Borovkov M.I.
doctor of philosophical science, Professor,
Professor of the Department of Social and Humnitarian Disciplines
"Military Medical Academy named after SM Kirov ",
Professor of the Department of Social and Humnitarian Disciplines
University at the IPA EurAsEC Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Нестеров Андрей Иванович
кандидат философских наук,
профессор Российской Академии Естествознания,
доцент кафедры социально-гуманитарных дисциплин,
Университет при МПА ЕврАзЭС, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Боровков Михаил Иванович
доктор философских наук, профессор,
профессор кафедры социально-гуманитарных дисциплин,
Военно-медицинская академия имени С.М. Кирова,
профессор кафедры социально-гуманитарных дисциплин,
Университет при МПА ЕврАзЭС, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия
INFLUENCE OF THE PLACE OF CHANGE OF LIFE OF HOMINIDES ON ANTHROPOGENESIS ВЛИЯНИЕ МЕСТО ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ ЖИЗНИ ГОМИНИДОВ НА АНТРОПОГЕНЕЗ
Abstract
The study problem is urgent due to need in approving the evolutionary theory of descent of man. Recently, unscientific point of view to the descent of man is increasingly disseminating. Religious vision on anthropogenesis was resumed in the consciousness of our Russian people, religious figures again began to introduce the idea of the divine origin of man. The quantity and quality of the transmitted information has increased for introducing to the minds of citizens an unreasonable hypothesis that life has gone from space aliens. The purpose of the article is to more accurately explain the conditions of man origin. The main approach the in the study of this problem is physiological one. The study found that the primary cause of anthropogenesis was a sharp change in a certain place of physical space, caused by the condition of forest fire. Change in wild apes habitat due to a fire, creates a biological factor of hunger in the apes, as the forest fire destroyed the food habitual for the apes. Hunger forces them to search and find new food for the vital activity and ways of its preparation (reception) that leads to anthropogenesis. The physiological approach in the study shows how the new first way of life of already human society influenced the physiological changes of anthropoid apes, as the forced direct walking of primitive people changed their physical structure (the lower limbs of a man turned into feet). The materials of this article essentially develop a scientific vision of how the transition from the biological species of wild apes to the socio-biological species (primitive man) took place. Hypothesis of anthropogenesis, proposed in the article by A.I. Nesterov, can be useful for the practical identification of the causes of anthropogenesis. At the same time, it connects two scientifically grounded theories explaining origin of man as a ‘missing link’: this ‘transition link’ connects Darwin's theory of evolution and Marx’s and Engels’ labor theory of value.
Key words: evolution, clericalism, hominid, primitive man, missing link, "place of development", transition link, hunger, physiology, bipedalism.
Introduction
Recently, religious figures have actively begun to impress the idea of divine origin of man, instead of the scientific vision of anthropogenesis, upon consciousness of our Russian people. Thus, Patriarch of Moscow Alexiy II 29.01.07 stated that it is inadmissible to impose on the school students the theory of descending man from ape: ‘There will be no harm to the school students if they know Biblical gospel about the origin of the world. And if someone wants to think that he descended from an ape, let him think so, but he does not impose it on others’ [1]. In this regard, Nobel Prize winner Vitaliy Ginzburg said: ‘It was possible to think that God gave birth to man 3000 years ago, but now it's absurd to think so! And the fact that the patriarch, not even embarrassed, suggests teaching Orthodoxy to children in schools, generally a disgrace’ [2]. For this position in defense of scientific education, th‘Orthodox Social Movement “People's Council” demanded procurato's office of Moscow to prosecute academician of RAS (Russian Academy of Science) Vitaliy Ginzburg’ [3]. In response, the well-known Russian scientists turned to President V.V. Putin with a request to stop ‘clericalization of the country’ [4]. After that, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center on the relationship between church and society, held in 2015, "from 2007 to 2015, the proportion of Russians who support preservation of the constitutional rule on a country being secular state has grown significantly: from 54% to 64%’ [5], but there are plenty of supporters of the religious ‘absurdity’.
Most scientists still deny divinity of anthropogenesis. But in the evolutionary theory of the origin of man there are still many ‘gray areas’, falsifications and falsely scientific misconceptions that require additional research today for its approval. At the same time, justifying the origin of religion can be explained by its ‘sacred’ vision of anthropogenesis. According to A.I. Nesterov, if religion is considered a cult of ‘blessed fire’ carrying ‘light’ [6], then from the scientific point of view, it is possible to justify the influence of fire associated with this cult on anthropogenesis. This article is based on the ‘Theory of the place of society’ [7], developed by the professor of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, Andrey Ivanovich Nesterov, [7] where he substantiates anthropogenesis based on a change in the place of life of hominids. Its purpose is to introduce appropriate refinements to substantiate anthropogenesis.
