Questions about the origin of humankind

People have different opinions on the origin of human beings. Archeology believes that humans originated 3 million years ago, but American scholars estimate based on genetic testing results that humans originated only 140,000 years ago. In addition, since humans have genes from both terrestrial and aquatic animals, there is endless debate as to whether humans originated from terrestrial animals or aquatic animals. The author believes that humans were infected by viruses carrying aquatic animal genes from terrestrial animals, and the two types of genes recombined and mutated. Humanity's "original ancestors" or "close relatives" have been eliminated by natural selection. As a result, humans have become a small independent family without a "family". Based on the similarity between humans and mammals, it can be determined that the two have the same "original ancestor". In any case, human beings are the result of the long-term evolution of organisms on earth and are by no means aliens.

1. The Zhoukoudian ape man is not the ancestor of modern Chinese

The traditional view is that the human race around the world originated from several independent regions, and has evolved since the beginning into humans. It has a history of three million years. There have long been doubts about this idea. They feel that the civilizations of North Africa, West Asia, South Asia and East Asia that first entered agricultural civilization were only one or two thousand years apart. If the primitive humans in these areas all originated "independently" two or three million years ago, then they have made almost no progress in countless generations, but they have all entered civilized society in the past ten thousand years, a time difference of less than a thousand years in their entire history. One percent is incredible. This fact makes it easy to think that the origin of human beings may be much later than 3 million years, perhaps only tens of thousands of years. Considering that the expressions of joy, anger, sorrow and joy of different races around the world are almost the same (nodding to express affirmation, shaking the head to express denial is more valuable for discussion), it is certain that they have the same ancestors. If this is the case, then they may have gradually spread from a certain central area to all parts of the world in the past tens of thousands of years. If the fossils discovered by archaeologists in different parts of the world from hundreds of thousands of years ago to two or three million years ago can be regarded as "human" fossils, then the descendants of these "fossil humans" must no longer exist. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians and Chinese who created ancient civilizations in the Nile, Mesopotamia, Indus and Yellow River basins thousands of years ago are certainly not the descendants of these "fossil people".

"Life Times" reported on November 7, 2000 that researchers at Stanford University in the United States selected more than 1,000 men from 22 different regions around the world to analyze their Y chromosomes and also Genetic material from the maternal line was also sequenced. It was found that different human races had a unique female ancestor who lived 143,000 years ago, while the male ancestor lived 59,000 years ago. Humans walked out of Africa about 44,000 years ago and moved across the world. In the face of this latest scientific research result, archaeologists claim that the results of genetic research are only a possibility and cannot be used as evidence to negate archaeological conclusions. Only archaeological results have the significance of final evidence.

In fact, this position of archaeologists is quite ridiculous. To be fair, most unbiased scholars and even middle school students are willing to believe in the results of genetic research and doubt archaeological conclusions. Believe it or not, I believe that the ancient ape-men who lived in Zhoukoudian, Beijing, hundreds of thousands of years ago (not to mention the Yuanmou Man 1.7 million years ago) are not our Chinese ancestors earlier than the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. So, how did modern humans come into being? Where are the descendants of those ancient ape-men discovered by archeology?

2. The long-term accumulation of biological variation cannot produce new species

A major achievement of scientific research in the 19th century was Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can explain many biological phenomena, so it was quickly accepted by people. Darwin believed that the long-term accumulation of favorable variations in organisms adapting to the environment can produce new species. Evolution is gradual in nature, and humans evolved from apes (monkeys) over a long period of time.

The development of science over the past hundred years has greatly enriched and improved the theory of evolution, and also corrected many of Darwin's misconceptions. In recent years, some biologists have pointed out that Darwin's theory of evolution has never been proven, but has been believed. We know that modern apes are very different from humans (apes have tails and humans don’t). According to the perspective of progressive evolution, there should be many intermediate links in the evolution from apes to humans (such as the tail gradually shortening until it disappears), and these links should be verified by corresponding fossils. But in fact, the millions of various fossils discovered by archaeological work over the past 100 years have not confirmed the existence of these intermediate links. The more general conclusion drawn from fossil research is that the evolution of any living thing is jumpy rather than continuous. This conclusion casts doubt on the idea that apes "gradually" evolved into "people." It is said that in order to find out whether biological mutations can accumulate, a scientist cut off the tails of newborn white mice. After the male and female mated and gave birth to the second generation, the tails were cut off... The experiment continued until more than 50 generations, but every time Each generation had tails like their ancestors, and no new species of "tailless white rats" was produced. Although this experimental result cannot completely deny the view that organisms evolve through gradual evolution, it will undoubtedly cast doubt on the statement that "biological variation accumulates over a long period of time to produce new species."

