Ma `lumot

Nima uchun maymunlar hali ham mavjud?


Agar biz maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsak, nega hamma maymunlar rivojlanib, odamga aylanmaydi?

Yoki

Nima uchun hozirgi maymun odam bo'lish uchun rivojlanishni to'xtatadi?


Men bu javob uchun hech qanday havolalar qo'yish bilan bezovta qilmoqchi emasman, chunki barcha ma'lumotlar Google qidiruvi uzoqda.

Odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lmagan. Hozirgi odamlar va maymunlar umumiy ajdoddan kelib chiqqan. Bu umumiy ajdoddan bir nasl rivojlanib, maymunlarga aylandi. Yana bir nasl-nasab odamga aylanib ketdi.

Ba'zi materiallar bu erda va bu erda o'rganiladi.


Agar "umumiy ajdod" ni ta'riflab bo'lmasa, bu filogenetik tiz cho'kish javobi savol tug'diradi. Odamlar taksonomik jihatdan maymunlardan ajratib bo'lmaydigan hayvonlardan paydo bo'lgan. Filogenetiklar umumiy ajdodlarni tushuntirishga murojaat qilishadi, chunki ularning tahlili aslida klaster tahlilining bir shakli bo'lib, bu erda belgilar guruhlari dixotom ravishda kichikroq belgilar guruhlariga bo'linadi. Bu evolyutsiya modeli emas.


Sumatra orangutanining mo'ynasi Borneo orangutaniga qaraganda qizg'ishroq, erkaklarning yonoqlari kamroq aniq va ko'pincha oq sochlar bilan qoplangan. Sumatra orangutanlari ham Bornealik qarindoshlariga qaraganda yerda kamroq vaqt o'tkazadilar. Mutaxassislarning taxminiga ko'ra, yuqorida qolishga orangutanlarni ham ovlaydigan Sumatra yo'lbarsi bo'lishi mumkin.

Buyuk maymunlar - biz kabi primatlar


Negrolar odamlardan ko'ra maymunlarga yaqinroqmi?

Negrning bosh suyagi Oq bosh suyagiga qaraganda kichikroq miya hajmi va qalinroq kranial suyaklarga ega bo'lishidan tashqari, prognatli, ya'ni pastki yuzi hayvonning tumshug'i kabi oldinga cho'zilgan. Negro jag'i kengligiga nisbatan Oq jag'ga qaraganda ancha uzunroqdir. Negro pastki jag'ining o'ziga xos xususiyati shundaki, u kesma tishlarning orqasida joylashgan "simian shelf" ning qoldiqlarini saqlab qoladi. Simian tokchasi maymunlarning o'ziga xos xususiyati bo'lib, oqlarda yo'q.

Ular maymunlarga o'xshash o'ziga xos tajovuzkor tana hidini chiqaradilar.

Ularning qora terisi ularni shiddatli Afrika quyoshidan himoya qilganidek, ular o'sha qizg'in quyoshda ortiqcha kuch sarflamaslik uchun dangasa.

Negrning qo'llari va oyoqlari yevropaliklarga qaraganda nisbatan uzunroq. Humerus qisqaroq va bilak uzunroq bo'lib, maymun shakliga yaqinlashadi.

Ko'z ko'pincha gorillaga o'xshab sarg'ish scierotic paltoga ega.

Negroning tanasi qisqaroq, ko'krak qafasi oqlarga qaraganda ko'proq dumaloq. Maymunga o'xshaydi.

Tos suyagi maymundagidek torroq va uzunroq.

Negrning bo'yni maymunnikiga o'xshash kattaroq va qisqaroq.

Quloqlar yumaloq, juda kichik, bir oz baland va ajratilgan, shuning uchun maymun shakliga yaqinlashadi.

Jag' kattaroq va kuchliroq bo'lib, tashqariga chiqadi, u pastki orqaga tortilgan peshona bilan birga, evropaliklar uchun 80 dan 82 darajagacha bo'lgan yuz burchagidan farqli o'laroq, maymun kabi 68 dan 70 darajagacha yuz burchagini beradi.

Negroda umurtqa pog'onasining uchta egri chizig'i oq rangga qaraganda kamroq aniqlanadi va shuning uchun maymunga xosdir.

Burunning ikkita suyagi, maymunlardagi kabi, vaqti-vaqti bilan birlashadi.

Taksonomlar va genetiklar negrolarni turli turlar deb tasniflash kerak, deb hisoblashadi. Darvin “Odamning kelib chiqishi” asarida negrlar shu qadar farqlanadiki, boshqa har qanday hayvonda ham mavjud boʻlgan oʻxshash farqlar ularni boshqa tur sifatida tasniflashni kafolatlashini taʼkidlagan.

Adabiyotlar:
Coon, Carleton S. The Origin of Races, 1962, Alfred A. Knopf
Howells, Uilyam. Insoniyat hozirgacha, Doubleday, Garden City, NY
Weisman, Charlz A. Irq va tsivilizatsiyaning kelib chiqishi, 1990 yil


Yaratilish tadqiqot instituti

Bu savol ko'pincha evolyutsiyaga ishonmaydiganlar orasida paydo bo'ladi. Va bu ko'pchilik odamlarning kalamushlar, baliqlar va bir hujayrali organizmlardan primatlar orqali paydo bo'lganiga ishonmasligi haqiqatini ta'kidlasa-da, evolyutsionistlarning bunga tayyor javobi borligiga e'tibor bermaydi.

Birinchidan, evolyutsionistlar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan degan fikrni qat'iyan rad etadilar. Ularning ta'kidlashicha, odam ham, maymun ham faraziy maymunga o'xshash ajdoddan kelib chiqqan, buning dalillari hali topilmagan.

Ikkinchidan, evolyutsiya bir tipning barcha a'zolari boshqa tipga aylanganini emas, balki faqat boshqalardan genetik jihatdan ajratilgan kichik bir individlar guruhi evolyutsiyaga uchrab, qolganlari o'zgarishsiz qoladi, deb taklif qiladi.

Idrokli odam bu ikkala nuqta ham hikoya qilishdan boshqa narsa emasligini tushunadi. Faraziy maymunga o'xshash ajdod mavjud emas va u hech qachon mavjud bo'lganiga hech qanday dalil yo'q. "Periferik izolatlar" da'vosi o'rinli bo'lib tuyulishi mumkin va so'nggi paytlarda ajratilgan guruhlar moslashish orqali yangi belgilarga ega bo'lgan misollar mavjud, biroq hech bir guruhning hech biri tasodifiy mutatsiyalar natijasida maymun yoki maymundan odam hosil bo'lishi kabi yangi ishlaydigan genlar to'plamini olmagan. -kabi ajdod talab qiladi.

Nega bizda hali ham maymunlar bor deb so'rash o'rniga, nega bizda maymunga o'xshash faraziy ajdod, haqiqiy etishmayotgan bo'g'in yo'q, deb so'rashimiz kerak. Yoki, nega bizda kerakli oraliq shakllar yo'q? Bunday o'zgarish qanday sodir bo'lishi mumkin? O'tish davridagi shaxslarning soni oz bo'lganligi va shuning uchun toshga aylanib, topilishi dargumon, degan da'volar ichi bo'sh halqalardir. Haqiqat shundaki, bizda ular yo'q! Evolyutsiya haqidagi da'volar faqat hikoyalardir. Ularning hikoyasida inson va maymunlar taxminan etti million yil oldin xayoliy ajdoddan ajralib chiqishgan. Albatta, ba'zilari toshga aylangan bo'lar edi.

