skeletons, tissues, brains, skin, hair, etc. - a lot of useful information that can help to understand in detail such issues that are important for the development of civilization.

P.S. What happens when a person sees the world not as it is, but as he would like to see it? He makes unwise decisions that lead to misfortune and waste of life's resources. He is incapable of progress and doomed to stagnation in his upside-down imaginary world.

“Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that only a few professors can privatize.”

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

“If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts.”

G.V.F. Hegel

Contrary to public opinion widely disseminated by the media, modern science does not have a single stable idea of the origin of the human race. New discoveries in genetics and paleontology perhaps raise more questions than they answer. Representatives of modern anthropological science, interpreting the secrets of our origin, are entangled in the principles of guild solidarity, like a medieval corporation of alchemists, and belonging to one or another camp can cost a person, if not his life, as in the time of Giordano Bruno, then, in any case, his reputation and social status . The right to own the history of the human race is truly an invaluable information resource, which is why battles around it in the academic environment do not subside. Science today is a matter of great finances and prestige, and every political regime is trying with all its might to improve its image by patronizing scientists and creating the impression of universal concern for theoretical problems that are in fact controlled by only a few people. Those who control humanity's past will also control its future, so it takes great courage to challenge the big business tycoons of science, including in this most important area.

Among such restless and “inconvenient” truth-seekers is the modern American scientist Richard Fuerle, author of the book “Erectus Wanders Among Us,” which was sensational in the West. This fundamental work on almost the entire body of modern data affecting the problem of the evolution of man and his races fully reflects the intensity of discussions in the scientific community, as well as the degree of interest of engaged circles of politicians, lawyers and representatives of the mass media.

Richard Fehrle is a classic example of a “free thinker.” And if in the modern Russian understanding this definition has a rather negative meaning, implying the amateurism and “know-it-all” of an amateur philosopher, then the situation is completely different in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where a free thinker is, first of all, a high-level professional who personally bears the burden of economic and social responsibility for the fruits of your intellectual activity. This is a man of mental labor, who pays the bills himself, who reports only to his conscience, the canons of science, and is not subject to the whiffs of political conjuncture.

Richard Fehrle does not live in an “ivory tower,” but on a small island near New York, surrounded by pristine nature, and, despite his mature age, calls himself an eternal student, as he combines a tireless desire for self-improvement with studying at prestigious educational institutions . He has a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, chemistry, a master's degree in economics and a doctorate in law. It is this wide range of knowledge that allowed Ferle to work as a patent expert for a long time, and, like no one else, he knows how insidious and sometimes illusory the border separating science and jurisprudence, without which the functioning of modern society today is simply unthinkable, is. Over the long years of his career, having seen enough of the machinations and machinations going on at this “border crossing”, as befits a true free thinker, he decided to independently analyze the key problem of the evolution of humanity and its races, clearly showing that there is a place for smuggling in science. Thus was born his book, which has already been reprinted several times.

However, Richard Ferle’s talents are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the economics of Austria, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

Fully aware of the scale of the task, the scientist begins his preface with philosophical discussions about the value system in science, emphasizing that the so-called “pure science” is a myth. The main problem is the dialogue between representatives of polar opposite views on the theory of the evolution of human races. According to the author, the synthesis of these data constitutes "fascinating material" since "fraud in anthropology has become the norm." The times of free debate have long since sunk into oblivion, and the entire Western world is literally entangled in the snares of the “equality police,” spreading everywhere the norms of egalitarianism comparable to the bacilli of the “intellectual plague.”

Richard D. Ferle

Erectus wanders among us. Conquest of the white race

« Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans" by Richard D. Fuerle

Vladimir Avdeev

The Conspiratorial Anthropology of Richard Fehrle

“Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that only a few professors can privatize.”

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

“If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts.”

G.V.F. Hegel

Among such restless and “inconvenient” truth-seekers is the modern American scientist Richard Fuerle author of the book “Erectus Wanders Among Us,” which was sensational in the West. This fundamental work on almost the entire body of modern data affecting the problem of the evolution of man and his races fully reflects the intensity of discussions in the scientific community, as well as the degree of interest of engaged circles of politicians, lawyers and representatives of the mass media.

However, Richard Ferle’s talents are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the economics of Austria, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

The main conspiracy theory of the origin of human races, according to Ferle, is that there is in fact no secret, but there is a mystery of the origin of those who create this secret with enviable regularity. The author formulates the task of his work with the typical meticulousness of a patent expert as the need to figure out who needs and benefits from it. Ferle skillfully builds a logical chain based on the basic data of archeology, genetics, the general theory of evolution, the evolutionary theory of sex, psychology, leading us to the conclusion that the emergence of human races is due to the entire course of organic development of nature: “Races arose before the appearance of erecti, from the time of Australopithecus, that is, the appearance of races preceded the appearance of the genus Homo.” From the perspective of Darwin's general theory of evolution, "the frequency of specific traits that provide greater reproductive success will increase in populations."

Thus, an increase in the concentration of racial characteristics and, as a consequence, the evolutionary separation of races is a natural path of the organic development of nature. Biological differences are the main driver in the struggle for the survival of species - this is the root of Darwinian theory. “In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism, makes evolution impossible. And without the opportunity to evolve, biological species can only die out due to changes in the environment that inevitably occur.”

The ecological niche in which a race develops inevitably shapes its specialization. Based on data from archaeology, cultural history, genetics and behavioral theory, Ferle illustrates the correctness of his arguments, which confirm the general theory of evolution. Natural selection created traits and fixed them hereditarily, which contributed to the development of races.

These natural scientific conclusions lead to the fact that the theory of the origin of modern humans from Africa is untenable and openly politically biased, since “the genetic differences between Africans and Europeans are so pronounced that the proportion of European admixture in Africans can be determined with an error level of only 0 .02".

“Erectus wanders among us. Conquest of the white race “Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans" by Richard D. Fuerle Vladimir Avdeev..."

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Richard D. Ferle

Erectus wanders among us. Conquest of the white race

Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans" by Richard D. Fuerle

Vladimir Avdeev

The Conspiratorial Anthropology of Richard Fehrle

“Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that can be privatized as little as

several professors."

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

“If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts.”

G.V.F. Hegel

Contrary to public opinion widely disseminated by the media, modern science does not have a single stable idea of the origin of the human race.

New discoveries in genetics and paleontology perhaps raise more questions than they answer.

Representatives of modern anthropological science, interpreting the secrets of our origin, are entangled in the principles of guild solidarity, like a medieval corporation of alchemists, and belonging to one or another camp can cost a person, if not his life, as in the time of Giordano Bruno, then, in any case, his reputation and social status . The right to own the history of the human race is truly an invaluable information resource, which is why battles around it in the academic environment do not subside. Science today is a matter of great finances and prestige, and every political regime is trying with all its might to improve its image by patronizing scientists and creating the impression of universal concern for theoretical problems that are in fact controlled by only a few people. Those who control humanity's past will also control its future, so it takes great courage to challenge the big business tycoons of science, including in this most important area.

Over the long years of his career, having seen enough of the machinations and machinations going on at this “border crossing”, as befits a true free thinker, he decided to independently analyze the key problem of the evolution of humanity and its races, clearly showing that there is a place for smuggling in science. Thus was born his book, which has already been reprinted several times.

However, Richard Ferle’s talents are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the economics of Austria, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

“In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism, makes evolution impossible. And without the opportunity to evolve, biological species can only die out due to changes in the environment that inevitably occur.”

Ferle examines and systematizes in great detail the main differences between races at the morphological and then genetic level, clearly demonstrating the degree of remoteness of the main racial trunks from each other and the level of specialization of representatives of modern races.

The morphological development of the brain is directly related to the IQ, which, in turn, determines the specifics of human behavior and his civilizational abilities.

Altruistic tendencies, criminal tendencies, and sexual behavior are also functional consequences of brain development. The specificity of sexual and marital relations clearly demonstrates where to look for hotbeds of the emergence of races. “Pair pairing was an important step towards humanization, and since it is less common among Africans, the trait did not originate in Africa, and the population that embarked on the path to humanization was not African.

When it comes to donating money, blood or human organs, Europeans are much more generous than other races, and they show this generosity regardless of whether the person in need is related to them or not.” Therefore, these fatal racial-evolutionary differences cannot be eliminated through social philanthropy. “Trillions of dollars are spent on programs aimed at closing the gap in academic achievement between whites and blacks.

All these programs failed. Geneticists are identifying genes responsible for intelligence and estimating the prevalence of these genes around the world. Not surprisingly, the prevalence of such genes in Africa is much lower than in Europe or Asia. It is difficult to argue that blacks are unable to achieve because of poor education or because of racist attitudes on the part of whites if they do not have the genes needed to learn.”

A direct and obvious connection is thus revealed between the evolutionary morphology of the body in representatives of different races and their abilities for culture: “Primitive characteristics include larger muscles, more developed aromatic glands, a smaller brain with less pronounced convolutions, a smaller anterior-posterior brain size and smaller frontal lobes. The less prominent nasal bones are also a primitive feature, as early hominids did not have external nasal bones; The African nose is very flat. Almost all racial differences between Africans and the aborigines of Eurasia lie in the area of primitive traits, and if Africans at all have signs of more advanced development than the inhabitants of Eurasia, then they are extremely few.

Evidence shows a very large number of differences in bone tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, cultural achievements and genes. And, most importantly, all available data is consistent with each other. It does not happen that genes indicate the development of blacks, and bones indicate their primitiveness. All the evidence points to one thing: they are primitive, less developed in evolutionary terms and closer to our anthropoid ancestors.”

With the help of these facts, drawn from classic works on evolutionary anthropology, the author leads readers to the main thesis of his book: the modern politically tolerant concept of the origin of all human races from Africa does not stand up to criticism, because it is intensively implanted in the public consciousness by purely political methods, being in obvious contradictions with the principles of objective science.