Methodological Framework
The methodological basis of this study is various scientific substantiations of anthropogenesis. Today in the world 3 approaches to the origin of man are mostly widespread:
1) Theological;
2) philosophical;
3) experimental (empirical).
The theological approach is based on faith and dogma, and usually does not need any additional evidence of its rightness. In its explanation it is based on religious cults and rituals of believers, which in principle does not exclude scientific error. The methods of creationists (Latin creatio - creation - the religious concept according to which man was created by some higher being - God or several gods - as a result of a supernatural creative act) reduced to two: orthodox and evolutionary. Theologians consider the orthodox to be the only true point of view expressed in the Bible. This is the approach followed by the Patriarch of Moscow Alexiy II. Unlike Orthodox Christians, the Catholic Church under pressure of science-based facts was forced to partially admit the evolutionary theory.
The philosophical approach is based on the worldview set of the initial axioms, from which, through logical deductions, the philosopher constructs his own picture of the world and theory of man origin. For example, ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander (VI century BC) wrote about natural development of men and animals, in the composition ‘ Perì phúseôs ’ (‘On Nature’) [10]. He was, first of all, a natural philosopher. Anaximander wrote his work in the middle of the VI BC. H was the first to have a great insight about the origin of life and man. In his opinion, the living was born on the border of water and land from silt under the influence of heaven fire. But, in Anaksimander's opinion, men did not descend from land animals, but from sea animals. Man was born and developed to adult state inside some huge fish. He was born already adult, as alone, without parents, he could not survive as a child, so the first man went out on land. Misconception? Yes. Nevertheless, it can be considered as a major achievement that Anaximander applied evolutionary approach to the substantiation of the origin of man. The thesis that ‘man descended from ape’ is usually associated with the founder of the Evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, but attempts to apply the evolutionary approach were made long before its appearance.
The empirical approach is based on facts established in the course of observations and experiments. To explain the connection of these facts, a hypothesis is proposed, It is tested by new observations and, if possible, by experiments, as a result of which it is either rejected, and then a new hypothesis is proposed, or confirmed and becomes a theory. In the future, new facts can refute the theory; in this case, a new hypothesis follows, which better explains the whole set of representations. Charles Darwin based his research using a scientific-empirical approach. This method of investigation is the most reliable of all applied; probably, therefore, Charles Darwin’s studies on the origin of man are the most trustworthy today.
There is a science-fiction approach to anthropogenesis. This includes considering options for extraterrestrial origin of man. Such research is developed by Doctor of Medical sciences, Professor E.R. Muldashev [8] who believes that man descended from Atlanteans (aliens). Speculating on supernatural abilities of human brain, N.P. Bekhtereva [9] also initially tends to follow the alien version of the origin of man. But, here is the problem: there is no planet where such a life would exist. Until now, scientists haven’t not found such planet in the universe yet. Therefore, the assumption of extraterrestrial origin of people is considered more fantastic than scientific.
When studying place of origin of men in a certain geographical location and at a certain historical moment, the authors use the Eurasians methods using category ‘place of development’, that is ‘one of the fundamental concepts introduced into scientific circulation by the founders of the Eurasian studies, and the concept of “combination of geographic and historical principles”. Place of Development, according to the author of the term P. Savitsky, most fully reflects the process of space-time interaction between society and surrounding landscape’ [13]. P.N. Miliukov, who criticized the Eurasian studies, did not deny the value of the concept of ‘place of development’, he argued that it ‘gives the first opportunity to scientifically substantiate the causal relation between the nature of a place and human society that has settled in it’ and ‘to build a history of culture on an anthropological and geographical basis, which is inevitable in the modern state of science’ [14]. The Eurasian thinkers proceed from the idea that each place of development retains its significance also in the case when the one-way influence of the geographical environment on the socio-historical situation is considered, when the one-way consideration of the influence of the latter on the first one is fulfilled only with the dialectical unity of both processes. ‘In our opinion, the process connecting the socio-historical environment with the geographical situation is a two-way process’ [15].
Results
Physiological method is of essential value for the study; in the authors’ opinion it explains the causes of the appearance of upright walking human (homo erectus). In the article, the authors also applied the labor (physiological) approach connected with Marx’s and Engels’ Labor theory of labor, with their world-famous ‘The part played by labor in the transition from ape to man’ [11]. Yes, undoubtedly, hominid labor activity influenced on physiological change of their upper and lower limbs. Also, it is necessary to note the bioeconomic method related to labor activity given by Marxists in the famous slogan ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’ [12]. Representatives of the labor approach of anthropogenesis almost intuitively come to the correct conclusion that hunger causes animals to work, and as a result of this work, apes become people. Thus, instrumental activity, cohesion in society, speech and thinking are the decisive factors in the transformation of ape into a human being. They are a consequence of the change in the physiology of hominids, while, when the apes became bipedal, their lower extremities from the arms turned into legs.