Bundan tashqari, bunday o'tish qanday sodir bo'lishi mumkinligini so'rashimiz kerak. Yangi genlarni olishning yagona yo'li mavjud genlarni tasodifiy mutatsiya orqali o'zgartirishdir. Ilm-fan kuzatilgan eng yaxshi o'zgarishlar faqat yangi rekombinatsiyalarni keltirib chiqardi - ularning aksariyati genetik ma'lumotni buzadi va shu bilan naslga zarar etkazadi. Ko'pgina mutatsiyalar o'limga olib keladi. Evolyutsiya talab qiladi trillionlar Innovatsion mutatsiyalar insonni quyi shakllardan, va kamida millionlab odam yoki maymunga o'xshash ajdoddan maymunlarni ishlab chiqarish. Hech kim kuzatilmagan.

Evolyutsiya ertaklari xayoliy tarix haqidagi psevdo-ilmiy hikoyalardir. Evolyutsiya insonning Yaratguvchisiz mavjudligini tushuntirishga urinib, Xudoga qarshi kelib chiqishi haqidagi afsona sifatida yaxshi tushuniladi. Biz yaxshiroq qila olamiz.

*Dr. Jon D. Morris - Yaratilish tadqiqotlari instituti prezidenti.


Agar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega barcha maymunlar bir xil tezlikda rivojlanmagan?

Birinchidan, nima uchun ular bir xil tezlikda rivojlanishi kerak? Evolyutsiya fitnalar bo'yicha harakat qiladi va boshlanadi. O'zgarmas muhitga yaxshi moslashgan turning o'zi uzoq vaqt o'zgarishsiz qolishi mumkin. Mutatsiyalar ko'proq yoki kamroq doimiy tezlikda sodir bo'lishi mumkin, ammo aksariyat mutatsiyalar afzallik bermaydi. Ko'pchilik halokatli. O'limga olib kelmaydiganlarning aksariyati zararli. O'zgaruvchan muhit asosiy envolyutsion harakatlantiruvchi vositadir. Insoniyatning ajdodlari o'rmon uyi savannaga aylanganda shakllangan.

Ikkinchidan, ular bir xil tezlikda rivojlanmayotganini qayerdan bilasiz? Ular odamlarnikidan boshqacha yo'l tutgan bo'lishi mumkin.

Ular qildilar. Zamonaviy maymunlarning barchasi bir xil darajada rivojlangan.
Bir tur o'tloqda yashash uchun rivojlangan, tsivilizatsiyani ixtiro qilgan, lekin hali ham raqamli soatlarni yaxshi g'oya deb hisoblaydi (HitchHikerdan iqtibos).
Boshqa turlar o'rmonlarda yashash va barglarni iste'mol qilish uchun rivojlangan.

Siz shartlarga biroz ehtiyot bo'lishingiz kerak. Odamlar / shimpanzeler / gorillalar hammasi (afrika) maymunlardir. Biz hammamiz maymun bo'lgan avvalgi turlardan kelib chiqqanmiz - bu biz hozirgi maymun turlaridan kelib chiqqanimizni anglatmaydi.

Mayli, unda. Demak, "Nega maymunlar hali ham mavjud?" degan kreatsionistik savolga javob "kvotaplar ham evolyutsiyaga uchragan, lekin ular boshqacharoq narsaga aylangan" bo'lar edi? Bu to'g'rimi eshitiladimi?

Mayli, unda. Demak, "Nega maymunlar hali ham mavjud?" degan kreatsionistik savolga javob "kvotaplar ham evolyutsiyaga uchragan, lekin ular boshqa narsaga aylangan" bo'lar edi? Bu to'g'rimi eshitiladimi?

Yaratuvchi somonchi "Agar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega maymunlar hali ham mavjud?".

- Yuqorida aytib o'tilganidek, odamlar boshqa zamonaviy maymunlardan yoki hozirgi tirik turlardan evolyutsiyaga uchramagan.
- Hozirgi odamlarning ham, hozirgi maymunlarning ham mavjud bo'lishining sababi, dastlab geografik ajralishlar bo'lgan, buning natijasida turli turlar ajralib chiqqan va turli muhitlarga moslashgan.
- Zamonaviy odamlar va maymunlar aynan bir xil vaqt oralig'ida rivojlangan.

Bu aql bovar qilmaydigan darajada dahshatli somonchi.

Mahalliy muhit evolyutsion o'zgarishlarning asosiy omilidir. Aytaylik, bitta hududdagi muhit o'zgaradi. Qit'alar ajralib chiqadi, tog' zanjirlari hosil bo'ladi, yarim orollar orollarga aylanadi, o'rmonlar quriydi. Bularning barchasi alohida populyatsiyalarga moyil. Evolyutsion bosim global emas, balki mahalliy bo'ladi. Populyatsiyaning bir alohida segmentidagi evolyutsion o'zgarishlar sehrli ravishda tog' zanjirlari yoki okeanlar bo'ylab teleportatsiya qilmaydi.

Bunga misollar uchun google "ring types".

"Ko'proq" rivojlandi. Men buni eshitganimda har doim kulib yuboradi. :)

EDIT: Orqaga qaytsam, bu aytilmagan deb o'ylayman, lekin u nazarda tutilgan edi. :O

Shuni yodda tutingki, shimpanze gorilladan ko'ra genetik jihatdan odamga ko'proq o'xshaydi.

Men IDist/Yaratilishchining "Agar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega hali ham maymunlar bor?" degan da'vosiga eshitgan odatiy javobim shu.

Agar hozirgi amerikaliklarning ko'pchiligi yevropalik bo'lsa, nega hali ham yevropaliklar bor?

Agar ular o'z fikrlarini ushbu kontseptsiya atrofida o'rab olsalar, ular o'z savollariga javobni tushunishlari mumkin. Men ular Evolyutsiyani tushunishadimi yoki yo'qmi, degan savolga biroz beadablik bilan qarayman. lekin hech bo'lmaganda bu qadam.

O'ylaymanki, keyingi savol quyidagicha bo'lishi mumkin:
Agar hamma avval kreatsionist bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega haligacha kreatsionistlar bor?

Yuqorida juda yaxshi tushuntirilganidek, zamonaviy odamlar va zamonaviy maymunlarning umumiy ajdodlari bo'lib, ikki populyatsiya ajralib chiqqan, biz to'g'ridan-to'g'ri zamonaviy maymunlardan chiziqli rivojlanmaganmiz.

Bu aql bovar qilmaydigan darajada dahshatli somonchi.

Mahalliy muhit evolyutsion o'zgarishlarning asosiy omilidir. Aytaylik, bitta hududdagi muhit o'zgaradi. Qit'alar ajralib chiqadi, tog' zanjirlari hosil bo'ladi, yarim orollar orollarga aylanadi, o'rmonlar quriydi. Bularning barchasi alohida populyatsiyalarga moyil. Evolyutsion bosim global emas, balki mahalliy bo'ladi. Aholining alohida bir qismidagi evolyutsion o'zgarishlar sehrli ravishda tog' zanjirlari yoki okeanlar bo'ylab teleportatsiya qilmaydi.

Bunga misollar uchun google "ring types".

Bu, shuningdek, kreatsionistning yana bir sevimli da'vosi bo'lgan qazilma qoldiqlarida topilgan "bo'shliqlar" ni ham tushuntiradi.

"Gaps" - aynan biz kutishimiz kerak bo'lgan narsa!

Agar bitta tur 2 ta alohida guruhga bo'linsa va har bir guruh oxir-oqibat 2 xil muhitga duchor bo'lsa (aytaylik, ular tog' tizmasi bo'ylab ko'chib o'tishsa), har bir guruh mahalliy geografik omillar tufayli mustaqil ravishda rivojlanadi, oxir-oqibat ular o'zlarining rivojlanish darajasiga etadi. aslida ikki xil tur.