And here, in our opinion, the most interesting thing begins, which has led to such massive popularity of the American scientist today, since Richard Ferle can be presented as one of the heralds of a whole trend, which would be appropriate to call conspiracy anthropology. For it is impossible to explain in any other way than with the help of a conspiracy theory the persistence of liberal circles with which they are pushing with all their might the concept of the African origin of humanity to the surface of public consciousness. It should be emphasized that the term “conspiracy anthropology” itself was first introduced into use by the author of these lines, although the very tendency of political falsification of human history can be traced back to medieval church hierarchs. These facts of falsification have been given full publicity, but attempts to appropriate the family tree of humanity continue to this day, so it is extremely important to consider the methodology of modern attacks on freedom of discussion, which is the basic principle of the existence of science. And although the times of the fires of the Inquisition have passed, the methods of modern ostracism of the authority of a scientist are still very effective. In this regard, Richard Ferle’s book “Erectus Walks Among Us” is a very valuable tool for maintaining an atmosphere of sanity in modern society, being a kind of guide through the labyrinths of modern conspiracy anthropology. And the invaluable experience of the American scientist will serve as a kind of Ariadne’s thread in this matter.

Criticizing the above-mentioned fashionable hypothesis, the author rightly asks the following questions: “If modern man existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, then why are today's Africans so primitive in all respects? Have Africans undergone reverse evolution from more advanced ancestors, becoming more primitive? Another question that comes to mind is: Why did tropical-adapted Africans leave Africa 65,000 years ago, right in the middle of the First Ice Age (lasting from about 73,000 to 55,000 years ago), when more cold-adapted hominids of Eurasia were moving south? And the last question: why did African erecti become sapiens, and not Asian or European ones, especially in light of the fact that the habitat in Eurasia was more selective for modern traits, and becoming Homo sapiens would have provided a greater advantage?

The author rightly draws attention to the fact that one of the key principles of biology is the multiregional theory of the origin of species, and asks the question why this rule should be discarded, as Afrocentrists do when considering the origin of the human race?

Such questions arise naturally for any unbiased researcher.

Ferle emphasizes that fundamental morphological differences in the structure of the skull and skeleton among fossil ancestors from different parts of the world arose much earlier than this supposed dispersal. In addition, the age of these morphophysiological differences is estimated at hundreds of thousands of years and even millions. That is, there is a chronological discrepancy and logical inconsistencies in the concept of Afrocentrists.

From the point of view of elementary logic, things are even worse with this theory when we begin to analyze its chronological aspects in geographical space. “How is it possible that supposedly modern Africans could not even reach the islands off the African coast just a few thousand years ago? The fact that the islands, even visible from Africa, have not been explored or settled, certainly suggests that Africans were not advanced even very recently, so it is simply ridiculous to believe that they were advanced when they supposedly migrated out of Africa 65,000 years ago. back. How could modern Africans supposedly not only leave Africa and travel through Europe and Asia, but even reach Australia and the Pacific Islands, without ever reaching the islands very close to their coast?” – the American scientist rightly asks.

As is known, breeding domestic animals and selective cultivation of valuable plant varieties are indispensable attributes of any phase of the development of human society. In the same way, traces of life activity at sites of mass migrations, scattered across the surface of the Earth, should clearly indicate the direction of movement of masses of people. But most strikingly, it turns out that nothing like this was discovered in Africa - the imaginary cradle of humanity. It seems that the ancestors of modern races instantly scattered across even the most remote regions of the land from one place, leaving nowhere traces of their temporary stay, and in the process of this magical levitation at once and in a very diverse manner changed the entire complex of racial characteristics, consisting of thousands of parameters, after thereby creating completely different and dissimilar types of civilization.

Modern scientific methods only exacerbate the overall picture of absurdity in the Afrocentric concept. Differences in mitochondrial DNA between Europeans, Africans and Asians arose much earlier than the process of exodus from Africa. To cover up this obvious mathematical casuistry, the creators of the concept even had to invent some kind of fantastic zoological creature like a fictional character in a children's cartoon for the needs of a bored public.

“Mitochondrial Eve” is the metaphysical name given by Afrocentrists to our “foremother,” who they believe lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago, from whom all living humans received their mitochondrial DNA. “This 'Eve' was not the only female, as a viable population would have to include at least a thousand married couples. According to Afrocentrists, all women in this population either had the same mitochondrial DNA or, having a different mitochondrial DNA, did not have daughters.”

It seems that this is already reminiscent of the tricks of card sharps with the substitution of cards within the same suit, when a jack suddenly turns out from a six. But the wonders of the amusing “concept” do not end there, for within the framework of the modern tradition, Afrocentrists argue that the family tree of humanity, constructed on a computer, clearly points to an African ancestral home. And since it was calculated on a computer, then this is the ultimate truth. But Richard Ferle, himself a certified mathematician, shows that this family tree can just as easily be derived from the Martians, since a computer is just a technical device that carries out someone else’s will according to a given program, nothing more. And it is not his fault that the will of Afrocentrists opposes all the laws of mathematical logic. “The family tree of the African Exodus theory is not a simple tree. In reality, there are more than a billion such evolutionary trees. For these reasons, until technical problems are overcome, mitochondrial DNA will not be able to answer questions about either Eve's habitat or her age. If the computer-generated genealogies of Afrocentrists don't prove that Eve lived in Africa, or even provide a reliable answer to the question of when she lived, is it possible to use mitochondrial DNA data in some other way to find out where she lived?

The American scientist also provides an impressive list of genes responsible for the morphological structure of the brain, which are present in Europeans and are completely absent in people from the African continent. This fact also confirms the impossibility of the origin of modern races from this region. Afrocentrists do not hesitate to openly falsify the principles of taxonomy, resorting to the practice of double standards. The total genetic distances for human races are several times greater than those for animal breeds, but Afrocentrists argue that the human races belong to the same species, and the mentioned animal breeds belong to different ones. Where is the logic and universality of classification principles for all organisms in nature?

Further, the author of the book rightly draws attention to the fact that genes are grouped into gene complexes, which in turn determine racial characteristics, therefore, between the main branches of humanity there are not only differences in gene frequencies, but also in recombinations of gene complexes, and at this level racial differences are even clearer and more tangible: “Thus, the genes responsible for light skin and hair color could not have had an initial springboard of distribution in Africa, but only in a population that lived in Eurasia, and lived there long enough for all existing genes that code for light skin and hair color.”

In recent decades, nuclear DNA studies of human populations have become widespread, and here the situation for fans of the “Exodus from Africa” theory is even more dire. “In reality, there is no plausible model for the conversion of African nuclear DNA into Caucasian and Mongoloid nuclear DNA, and there is no evidence that Eurasian populations ever possessed any African-specific genes.

For example, the skulls of Caucasians and Mongoloids do not have the features characteristic of the skulls of Africans, and traces of genes specific to Africans, such as curly hair, are not found in modern inhabitants of Eurasia, whose ancestors did not mix with Africans,” notes Richard Fehrle.

Differences in genetic structure most directly affect the intelligence of populations and the specifics of their evolutionary struggle for existence. “It would take much more than 65,000 years for the population of Eurasia to be replaced by people from Africa. Assuming that they have characteristics that Africans possessed 65,000 years ago, it is completely implausible that they had superiority in foraging on continents with which they were unfamiliar, even if the inhabitants of Eurasia were more primitive. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Eurasians welcomed Africans into their territory with open arms, so gradual peaceful replacement was not possible."

It would seem that any sensible person, even one without special knowledge of evolutionary anthropology, would have enough common sense to reject the hypothesis of the origin of modern human races from Africa. But Afrocentrists are very, very stubborn, so their system of evidence gives the outward impression of an obsessive psychopathic destructive mania. In this regard, Richard Ferle naturally summarizes: “Even Afrocentrists are forced to agree that the population of Eurasia has evolved more than Africans. Modern genetics confirms that Africans are most closely related to living apes. This means that even if people originally came to Eurasia from Africa, then the current Africans, whose ancestors did not leave Africa, should have gone through a shorter evolutionary path from the ape-like ancestor than the Africans who left Africa. This in itself calls egalitarianism into serious question - everyone cannot be genetically the same when some are more ape-like than others."

And as a true professional scientist, completely independent of the political situation, Ferle rightly states: “To summarize, let’s say that the theory of the “Exodus from Africa” is defeated on all fronts; it only testifies to the power of egalitarianism to distort science.”

Egalitarianism, that is, the ideology of equality of all at the biological level through crossbreeding, inevitably leads to heat death according to the laws of thermodynamics, and these physical patterns are easily detected in world history at the level of development of individual states, empires and even large civilizational associations. It was racial chaos that destroyed ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. We can easily observe the same depressing processes today: “Life, like other acts of creation, is a local decrease in entropy (structural disorder), miscegenation, like death, destruction and chaos, increases entropy.”

All social conflicts in the form of revolutions, spontaneous riots and simply domestic violence, according to Ferle, are based on the opposition of nature against the chaos of mixing incited by the priests of egalitarianism. In addition, miscegenation inevitably causes a decrease in the IQ of the citizens of the state and leads to a general decline in culture, which is observed almost everywhere today in large cities. Biological immunity also decreases, which in turn leads to a general weakening of the constitution and degeneration. “In the mixing of races there is no plan to create a fitter person, or even one who is healthier, more intelligent, or possesses any other desirable qualities.”

Therefore, the author of the book rightly concludes that the doctrine of egalitarianism is a form of mental pathology, and only a reasonable eugenics program can save the world from chaos, degradation and degeneration. “Egalitarianism is an ideology at war with biology, and Nature's creations cannot survive for long by following a suicidal ideology. Nature encourages man to fight and defeat his rivals. Egalitarianism calls upon the man, at least the white man, to welcome his rivals and promote their triumph over himself.”

Mixing, according to the scientist, inevitably leads to the erosion of the system of moral values, therefore racially mixed societies are destroyed not only biologically, but also ethically, since adherents of equality are accustomed to considering themselves as arbiters of morality. “The claim to moral superiority, however, is not consistent with the multiculturalist thesis of the “equality of all cultures,” and since culture includes morality, then if someone’s moral standards are higher, others must have lower ones. Indeed, even multiculturalists consider some cultural practices alien to us to be immoral.”

At the end of his essay, Richard Fehrle calls on readers, based on all of the above, to soberly assess the drama of the situation for white people and make an informed choice in the interests of their own future. In this matter, the author adheres to the main line clearly outlined in such philosophical books as “The Decline of Europe” by Oswald Spengler, “The Decline of the Great Race” by Madison Grant, “The Death of the West” by Patrick Buchanan and many others. In his opinion, no one but the whites themselves are to blame for their decline today, and no one except the whites can save them from historical extinction.