Analysis of approaches and methods showed that religious and science-fiction approaches are unlikely to solving the problem of anthropogenesis. Nevertheless, they are taken into account. The most common scientific approach to explain anthropogenesis is the evolutionary one. The most probable and evidence-based concepts of man origin are two outstanding theories: Evolutionary and Labor theories. The evolutionary and labor approaches imply that human is, in fact, a sociobiological product. The authors of this article in their evidence base basically adhere to these approaches. Probably, the justification of anthropogenesis is in the missing ‘transition link’ between Evolutionary and Labor theories.
Discussions
In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin concludes: ‘And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated’ [16]. Darwin concludes that man is an integral part of living nature and that his emergence is not an exception to the common patterns of the organic world development. Darwin, extending the main points of his theory of evolution to man, proves his origin ‘from the lower animals’ [17]. The facts shown by Charles Darwin are considered science-based. However, Darwin's theory is constantly criticized by creationists. Although the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Francis admitted the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. This was stated by Pope at a speech in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it,’ - Pope believes. - Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve’ [18]. But this does not mean that the Catholic Church fully accepted the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.
Chief of the information service of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow, priest Kirill Gorbunov commented on the statement that, at the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 28, 2014, the pontiff allegedly recognized the theory of evolution and the Big Bang: "Today, many media believe that Pope Francis is an innovator who is guided by desire to please everyone and tries to fit the Roman Catholic Church teaching in the spirit of the world today. In addition, many believe that he broke the long tradition of confrontation between church and science. In fact, this is not so,’ [19], said Kirill Gorbunov. ‘Concerning science research and theories, church always gives freedom to the science world and tries to reconcile this with the fundamental fact that the world is created by God and human soul is created by God. And the fact that Vatican and church are open to contacts with science, is reflected in existence of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences’ [19], - he concluded. At the same time, he reminded that ‘The first Pope, who not only confirmed this, but said that the theory of evolution in principle does not contradict the biblical picture of the world, was Pope Pius XII, who is considered one of the most traditional church pontiffs. The same postulate was confirmed by John Paul II, who claimed that the theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Pope Benedict XVI tried to draw attention to the fact that many people perceive the theory of evolution only as a chain of some blind, completely random events, as a sequence of actions that chaoticly led to the emergence of new forms of life, and that man is simply the result of chance. But Pope Benedict said that this is not so. Evolution is the result of God's creative act, and the way it flowed and flows is all God's creative plan’ [19]. Creationism of the Catholic Church today is based on the critical scientific perception of the Darwin's theory of evolution. This approach of evolutionary theologians makes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution incomplete, and therefore not entirely scientific, which allows filling the ‘gray areas’ of anthropogenesis with the act of divine creation.
Thus, well-known evolutionary theologian P. Teilhard de Chardin explains the absence of an empirically fixed ‘intermediate link’ by intervention of the divine ‘power’. Teilhard de Chardin, arguing that if there is such a time inconsistency as ‘one moment in the universe’ [20], then some kind of third side has interfered with the origin of man and this side is, in his opinion, of course, God. Speculating on evolutionary creationists’ work, Stanislav Drobyshevskiy, science editor of the portal ANTROPOGENEZ.RU, Ph.D., associate professor of the Department of Anthropology, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, gives his alternative vision of anthropogenesis in the e-book ‘Found missing link’. He notes: ‘Modern creationists are conducting numerous studies to prove the lack of continuity of ancient with modern people or - the existence of completely modern people in ancient times. To do this, they use the same materials as anthropologists, but they view them from a different point. As practice shows, creationists in their constructions rely on paleoanthropological findings with obscure datings or conditions of finding, ignoring most of the remaining materials. In addition, often creationists operate non- science methods. Their criticism falls on those areas of science that are still not fully clear - so-called "gray areas of science" - or unfamiliar to the creationists themselves; usually such reasoning impresses people who are not sufficiently familiar with biology and anthropology. For the most part, creationists are engaged in criticism, but you can not build your concept on criticism, and they do not have their own independent materials and arguments’ [21]. At the same time, S.V. Drobyshevskiy notes that in the critical view of evolutionary creationists ‘there is some benefit’ because they ‘serve as a good indicator of the understandability, accessibility and popularity of the results of science research to public, an additional incentive for new work’ [21].