Aytaylik, bir tur ko'p ming yillar davomida tog' tizmasidan o'tib, boshqa turlar bilan qaytadan birlashadi. Mana sizda bir tur boshqa turga aylangan va hech qanday "o'tish fotoalbomlari" topilmagan.

Chunki bu odamlar oziq-ovqat kamroq bo'lgan ancha og'irroq muhitda yashaydilar va tirik qolish uchun o'z resurslarining ko'p qismini sarflashlari kerak edi. Ijodkorlik uchun bo'sh vaqt va ularni amalga oshirish uchun resurslarga imkon beradigan barqaror jamiyatdagina eng muhim yutuqlarni ko'rasiz.

Hatto bizning zamonaviy texnologiyamiz bilan ham, biz hali ham bu cho'l hududlarning ko'p qismini 24/7 quvvat va tegishli kanalizatsiya tizimlari, oziq-ovqat va boshqalar bilan ta'minlay olmaymiz.

Chunki bu odamlar oziq-ovqat kamroq bo'lgan ancha og'irroq muhitda yashaydilar va tirik qolish uchun o'z resurslarining ko'p qismini sarflashlari kerak edi. Ijodkorlik uchun bo'sh vaqt va ularni amalga oshirish uchun resurslarga imkon beradigan barqaror jamiyatdagina eng muhim yutuqlarni ko'rasiz.

Hatto bizning zamonaviy texnologiyamiz bilan ham, biz bu cho'l hududlarning ko'p qismini 24/7 quvvat va tegishli kanalizatsiya tizimlari, oziq-ovqat va boshqalar bilan ta'minlay olmaymiz.

Aslida, bu teskari. Nima uchun mo''tadil iqlim sharoitida yashovchi odamlar loy kulbalarda yashaydilar? Texnologik yutuqlar texnologiyani talab qiladigan darajada qattiq muhitda odamlardan kelgan, ammo texnologiya yordamida biz omon qolish uchun zarur bo'lgan yutuqlardan tashqari bo'sh vaqtga ega bo'ldik.

Faqat oddiy vositalar yordamida yashay oladiganlar hali ham oddiy vositalardan foydalanmoqda. Juda sodda bo'lish uchun.

"Nima uchun maymunlar/maymunlar va hokazolar hali ham mavjud" degan fikrning asosiy kamchiligi shundaki, u evolyutsiya sodir bo'lganda, "ibtidoiy" turlarning barchasi mistik tarzda "yuqori" turga aylanadi, degan asosga asoslanadi. Evolyutsiya umuman bunday emas.

Ba'zida "kamroq" evolyutsiyaga uchragan tur o'rnini yanada rivojlangan tur egallaydi, lekin bu darhol sodir bo'lmaydi va bu avvalgi turlarning evolyutsiyasi umuman to'xtagan degani emas. Bu ularning "ajdodlari" turlari bilan birga yashaydigan "ko'proq" rivojlangan turlarni ko'rganimizda aniq bo'ladi. xuddi shu paytni o'zida.
Boshqalar ta'kidlaganidek, bugungi kunda biz bilgan maymunlar odamga aylanmaganligini ta'kidlaganidek, siz qanday so'zlayotganingizni kuzatishingiz kerak. Evolyutsiya shuni ko'rsatadiki, bizning umumiy ajdodimiz bor.

Bakteriyalar juda tez yashaydigan avlodlarga ega va juda uzoq vaqtdan beri mavjud. Aytish mumkinki, zamonaviy bakteriyalar er yuzidagi eng rivojlangan organizmlardir, agar odam shu atamalarda gapirishga majbur bo'lsa. Turlarni bir-biriga solishtirganda "ko'proq rivojlangan" yoki "ibtidoiy" atamalarini ishlatish juda yomon fikr. Biz hammamiz eng so'nggi modelmiz: bakteriyalar, kitlar, timsohlar, akulalar, shimpanzelar, odamlar va hozir mavjud bo'lgan boshqa barcha tirik mavjudotlar eng ko'p (yaxshiroq so'z yo'qligi uchun) "advanced" versiyasidir.

"Timsohlar va akulalar tirik qoldiqlar" kabi bayonotlar bilan tabiat namoyishlari haqiqatan ham odamlarni chalg'itadi. Har qanday tabiat namoyishi "tirik qazilma" deb aytishi mumkin bo'lgan narsaga qaramay, turlar o'z vaqtida muzlatilmaydi. Ushbu dasturlarda ko'plab hikoyachilarning bu da'volarini eshitganimdan so'ng, men odamlarni boshqa maymun turlari odamlarning "tirik qoldiqlari" deb noto'g'ri o'ylashlarida ayblay olmayman.

Aslida, bu teskari. Nima uchun mo''tadil iqlim sharoitida yashovchi odamlar loy kulbalarda yashaydilar? Texnologik yutuqlar texnologiyani talab qiladigan darajada qattiq muhitda odamlardan kelgan, ammo texnologiya yordamida biz omon qolish uchun zarur bo'lgan yutuqlardan tashqari bo'sh vaqtga ega bo'ldik.

Faqat oddiy vositalar yordamida yashay oladiganlar hali ham oddiy vositalardan foydalanmoqda. Juda sodda bo'lish uchun.

To'g'ri emas. Gretsiyaning ekin maydonlari kam va tog'lar bilan qoplangan. Evropaning aksariyat qismida qishda qor yog'adi. Shunga qaramay, Evropa - asosan Gretsiya, Rim va Buyuk Britaniya - tropik Afrika mamlakatlari emas, balki ilm-fan, siyosat, tilshunoslik va siz nomlashni istagan deyarli barcha mavzulardagi eng katta yutuqlarni ko'rgan. Resurs jihatidan bu mamlakatlarning hech birida diqqatga sazovor narsa yo'q.

Hozir Afrikaga qarang va siz eng qashshoq mamlakatlar Sahroi Kabirdan janubda joylashganligini ko'rasiz va ular mo'l-ko'l yog'ingarchilik, yam-yashil o'rmonlar, mo'l-ko'l resurslar va yil davomida ajoyib iqlimga ega bo'lgan quruqlikda yotadi. Aynan Sahroi Kabir cho'lidagi mamlakatlar nisbatan yaxshi ta'minlangan.

Ta'kidlanishicha, san-bushmenlar (o'sha chertish bilan gapiradiganlar) ko'proq chekka hududlarga surilganiga qaramay, omon qolish uchun kuniga bir necha soat ishlashlari kerak. Va bu odatda ovchi-yig'uvchi turmush tarziga tegishli. Ammo qishloq xo'jaligiga o'tish bilan og'ir mehnat ixtiro qilindi.

Yigirmanchi asrning ovchi-yig'uvchilari haqiqatan ham fermerlardan ko'ra yomonroqmi? Butun dunyo bo'ylab tarqalib ketgan, Kalaxari Bushmenlar kabi bir necha o'nlab ibtidoiy odamlar guruhlari o'zlarini shu tarzda qo'llab-quvvatlamoqdalar. Ma'lum bo'lishicha, bu odamlarning bo'sh vaqtlari ko'p, yaxshi uxlashadi va dehqon qo'shnilariga qaraganda kamroq ishlaydi. Misol uchun, har biriga ajratilgan o'rtacha vaqt
Bushmenlarning bir guruhi uchun oziq-ovqat olish haftasi o'n ikki-o'n to'qqiz soatni tashkil qiladi,
Tanzaniyaning Hadza ko'chmanchilari uchun o'n to'rt soat yoki undan kamroq vaqt. Bir Bushman nima uchun qishloq xo'jaligini o'zlashtirib, qo'shni qabilalarga taqlid qilmagani haqida so'rashganida, "Dunyoda mongongo yong'oqlari ko'p ekan, nega biz kerak?"