What makes this book particularly valuable is the fact that in most of the works we mentioned, the contours of the impending catastrophe of the “white world” were substantiated on a philosophical and speculative level, and our contemporary Richard Ferle relies on the facts of population genetics, criminology and existing legal practice, which undoubtedly increases the value of the author's judgments. His book is no longer an emotional apocalyptic warning, but a medical diagnosis of a patient with a clear prescription for surgical intervention to save his life.

The modern Russian reader, after reading this landmark book, will undoubtedly receive rich food for thought, because with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War era

It is becoming increasingly clear that the destinies of white people in both the Western and Eastern hemispheres are inseparable and interconnected.

It was the altruism of the white people, who enthusiastically began to recklessly scatter the seeds of their civilization throughout all parts of the Earth in the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries, that played a cruel joke on them, because no one asked them for such royal cultural gifts. Contradictory at first glance, but extremely metaphysical Russian proverb “If you don’t want evil, don’t do good to people”

In the racial context of the current situation, it makes perfect sense. White people themselves brought disaster to their future by inappropriate sacrificial waste of hereditary talents.

“Ultimately, the most valuable thing whites have is their genome. They may lose territory and wealth, but by keeping their genome intact, they will be able to survive and regain everything they have lost,” proclaims the American scientist Richard Fehrle, like an oracle of a new era of genetic determinism.

Translation from English: Ph.D. biol. Sciences D.O. Rumyantsev (Parts I, III–V), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences I.V.

Zhuravlev (Part II) Preface “If you resolve a controversial issue without hearing all sides, you will be wrong at least half the time.”

Every person is a product of his time. We all believe that our values and aspirations are moral, but this cannot be true because every generation believes this, yet different generations have extremely conflicting values. Just a few centuries ago, our ancestors found nothing wrong with owning and selling other people, and a few thousand years before that, the main dish for dinner might have been a member of a neighboring tribe. Had we lived then, there is little doubt that we would not have minded. A few hundred years after us, a future generation will likely view our values as ignorant and barbaric, just as we view the values of our predecessors.

I mention this to encourage the reader to discard, or at least curb, the opinions, views and beliefs he has acquired throughout his life, since many of them will be challenged in this book. Let's go beyond our time, as if we had just arrived on this planet, and weigh all the evidence and arguments presented. It is almost impossible to reach the truth by listening to only one side; you will have to hear the other as well.

Much of what people are now being told in school and through the media is not true. There are knowledgeable people who know that this is so, but they do not dare to say anything. The rest live in this sea of misinformation. Since almost everyone thinks misinformation is prevalent, let's assume this must be true. Therefore, acting on misinformation, we make important life decisions that too often turn out to be disastrous.

Today, in my declining years, I see no more important gift that I could give to the next generation than to challenge at least some of these, I believe, false beliefs. To encourage distribution of this book, it is published without royalties and may be copied with attribution without liability to the author. I hope to make the book available online for download without any obligation, as I have done with my other books.

There was very little holding me back in writing this book.

Efforts have been made to avoid unimportant but shocking facts, especially those that some may find offensive. Such facts are presented openly where they cannot be omitted. I have tried to be as correct as possible, although I would be surprised that there were no errors since the areas involved are very large and assumptions are required to fill gaps in the evidence. Whenever possible, I have avoided professional language and provided explanations of the terms used. There was a lot of additional material that could have been included in the book, but after about four years of studying almost exclusively with this work, I decided that it was time to finish the work.

Acknowledgments

Many have made suggestions and provided information that is included in this book. Dr. Willard W.

Olson deserves gratitude for his astute observations and original ideas in the field of human evolution. His extensive knowledge of biology, especially regarding fossil skulls, was extremely helpful and I greatly appreciate his straightforward and honest conclusions.

A large number of members of the e-1 and ADlist Internet communities on Yahoo also made insightful comments and provided information to my attention.

The book originates from the posts of self-taught former Marine Ronald A. Fonda, who has repeatedly explained in these two Yahoo communities why he believes the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is incorrect. Although he maintains a website on the subject that contains documents supporting his position (www.rafonda.com), I believe they are presented in mostly technical language that is difficult for the layperson to understand.

Convinced that he had achieved something, I suggested to him and others who agreed with him that they write a book that would make his ideas clear to the common man. When, after a few months, I realized that no one was going to start writing this book, I offered my services as its editor. I felt that I had to make what I wrote easy to understand and not leave gaps that could undermine the argument. But still, no one would give me anything to edit, so I started researching and writing myself, first as an “editor” and then writing almost everything as Ron’s co-author.

Ron and I have already gone out of our way to prove that modern man did not originate in Africa, but only in Eurasia. This contradicts both scientific theories: the African Exodus theory and the Multiregional Hypothesis. As the book progressed, Ron, somewhat reluctantly, and I agreed that there was good evidence to believe that the evolution of man from a primitive mammal did not occur anywhere in Africa and that the human ancestry line was closer to the Asian orangutan than to the African chimpanzee . But that was the extent of Ron's speculation.

By the time I seriously discussed Chapter 24, I was convinced that biology is no different from physics in that it is also limited by laws or rules. Data from genetics and archeology place the age of origin of the races at approximately 65,000 years, but these rules imply that the races arose more than 2 million years ago. Since Ron and I could not agree on how to resolve these and other differences, we parted amicably.

This book contains material that I find extremely fascinating, especially since it is unlikely to be easily found elsewhere, particularly in one book. To bring everything together, it was necessary to conduct research in a variety of fields (for example, in genetics, physical anthropology, sociology, paleontology, psychology), digging through controversial and contradictory information, partly erroneous and even fraudulent. Realizing how enormous this task is, I was repeatedly tempted to give it up. Fortunately, Ron had already acquired a good knowledge of these areas, had carefully thought through the implications of the information he had gathered, and was able to keep me on track.

Ronald Fonda, therefore, deserves credit not only for the impetus behind this book, but also for the many ideas scattered throughout it. Part III is based almost entirely on material from his website www.rafonda.com, and he is also responsible for many of the ideas in Part IV.

I do not overlook the fact that the theory of human origins proposed in this book is contradicted by the extensive literature in support of the African Exodus theory. However, there is good reason to believe that this theory is incorrect and that modern man did not evolve in Africa. I hope that the reader will impartially consider the case brought before him, while I stand impatiently in the dock, awaiting verdict.

As always, I take all mistakes and erroneous statements personally.

Comments and corrections without swear words can be sent to me by email:

[email protected].

Introduction “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; The true tragedy of life is when an adult is afraid of the light.”

Plato When man acquired a brain capable of abstract thought, one of his first questions should have been: “Where did we come from?” The answer was to endow oneself with a glorious lineage - from the gods, from Mother Earth herself, from mythical monsters or from giant animals.

But modern science suggests a more mundane origin - man evolved from apes, a member of the same family as modern chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Millions of years later, the descendants of this ape diverged evolutionarily from their ape-like ancestors enough to become a distinct genus of Homo, humans. Many years and many species of Homo passed before the appearance of the first intelligent man, the somewhat primitive-looking Homo sapiens, and even later a very intelligent man appeared, Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man. (Giving himself the most laudatory names.) In paleoanthropology, the science that studies extinct human ancestors, much is controversial, and as we move back in time, human origins become less certain.

Despite this, I have decided to accept the risk of error and make some plausible guesses about the early stages of man's evolutionary journey from his beginnings as a primitive mammal to the time when he began to walk on two legs. However, the book focuses primarily on the question of how man evolved from a bipedal ape to his modern state.

Ask most paleoanthropologists where man arose, and they, like Charles Darwin, will answer in one word - “Africa” - Africa, from the very beginning and at every subsequent stage of the journey, except the last, when the races were formed. They will say that the aborigines of tropical Africa were the first modern people, and the Mongoloids and Caucasians evolved from these Africans. Not everyone will agree with this answer, and this book presents an alternative scenario.

A layman might assume that the question of the origins of modern man will be studied in the same way as other scientific questions, or at least assume that the study will consist of dispassionately examining the data and drawing conclusions from them. Unfortunately, when a person studies himself, he is not an unbiased observer. Anthropologists are not Martians, they are people and, like everyone else, they have their own ideological and psychological quirks.

One would expect that, like some of the first humans to question where they came from, paleoanthropologists would choose a glorious past for their people and a less worthy past for others, but this is not so. Just as tennis etiquette instructs the winner not to boast about his victory, but to kindly tell the loser that he played well and was a dangerous opponent, even if this was not true, most paleoanthropologists try not to focus on the differences between different populations, thereby downplaying the strengths of one's own people and exaggerating the strengths of others.

Why they do this is an interesting question, since self-pride is certainly more natural than self-denigration, but there are still good reasons for doing it, and anthropologists are not the only ones who behave this way. This is currently the only acceptable behavior in all Western (white) societies, including the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. And while the winner of a tennis competition who tells his losing partner, “You're a lousy tennis player,” suffers only disapproving glances for his violation of etiquette, remarking that an ethnic group is undesirable can get you fined and land you in jail, especially if it's true.

Egalitarianism, the dominant ideology of our time, believes that all people are universally equal, at least genetically, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply unacceptable. I will refer to those who do not allow any questions to be asked regarding genetic equality as the “Equality Police.” On most college campuses, the Equality Police enforce "speech codes" (i.e., rules that stifle free speech) and (mandatory) "tolerance classes" (i.e., brainwashing). Those who are “unresponsive” (i.e., have their own way of thinking) may end up being disciplined, expelled, or worse. Research that might reveal racial differences, especially in intelligence and behavior, is strictly prohibited, which created difficulties in gathering relevant information for this book. In some areas, you have to rely on data obtained more than a century ago.

A discussion of the origins of egalitarianism and the harm it causes to science and scientists is largely beyond the scope of this book, but it should be noted that egalitarianism is an intellectual plague that has afflicted mainly the West and has affected comparatively little Africans in tropical Africa and the aborigines of Asia. Egalitarianism is particularly harmful to scientific research on racial differences in anthropology, psychology, and sociology. Reputable scientific journals publish only findings consistent with racial egalitarianism, and any research that might produce contrary findings is not funded by the government or by organizations that do not want to be labeled a “hate group.”