In the book ‘Found missing link’, the main criteria of the difference between men and apes are given. These include bipedalism, hands adapted to making tools, highly developed brain. S. Drobyshevskiy add such feature as, ‘small canines, not projecting beyond the line of other teeth. Modern and fossil anthropoid apes have large canines projecting beyond the line of other teeth. Among other typical hominid traits, this appeared in the evolution earlier than the others - the initial reduction of the canines is observed already in Dryopithecus and Sivapithecus. The oldest hominid and Australopithecus had small canines, although the size of the canines of Australopithecus is almost halfway between the sizes of apes and man. As far as is known to date, all four-legged hominoids have large canines, and bipedal apes have small ones’ [22]. He makes his statement and concludes: ‘The reasons for the canines reduction remain unclear, but probably is changes in nutrition’ [22]. The authors of the article also come to conclusion that the transition of primitive people to thermally processed food affects on the change in the teeth configuration. Acquisition by hominid of all the previously mentioned features is related to the new methods of cooking used by primitive man. It is known that first experience was cooking meet on fire. But where, when and what made hominid cook meat on fire?
Along with science-based research on this subject, there are many very different myths, falsifications, misconceptions and groundless hypotheses. So, Stanislav Drobyshevskiy in the article "Traces of unknown Cretans. Were there hominids on Crete 5.7 million years ago?’ [23] criticized the delusion of Polish geologists G. Gierliński and G. Niedźwiedzki. In 2017 they published an article [24], where they indicated that they found in 2010 human-like footprints on the beach in Trachilos in the western Crete, and dated to them - 5.7 million years ago; 29 footprints in several chains along the petrified beach. Then it turns out that the monkeys became bipedal humans’ in the Messinian Salinity Crisis, when the Mediterranean turned into a couple of salted puddles’ [23]. How could human appear there in such conditions? Most likely, this is another misconception, another myth about the origin of man, today great many of them are created. Stanislav Drobyshevskiy criticized this fake, he argues that the place and time of origin of man has already been found and scientifically proved that the bipedal hominin originated in Africa, about 2.5 million years ago. "Remarkable chain of species is found there: from very-very quadrupedal proconsuls through lame Sahelanthropus, Orrorin and Ardipithecus to very-very bipedal Australopithecus. There are bones, there are traces in Laetoli’ [23]. To disclose false discoveries and myths, A.A. Borisyak Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Science developed electronic network programs.
All scientists studying anthropogenesis (anthropologists, archeologists, geneticists and others) support the view on the location of ancestral homeland of man. At present, locations in the East African Rift and in the west of the central region of Afar (Ethiopia) are the earliest with the oldest tools. More than 3 thousand artifacts found in Kada-Gon river basin, at 15 locations on the surface and in the layer below. Stone tools are extracted from the layer below the level of tuff dating 2.5 million years. Genetic research also confirmed that man appeared in Africa: on the basis of differences in mitochondrial DNA sequences of people of different geographic locations and races, a phylogenetic tree was constructed, and roots of the formation of bipedal humanity were determined in central Africa. The place and time of anthropogenesis is known now, but there is still no answer to the question: How did it happen?
In the 19th century, after Darwin created theory of evolution, the Labor theory of origin of man spread. We know it in its Marxist version, but it is not limited by it. All the supporters of this theory believe that labor, beginning with the tools making, created man. In the course of working activity brain develops, more and more people are united in society and there is a need to say something to each other. This is how primitive society is formed. Then the regulation of marital relations, morality and other moments of the development and existence of modern man are added. Family appears, private property and the state, as described by F. Engels in his work ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ [25]. But why did this happen? What made hominids work and become a primitive society? In popular literature, you can often find the answer: in order to maintain their existence, people should eat, drink, protect themselves from cold, etc., and this forced them to produce material goods. However, in nature, animals, including our animal ancestors - monkeys, do not produce anything, and do not feel any need for production and are fully capable of maintaining their existence. Even when animals, in some cases, carry out instrumental activities, this does not help them overcome the boundaries of the animal world. Apparently, if we deduce thinking from labor, and not labor from thinking, we do not have enough data to explain the transition (especially during just thousand years) from figurative instincts to goal-oriented forms of labor. What happened to the hominid in these thousand years, that he became man?