Oʻtroq oziq-ovqat ishlab chiqarishi serflar/qullar/dehqonlarga asoslangan sinfiy tizimning oʻsishiga imkon berdi. Shunday qilib, ba'zilar yuqori intellektual mashg'ulotlar bilan shug'ullanish uchun bo'sh vaqtga ega edilar.

Fors, yunon va rim madaniyatlari anchagina qullarga qaram edi - bu ba'zilar uchun qattiqroq edi.

Iqlim intellektual taraqqiyotni tushuntirmaydi. Ammo ixtisoslashuvga imkon beradigan mehnat ierarxiyasi. Va keyin eng muhimi savdo mamlakati bo'lishdir. Ichkaridan ko'ra tashqi, muvozanatdan ko'ra kashfiyot, madaniy ksenofobiyadan ko'ra madaniyatlar uchun yo'llar kesishadi.

Albatta, siz homo sapiens haqidagi ehtimol bizni muzlik davriga itarib yuborganligi haqida da'vo qilishingiz mumkin. Bir qator raqib hominidlar (shu jumladan neandertallar) mavjud edi va iqlim o'zgarishining bunday ketma-ketligi bilan miyalar oxir-oqibat qo'zg'aluvchanlikdan ustun keldi. Demak, u erda iqlim sabab omil bo'lishi mumkin.

Spekulyativ, ammo ishonarli.

"Agar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega hamma maymunlar bir xil tezlikda rivojlanmagan?"

Nima uchun barcha tirik organizmlar bir xil va farqlanmaydi? Bunga javob bering va siz savolingizga javob bering.

Men ushbu suhbat mavzusiga ozgina ziravor qo'shmoqchiman. 2010 yil 1 martdagi so'nggi maqola Buyuk maymun ishonchi , kashf qilish uchun ajoyib joy, foydali bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan chuqur ma'lumot beradi. Maqoladan bir parcha Agar bonobo Kanzi odamlarga o'xshab ko'rsata olsa, tarbiyalash yana qanday o'xshashliklarni ko'rsatishi mumkin?

Odamlar orasida ishora universal til bo'lib, xabarni etkazish uchun og'zaki so'zlarga muqobildir. Chaqaloqlar gapirishdan oldin, olimlarning fikriga ko'ra, imo-ishora so'zni o'rganish bilan chambarchas bog'liq. Ammo maymun ishora qilganda, olimlar ishora qilish o'ziga xos insoniy xulq-atvormi, degan savolga javob berishadi. Zamonaviy primatologiyada dunyoning ba'zi etakchi ovozlari, maymunlar odam ishorasiga o'xshash tarzda imo-ishora qilishlari mumkin bo'lsa-da, maymunlar va odamlar o'rtasidagi genetik va kognitiv farqlar shunchalik kattaki, maymunlarning signallari o'ziga xos maqsad yo'qligini ta'kidlaydilar.

Unday emas, deydi yaqinda chop etilgan ilmiy maqolasida “Nega maymunlar nuqtasi: tilga layoqatli pan/homo bonobolarning o‘z-o‘zidan suhbatida ishora qiluvchi imo-ishoralar” deb ta’kidlaganlar, bu nafaqat Kanzi, Panbanisha va Nyota o‘z nuqtai nazariga ishora qiladi. Suhbatda ko'rsatkich barmoqlarini inson sifatida ishlatsa, bu bonobolar buni aniq niyat va maqsadlarni hisobga olgan holda qiladilar.

Buyuk Maymun Trust tomonidan ishora qilgan bonobolar - ingliz tilida og'zaki nutqni qabul qilish qobiliyatiga ega bo'lgan dunyoda yagona bonobolar va qo'l imo-ishoralarini bajaradigan boshqa tutqun maymunlar o'rtasidagi farq, maqola mualliflariga ko'ra, ular tarbiyalangan madaniyat bilan izohlanadi: Janni. Pedersen, Ayova shtati universiteti fanlari nomzodi. Buyuk Maymun Trustda dissertatsiyasi uchun tadqiqot olib borayotgan nomzod, tilga oid bir qancha falsafiy tadqiqotlarni nashr etgan shvetsiyalik olim Pär Segerdal va inson bo'lmagan primatlarda til, madaniyat va vositalarni o'rganuvchi etnograf Uilyam M. Filds. Filds, shuningdek, Buyuk Ape Trustning ilmiy tadqiqotlar bo'yicha direktori.

Kanzi, Panbanisha va Nyota ko'rsatish maqsadi bor madaniyatda tarbiyalanganligi sababli - The Trustning o'ziga xos belgisi Pan/Homo muhiti, bu erda chaqaloq bonobolar bonobo (Pan paniscus) va inson (Homo sapiens) ta'sirida tarbiyalanadi - ularning ishorasi ilmiy jihatdan bir xil. Ularning ingliz tilini tushunishlari mazmunli, dedi Fields.

Great Ape Trust ilmiy tadqiqot direktori Uilyam M. Fields Ayova shtati universiteti talabasi Janni Pedersen bilan bonobolar bilan dissertatsiya tadqiqoti olib borayotgani bilan suhbatlashmoqda. Buyuk Ape Trust fotosurati.

Yo'naltiruvchi tadqiqot tarbiya madaniyatining kognitiv imkoniyatlarga ta'siri bo'yicha oldingi tadqiqotlarni, jumladan, doktor Dueyn Rumbaugh, doktor Sue Savage-Rumbough va Fieldsning 40 yillik tadqiqot korpusini qo'llab-quvvatlaydi va asoslaydi. Buyuk maymun ishonchi. Ushbu tadqiqotlar Kanzi va boshqa og'zaki ingliz tilini qabul qilish qobiliyatiga ega bo'lgan boshqa bonobolarning go'daklik davridanoq inson bolalari kabi o'zlashtirganliklari haqidagi kashfiyotni o'z ichiga oladi. Bonobolar xuddi shu sabablarga ko'ra barmoq bilan ishora qilish xatti-harakatlarini qabul qilishgan, chunki ular ishora ma'nosi bor madaniyatda tarbiyalangan.

"Biz maymunlar va odamlar genetik jihatdan juda chambarchas bog'liq bo'lsa-da, madaniyatda eng keskin farq qiladi, deb bahslashdik", dedi Filds. “Ishora qilish madaniyatning funktsiyasidir. Agar Kanzi tarbiya vazifasi sifatida qila oladigan narsalarni qila olsa, bu odamlar uchun nimani anglatadi?

Fieldsning ta'kidlashicha, madaniyatning buyuk maymunlarning kognitiv qobiliyatlariga ta'sirini o'rganish olimlarga rivojlanish kechikishlariga olib keladigan inson kasalliklari haqida ko'proq ma'lumot olishga yordam beradi. "Bu, masalan, Daun sindromi yoki insonning normal ifodasini cheklaydigan boshqa genetik o'zgarishlarda madaniy kuchlar tomonidan genlarning chegaralarini qanday bosib o'tishingiz haqidagi to'liq savolni ochadi", dedi u. “Madaniyatning autistik spektr buzilishlarini yumshatish strategiyasi sifatidagi roli qanday? IQ madaniyatning vazifasimi?”

Ushbu savollarga javob berish olimlarni epigenezning rolini - genetik kodning ifodalanishiga atrof-muhitning ta'sirini - tibbiyot, ta'lim va texnologiyani o'z ichiga olgan turli fanlarda aniqlashga bir qadam yaqinlashtiradi.