What happens when a person sees the world not as it is, but as he would like to see it? He makes unwise decisions that lead to misfortune and waste of life's resources. He is incapable of progress and doomed to stagnation in his upside-down imaginary world.

Like Lamarck and later Lysenko, who believed that environmental changes could not only improve living organisms, but that these improvements would be inherited and passed on to future generations, today's egalitarians also believe that heredity is not a limitation

– it does not determine a person’s fate. But unlike Lysenko, they see the reason not in the ability of the environment to change genes, but in the fact that now the genes of all people everywhere are practically the same. It is only the environment that makes people different - poor education, poor nutrition, poverty and, most of all, the malicious racism of white people. All that is necessary for everyone everywhere to be equally successful and accomplished is to provide a level playing field and do “everything possible” to get rid of white racism.

Today in the West we live in the same political climate as the anti-Lysenko scientists in the Soviet Union. It is desirable for scientific conclusions to be “correct”

conclusions, otherwise you have yourself to blame.

They will not disappear completely, as some of those scientists did, but they may well disappear from their jobs and from the pages of respectable journals, even if they were lucky enough to avoid prison. As Charles Murray so aptly put it: “When it comes to race, science is damaged,” simply ignored them in the second edition.”

(Sarich, 2004, p. 72). Another example is Otto Klineberg (Garrett, 1960). See also Chapter 3 of J.F.'s review of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Rushton and Garett Nardin, and Louis Andrews in Stalking the Wild Taboo online and (Sailer, 2007b).

Egalitarianism is more powerful in Western than in any other ideology. It destroys careers, bankrupts companies and wastes trillions of dollars. Crawling, lying and abandoning one's wealth and the well-being of oneself and one's children are used to avoid the wrath of the Equality Police. The strong and principled, who do not bend, are demonized and ostracized.

The Equality Police leaves not the slightest crack in the edifice of egalitarianism, and those who challenge it suffer from the inquisition of our days. John Entine wrote Taboo: Why Sports Are Overrepresented by Black Athletes and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (Entine, 2001), which provides evidence of racial differences in athletic ability. Thus, blacks excel at sports that require jumping (eg basketball) and running (eg football, track and marathons), while whites excel as swimmers, divers and gymnasts. If he had stopped there, the book would not have faced the serious wrath of the Equality Police, since these observations are obvious to everyone. But Entin went further and showed that the anatomy of blacks and whites differed enough to manifest itself in athletic ability. Anatomical differences are not “superficial”, as they say, like hair and skin, but are more profound, and threaten the basic premise of egalitarianism that all people are genetically the same. This is why Entin was reviled.

Dr. J. Philip Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, suffered even more when he began discussing intellectual and other differences between the races. In Race, Evolution and Behavior (Rushton, 2000a), he notes that African Americans average an IQ of 85, while Africans from tropical Africa have an IQ of only 70. If he had walked away saying that this was due to the shameful racism of whites who wrote racially biased tests and prevented blacks from receiving the education necessary to score high IQ scores on these tests, he might have been a hero. But he instead stated that the IQ gap is not due to test bias or environment, but to genetic differences such as smaller brains. And he was demonized, persecuted at his university, and even subjected to a police investigation to find criminality in his behavior.

The hypocritical United Nations, that bastion of multiculturalism, even initiated the adoption of a declaration stating that there is no evidence of racial differences in intelligence. (Statement on Race, 1950). And one of the outstanding geneticists, Dr.

Bruce Lan, refused to conduct research on genetic differences between races because they were “too controversial” (Regalado, 2006). Spencer Wells, chairman of the US National Geographic Society, who intends to spend forty million dollars on a five-year project to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people around the globe, said that differences in the structure of their brains will not be studied because “I I believe there is too little evidence of differences in IQ between different races,” despite ample evidence to the contrary (Ibid.).

Scientists, like much of the rest of the white population, fear being labeled "racist"

from the Equality Police. Based on some of their confused publications, it seems that they do not dare question egalitarianism even in their own minds, much like the "doublethink" in George Orwell's 1984, where his hero Winston suppressed even his own thoughts.

Just as Entin may not have assumed that there were racial differences in athletic ability, and Rushton might not have assumed that there were racial differences in intellectual ability, scientists may not assume that the races diverged very long ago (and therefore had plenty of time to evolve into genetically very different peoples). But since all races are genetically the same, they could not have diverged very long ago, and therefore modern man must have appeared relatively recently, and all discoveries in the field of studying the origins of modern man must support this conclusion.

How far will the Equality Police go to distort and obscure our origins? Here's a story from the UK, told by Armand M.

Leroy:

“Henry Flower became director of the British Museum of Natural History in 1884 and soon began rearranging the exhibits. He exhibited a collection of human skulls to show the diversity of their forms in different parts of the globe. A century later, the skulls were removed, and in their place appeared a large photograph of football fans standing in the stands, bordered by the inscription: “We are all representatives of the same species, Homo sapiens. But we are not identical." In 2004, even that disappeared, leaving the world's largest natural history museum telling visitors nothing about the nature and extent of human biodiversity.

Of course, the Natural History Museum, like the British Museum of Natural History, is now not the only institution that has sent such exhibitions to storage. After the 1960s

physical anthropologists, in an attempt to bury the idea of race, buried phenotypes [different forms], sometimes literally, as human remains were interred at the request of aboriginal claimants.”

A scientific theory of the origin of modern humanity that is consistent with egalitarianism is the African Exodus (A&A) theory. According to the I-and-A theory, modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose in Africa, after which he migrated to other parts of the world. Thus, according to the concept of egalitarianism, all modern people are completely modern. Moreover, since the migration out of Africa was relatively recent (approximately 65,000 years ago), only very little human evolution has occurred since that time. Due to the fact that migrants from tropical Africa were completely modern people and they did not have enough time for any significant genetic evolution, then all modern people should be genetically the same. So, in essence, “we are all Africans.”

The I-and-A theory is the generally accepted theory of the origins of modern humans. It is presented in college and university textbooks and courses as accepted by scientists. Even Rushton is convinced that she is right (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 217–233). But science moves inexorably forward on its path to truth. Truth will prevail, not because man is noble or wise, but because he cannot survive for long with a flawed view of reality. Gradually the deluded person will be replaced by one who sees reality as it is.

Part I What Every Paleoanthropologist Should Know

To understand our origins, you will be introduced to some of the fossilized remains of humans that have been discovered and how evolution “works” to change living organisms towards the best fit for their environment. Definitions of the special terms used can be found in the Glossary of Terms, only a short list of them is given below.

Millions of years = million years.

BC = BC e.

Aus = Australopithecus Hs = Homo sapiens - our immediate archaic ancestors.

Hss = Homo sapiens sapiens - modern man.

He = Homo erectus - the species of humans immediately before Hs.

LCA = Last Common Ancestor - the last ancestor from which two individuals or two groups descended.

I-i-A = "Exodus from Africa", the currently dominant theory of the origin of modern man in Africa.

I-I-E = "Exodus from Eurasia", the theory of human origins proposed in this book.

Early man = Homo, but not Homo sapiens, Archaic man = Homo sapiens, but not Homo sapiens sapiens.

Modern man = Homo sapiens sapiens.

Chapter 1 The History of the Origin of Humanity

As can be understood from the first lines of this book, it presents a brief narrative of the origin of man. Much of it is admittedly speculative, but probably no more so than other similar narratives. A more or less complete story is presented, although it includes some guesswork to fill in the gaps, making it easier to read than isolated facts separated by chasms of mystery. I will not incessantly repeat “according to the position of the author,” and the reader should understand that the conclusions and explanations reflect the position of the author, based on the quotations and references provided.

The story begins about 60 million years ago in tropical Asia. Early primates (“prosimians”) lived in trees, where they were protected from most predators. Some of the prosimians clung to trees vertically and had an upright posture. They supported themselves and climbed using their strong hind legs, and used their more dexterous front legs to grasp branches and food, and moved from branch to branch by swinging on their forelimbs: they were "brachiators." Arms became longer because lengthening them allowed them to swing more and move more efficiently, just as longer legs made walking more efficient.

The tail was no longer needed to maintain balance and became a waste of the body's resources, so brachiators with shorter tails now gained an advantage and the tails decreased in size and then disappeared completely. About 25 million years ago, tailless brachiators evolved into great apes. Large apes are less mobile in trees and too heavy to reach fruits from the ends of thin branches, but their size plus living in groups eliminated the threat of small predators, so they were able to exploit food on the ground or underground, such as tubers.

Some of the great apes of Eurasia live in marshy areas near lakes or seas, or in forests near rivers. Although their anatomy does not yet support easy bipedalism, branch walking has made it easier for them to wade through water, where they can collect aquatic food resources less available to other primates. The varied habitats and group living in trees, land, and water placed greater mental demands than living solely in trees, providing a survival advantage to those with larger brains and those who were more intelligent.

Over time, they became anatomically better adapted to bipedalism and began to venture away from the safety of shallow water and areas near trees. This was a "giant step for humanity" since bipedalism alone was an important adaptation in human evolution; Man is the only truly bipedal mammal. Bipedal apes appeared about 10 million years ago.

The two-legged apes of Eurasia stuck to trees and bushes, where they collected fruits and berries, and herds of animals that served as food for predators, picking up the remains of carcasses.

Walking on two legs allowed them to move further, faster and with less energy than quadrupedal apes. Their hands were free to carry food, babies, and stones and sticks that served as weapons. Their upright posture allowed them to overheat less in the sun and be able to collect food for longer, as well as better detect predators. Weapons and tools improved because they could now be stored and carried around, rather than having to be made as needed and then thrown away. As they transitioned from gathering to hunting, larger brains allowed them to better plan and coordinate their actions, thereby providing more meat to feed their enlarging brains, creating a feedback loop of bigger brains, better weapons and tools, more meat, bigger brains.

Because bipedal apes move around a lot, they are constantly in different environments. They must remember where and when to go and what dangers and food sources are in all the different places they visit. They discover that being together brings strength and security, and they live in small groups whose members cooperate and help each other, which required understanding how to build relationships with other group members. A larger brain, despite the high energy requirements and additional weight, proved to be worth the cost.