Reputed Soviet scientist B.F. Porshnev made an attempt to solve some of these problems on the basis of the classical labor theory of anthropogenesis in his book ‘On the Beginning of Human History (the Problem of Paleopsychology)’ [26]. He believes that there is no ‘missing link’ between Darwin's theory of evolution and K. Marx's Labor theory. In this transitional period, primitive people lived, to which he refers Pithecanthropus, Neanderthals and Australopithecus, uniting them in a family of bipedal primates (troglodytes). Troglodytes differ from all quadrupedal monkeys in bipedalism, from humans – in absence of articulate speech and corresponding formations in the cerebral cortex. From both humans and monkeys troglodytes differed with a completely specific and profiling additive to plant foods: they ate corpse. For in no case they were hunters. Their anatomy (teeth and nails) was not adapted to eating large herbivores carcasses. Hence, their biological adaptation is associated with mechanical activity in the form of using and manufacturing for this purpose the first tools of wood and stones. In addition, the stones processing was followed by the fact that the sparks fell on the floor cover, as a result it often caught fire, which led primitive people to discovery of a mechanical method of obtaining fire. Finally, B.F. Porshnev, draws attention to the fact that in the evolution from the Australopithecus to the Neanderthals, brain grew steadily. The reason for this was complex adaptive tasks that caused development of the central nervous system. These premises resulted, in the opinion of the Russian thinker, as the basis for this transition. The transition to bipedalism becomes the basic sign of anthropogenesis, it is practically connected with the physiological changes in biological organism.
Recently a new interpretation of the evolutionary theory appeared: Darwin's theory of evolution was opposed by "ecospace theory". ‘The driver of evolution was not inter-clade competition, as Charles Darwin argued, but occupied ecospace’ [27] - this was stated by a group of scientists from the University of Bristol. Graduate student S. Sahney and her colleagues studied the evolutionary models of animals over the last 400 million years. Having studied the fossils of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, scientists came to the conclusion that their biological diversity is closely related to their ‘ecospace’, which is better known to biologists as "ecological niche." It includes factors such as the availability of food and a favorable environment. This study shows what major evolutionary changes took place when animals moved to places that were not occupied by other individuals. ‘For example, neighboring with dinosaurs for 60 million years, mammals have not been able to displace the prevailing reptiles. However, as soon as the dinosaurs died out, the mammals quickly filled the unoccupied niche and began to dominate the Earth’ [28], explains the co-author of the study, Professor M. Benton. ‘If we try on the basis of the space-time distribution and the morphology of the fossil material period of the Middle Pleistocene draw conclusions about the relationship system, then a whole series of contradictions arise that significantly hamper the biological and phylogenetic ordering. The present incompatibility of temporal and morphological data with respect to some finds is a source of an extraordinary abundance of hypotheses’ [29]. Thus, theory of ecospace does not specifically answer the question of the origin of man in a specific geographical location.
Other scientists, who call themselves ‘eurasians’, answer this question; they pay close attention to geographical location of human development. As Darwinists, they believe that place of habitation impacts on animals diversity. Man is a child of nature, born in and from nature as biological specie. Human body has adaptive animal abilities that allow it to adapt to changes in the environment (place of habitation). Animals try to adapt to their habitat, and if it changes, they adapt to changed environment. Most clearly this ability is seen on a chameleon example, which can quickly change the color of the skin under external influences. The ability of biological species to adapt to changes in the environment gives the main impetus for the development of a diverse animal world in nature. Similar, though less expressed, almost all biological species have such an ability, including anthropoid apes and modern humans (when ‘improved’). ‘Probably, this happened when ape transformed into man, which allows us to more accurately find out the conditions and place of development that contribute to such a transformation’ [30]. But what could change the environment in order to make hominids adapt to it to a state of primitive society?
Physical space is almost eternal, but occupied by society space has appeared relatively recently. In comparison with physical space, time of its existence in several million years can be estimated as a planetary moment. Most likely, humans got their "place in the sun" (oikumene) from natural space, eventually equipped it with man-made facilities and continues to expand their living space by reducing natural. But no matter how hard we wish and try to create only artificial space for living, we still can not do without natural space. ‘Without natural environment, we as a social-biological species can not exist’ [31]. As an animal species, we would simply starve to death.
Modern scientists, studying anthropogenesis, almost do not pay attention to the fact of using fire by primitive society. Do they believe that primitive people began to use fire, already obtained by friction? However, Goston Bachler notes that ‘the objective reasons that are moved to explain how men are supposed to have been led to imagine this procedure are very weak. These writers often do not even venture to try and throw light upon the psychology of this first discovery. Among the few authors who do concern themselves with an explanation, most recall that forest fires are produced by the “rubbing together” of branches in summer’ [32]. For sure, in nature a forest fire never produced by the rubbing branches together, this is not even possible. It could be produced by a lightning stroke or volcanic eruption. In this regard, V. Zosim in his book ‘Evolution of the Ancestors of Man’ [33], assumes that the reason for ancient hominids appeared in the rift zone is the active volcanism on these territories. However, makes quite unexpected conclusions. Thus, V. Zosim believes that ‘volcanism of the rift zone started a lot of hot springs, the heat of which was used by ancient hominids to survive during cold nights and, most importantly, to save and grow young ones’. Can active volcanoes, with their heat, transmit hominids into bipedal humans? Probably not, but they can easily cause a forest fire with their eruption!