Great Ape Trust olimlari evolyutsiya va aloqa bo'yicha yetakchi mutaxassis Maykl Tomasello tomonidan yozilgan maqolani rad etish maqsadida tadqiqot o'tkazdilar. Germaniyadagi Maks Plank nomidagi evolyutsion antropologiya instituti direktori Tomasello “Nega maymunlar ishora qilmaydi” asarida ta’kidlaganidek, tutqun maymunlar ishora qilib ko‘rinsa ham, maymunlar va odamlar o‘rtasidagi genetik va kognitiv tafovutlar shunchalik kattaki. imo-ishora ortida aniq maqsad yo'q.

Pedersen va boshqalar. Koʻrsatkich barmogʻini koʻrsatish keng tarqalgan madaniyatda oʻstirilmagan maymun, shu jumladan, tutqun maymunlarning koʻpchiligi bu imo-ishorani koʻrsatishi kutilmaydi, deb taʼkidladi. Olimlar, shuningdek, ishora yovvoyi bonobolar va boshqa buyuk maymunlar o'z-o'zidan paydo bo'ladigan xatti-harakat bo'lmasa-da, bu ularning genetik yoki kognitiv jihatdan xatti-harakatni o'rganishga qodir emasligini anglatmaydi.

"Tomaselloning argumenti shubhali empirik dalillarga asoslanadi", deb yozgan Pedersen va uning hamkasblari, "chunki eksperimental tadqiqotlarda maymunlar tegishli ravishda o'stirilmagan. Til madaniyatiga ega maymunlar ishora qilishiga dalil keltirish orqali odamlar va maymunlar o'rtasidagi kognitiv farqlar haqidagi taxminlarni ham nazariy, ham empirik asosda shubha ostiga qo'yish kerak.

Nova Science Publishers Inc. tomonidan nashr etilgan va Emil Potocki va Juliusz Krasinski tomonidan tahrirlangan Primatologiya: nazariyalar, usullar va tadqiqotlar bo'limiga Buyuk Maymun Trust olimlarining tadqiqotiga asoslangan bob kiritilgan.


Nega hali ham maymunlar bor?

Bir paytlar Kvint Enniy ismli Rim muallifi shunday deb yozgan edi: "Bu juda xunuk hayvon, maymun bizga qanchalik o'xshaydi!" Buni Tsitseron va undan Bekon, Montaigne va boshqalar keltirgan. Lekin har doim maymunlar deb o'ylashgan (simiya, so'zma-so'z "o'xshashlar") o'sha paytda maymunlarni o'z ichiga olgan va biz hozir befarq maymun deb ataydigan narsalar har qanday ma'noda odamlardan ajralib turardi. Tsitseron Enniusdan iqtibos keltirganidan keyin aytganidek, xarakter boshqacha.

Ammo keyin 18-asrda shved botanik olimi Karol Linney paydo bo'ldi va u kreatsionist bo'lishiga qaramay, u maymunlar, maymunlar va odamlarni bir guruhga qo'ying (Primata, so'zma-so'z, "birinchi bo'lganlar") va eng yomoni, maymunlar va odamlar bitta jins, Homo. U Iogann Georg Gmelinga yozgan

Men odamlarni primatlar qatoriga qo'yganim ma'qul emas, lekin inson o'zini o'zi biladi. Keling, so'zlarni yo'ldan chiqaraylik. Ularga qanday nom berishsa, men bilan teng bo'ladi. Ammo men sizdan va butun dunyodan tabiiy tarix tamoyillariga muvofiq odamlar va simianlar o'rtasidagi umumiy farqni so'rayman. Men, albatta, hech kimni bilmayman. Qani endi kimdir menga aytsa! Agar men odamni maymun deb atasam yoki aksincha, barcha ilohiyotchilarni o'zimga qarshi to'plagan bo'lardim. Ehtimol, men [tabiiy tarix] fanining qonuniga muvofiq bo'lishim kerak edi.

Shunga qaramay, ilohiyotchilar odamlar va maymunlarning nima sababdan bir xil sinfga joylashtirilishiga e'tiroz bildirishdi va 1775 yilda Blumenbax tasnifni qayta ko'rib chiqdilar, shunda odamlar odamlarning yagona a'zolari bo'lishdi. Homo va shimpanzelarning yagona a'zolari Pan. Haqiqiy sabab ko'rsatilmagan, chunki bu intuitiv (o'qing: "diniy") va ma'murlar o'zlariga ma'qul ko'rinadigan, aytilgan yoki aytilmagan narsalarga asoslanib tasniflashlari kerak bo'lgan davr aniq edi.

Bu meni doimiy kreatsion kanardga olib keladi (yo'q, bu o'rdak emas): Agar odamlar maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, nega maymunlar hali ham mavjud??

Bu savolning ikki tomoni bor: biri evolyutsiyaning har qanday zamonaviy nuqtai nazari "tur" ning faqat bitta nusxasi bo'lishini talab qiladimi va u rivojlanganidan keyin. tashqarida, u yo'q bo'lib ketishi kerak. Bu ahmoqona e'tiqod, o'zi hatto Linneydan oldingi g'oyalarga asoslanadi - "tabiat miqyosidagi" har bir "pozitsiya" nasl-nasabi yuqoriga ko'tarilganda, bo'sh bo'lib qolishi kerak. Hech bir evolyutsiya nazariyasi, hatto Darvindan oldin ham kamida 200 yil davomida bunday fikrga ega emas edi. Agar biz maymunlardan paydo bo'lgan bo'lsak, demak, maymunlarning hammasi shunchaki yo'q bo'lib ketishi shart emas. boshqa maymunning bir turi (ya'ni, biz) rivojlangan.

Savolning ikkinchi tomoni bu: ota-bobolarimiz umuman maymun bo'lganmi? Va bu savolga javob juda nozik.

Biologiyada narsalarni tasniflashning asosan ikkita usuli mavjud. Biri tomonidan identifikatsiya - agar X guruhi bo'lsa bir xil Y ga qandaydir muhim tarzda, keyin X + Y ushbu o'ziga xoslik asosida guruh hosil qiladi. Bu erda belgilarni aniqlashning biologik atamasi homologiya, 1843 yilda Richard Ouen tomonidan taklif qilingan atama. Bu degani shakli va funktsiyasining barcha o'zgarishlarida bir xil organ. Yuragi bo'lgan barcha organizmlar bitta guruhni tashkil qiladi - yuraklar bir kamerali, ikki kamerali yoki to'rt kamerali bo'lishidan qat'i nazar. Ammo yurak bilan "bir xil" bo'lmagan nasosga ega bo'lgan organizmlar, masalan, "yurak" bo'lsa, gomologik emas. bu turlari tananing ko'krak qismida emas, balki anus yoki biror narsadan tashqarida rivojlanadi.

Boshqa usul - bu bo'yicha tasniflash o'xshashlik. Agar biror narsa boshqa narsa bilan bir xil sinfda bo'lsa o'xshaydi boshqa. O'xshashlik o'ziga xoslik emas - anus-yurak o'xshash vazifa yoki hatto faoliyati va tuzilishi tufayli ko'krak qafasi yurakka o'xshash deb tasniflanadi. Odamlar hayvonlarga o'xshamaydi, deyish, o'xshashlik o'lchovi sifatida foydalanish muhim bo'lgan narsalarga ko'ra tasniflashdir. Biz. Shakl yoki tuzilishga ko'ra boshqalarga o'xshash belgining biologik atamasi gomoplaziya. Ko'rshapalaklar, qushlar va hasharotlarning qanotlari gomoplastikdir - ular nima uchun bir-biriga o'xshash qilmoq, chunki ular bir xil qismlar ishlatilgan.