Walking on two legs allows a mother to hold her baby with one hand and collect food with the other while she nurses him. When her legs are closer together, she expends less energy when walking (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 92), but this narrows the birth canal, which means that the baby must be born with a smaller and less developed skull; Brain growth becomes delayed, with most brain growth occurring after birth. While this solves one problem, it also creates new problems: the less developed infant now requires longer-term care to survive. This happened about 4 million years ago: bipedal apes became australopithecus, the last bipedal apes.

Australopithecus arose in the tropics, but the tropics were overpopulated, and some of the populations that did not succeed in the competition for better territories were forced into the less habitable subtropics with their seasonal and colder climate. If Australopithecines had remained in the tropics, there would be no Homo, man, today.

Seasonal subtropical climates place much higher mental demands compared to tropical climates. In the tropics, various types of plant food are available all year round, but in seasonal climates, edible parts of plants are available only in the warm season, and in colder seasons, animals have to struggle to obtain food. In a person who relies on his brain, the seasonal climate produces a strong selection towards increased intelligence, necessary for survival in this environment that places higher mental demands. Surviving individuals passed on their genes to their offspring, others did not. Australopithecus gradually adapted to a colder climate.

Around 2 million years ago, a combination of efficient bipedal walking, free use of arms, and greater intelligence and cooperation pays off for several northern species of australopithecus, and they become early humans, the genus Homo, then Homo erectus and other species before Homo sapiens .

As erectus moved further north, seasonal changes increased, and it became more difficult for them to survive. Their large brains and increased intelligence were important, but they also required a completely different way of thinking. Impulsiveness and immediate reward were replaced by thriftiness. Ignoring the future consequences of one's actions went away, careful planning became a necessity. Nature's price for becoming human was high - not a tropical garden of Eden, but a desperate struggle to survive the harsh trials of winter. The carefree fluttering of a dragonfly and “I’m lying in the sun, I’m looking at the sun...”

were replaced by the hard work of an ant struggling for existence.

Relations between the sexes have also changed. In the North, where hunting was the most important source of food, women could not provide themselves and their children with shelter, animal skins and meat throughout the year without the help of men, otherwise they and their children would die. Men who devoted themselves to one woman and cared for her, “fathers,” passed on their genes to their sons;

a much smaller number of “scoundrels” passed on their genes to their children, since they did not survive; thus, pair bonds were strengthened.

Erectus also spread to warmer areas of Africa, Europe and Asia, leading to the extinction of its more primitive predecessors, the Australopithecus. When they filled the territories in which they could gain a foothold, their powerful expansion stopped. Any further migration meant penetration into territories already occupied by other erectus, and required struggle and victory over them. This was not easy to achieve, since the local erectus knew their territory well, its food resources and dangers, and fiercely defended their fatherland.

In widely separated and different habitats, erectus continued to evolve. Each population became better adapted to its unique environment.

Just as Australopithecus became distinct biological species, Erectus became clearly distinct and biologically distinct races. In the northern regions of the habitat of Asian erectus, where the climate is much colder, they acquired characteristics that allowed them to survive cold where others were unable to do so.

In Europe and Western Asia, early erectus evolved into Neanderthals, which happened approximately 350,000 years ago. In East Asia, cold-adapted erectus learned to use fire and moved further north, where they evolved into Homo sapiens (Hs) approximately 200,000 years ago. In Western Asia, erectus also evolved into Hs, but less adapted to cold. Hs then further improved his skills and increased his intelligence, spread even further north and became Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss), modern humans, about 160,000 years ago. Where this occurred is a major point of contention and the focus of much of this book, but the author is convinced that it occurred in Europe, Western Asia, and East Asia.

More advanced tools and weapons and the higher intelligence of Hss gave them an advantage not only in the North, but also in the South, still occupied by Hs and even erectus here and there in the tropics. So, as their numbers increased and the climate cooled so much that the snow no longer melted in winter, they migrated south, invading the territories occupied by Hs and erectus, sometimes dooming them to extinction, but sometimes interbreeding with them, forming hybrids. Glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere lowered sea levels, making passage to the Pacific Islands and Australia possible.

When the ice eventually melted after thousands of years, the Hss moved north again. West Asian Hss spread throughout Europe, interbreeding to some extent with Neanderthals, and became modern Europeans.

Approximately 50,000 years ago, one or more mutations occurred in the Caucasian population that affected the functioning of the human brain. Man gives rise to a complex culture, acquires religious beliefs, and also creates crafts, arts and tools that must have been previously visualized in his mind. These mutations were so favorable that they quickly spread throughout the Eurasian population. Then, about 12,000 years ago, agriculture emerged and animals were domesticated, and the rest, as they say, is history.

This is the genealogy of humanity as set forth by the author of this book. Those who argue for the divine origin of man will disagree with me just as much as most scientists who believe that man originates from Africa. However, I hope that the reader will carefully consider the evidence supporting the author's claims before making his own decision.

Chapter 2 Early People

We'll take a very brief look at some early humans, just to see what traits they had and how those traits gradually evolved.

It should be kept in mind that these fossils are classified somewhat arbitrarily, since species change gradually and most species exist tens of thousands of years after some of their members have evolved into other species. It is impossible to place the fossilized remains of early humans in the order in which they evolved based solely on their intracranial volumes, since this varies between individuals and between sexes (male skulls are larger, and sex cannot always be determined). Beyond this, there is no evidence that the fossils evolved where they were found.

Homo habilis

The first known member of the genus Homo is Homo habilis ("handy man"), so named due to the discovery of pebble tools along with its remains. H. habilis lived between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago. Figure 2–1 shows a skull found in East Africa, Tanzania.

The face is primitive, but the lower jaw protrudes less than that of his Simian predecessors, although his arms were long. There are no external nasal bones yet, the eye sockets are large and the teeth are noticeably larger than those of modern humans. The intracranial volume is small, varying from 500 to 800 cm (with an average of 650 cm). It is believed that on average H. habilis had a height of 127 cm and a weight of about 45 kg. Internal measurements of the skulls indicate that his brain was humanoid in shape.

A bulge in the area of the left hemisphere of the brain responsible for speech (Broca's area) suggests that H. habilis could have rudimentary speech. He was also “the first hominid to add meat to his vegetarian diet” (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 157; Haywood, 2000, p. 26). It probably originated from a gracile bipedal ape such as Australopithecus afarensis or Australopithecus africanus (Conroy, 1990).

Homo ergaster

Figure 2-2 shows the skull of an early H. erectus from Africa, now called Homo ergaster ("working man"), and Figure 2-3 shows what H. ergaster might have looked like.

The intracranial volume of H. ergaster ranged from 700 to 880 cm, it lived approximately 1.9 to 0.6 million years ago in Africa and was able to use fire (Arsugava, 2001). Stone hand axes and knives are found along with fossil remains, but over millions of years the tools have not improved. There is some doubt that H. ergaster originated in Africa, as it does not appear to have a direct ancestor there (Dennell, 2005).

The nearly complete skeleton of H. ergaster, the "Nariokotome boy" (also called the "Turkana boy"), was discovered in Africa at Nariokotome in Kenya. He lived approximately 1.8 million years ago. When he died, he was only about 10 years old, he was approximately 1.5 m tall and would have reached about 1.8 m as an adult. Unlike early hominids, it could swing its arms while walking or running.

Homo erectus

Homo erectus ("homo erectus"), who lived primarily in Africa, Southern Europe, Southwest Asia (the Middle East), Southeast Asia, and even some of the Pacific Islands, used fire and systematically made tools. Its oldest bones date back almost 2 million years, and it had not yet gone extinct 27,000 years ago, living on the isolated Indonesian island of Java (and perhaps even more recently, as we will see below).

The term Homo erectus is used quite broadly and sometimes includes some predecessor species that may be considered early erectus. Like H. habilis, its face had a protruding, chinless lower jaw with large molars, massive brow ridges, and a long, low, and thick (about 1.3 cm) skull. But H. erectus was taller than its predecessors and had a larger brain (750 - 1225 cm), smaller fangs, and smaller, less protruding jaws, shorter arms and an external nose. The cover of the English edition of this book shows (minus the suit, tie and glasses, of course) the possible appearance of a tropical erectus.

The I-and-A theory states that it was the African erectus that became modern man, and then the races arose, so that the Hs species (and Hss subspecies) arose before the races. The multiregional theory postulates that there were races of Asian and African erectus, and both evolved into modern humans, so that the races arose before the appearance of the Hs species. And this book argues that races arose before the advent of erectus, from the time of Australopithecus, so that the appearance of races preceded the appearance of the genus Homo.

Homo georgicus

Figure 2–4 shows the front and side views of the skull of an early European erectus classified as Homo georgicus. The fossils, dating back about 1.8 million years, including three partially preserved skulls and three mandibles, were discovered near the city of Dmanisi in Georgia. H. georgicus was similar to H. habilis, H.

ergaster and with erecti found in Africa, but was somewhat more graceful.

The volume of the skulls of H. georgicus varies from 600 to 800 cm. The height, estimated from the size of the foot bones, should have been about 1.5 m, and the weight was about 50 kg, i.e. it was lower, but heavier than the specimens from Africa described above , because he lived in a relatively cool climate. Note the large teeth (especially the large, very primitive canines), sloping forehead, heavy brow ridge, prominent jaw, lack of a prominent nose, and the protuberance (“occipital protuberance”) at the back of the skull. H. georgicus could be the ancestor of African and Asian erecti (Lordkipanidze, 2006), and the predecessor of H. georgicus could be the ancestor of African H. ergaster and H.

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor ("Anterior Man") was discovered in caves in the Atapuerca Mountains of northern Spain, along with tools, and is dated to be between 857,000 and 780,000 years old (Bermiidez de Castro, 1997). The remains are fragmentary, but similar to the “Nariokotome boy” (Figs. 2-2 and 2-3). The bones bear clear signs of cannibalism. H. antecessor had a powerful skull with a convexity at the back of the head, a low forehead and a massive lower jaw without a chin; the intracranial volume ranged from 1000 to 1150 cm. His height ranged from 1.68 to 1.83 m, and the man weighed approximately 90 kg. The ascending lineage of H. antecessor is unclear; it may have been a dead-end branch, or it may have a lineage that goes back to Heidelberg man and Neanderthals.