Thus, we came to conclusion that there were active volcanoes erupting fire, causing forest fires, in a place of man origin. It’s worth to remember French theologian Teilhard de Chardin noticed that adaption-evolution process from apes to humans, based only on climatic changes on the Earth, is too rapid. This nature is so similar to ours ‘that we have to make an effort to realise that n nowhere is there so much as a wisp of smoke rising from camp or villafe’ [34], says Teilhard de Chardin. As they say, ‘there is no smoke without fire’. What did make our primitive ancestors start using fire for cooking?
The author suggests following version of anthropogenesis. It occurred while landscape of homonids’ living space was drastically changing, where forest fire could spontaneously arise and drove anthropoid apes to river bend (See Fig. 1). Perhaps the fire that arose from geophysical conditions served as that natural force that initiated the accelerated transformation of anthropoid apes into bipedal men (lat. Homo erectus; obsolete archanthropines are a fossil species of people who are considered as direct predecessor of modern humans). Anthropoid apes’ habitat, changed after forest fire, probably was the basic condition for of the first way of life of certain human beings - primitive men.
Obviously, the primary reason for transformation of apes into men could be a sharp change in the environment caused by a forest fire, in the region of river bend (Fig. 1). Naturally, forest animals in case of fire try to hide from it. They can find shelter in places which don’t burn (water, rock cave). Thus, after a forest fire only those individuals of wild monkeys were able to survive, which escaped to rock caves or river water.
In this situation, the fact that this place is the river bend (Fig. 1) is important. If this close shore is sufficiently shallow (see the figure), then apes, who can not swim well, would be able to wait in the shallows until fire stops and not to drown. At the same time, the opposite shore was in the form of a cliff, on which it is difficult to climb, and to which it is impossible to wade because of the depth of the river. These obstacles did not allow the apes to cross the river, but forced them to stay in shallow water while coastal forest burning, so as not to drown and wait for the main fire to stop and so save their life. However, even after surviving the main forest fire and leaving their shelters (water and caves) to the former location of the forest (or jungle), the monkeys could not find their usual habitat. Instead of trees where their everyday food was, there were only burning fires. The former forest was burnt, a new one could grow in its place not so soon, what is there for monkeys?
Missing former vegetation, where fruits (the main product of their nutrition) grew, animals had to look for food in the new changed conditions of habitat. Biological organism's need for food (hunger) made animals pick up charred objects from the ground looked like fruits. Probably, this is how anthropoid apes discover possibility of eating a new food - fried meat of wild animals that didn’t manage to hide from the fire. Since then, and up to our time, need for food forces us to use fire to make meat. Let's notice, that today, as many thousands of years ago in primitive society, we use fire for cooking, frying barbecue. To survive in the prevailing conditions of the sharply changed terrain, anthropoid apes could only have figured out to roast meat on the left fires. After all, there wasn’t their usual food in the form of fruits, could not appear for very long, because trees to grow and begin to bear fruit took some years, but apes were hungry now. Fish, which they began to use, could become a new kind of food, besides it allowed them to think better, as fish food contributes to the development of the brain.
Reduction of the meat prepared by wildfire forced anthropoid apes to look for similar sources of the new food product obtained by heat treating. But where to get meat for cooking? After all, apes are not predators and can’t hunt. Here they could remember animals in the water, untouched by the fire. Driven by wildfire into the water, our ancestors discovered fish there, which no one caught before, and it could be caught by hands as there was plenty of fish. So, all kinds of shellfish and fish became the most accessible prey of primitive people. We know that humans, like monkeys, do not have strong enough jaw to bite fish scales, but after heat treating they easily cleaned fish from scales and could eat it. At the same time, the way they cooked the fish, later developed pottery.
This data was affirmed by finding in Awash valley, where numerous remains of pre-human hominids (Australopithecus) were found. Palleontological findings are about 3-4 million years old and are evidence of human evolution. In 1974, 52 fragments of the skeleton of famous Lucy were discovered. In 1980, the valley of the lower reaches of the river was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. In the middle of the valley of the Awash River, local tapered formations with red clay were found [35], which could have been produced by firing of charcoal with a temperature of 200 °C. This suggests a way of cooking fish, which today many fishermen use. Fish in the scales coated with clay and baked on the coals of the fire. After that the clay with the scales is broken off and only the baked fish meat remains.
Further, the development of mankind goes according to Marx’s and Engels’ labor theory of value, "... with the utilization of fish for food (including crabs, mussels, and other aquatic animals), and with the use of fire. The two are complementary, since fish became edible only by the use of fire. With this new sources of nourishment, men now became independent of climate and locality; even as savages, they could, by following the rivers and costs, spread over most of the earth’ [36]. The use of fire to obtain meat food changes the habitual way of life of monkeys, turns them into primitive people. The consumption of meat and especially fish allowed the primitive man, to develop rapidly both physically and mentally.