From the perspective of genetic principles, this experiment is actually unnecessary, because no matter how many consecutive generations the tails of the mice are cut off, their germ cells still contain genes that can grow into tails, and the "trait" of "tailless" does not exist. The ability to be passed down.

3. Human beings are not the product of hybridization

Since Darwin proposed the idea that humans originated from apes, it has gradually been accepted by most people in the world. Since humans live on land, and apes (great apes) are the most similar to humans among terrestrial animals, as long as we believe that organisms have evolved, we can only attribute the ancestors of humans to apes. However, many people believe that humans are more similar to aquatic animals in terms of characteristics such as being born tailless and hairless, and having sex from the front in adults. Therefore, they assert that humans did not originate from apes but from aquatic animals. However, the "aquatic animal theory" cannot explain why humans changed from aquatic to terrestrial. So some people thought that humans might be the result of hybridization between aquatic animals and terrestrial animals.

This idea is very ridiculous, because only someone who does not have even the most basic common sense of biology would conceive of hybridization. Physically speaking, aquatic animals are very different from terrestrial animals. Under natural conditions, there is almost no possibility of male and female mating between aquatic species and terrestrial species. To say the least, even if male and female mating occurs by chance, they will not be able to mate due to their distant genetic relationship. It is impossible to produce hybrid offspring; to say the least, even if hybrid offspring can be produced, these offspring will not have the ability to continue to reproduce and will soon become extinct. We know that people mated horses and donkeys, which are similar in shape and closely related to large livestock, to produce a new species of mule that is stronger than horses and donkeys; staff in Indian zoos bred lions and tigers that were similar in shape and closely related to each other. The mating gave birth to a "liger". However, these "new" species obtained through hybridization methods have all lost their reproductive capabilities. As a result, mules and ligers have no offspring. Therefore, exploring the origin of humans from the perspective of hybridization is a dead end with no exit.

4. Gene combination and mutation produce humans

Since humans cannot be the product of hybridization, they can only be the result of genetic mutations. Modern biology believes that only new species resulting from genetic mutations can maintain fertility and pass on new characteristics to future generations. Gene mutations are quite common in the biological world, and there are many examples in humans. The most typical one is the "crab family" that once existed in North America.

Hundreds of years ago, a British woman who immigrated to North America recovered from an illness. All the boys and girls she gave birth to had limbs like crab claws. They lived among normal people, and due to physical defects But he was discriminated against, so he moved to live in a remote mountain. Since they could not mate normally, they had to have siblings as spouses for each other and have children. As a result, their offspring all had the same limbs. After several generations, they actually multiplied and developed into a "crab family" of nearly 200 people. At this time, someone in the "Crab Family" accidentally gave birth to a completely normal boy (probably an atavism, returning to a normal human being). When the boy was a teenager, the family allowed him to integrate into society and live a normal life. He walked out of the mountains to a nearby city and married a normal woman. Surprisingly, the child he had with a normal woman had limbs like crab claws. The normal woman was so angry that she threw the child to death in a rage. After this tragic news reached the "Crab Family", the whole clan cried loudly and complained that God was being unfair to them. They vowed never to get married and have children from now on. A few decades later, the "crab family" disappeared from the earth.

What inspiration can we draw from the emergence and demise of the "crab family"? The emergence of the "crab family" must be the result of genetic mutations in the germ cells of the British immigrant woman after she became ill. Science has proven that viruses have the ability to "pass" genes from one organism to another, so the woman was probably infected with a virus carrying the "crab" gene that caused genetic mutations in her germ cells. Since normal humans can mutate into the "crab family", other species can also mutate into humans. Since humans have both aquatic and terrestrial animal genes, it means that some kind of virus "transmitted" and combined the genes of aquatic animals and terrestrial animals. If this assumption is correct, then the infected species should be the direct "original ancestor" of humans. So which species might be the infected? Since aquatic animals cannot survive on land, but many terrestrial animals like to swim and play in the water, terrestrial animals (in water) are more likely to be infected with viruses carrying aquatic animal genetic genes. The direct ancestors of humans It should be a terrestrial animal. The fact that humans live on land also shows that their ancestors should be terrestrial animals. Because if aquatic animals are the ancestors of humans, then when did they evolve to live on land?

From the perspective of biological evolution, the characteristics produced by gene mutations may be conducive to the competition for survival, or may not be conducive to the competition for survival. Since the new species produced by genetic mutations are regarded as "alien" among the original species, the "rejection reaction" of the original species makes it difficult for them to survive, and as a result, most of them are eliminated by natural selection.