Heidelberg Man Scientists are having trouble classifying many of the 800,000 to 200,000-year-old hominin fossils because they are not as primitive as H. erectus and still not modern humans, but they somehow managed reach northern England about 700,000 years ago (Parfitt, 2005). Gradually, the name Homo heidelbergensis - “Heidelberg man” - was assigned to them.

The intracranial volume of Heidelberg man is greater than that of erectus, but still less than that of modern humans, averaging 1200 cm, and its skull is more rounded than that of erectus. Its skeleton and teeth are not as powerful as those of erectus, but more powerful than those of modern humans. Many examples still have large brow ridges and no chin. Figure 2–5 shows a 450,000-year-old skull discovered in Arago Cave near Tautavel Castle in France.

He was a young man about 1.65 m tall, with an intracranial volume of 1150 cm. Note the sloping forehead and rectangular eye sockets. Heidelberg Man had many features similar to Neanderthals, such as a broad face, heavy brow ridges, and a protruding lower jaw, suggesting that Neanderthals were descended from European Heidelberg Man, which in turn may have been a descendant of H. georgicus.

Neanderthals

Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, lived between 350,000 and 24,500 years ago (Findlayson, 2006) throughout Europe and the Middle East, but unlike Heidelberg Man, Neanderthal remains have not yet been found in Africa. Neanderthals originally lived in the cold North; they migrated to more southern latitudes (eg, Portugal, Israel) only during the Ice Age. Figures 2–6 and 2–7 show two examples of Neanderthal skulls.

Note the larger and more rounded eye sockets of the skull in Figure 2-6. The average intracranial volume of Neanderthals was approximately 1450 cm3, slightly larger than that of modern humans. This could be due to greater body mass rather than higher intelligence (Lee, 2003; Ruff, 1977). The Neanderthal skull is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a distinct bulge at the back of the head (the "occipital protuberance"). Neanderthals, like erectus, had a sloping forehead and a protruding lower jaw.

The midface also protruded forward, a feature not found in H. erectus and H. sapiens, which may have been an adaptation to cold climates or, rather, a partially preserved prognathism of the Simians. There is a supraorbital ridge without a hollow in the middle, giving the face a gloomy expression; the chin is just beginning to appear.

Their short, barrel-shaped chest, short arms, fingers and feet were adaptations to the cold. Due to the lack of sunlight in the North, they must have had light skin (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 75), although they may have been hairy. The average height of a man was about 168 cm.

Neanderthal bones are thick and heavy and show signs of having powerful muscles attached to them, so they were extremely strong by modern standards. Western European Neanderthals (sometimes called “classical Neanderthals”) tend to have stronger skeletons than those found elsewhere (Trinkaus, 1979; Gore, 1996). Along with the remains, a large number of tools and weapons are discovered, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. The significant amount of animal bones suggests that Neanderthals were primarily hunters.

Neanderthals were the first humans known to bury their dead; the oldest known burial dates back about 100,000 years. We'll return to Neanderthals in Chapter 25.

Archaic man and modern man

Archaic man, Hs, appeared about 200,000 years ago, and modern anthropological man, Hss, appeared about 160,000 years ago. The brain volume of a modern person is on average about 1,350 cm. His forehead rises sharply, the brow ridges are small or often absent, the chin is protruding with a cleft in the middle, the teeth are small, the skeleton is gracile (lung bones). Even during the last 100,000 years, a trend towards smaller molars and a reduction in the massiveness of the Hss skeleton can be observed. Compared to the modern population of Eurasia, people living 30,000 years ago were 20–30% more massive, and about 10,000 years ago they were 10% more massive. Populations that have practiced food processing (e.g., heat) for the longest period of time have the smallest teeth (Brace, 1983).

Cro-Magnons

Cro-Magnons are the immediate predecessors of modern Caucasians. They lived in Europe from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. They were somewhat heavier than modern Caucasians, and their brains, like those of Neanderthals, were larger (about 4%) than those of modern Caucasians, although their skulls were thicker with more massive brow ridges (Howells, 1948, p. 186). With the advent of the Cro-Magnons, the set of tools became much more advanced. More materials were used, such as bone and horn. Specialized tools were used to make clothing, sculptures, and engravings. Fine arts appear in the form of decorated tools, beads, bone carvings of people and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular paintings on cave walls (Fig. 15–1a, 15–1b, 25–3) (Leakey, 1994) .

Figure 2–8 shows a Cro-Magnon skull. This 30,000-year-old modern Cro-Magnon skull was discovered at Les Eisys in France. The skull has features unique to modern humans, including a rounded cranial vault and a nearly vertical forehead. The brow ridges are small, the jaw does not protrude significantly forward. Note that the eye sockets are slightly slanted and flatter than those of other fossil skulls; perhaps this is an adaptation to protect the eyes from the cold. The flattening of the eye sockets noted on some skulls from North Africa may be the result of the migration of Cro-Magnons there during the Ice Age.

Figure 2–9 presents a graph that gives the reader some idea of the known duration of existence of the human species discussed above.

Chapter 3 DNA In addition to resolving the question of TV crime series “Who Did It,” DNA will be useful in figuring out “Who Begat Whom.” It works something like this.

All humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, giving a total of 46 chromosomes. A person receives one set of 23 chromosomes from his mother, and the remaining 23 from his father. Each of the 23 paternal chromosomes has a corresponding chromosome from the maternal set. Each chromosome consists of a long strand of DNA wrapped in proteins called histones. Histones “unwind” DNA, making it possible to read it, and they are inherited along with chromosomes (Segal, 2006).

The DNA chain is made up of units called nucleotides. It is organized like a computer program code (...011000101...), but instead of zeros and ones it contains four nitrogenous bases, designated by the first letters of their chemical names as A, C, G and T (...ATTGCATCA...). A genome is a section of a DNA strand that “encodes” a polypeptide, which is a string of amino acids chemically linked to each other. The sequence of nucleotide bases in the protein-coding part of DNA (exon) determines which polypeptide will be synthesized. Combining different polypeptides produces different proteins. (See Appendix - DNA). Proteins and other substances combine to form various traits that make up the phenotype.

Only less than 2% of the genome is used to synthesize the proteins necessary for the life of the organism.

All people have the same genes, but not the same forms of those genes. Let me clarify: we all have the EYC3 gene that determines eye color, but one sequence of nucleotides in it gives blue eyes, and the other gives brown ones. Each type of gene that differs in nucleotide sequence is called an allele. In some populations, a gene may be represented by only one allele, i.e.

all individuals have the same nucleotide sequence in this gene and the same phenotypic trait; such an allele is called “fixed.” In other populations, multiple alleles may be present, some may be very rare. Some alleles are highly beneficial and provide an individual with very beneficial traits, such as high intelligence, athletic ability, or attractive appearance, while others can be lethal or reduce fitness. Each gene has on average 14 different alleles.

In addition, DNA contains regulators (“epigenome”) that determine whether a certain section of DNA will be read or not (Cropley, 2006). The epigenome of different people is also different and is inherited along with the chromosomes. Putting all this together, it is clear that with the exception of identical twins, it is almost impossible to find two genetically identical individuals, and even identical twins, i.e. twins with the same DNA sequence, will differ slightly in their epigenomes (Fraga, 2005).

And, wait, things get even more complicated. If two alleles have different nucleotide sequences, they may still code for the same polypeptides (that is, the two alleles are “synonymous”) or different polypeptides (that is, they are “not synonymous”) (see

Appendix – DNA). Each change of a single nucleotide, such as "A" instead of "T", is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" (SNP). The difference between "A" and "T" may simply be whether it is more difficult or easier for the cell to obtain "A" instead of "T", or the difference may be beneficial, unfavorable, or even detrimental.

In very rare cases, a return to the past (atavism) occurs, and gene regulators turn on genes in a person that were turned off in others a long time ago (LePage, 2007).

Figure 3-1 shows Atso Basou, “discovered” in 1936 in the Daddes Valley near the town of Basou in Morocco, where the indigenous white population was hybridized with blacks. If he represents a manifestation of atavism, he must have exhibited some primitive characteristics of whites and/or blacks, along with those of a mulatto. Some experts believe that Basu was microcephalic (that is, had a genetic defect that caused him to develop a small brain), but other than his head, the rest of his external anatomy was normal. (The villagers did not allow his body to be examined after his death.) His behavior, in addition to its primitiveness, also generally did not indicate microcephaly.

“His arms are so long that when he stands upright, his fingers extend below his knees, massive brow ridges above his eyes and a strongly sloping forehead, jaws, teeth, chin, cheekbones - everything shows ape-like characteristics. He sleeps in trees and lives there, feeding on berries and insects. He wears no clothing (although he was persuaded to wear burlap for the photograph shown here). He does not use any tools, and his speech is only a grunt (National Vanguard, no. 44, 1976).

New alleles in a population can appear due to mutation or be acquired through interbreeding with another population that already has them. If a new allele increases reproductive success, it will spread throughout the population; if it decreases it, it will disappear along with its carriers. Almost all new alleles are detrimental, since over millions of years of the species’ existence, almost all possible alleles have already appeared in the gene pool of the population sooner or later. Since beneficial alleles, once introduced, tend to persist in the gene pool, very few new beneficial alleles can appear and spread through the gene pool. Although unfavorable alleles are removed from the gene pool, they can arise again and again. (And alleles that are unfavorable in one environment may be beneficial many years later when the population finds itself in a different environment or evolves in a different direction.) Expanding populations promote the acquisition of alleles (because more people have mutations), while contracting populations contributes to their loss (since people with unique alleles, even if they are not harmful, die without leaving offspring). An example is the loss of alleles that occurred in Eurasia due to the enormous mortality rate during the Ice Age. Barring such catastrophes, the allele increasing reproductive success is unlikely to be lost. Indeed, if an allele is widespread in a population, it is safe to conclude that it increases the reproductive success of the population in that habitat. However, an allele that is rare over a period of time either does not increase reproductive success or increases it when prevalence is low and becomes deleterious when widespread.

Because populations can both gain and lose alleles, and alleles that are beneficial in one environment can be deleterious in another, determining the origins of different populations by studying the prevalence of particular alleles in them can be unreliable.