It’s worth to notice, that primitive people did not know how to get fire (they will discover it much later). Therefore, they had to constantly maintain a burning flame, small, but sufficient to cook new food. Findings in valley of the Awash confirm these actions by the existence of fires that burned constantly in the same place for about 100 years. Need to maintain a flame made primitive people constantly move on their hind limbs, carrying the caught fish and branches for fire in front limbs. As a result of this primitive labor, they finally turn into bipedal humanity.
Getting a new food makes primitive people stand on their hind limbs. Now, anthropoid apes were forced, standing on the hind limbs (legs), to catch fish by the front ones, to carry it and wooden sticks to keep fire, where they were cooking new kind of food, that became the main food of primitive people. If someone is going info sports, they know that physical exertion can change a person's appearance. As a result, according to Marx's labor theory of value, such labor life changed the physiological structure of the anthropoid ape's body to the modern human species. Physical activity led to the fact that after monkeys began walked on lower limbs, the latter began to resemble modern human legs. Thus, it is obvious how the ancestral pack of anthropoid apes could change into a qualitatively new tribal social formation.
Conclusion
In the authors' opinion, two famous theories (Darwin’s theory of evolution and Marx’s labor theory of value) are tend to be scientific in the anthropogenesis substantiation. The authors propose to combine them, proceeding from the conclusion that Charles Darwin proves the biological belonging of man to the animal world, while K. Marx and F. Engels prove that it was labor that influenced the physiological changes of apes, turning them into human beings. Combining these two reliable theories, the authors suggest considering, taking into account environment changes that led to emergence of the socium in the natural space, in the form of primitive society. Indeed, changes in space conditions of anthropoid apes can affect their adaptation and give a push to physiological change of animals corresponding to the place of development. Such a situation is quite possible in a certain natural place that resulted in physiological changes of anthropoid apes into primitive society due to their labor.
Recommendations
This hypothesis can be science-based with empirical approval of the above facts, such as, observation of the behavior of a chimpanzee in the area corresponding to the above mentioned conditions, i.e. conditions during the initial wildfire. Unfortunately, the author of the hypothesis does not have opportunity to conduct these experiments and presents the above material only in the form of a hypothesis that seems to be the most probable of all previously considered versions of anthropogenesis. Nevertheless, the author does not intend to deny other concepts. In his research, he simply offers his own version of solution to the problem. If the proposed hypothesis will prove to be reliable, time and the scientists, who develop this area, will show. Nevertheless, the presentation of this hypothesis shows importance of influence of hominid's place of life on the origin of mankind.
References
1. Aleksiy II: nedopustimo navyazyvat shkolnikam darvinovskuyu teoriyu [It is inadmissible to impose Darwin’s theory on school students]. RIA novosti Moskva, 29.01.07 - https://ria.ru/religion/20070129/59841605.html
2. Ginzburg Vitaliy. Vliyanie tserkvi na shkolu [The influence of the church on the school]. Intelros. "Vesti obrazovaniya" 1-15 February 2007. - https://www.intelros.ru/2007/07/26/vitalijj_ginzburg_vlijanie_cerkvi_na_shkolu.html
3. Krasilshchikov Arkadiy. Vitaliya Ginzburga khoteli sudit [They were going to judge Vitaly Ginzburg]. 19.04.2016 Material is provided by the author. In the reduction published in the newspaper "News of the Week" 11.09.07 https://a.kras.cc/2016/04/blog-post_804.html
4. BBC /Russia/ Uchenye prizvali Putina ostavit Rossiyu svetskoy [Scientists called on Putin to Russia remain secular] 23 July 2007 - https://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/russia/newsid_6911000/6911750.stm
5. Press Release №2861 Moscow, 24.06. 2015 All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VCIOM) Tserkov i obshchestvo: vmeste ili porozn? [Church and Society: Together or Separately?] - https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115295
6. Tutina U. «Svyatoy svet»: mogut li uchenye obyasnit skhozhdenie blagodatnogo ognya? ["Holy Light": can scientists explain the convergence of the blessed fire?] Argumenty i Fakty [Arguments and Facts] № 16 19/04/2017
7. Nesterov A.I. Meshchanstvo. Teoriya mesta obshchestva [Philistinism. Theory of the place of society]. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing is managed by OmniScriptum AraPers GmbH Project number: 170694 ISBN 978-613-5-85376-6. 2018 г.