As far as the "Crab Family" is concerned, they have the ability to survive in the new environment, but they are forced to withdraw from the stage of history because they are not compatible with normal human society. We can imagine that if the earliest "people" were like the "crab family" and did not have a survival advantage in the competition with other animals in nature, they would soon be eliminated by natural selection and become passers-by in the history of biology. But very fortunately, humans actually have extraordinary adaptability and survival competitive advantages. As a result, after just tens of thousands of years of reproduction, they have migrated and spread to every corner of the world where they can survive, becoming an indisputable species on the earth. dominate.

5. The scientific nature of the hypothesis of human homology

Gene mutations are extremely accidental. It is almost impossible for two individuals of the same species to have the same gene mutation (roughly) at the same time. existence, so it is difficult to find the same genetic mutation in the history of evolution, so it is difficult for us to imagine that in different regions of the earth, several individuals of a certain creature have undergone the same mutation and each produced human beings.

From this perspective, it can be said that the results obtained by American scientists’ genetic sequencing have completely confirmed the assumption derived from scientific reasoning, which is of great significance to scientifically elucidating the origin of human beings. In other words, the conclusion that human beings all originated from the same female ancestor is completely consistent with the general principle of genetic mutation, and is also similar to the situation of the ancestral woman in the "Crab Family". The difference is that the limbs of boys and girls born to the ancestral women of the "Crab Family" have undergone the same changes. The result of the gene mutation of the ancestor of human women is that the girls born have physical changes, while the boys born have many physical changes. There is no evolution in generations (tens of thousands of years). How did men evolve later? We don't know. If it is also due to viral infection, then based on the chance of genetic mutation, only one man's gene must have mutated at the earliest. After the mutation, his male offspring also had the same physical changes, so both men and women evolved into real humans. In this way, the man who was first infected with the virus should be the male ancestor of mankind.

But another situation may occur, that is, the gene of a certain woman still mutates (the second mutation). After that, like the ancestor of the crab family, the boys and girls she gave birth to evolved into Really human. In this way, humans do not have a single male ancestor, but only a female ancestor. However, the female ancestor who experienced the first genetic mutation cannot be called the direct ancestor of "human beings".

6. The "original ancestors" of mankind have long been extinct

We know that the "AIDS" virus is posing a serious threat to human survival. During the period of confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two countries accused each other of creating the virus through biological weapons research. But after political factors were cleared, it was learned that the virus may have been transmitted to humans from African orangutans. It is said that the virus itself did not "emerge" just now, but has existed for tens of thousands of years. They do not have a destructive effect on the body of African orangutans, but they cause devastating harm to humans. In recent years, mankind has mobilized all possible means to treat AIDS patients and control the spread of the disease, but the results are still limited. Some people even believe that the AIDS virus is a biological driving force that forces human genes to mutate. If the body cannot produce mutations that make the virus ineffective, humans may be completely destroyed by the virus.

Although this view is a bit too sensational, if you think about it carefully, it is not unreasonable. Assuming that humans were infected with the disease 500 years ago, and humans did not have any scientific means to understand and resist it at that time, it is very likely that they would be quickly destroyed by this terrible virus, thus turning the earth into a world of wild animals again, unless some individuals Gene mutations occur, resulting in the ability to naturally resist the AIDS virus, thereby evolving into a higher species... From this, the author thinks that when modern humans originated, a certain virus may have wiped out those who had survived for two to three million years in the past. "Pre-humans" (fossil humans) who are close to modern humans are just because after a certain individual's gene mutates, the virus no longer has a (destructive) effect on its body. As a result, the descendants of this individual survive. This is the real human beings. Those "pre-humans" who did not have genetic mutations were all wiped out by the irresistible virus (not a single one was left), and tens of thousands of years of natural evolutionary history have obliterated all traces of their survival. As a result, it is difficult for modern humans to find their own "ancestral" or "close relative", so some people believe that humans originated from terrestrial animals ("thesis"), while others believe that humans originated from aquatic animals ("antithesis").

Since neither the "thesis" nor the "antithesis" can fully explain why humans have the characteristics of aquatic and terrestrial animals, and people cannot unify them into a convincing "synthesis", so Others have suggested that humans originated from alien creatures. In fact, the explanation of the "alien biological theory" is simple and clear, but if you think about it carefully, it is a kind of "eliminativism", which makes people give up their efforts to scientifically explain the origin of human beings. This kind of statement is better than simply resorting to religious teachings Attribute the creation of humankind to God. To engage in scientific research, we cannot be satisfied with this statement. The author believes that although it is impossible for human beings to "prove" the process of their own origins, it is entirely possible to outline the most likely path of human evolution based on the results of scientific discoveries and discussions. This day is not far away.