Suppose population A has a large number of alleles, say an average of 20 alleles per gene, while population B has few alleles per gene, say an average of only 5, and these 5 are also found in population A. Does this mean is it that population A is older? Not necessarily, since population A may have acquired these alleles through interbreeding with other populations rather than through mutation over a long period of time. Also, population B may be older, but it may have experienced a catastrophic decline in its numbers, removing most of the alleles it had accumulated.

Likewise, if population A has ancient alleles that are absent in population B, one cannot conclude that population B is represented by descendants of population A that have lost the ancient alleles.

Population A can have ancient alleles only because it remained in the same fairly stable habitat and did not evolve to the same extent as population B, which moved to a completely different environment. Also, ancient alleles could have entered population A due to interbreeding with representatives of population B, which has ancient alleles.

All DNA in any plant or animal has the same basic structure (see Appendix - DNA). All animals that have a nucleus in their cells (eukaryotes, that is, all living organisms, with the exception of bacteria, blue-green algae and viruses), have two types of DNA: nuclear DNA (nuclear DNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA). Mitochondria, remnants of bacteria captured by cells billions of years ago, produce energy for the cell. The captured bacteria helped the cells survive, which is why their DNA is still there. Later, some of the mtDNA moved into the nucleus and became nuclear DNA.

There are several significant differences between nuclear and mtDNA. Nuclear DNA exists in the form of a double helix, the twisted ladder of which on one side is represented by the base A, which is hydrogen bonded to the base T of the other side, or the base C, connected to the base G. One strand is the “sense” (or “template”) and is read during the synthesis of a polypeptide, and the other is an “anti-sense” (or “non-coding”) complementary copy of it. Nuclear DNA is a double-stranded helix with two free ends; mtDNA exists as a single-stranded (usually) ring that breaks only when it is read. Each cell contains only two copies of each strand of nuclear DNA, one maternal and one paternal, and usually thousands of copies of mtDNA almost always only maternal. Human nuclear DNA contains more than 3 million base pairs and 20,488 genes, while mtDNA has only 16,569 bases and 37 genes.

Nuclear DNA is located in 23 pairs of chromosomes; mtDNA does not form chromosomes. Nuclear DNA contains several enzyme systems capable of repairing chemical damage and breaks in DNA molecules that occur during normal DNA biosynthesis or as a result of exposure to physical or chemical agents; mtDNA does not have such systems, so errors accumulate in it 20 times faster than in nuclear DNA (Sykes, 2001, p. 55). Nuclear DNA mutates at a rate of one percent per billion cell divisions; mtDNA mutates approximately 10 times faster than nuclear DNA (Patterson, 1999, p. 152). There are two types of nuclear DNA: “exons” - DNA that encodes polypeptides (“genes”) and “introns” (“junk” or “excess” DNA”) - DNA that does not encode polypeptides. MtDNA does not contain introns, it encodes RNA for mitochondrial polypeptides (RNA has the same primary structure as DNA, but thymine (“T”) is replaced by uracil (“U”), and deoxyribose by ribose (see Appendix - DNA: Almost all racial differences are encoded in DNA; only very rarely does mtDNA determine characteristic racial traits, such as breathing at high altitudes or long distance running, and metabolic advantages in Arctic peoples.

The main difference between these two types of DNA in terms of deciphering the origin of humanity is that mtDNA is contained in the tail of the sperm, and nuclear DNA is in its head. What does this have to do with human origins, you ask? Well, during fertilization, normally only the head of the sperm penetrates the egg (Schwartz, 2005, p. 194), and any mtDNA of the sperm that penetrates inside the egg is marked and destroyed. Therefore, paternal mtDNA is not normally introduced into the genome of the fertilized egg. (Rarely, some of the paternal mtDNA does slip through (Schwartz, 2002), and as a result, the fertilized egg contains both maternal and paternal mtDNA, confusing geneticists.) This means that the mtDNA of an individual, regardless of whether he is male or female , is inherited (almost always) only from the mother. Your mtDNA, even if you are a man, is what you got from your mother, she got it from her mother, and so on.

But some DNA comes only from the father. Normally, both father and mother contribute half of the chromosomes to their child's genome. Women have a pair of X chromosomes (XX), so a mother can only pass on the X chromosome to her child. Males have X and Y chromosomes (XY). If the father passes an X chromosome to the child, he will receive two X chromosomes and will be a girl, but if the child has a Y chromosome, the child will receive X and Y chromosomes and will be a boy. Thus, almost always Y chromosomes come only from fathers and are inherited only by sons. This means that the DNA in the Y chromosome of a living man was received by him from his father, who received it from his father, and so on into the past.

This information is useful for criminologists, since the man's mtDNA will be the same as that of his mother and her other children, and the man will have the same DNA on the Y chromosome as his father and the latter's other sons, but it will also be useful as we will see, also for paleoanthropologists.

Chapter 4 Evolution “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Theodosis Dobzhansky, geneticist Although about half of Americans and Britons do not believe in evolution, especially that humans and the great apes of today evolved from a common ancestor believed to have lived between about 8 and 4.5 million years ago, all scientific theories of human origins postulate this from the very beginning. The purpose of this book is not to debate creationism or the theory of intelligent design, but only to present the theory of evolution as scientists understand it.

Since this great separation, the human and ape lines have diverged genetically, culturally, and intellectually, so much so that the gulf between us has grown to such an extent that one wonders if we were ever the same species. But we were. The genetic maps of chimpanzees and humans each contain approximately 3 billion genetic units (nucleotide pairs). When they were compared, only about 40 million units were different. We are therefore genetically 1.3% “non-chimpanzee” but 98.7% “chimpanzee”, and men and women differ even less. Small differences in genetic maps (genotypes) can nevertheless lead, as we will see, to colossal differences in the individual characteristics (phenotypes) of living organisms.

Biologists use the term “evolution” to answer two different questions: (1) “Have species changed over time?” and (2) “If they did, what made them change?”

The first question is a statement of fact. There is so much evidence of species changing over time that scientists answer this question with: “Yes, without a doubt, evolution occurred.” The second question requires an explanation - a theory that would describe the mechanisms that caused these changes. The only theory that scientists consider valid is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, now called "neo-Darwinism" because it was confirmed and supported by genetics.

As creationists like to point out, theories can always be falsified, and neo-Darwinism certainly can be falsified. Indeed, there are all kinds of potential evidence that could refute neo-Darwinism, such as dinosaur bones only thousands of years old or fossil organisms in layers older than those containing the remains of their predecessors. But there is still no evidence to reject the theory, and there is a lot of evidence consistent with it.
Darwin's theory can be expressed as a syllogism:

Premises: If an individual in a population has specific characteristics that are (1) inherited;

(2) vary among individuals (3) and cause differences in reproductive success between individuals with and without them, then:

Conclusion: the frequency of specific traits that provide greater reproductive success will increase in the population.

There are only two ways to be convinced that a syllogism can be “wrong”: (1) by showing that it is irrelevant because the premises do not apply to a particular population, that is, that all individuals in the population have the same specific characteristics, and if these traits differ, either because they are not heritable, or, if they are different and inherited, they do not affect reproductive success; (2) if it is shown that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But given that individuals in a population have such specific characteristics, and they are found in all populations, with the possible exception of laboratory animals (i.e. clones and animals kept in special conditions), such a conclusion must be made.

Specific traits that increase reproductive success are transmitted with alleles encoding these traits. Only reproductive success determines whose lineage will continue and whose lineage will be cut short.

Note that this syllogism requires that there be individuals in a population who have heritable traits that differ in their contribution to reproductive success. This means that evolution cannot occur if all individuals in a population have the same heritable traits. In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism, makes evolution impossible. And without the opportunity to evolve, biological species can only die out due to changes in the environment that inevitably occur.
Universalization vs. Specialization

In this book, the strategies of survival through universalization and specialization play a critical role in deciphering human evolution. Biological species, individuals or groups of individuals are more generalized if they are capable of performing more functions, and less specialized if they are limited to a smaller set of functions. Species are more specialized if they have evolved anatomically (and/or physiologically) to better exploit a particular ecological niche, such as food resources, territory, or reproductive strategy.
Humans are omnivores, eating a wide variety of plants and animals and are distributed throughout the planet, they have mastered the underwater and air environments, the poles and even outer space, so they are by far the most universalized species. Our feet are specialized, however, because they have lost the ability to grasp objects (although my ex-wife is able to pick up objects with her big toe), but they are excellently adapted for bipedal walking, unlike the feet of great apes, capable of grasping branches, but poorly adapted for such walking (Fig. 4–1).

The human hand is so universal that it can thread a needle, swing a club, or play the piano. Compare our hands to the specialized feet of the baby Madagascar monkey (Figure 4-2). This animal, an early primate, sticks its middle toe into termite mounds, then pulls it out and eats the nasty termites that cling to it.

As with many things in biology, there is a trade-off between generalization and specialization. General purpose types are like a Swiss Army knife - they can do a lot of things, but none of them as well as a specialized tool. Anatomically generalized species suffer less from changes in their habitat, since they can live in different environments. Specialized species, on the other hand, are able to exploit a certain environment to the fullest, but when that environment changes, they disappear along with it. If an epidemic suddenly destroys termites, the long fingers of the little arm shown in Figure 4-2 will become a burden to it. Specialized species invest all their resources in one niche, while generalized species diversify their investments.

Man, like other animals, is not free from this trade-off dependence - we, too, cannot be both specialized and universalized, but for the most part we remain universalized. But unlike other animals, we have discovered a more efficient way to handle almost any task. Anatomy (and physiology) doesn't allow us to run as fast as a cheetah, swim as efficiently as a dolphin, jump as high as a grasshopper, or fly as acrobatically as a hummingbird, but we can outperform any animal at almost any point. activities using our technologies. Anatomically we are universalized, but technologically we are capable of narrow specialization. Perhaps counterintuitively, the more adept we become at using technology to enhance our natural abilities, the more “human” we become, since this is the main difference between us and all other species. But unlike anatomically more specialized species, our technological specializations make us less susceptible to extinction when our environment changes.
Rules of evolution

Unraveling the story of human evolution is like trying to assemble a puzzle with a thousand pieces where only ten are in place. But since there are certain rules governing which pieces can and cannot be placed where, it can still be assembled based on their straight edges and colors even when there are no adjacent pieces. Likewise, there are rules that limit evolution, including human evolution.