8. Muldashev E.R. Ot kogo my proizoshli? [Who did we origin from?] Ufa, OOO Izdatelstvo «Chitayushchiy chelovek», 2016.
9. Bekhtereva N. P. Magiya mozga i labirinty zhizni [The magic of brain and the labyrinths of life]. SPb, Notabene, 1999.
10. Efstratios Theodossiou, Vassilios N.Manimanis, Milan S. Dimitrijević. THE COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES OF THE PRE-SOCRATIC GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT / Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History Vol. 10, No1, 2011, pp. 89 – 99
11. Frederick Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. - Resistance Books, 2004 – p. 13
12. Frederick Engels. The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. - International publisher, New York, 1950. – 28 p.
13. Savitskiy P.N. Ponyatiya i kategorii. Vspomogatelnyy proekt portala KhRONOS [Concepts and categories. Auxiliary project of the CHRONOS portal] - https://ponjatija.ru/node/591
14. Milyukov P.N. Ocherki po istorii russkoy kultury [Essays on history of Russian culture]. Vol. 1. М., Progress-Cultura, 1993. P. 67
15. Savitskiy P.N. Geograficheskiy obzor Rossii — Yevrazii /Kontinent Yevraziya [Geographical Overview of Russia - Eurasia / Continent of Eurasia]. М., Agraf, 1997. P. 293
16. Charles Darwin. On the origins of species by means of natural selection. - LONDON:JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, 1859 – p. 347
17. Charles Darwin. On the origins of species by means of natural selection. - LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, 1859 – p. 171-181
18. Dmitriy Yevstifeev. Evolyutsiya papy Rimskogo [Pope evolution]. «Gazeta.Ru». 28.10.2014. - https://www.gazeta.ru/social/2014/10/28/6280321.shtml
19. Kirill Gorbunov. Milena Faustova. Papa priznal teoriyu evolyutsii, naskolko eto vozmozhno [Pope recognized the theory of evolution as far as possible] – RKTs. Religiya i mirovozzrenie. MOSKVA, 29 okt – RIA Novosti,, 29.10.2014.- https://ria.ru/religion/20141029/1030810998.html
20. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper Perennial, 2008. – 173 p.
21. Drobyshevskiy S.V. Metody poznaniya bytiya. Kreatsionizm [Methods of cognition of being. Creationism], Dostayushchee zveno [Found missing link], ANTROPOGENEZ.RU https://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/10/
22. Drobyshevskiy S.V. Chto otlichaet nas ot obezyan? Unikalnye priznaki cheloveka. [What makes us different from monkeys? Unique signs of man], Dostayushchee zveno [Found missing link], ANTROPOGENEZ.RU - https://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/18/
23. Drobyshevskiy S.V. Sledy nevedomykh krityan. Gominidy na Krite 5,7 mln let nazad? Novosti antropologii [Traces of unknown Cretans. Were there Hominids in Crete 5.7 million years ago? Anthropology News] 02.09.2017 https://antropogenez.ru/single-news/article/685/
24. Gerard D.Gierliński, Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki. Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete? - Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. - Volume 128, Issues 5–6, October 2017, Pages 697-710
25. Frederick Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. - Resistance Books, 2004 - 180 p.
26. Porshnev B.F.. O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii (problemy paleopsikhologii) [On the beginning of human history (the problems of paleopsychology)]. Mysl, Moscow, 1974.
27. Sahney, S; Benton, MJ; Ferry, PA. Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land. / Biology Letters, Vol. 6, 2010, p. 544 – 547
28. Michael J. Benton. When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time. - Thames & Hudson, 2015. - p. 157-158
29. Sahney, S; Benton, MJ; Ferry, PA. Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land. / Biology Letters, Vol. 6, 2010, p. 544 – 547
30. Nesterov A.I. Meshchanstvo. Teoriya mesta obshchestva [Philistinism. Theory of the place of society].: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing is managed by OmniScriptum AraPers GmbH номер проекта 152876. ISBN 978-3-330-04715-0. 2017 г. С.20.
31. Nesterov A.I. My – meshchanstvo!?... Teoriya mesta obshchestva [We are philistiners!?... Theory of the place of society.]. SPb: «DMITRIY BULANIN». 2013. С.58.]
32. Gaston Bachelard. The psychoanalysis of fire. - Beacon Press, 1964 - 115 p
33. Valeriy Zosim. Evolyutsiya predkov cheloveka [Evolution of the ancestors of man]. M., Boslen», 2008.
34. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper Perennial, 2008 – p. 136
35. James, Steven R. (February 1989). «Hominidae Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence». Current Anthropology (University of Chicago Press) 30 (1): 1–26. DOI:10.1086/203705. Проверено 2007-11-12
36. Frederick Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. - Resistance Books, 2004 - 180 p.
Fig. 1. The influence of terrain conditions in anthropogenesis.