Biror narsa juda o'xshash bo'lmasa ham, bir xil bo'lishi mumkin va identifikatsiya bo'yicha tuzilgan guruhlar chaqiriladi takson (yakka takson), holbuki o'xshashlik bilan tuzilgan guruhlar turlari. Taksonlarning tasnifi, tabiiyki, taksonomiya deb ataladi. Turlarga asoslangan tasnif tipologiyadir. Bularni hatto olimlar ham chalkashtirib yuborishadi.

Xo'sh, bizning ajdodlarimiz maymun bo'lganmi? Tasniflashning har bir usuli har xil javob beradi. Identifikatsiya mezoniga ko'ra, odamlar tabiiy ravishda bir necha kattaroq guruhlarga bo'linadi: Homo Hozirda yo'q bo'lib ketgan bir nechtasini o'z ichiga olgan Homininida joylashgan Homo turlari va shimpanzelar Homininae, ular orasida hominidlar, shuningdek, orangutanlarni o'z ichiga olgan gorillalar Hominidae va gibbonlarni o'z ichiga olgan Hominoidea. Gibbon va orangutan Osiyoda yashasa ham, gominoidea Afrikaning buyuk maymunlari deb ataladi. Bu Catarrhini yoki Eski Dunyo (Afrika va Evrosiyo) maymunlarining bir qismi.

Shunday qilib, agar siz taksonlar bo'yicha tasniflasangiz, bizning turimizning har qanday bevosita ajdodi a'zosi bo'lgan Homo, Hominoidea (va shuning uchun maymunlar) va Catarrhini (yoki Eski Dunyo maymunlari). Demak, bobomiz maymun bo'lgan, chunki biz maymunlar (va maymunlar).

Ammo "maymun" odatda dumi bor Primatni anglatadi va shuning uchun u Yangi Dunyo (Amerika) maymunlarini ham o'z ichiga oladi: Platyrrhini. Ammo maymunlarning dumlari yo'q, shuning uchun "maymun" o'xshashlik bilan belgilanadi turi asosan Primat minus Hominoidea hisoblanadi. Bu cookie (yoki dunyoning ingliz tilida so'zlashadigan qismida pechene) tishlab olingandan keyin qolgan narsa, degan gapga o'xshaydi. Taksonomlar buni a deb atashadi parafiletik guruh: hamma narsa bo'lgan guruh qolgan odatda qo'shiladigan qismni ba'zi istisno qilish orqali.

Endi bizning ajdodlarimiz hech qachon Yangi Dunyo maymunlari bo'lmagan. Shuning uchun "maymun" atamasi daraxt ostidagi ajdodlarimiz bilan bo'lishmaydigan organizmlarni o'z ichiga olgan hayvonlarga ishora qiladi. Bu takson emas, balki bir tur.

Oddiy til tipikdir. Ya'ni, "maymun" kabi oddiy atamalar bir-biriga o'xshash narsalarni anglatadi, bu hatto ilmiy jihatdan tabiiy bo'lmasligi mumkin. Bu eng yaxshisi a ilmiy ilmiy atamalardan foydalanishga da'vo qiladilar, chunki ular tabiiy narsalarga, tabiiy sinflarga tegishlidir. Shunday qilib, bir olim "odamlar gominoidlardan, katarinlardan, ajdodlar primatidan paydo bo'lgan", deydi. Oddiy notiq umidsizlikka tushib qo‘llarini ko‘tarib: “Ayting-chi, biz maymunlardan rivojlanganmizmi yoki yo‘qmi?!” Ular bir-biridan o'tib gaplashmoqda. "Maymun" ilmiy ma'noga ega emas.

Ba'zi olimlar, bu shunchaki mantiq va tilni kesish deb o'ylashadi. Of albatta nima bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar, odamlar o'zlarining uzoq ajdodlari sifatida oddiy (ya'ni tipik) tilda "maymun" deb atalgan bo'lar edi. Bir marta Geogre Simpson shunday degan edi:

Bu mavzuda, aytmoqchi, juda ko'p pussyfooting bor edi. Apologlarning ta'kidlashicha, inson hech kimning avlodi bo'la olmaydi yashash maymun - bu bema'nilik yoqasida ochiq-oydin bo'lgan bayonot - va davom eting yoki inson aslida maymun yoki maymundan emas, balki avvalgi umumiy ajdoddan kelib chiqqanligini ta'kidlaydi yoki nazarda tutadi. Darhaqiqat, o'sha oldingi ajdodni ko'rgan har bir kishi mashhur nutqda maymun yoki maymun deb ataydi. Shartlar beri maymun va maymun odamlarning ajdodlari maymunlar yoki maymunlar (yoki ketma-ket ikkalasi) bo'lgan. Axborotli tergovchining boshqacha deyishi insofsizlik bo‘lmasa ham, haqoratdir (1964, 12-bet).

Bu parcha kreatsionistlar tomonidan juda yaxshi ko'riladi, chunki bu evolyutsiya bizning ajdodlarimiz maymunlar bo'lgan deb aytmaydi degan qarashga aniq ziddiyatga o'xshaydi. Simpson aslida eski maktabdan edi (esda tutingki, bu 1964 yilda yozilgan, men "taksonlar bo'yicha" deb ataydigan tasniflash shakli ishlab chiqilgunga qadar - u professional ravishda "filogenetik taksonomiya" yoki "kladistika" sifatida tanilgan). Ammo shunday bo'lsa ham, uning aytganlarini diqqat bilan o'qing: Hech bir tirik maymun bizning ajdodimiz emas (hatto bizning ajdodimiz anatomistga juda o'xshaydi). Agar "maymun" (yoki "maymun") deganda siz shimpanze yoki makaka yoki orangutanni nazarda tutsangiz, yo'q, biz bu xunuk hayvonlardan evolyutsiyaga aylangan emasmiz.

Shunday qilib, kimdir biz maymunlardan paydo bo'lganimizni so'rasa, ularga "Ha, agar "maymun" deganda siz primatni nazarda tutayotgan bo'lsangiz, yo'q, agar siz Primat minus Hominoidni nazarda tutsangiz", deb ayting. Albatta, juda erta va uzoq vaqtlarda bizning ajdodlarimiz edi maymunlar, lekin yaqinda emas.

Now, back to the "why are there still monkeys?" part of the question: on the older view of evolution that was the common idea of evolution for a century prior to Darwin (both the evolution of organisms, or languages, and of social institutions), if a lineage had evolved, it moved "up" the ladder as a whole. On the Darwinian view, only one part of a species evolves into the next (and there's no "next step" - a species evolves into whatever suits the local conditions of the population it evolves from it may be bigger brained or smaller brained, or for that matter bigger or smaller). The rest of the species remains. So we end up with an increase in the diversity of life, which is, I think, the single most important point Darwin ever made. Monkeys remain because we are monkeys, and so are chimps, orangs, and all those other primates. All of them remain because they evolved by the multiplication of taxa.


What is Evolution?

The concept of evolution by natural selection was introduced in the late 1850s almost simultaneously (but independently) by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Darwin gets all the glory for it. But the fact that they independently arrived at the same conclusion was a good sign for the idea.

Evolution by natural selection is the way organisms and species transform over time through changes in inherited traits, either physical or behavioral. These changes confer a greater ability to survive and reproduce.

The ability to survive and reproduce is termed “fitness”. But don’t confuse it with physical fitness brought about by diet and exercise.

This is why people sometimes say that evolution is “survival of the fittest”. Natural selection takes small changes (mutations in genes) and magnifies them throughout the species. Genetic mutations can come about through random errors in replication or repair of DNA or damage from chemicals or radiation.