Evolution, because it occurs over vast periods of time among vast numbers of individuals, is not as haphazard or random a process (“genetic drift”) as is commonly portrayed. Random events, favorable and unfavorable, certainly occur, but over time and as the number of individuals increases, the significance of such events decreases. As a result, evolution follows the rules as logically as the evolutionary syllogism itself is logical. Not in every case, of course, but often enough that these rules can be relied upon.

Here are some rules that will be used to explain human evolution:
1. Evolution is cumulative. The gene pool of a population, modified by mutations, death of individuals, and individual differences in reproductive success, is passed on to the next generation, where it undergoes additional changes, and so on (Barkow, 1991, p. 83). Thus, evolution occurs by changing what is already there; Evolution is not God, and does not and cannot create a species from scratch. If the environment changes, individuals can only change what they already have, but if, during adaptation to new environmental conditions, they fail to do this, they die out. For this reason, genomes are becoming more and more like Rube Goldberg inventions rather than masterpieces of intelligent design. This is one of the reasons why biochemistry is so difficult.

MacLean's triune brain theory is a good example of the additive nature of evolution. The reptilian brain (brain stem) that emerged 500 million years ago was supplemented by the limbic system of lower mammals (amygdala and hippocampus) about 200 million years ago, and then the neocortex (outer part of the brain) of higher mammals about 500,000 years ago (Figure 4-3). ) .

Another good illustration of this rule is the biogenetic law, in its original formulation it sounds like “the individual development of an individual (ontogenesis) is a repetition (recapitulation) of the most important stages of the evolution of the species (phylogeny),” but more precisely:

“The stages of fetal development repeat the embryonic stages of the evolutionary development of ancestors”

(Schwartz, 2005, pp. 55–56). In other words, the later stages of embryonic development arose as a result of the addition of additional stages to the earlier stages of its development.

The additive nature of evolution suggests that organisms almost always become more complex, and this is true (Adamowicz, 2008). This also implies that organisms, at every stage of their evolutionary path, must possess traits that ensure their reproductive success. In other words, A can evolve into B only if organisms at all stages between A and B survive and produce offspring. To paraphrase the “law of conservation,” this would mean that useless genetic material accumulates in the genome and is removed only when its carrier dies without leaving offspring. Genome does not have an "Empty Trash" function.
2.Addition is easier than subtraction. As in government bureaucracies, the evolution of new traits is more likely to occur by adding alleles, copies, and rules to the existing genome than by removing them. A new trait may appear when a new allele is expressed, or when gene expression is copied or changed under the influence of regulators. If a new trait increases reproductive success, it will spread through the population.

The loss of a trait, on the other hand, means that a previously beneficial trait has become burdensome and, once it disappears, the ecological niche is used more efficiently. Fish trapped in a cave can no longer use the sunlight niche, so the eyes become a waste of resources, and individuals that invest fewer resources in the eyes now gain an advantage. Cavefish eventually become blind.

New traits arise through modification of an organism's alleles, for example, DNA mutations or adjustments of regulators step by step. Each of these tiny changes usually results in little, if any, improvement. But getting rid of a trait means eliminating all its modifications, and each step back should provide only a small improvement in terms of natural selection, or may not provide any. Knocking out a key allele may result in the disappearance of the trait it encodes, but other alleles and regulators may have changed and were selected for because they promoted expression of the key allele, but they are likely to remain unchanged, producing useless and now harmful polypeptides.

When a daughter population separates from its parent population and colonizes a new ecological niche, it typically acquires new characteristics that make it easier for it to colonize this new niche. Meanwhile, the parent population does not acquire these new traits, but instead acquires other traits useful in the old niche that the daughter population does not acquire. When a new niche disappears, the new traits become burdensome, and the daughter population cannot successfully compete with the parent population in the old niche.

Once on land, fish cannot return to being the fish from which they evolved if the land suddenly disappears.
3.Universalization, specialization, extinction. A generalized population tends to evolve toward specialization, but not vice versa (Howells, 1948). A population becomes more specialized if its existing traits evolve anatomically or physiologically to better perform an existing function. Thus, specialization requires changing what is already present, but not returning to a previous state. But, according to Rule 2, it is easier to add an allele or a regulator of an allele, which gives a new phenotype, than to lose an allele or change its regulator so as to return to the previous phenotype. This rule means that evolution proceeds predominantly in one direction and ends with the extinction of a species when the environment changes and specialization becomes burdensome. Although specialized populations can evolve from other specialized populations, and generalized populations from generalized populations, the prevailing direction of evolution from universalization to specialization suggests that the source of most evolutionary change will be generalized populations.

If the environment changes, as it sooner or later does, then one or many of the characteristics of the generalized species will help it perform functions that the specialized species cannot perform as well. These traits will prove useful in a new environment;

specialized species will remain with characteristics that help them perform well only one or a few functions. If the niche to which a specialized species has been adapted becomes less accessible, the species may become more generalized only by becoming less efficient at exploiting that niche, leading to its rapid extinction.

There are several ways for a population to circumvent this rule and become more generalized.

The embryo is less structured than the adult, and if the adults of a species become embryo-like (see Neoteny, Chapter 6), the species becomes more generalized. Neoteny played an important role in the transformation of humans into a more universalized species, which consequently became capable of migrating from areas with a warm climate. A population can also acquire traits that make it more generalized than its parent through interbreeding with a more generalized population.

Specialized species can become more generalized, partially changing their behavior, and use existing characteristics in a different way (exaptation). For example, a fish can walk on its fins while still using them for swimming, and evolve to become better at walking on its fins while still being able to use them for swimming, although it will not do both as well as if it had only walked or just swam.

Likewise, part of an existing structure may remain unchanged, retaining its usual function, while part of the same structure evolves and acquires a different function. For example, the retina of the eye retained some of the rods responsible for black-and-white vision, while other rods evolved into cones responsible for color vision. Fewer rods means less acuity in black and white vision, but that price was paid for color vision. The retina has become more universal than it was originally.
4.Specialized populations evolve in a stable environment; universalized populations in a changing one. If the habitat is stable, the population will specialize to exploit its ecological niche, gaining an advantage over a population that remains generalized, at least in that niche, since individuals will be subject to selection for traits that provide more efficient use of that particular niche. Individuals in any population vary in the degree of their specialization, and if one plots the degree of specialization against the number of corresponding individuals, it will approximate a normal distribution curve. In a more specialized population, the mean of this curve will be higher and its standard deviation smaller (Rule 5).

The longer environmental conditions remain constant (and the population is forced to evolve longer towards equilibrium - Rule 10), the higher will be the ratio of specialized and generalized populations living in this environment. On the contrary, in a changing environment, for example in a seasonal climate, it will be easier for generalized species to evolve (New Scientist, Apr. 21, 2007, p. 21). Since the climate in the tropics and polar zones is more stable than the seasonal climate, the populations living in these regions will be more specialized than the populations living in the seasonal climate zone. A species whose range includes both changing and stable environments may divide into generalized individuals living in a changing environment and more specialized individuals living in a stable environment. Thus, two species will develop.

According to Rule 3, a generalized population is more likely to evolve from another generalized population in the temperate zone than a specialized population from a specialized population in the tropics or polar zone, and then migrate to the temperate zone where it becomes generalized. And the stronger the evolutionary changes, the fairer this rule.
5. In a specialized population, hereditary variability is less than in a universalized one. Individuals in a specialized population whose traits deviate from the population optimum are more likely to be rejected by selection than individuals in a generalized population who have similar deviations because the specialized population lives in a more stable environment (Rule 4). Thus, the evolution of the most generalized species, such as humans, was more likely to occur in the variable temperate zone than in the tropics. Humans are often described as a tropical species because, for example, they sweat to cool their bodies and cannot survive (naked) in cold weather. In fact, they are so universalized in comparison with other species that it suggests (although their ancestry extends from a warm climate) that they were or became universalized at some stage in their evolution.
Gases (hereinafter referred to as LPG), located in an independent area, and from administrative, household, industrial buildings, boiler houses, garages according to the data given in brackets, but not less than established ... "Automated copy 586_471859 HIGH ARBITRATION COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 17312/12 Moscow May 14, 2013 Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation consisting of: presiding officer - Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation...”

“1 Basics of a healthy lifestyle. Grade 4 1. Explanatory note. The work program of the educational subject “Fundamentals of a Healthy Lifestyle” for 4th grade MBOU-secondary school No. 3 of Arkadak was developed in accordance with the basic provisions of the Federal State Education...”

“ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF MATERNITY CAPITAL POLICY IN RUSSIA * FABIAN SLONIMCHIK, ANNA YURKO For a long time, the birth rate in Russia has been below the population replacement level. Since 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation has been pursuing an active policy of promoting fertility. Women who gave birth..."
Mark B, BM per ton of seeds. Treatment of seeds before sowing at a working solution consumption rate of 10 l/t of seeds. Recommend...” “Company”, or “Issuer”, or “JSC Cherkizovo Group”) securities in respect of which the prospectus is registered: type: shares; cat...” For years there has been an intense and undying political and ideological struggle. First of all..." "Sberbank of Russia" on the territory of the Republic of Karelia (operate since..." 1:298:316.7; 371.2 (09) BBK 87 B64 Recommended for publication by the Academic Council of the Zhytomyr State University named after Ivan Franko (protocol No. 9 from 25..."Digest of news of Russian and foreign private law (Issue No. 21 - June August 2014) Issue No. 21 (June - August 2014) Digest of news of Russian and foreign private law / for June August 2014 / Message from the executive editor : Dear Digest readers, summer is over, and...”

“Explanatory note. The program for the subject “Drawing with elements of computer graphics” for the 9th grade is compiled on the basis of regulatory documents: Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” No. 273 FZ dated December 29, 2012. Standards of basic general education. Os...”

“Pereslavl Local Lore Initiative. - Topic: education. - No. 2189. Report of the Board of the Society for Assistance to Needy Students of the Pereslavl Theological School for 1894 In the reporting year of 1894, the Society...”

2017 www.site - “Free electronic library - various materials”
The materials on this site are posted for informational purposes only, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.