Mutations are usually either neutral or bad, but rarely good. Individuals with bad genetic mutations are weeded out of the population. Individuals with good genetic mutations, however, can pass on their traits to the next generation. This conserves good mutations. This is often described as “descent with modification”.

Let’s say a genetic mutation causes an individual to be better able to avoid predators. This could be a gene coding for a different color that better blends into the environment. Then it will be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. When this individual reproduces, it will pass on this color mutation to its offspring.

If this mutation continues to give an advantage to individuals carrying it, it will spread throughout a population. The population becomes changed. The individuals without this mutation will be picked off by predators and die out.

This process, small changes leading to an altered trait in a population over several generations, is called microevolution. As more time passes, a new species can arise through the accumulation of new traits. This is macroevolution.

Many lines of evidence from multiple fields support evolution by natural selection. That is why it is now considered a solidified theory.


Biz didn’t actually evolve from monkeys

It’s true! Everyone talks about how Homo sapiens evolved from monkeys, but in reality, that’s not true. Not entirely, at least. It depends on what you mean by the word ‘monkeys’.

Human beings and modern-day monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor that is now extinct. Both of these species share a common ancestor from which they both evolved around 25 million years ago. This evolutionary relationship is strongly supported by DNA analysis and fossil records.

The rhesus macaque is one of the best-known species of Old World monkeys. (Photo Credit: Charles J Sharp /Wikimedia Commons)

A study showed that Homo sapiens and rhesus monkeys share nearly 93% of their DNA. Based on the differences and similarities between the two kinds of DNA, researchers have estimated that rhesus monkeys and humans diverged from their common ancestor millions of years ago.

Interestingly, the common ancestor that humans and monkeys (apes and chimps) evolved from was, colloquially speaking, a monkey!

Long story short, human beings didn’t evolve from the apes and chimps that exist today instead, humans and monkeys (i.e., the class of apes, chimpanzees and other species of monkeys) are like blood relatives who have the same parents.

Bu mantiqiymi? Here’s an analogy to help you understand this better.


It’s important to realize that evolution is not a linear process where one species evolves from the previous, effectively “replacing” the previous. Instead, it is a much more complicated process where species will branch off an existing line of ancestors. Seperate branches evolve along boshqacha trajectories and can include major changes, minor changes, no change, or extinction. The survival of an evolutionary line is dependent upon the ability of its members to live and reproduce in their environment.

The figure below illustrates the primate “family tree”:

One of the reasons early human-like ancestors were able to survive was because they were better adapted to the emerging grassland environments than the ancestors of modern apes, which were predominantly tree dwellers. Therefore, the grassland-adapted species would not conflict with the tree-dwellers and they could coexist.

Basically, the question “if humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?” is analogous to “if North Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?”. Seems obvious, right?


Tarkib

"Ape", from Old English apa, is a word of uncertain origin. [b] The term has a history of rather imprecise usage—and of comedic or punning usage in the vernacular. Its earliest meaning was generally of any non-human anthropoid primate, [c] as is still the case for its cognates in other Germanic languages. [5] Later, after the term "monkey" had been introduced into English, "ape" was specialized to refer to a tailless (therefore exceptionally human-like) primate. [6] Thus, the term "ape" obtained two different meanings, as shown in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica entry: it could be used as a synonym for "monkey" and it could denote the tailless humanlike primate in particular. [7]

Some, or recently all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a human-like appearance, particularly those without a tail. [7] Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea dan boshqa humans, [1] but more recently to mean hammasi members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid shu jumladan humans. [3] [d]

The taxonomic term hominoid is derived from, and intended as encompassing, the hominids, the family of great apes. Both terms were introduced by Gray (1825). Atama hominins is also due to Gray (1824), intended as including the human lineage (see also Hominidae#Terminology, Human taxonomy).

The distinction between apes and monkeys is complicated by the traditional paraphyly of monkeys: Apes emerged as a sister group of Old World Monkeys in the catarhines, which are a sister group of New World Monkeys. Therefore, cladistically, apes, catarrhines and related contemporary extinct groups such as Parapithecidaea are monkeys as well, for any consistent definition of "monkey". "Old World Monkey" may also legitimately be taken to be meant to include all the catarrhines, including apes and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus, [8] [9] [10] [11] [ iqtibos kerak ] in which case the apes, Cercopithecoidea and Aegyptopithecus emerged within the Old World Monkeys.

The primates called "apes" today became known to Europeans after the 18th century. As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise distantly related species. Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of those primatologists who developed the idea that there were trends in primate evolution and that the extant members of the order could be arranged in an ".. ascending series", leading from "monkeys" to "apes" to humans. Within this tradition "ape" came to refer to all members of the superfamily Hominoidea except humans. [1] As such, this use of "apes" represented a paraphyletic grouping, meaning that, even though all species of apes were descended from a common ancestor, this grouping did emas include all the descendant species, because humans were excluded from being among the apes. [e]

Traditionally, the English-language vernacular name "apes" does not include humans, but phylogenetically, humans (Homo) form part of the family Hominidae within Hominoidaea. Thus, there are at least three common, or traditional, uses of the term "ape": non-specialists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", that is, they may use the two terms interchangeably or they may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid or they may use the term "ape" to just mean the non-human hominoids.

Modern taxonomy aims for the use of monophyletic groups for taxonomic classification [12] [f] Some literature may now use the common name "ape" to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, including humans. For example, in his 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan . the gorilla and chimpanzee . and humans". [3] Modern biologists and primatologists refer to apes that are not human as "non-human" apes. Scientists broadly, other than paleoanthropologists, may use the term "hominin" to identify the human clade, replacing the term "hominid". See terminology of primate names.

See below, History of hominoid taxonomy, for a discussion of changes in scientific classification and terminology regarding hominoids.

Genetic analysis combined with fossil evidence indicates that hominoids diverged from the Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago (mya), near the Oligocene-Miocene boundary. [13] [14] [15] The gibbons split from the rest about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happened 14 mya (Pongo), [16] 7 mya (Gorilla), and 3–5 mya (Homo & Pan). [17] In 2015, a new genus and species were described, Pliobates cataloniae, which lived 11.6 mya, and appears to predate the split between Hominidae and Hylobatidae. [18] [19] [20] [3] [ clarification needed ]

chimpanzees (genus Pan)

gorillas (genus Gorilla)

orangutans (genus Pongo)

gibbons/lesser apes (family Hylobatidae)

The families, and extant genera and species of hominoids are:

    Superfamily Hominoidea[21]
      Family Hominidae: hominids ("great apes")
        Jins Pongo: orangutans
          , P. pygmaeus , P. abelii , P. tapanuliensis[22]
          , G. gorilla , G. beringei
          , H. sapiens
          , P. troglodytes , P. paniskus
          Jins Hylobates
            or white-handed gibbon, H. lar , H. albibarbis or black-handed gibbon, H. agilis or grey gibbon, H. muelleri , H. moloch or capped gibbon, H. pileatus or Mentawai gibbon or bilou, H. klossii
            , H. hoolock , H. leuconedys , H. tianxing
            , S. syndactylus
            , N. annamensis , N. concolor , N. nasutus , N. hainanusN. siki , N. leucogenys , N. gabriellae

          The lesser apes are the gibbon family, Hylobatidae, of sixteen species all are native to Asia. Their major differentiating characteristic is their long arms, which they use to brachiate through trees. Their wrists are ball and socket joints as an evolutionary adaptation to their arboreal lifestyle. Generally smaller than the African apes, the largest gibbon, the siamang, weighs up to 14 kg (31 lb) in comparison, the smallest "great ape", the bonobo, is 34 to 60 kg (75 to 132 lb).

          The superfamily Hominoidea falls within the parvorder Catarrhini, which also includes the Old World monkeys of Africa and Eurasia. Within this grouping, the two families Hylobatidae and Hominidae can be distinguished from Old World monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars hominoids have five in the "Y-5" molar pattern, whereas Old World monkeys have only four in a bilophodont pattern.

          Further, in comparison with Old World monkeys, hominoids are noted for: more mobile shoulder joints and arms due to the dorsal position of the scapula broader ribcages that are flatter front-to-back and a shorter, less mobile spine, with greatly reduced caudal (tail) vertebrae—resulting in complete loss of the tail in living hominoid species. These are anatomical adaptations, first, to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion (brachiation) and, later, to developing balance in a bipedal pose. Note there are primates in other families that also lack tails, and at least one, the pig-tailed langur, is known to walk significant distances bipedally. The front of the ape skull is characterised by its sinuses, fusion of the frontal bone, and by post-orbital constriction.

          Although the hominoid fossil record is still incomplete and fragmentary, there is now enough evidence to provide an outline of the evolutionary history of humans. Previously, the divergence between humans and other living hominoids was thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, and several species of that time period, such as Ramapithecus, were once thought to be hominins and possible ancestors of humans. But, later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orangutan and new biochemical evidence indicates that the last common ancestor of humans and non-hominins (that is, the chimpanzees) occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably nearer the lower end of that range see Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA).

          Distinction from monkeys

          Cladistically, apes, catarrhines, and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus and Parapithecidaea, are monkeys [ iqtibos kerak ] , so one can only specify ape features not present in other monkeys.

          Apes do not possess a tail, unlike most monkeys. Monkeys are more likely to be in trees and use their tails for balance. While the great apes are considerably larger than monkeys, gibbons (lesser apes) are smaller than some monkeys. Apes are considered to be more intelligent than monkeys, which are considered to have more primitive brains. [23]

          Major studies of behaviour in the field were completed on the three better-known "great apes", for example by Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas. These studies have shown that in their natural environments, the non-human hominoids show sharply varying social structure: gibbons are monogamous, territorial pair-bonders, orangutans are solitary, gorillas live in small troops with a single adult male leader, while chimpanzees live in larger troops with bonobos exhibiting promiscuous sexual behaviour. Their diets also vary gorillas are foliovores, while the others are all primarily frugivores, although the common chimpanzee does some hunting for meat. Foraging behaviour is correspondingly variable.

          Apart from humans and gorillas, apes eat a predominantly frugivorous diet, mostly fruit, but supplemented with a variety of other foods. Gorillas are predominately folivorous, eating mostly stalks, shoots, roots and leaves with some fruit and other foods. Non-human apes usually eat a small amount of raw animal foods such as insects or eggs. In the case of humans, migration and the invention of hunting tools and cooking has led to an even wider variety of foods and diets, with many human diets including large amounts of cooked tubers (roots) or legumes. [24] Other food production and processing methods including animal husbandry and industrial refining and processing have further changed human diets. [25] Humans and other apes occasionally eat other primates. [26] Some of these primates are now close to extinction with habitat loss being the underlying cause. [27] [28]

          Cognition

          All the non-human hominoids are generally thought of as highly intelligent, and scientific study has broadly confirmed that they perform very well on a wide range of cognitive tests—though there is relatively little data on gibbon cognition. The early studies by Wolfgang Köhler demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities in chimpanzees, which Köhler attributed to insight. The use of tools has been repeatedly demonstrated more recently, the manufacture of tools has been documented, both in the wild and in laboratory tests. Imitation is much more easily demonstrated in "great apes" than in other primate species. Almost all the studies in animal language acquisition have been done with "great apes", and though there is continuing dispute as to whether they demonstrate real language abilities, there is no doubt that they involve significant feats of learning. Chimpanzees in different parts of Africa have developed tools that are used in food acquisition, demonstrating a form of animal culture. [29]

          The history of hominoid taxonomy is complex and somewhat confusing. Recent evidence has changed our understanding of the relationships between the hominoids, especially regarding the human lineage and the traditionally used terms have become somewhat confused. Competing approaches to methodology and terminology are found among current scientific sources. Over time, authorities have changed the names and the meanings of names of groups and subgroups as new evidence—that is, new discoveries of fossils and tools and of observations in the field, plus continual comparisons of anatomy and DNA sequences—has changed the understanding of relationships between hominoids. There has been a gradual demotion of humans from being 'special' in the taxonomy to being one branch among many. This recent turmoil (of history) illustrates the growing influence on all taxonomy of cladistics, the science of classifying living things strictly according to their lines of descent.

          Today, there are eight extant genera of hominoids. They are the four genera in the family Hominidae, namely Homo, Pan, Gorillava Pongo plus four genera in the family Hylobatidae (gibbons): Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus va Symphalangus. [21] (The two subspecies of hoolock gibbons were recently moved from the genus Bunopithecus to the new genus Hoolock and re-ranked as species a third species was described in January 2017). [30] )

          In 1758, Carl Linnaeus, relying on second- or third-hand accounts, placed a second species in Homo bilan birga H. sapiens: Homo troglodytes ("cave-dwelling man"). Although the term "Orang Outang" is listed as a variety – Homo sylvestris – under this species, it is nevertheless not clear to which animal this name refers, as Linnaeus had no specimen to refer to, hence no precise description. Linnaeus may have based Homo troglodytes on reports of mythical creatures, then-unidentified simians, or Asian natives dressed in animal skins. [31] Linnaeus named the orangutan Simia satyrus ("satyr monkey"). He placed the three genera Homo, Simiya va Lemur in the order of Primates.

          The troglodytes name was used for the chimpanzee by Blumenbach in 1775, but moved to the genus Simiya. The orangutan was moved to the genus Pongo in 1799 by Lacépède.

          Linnaeus's inclusion of humans in the primates with monkeys and apes was troubling for people who denied a close relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Linnaeus's Lutheran archbishop had accused him of "impiety". In a letter to Johann Georg Gmelin dated 25 February 1747, Linnaeus wrote:

          It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History. [32]

          Accordingly, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in the first edition of his Manual of Natural History (1779), proposed that the primates be divided into the Quadrumana (four-handed, i.e. apes and monkeys) and Bimana (two-handed, i.e. humans). This distinction was taken up by other naturalists, most notably Georges Cuvier. Some elevated the distinction to the level of order.

          However, the many affinities between humans and other primates – and especially the "great apes" – made it clear that the distinction made no scientific sense. In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin wrote:

          The greater number of naturalists who have taken into consideration the whole structure of man, including his mental faculties, have followed Blumenbach and Cuvier, and have placed man in a separate Order, under the title of the Bimana, and therefore on an equality with the orders of the Quadrumana, Carnivora, etc. Recently many of our best naturalists have recurred to the view first propounded by Linnaeus, so remarkable for his sagacity, and have placed man in the same Order with the Quadrumana, under the title of the Primates. The justice of this conclusion will be admitted: for in the first place, we must bear in mind the comparative insignificance for classification of the great development of the brain in man, and that the strongly marked differences between the skulls of man and the Quadrumana (lately insisted upon by Bischoff, Aeby, and others) apparently follow from their differently developed brains. In the second place, we must remember that nearly all the other and more important differences between man and the Quadrumana are manifestly adaptive in their nature, and relate chiefly to the erect position of man such as the structure of his hand, foot, and pelvis, the curvature of his spine, and the position of his head. [33]


          Videoni tomosha qiling: Вот для чего бабуины крадут маленьких львят?! (Dekabr 2021).