The idea
that humans are not a branch of the ape-tree, but that apes are a branch of the
human tree throws around the usual notion of human evolution, but what if the
large apes (Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Gibbons) are not a branch of the hominidae,
but degenerated and specialized (adapted to circumstance) descendants of a
proto-human? The standard image used to explain evolution shows how humans are
a further development from the big apes with the usual remark that we don’t
really are descending from the apes, but that we have a common ancestry, to
stay within the neo-darwinian evolutionary paradigm. In this essay I will
develop some good arguments to label humans as the original and main line of
hominid evolution, and the apes as deviations. This would extend the human or
proto human lineage to at least 35 million years (oldest Miocene ape-like or
proto-human fossils) but maybe even older (dating technology evolves, but remains
ambiguous) and reaching beyond the 66
million Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the end of the dinosaurs. This
makes sense, if we see the human form (genotype) as the most
flexible, less specialized form of land-animal life, as a natural and logical
direction or even goal of evolution,
with the possibility of further development beyond what we have seen in the
changes from hunter-gatherer to pastoralists (18.000 years ago) to agricultural
civilization (12.000 years ago) and the steps from group mind towards
individualism.
Think about
the awkward image of a supposedly four legged animal or a predecessor of the
big apes turning into the upright bipeds we are. Why would the fore-paws of the
big apes, limited and adapted to the biotope of specific species as they are
turn into our very flexible and agile hands, why would we humans go such an
awkward path to become what we are, obviously the way apes move and grasp is
less flexible and more specialized to their living environment, while we humans
retained our broad agility!
Ever
wondered why apes are seen as evolved for 4-legged animals, as they clearly
walk on their hands? Doesn’t it make sense to explain the development from
4-peds to 2-peds by pointing at what obviously is a degenerate (specialized) use of fore-arms and hands. Apes don’t look
like four legged animals that took to the trees, they look like bipeds that
specialized, adapted to a limited biotope like the mountain or forest and lack
the initiative to go beyond that.
Consider
this scenario:
Among the
various species of proto-humans (most disappeared but somehow always new
versions of homo emerged from what seems to be a basic message in the DNA and
evolution, that we go forward against (local) entropy tendencies) there were
some, that lost the power to manipulate fire. They had to resort to chewing raw
food, leading to larger and more energy consuming jaws (fitting to survival) in
even a few generations (the Lamarckian adaptive evolution now supported by
epigenetics), thus less energy to support congnition (brains), bigger tummies
to digest uncooked food, and other adaptations to the situation and
environment. These proto-humans became apes, specialised and living in
restricted biotopes, not spreading much, and retaining the Group Mind consciousness of the early proto-humans, not
evolving towards some kind of more individual self consciousness.
This
degeneration (or specialization and adaptation to a limited biotope) may have
been the result of a mutation (the neo-Darwinian way) or of some accident,
climate or cosmic event, or as a necessary survival (maybe even to escape more
smart proto-humans that hunted them) but it seems a more logical path than that
we as humans a re a branch of the monkey (primate) tree, and means the apes are
a branch of the human tree.
Evolution
and emergence are hot topics, but I looked at what happens if we reverse the
usual image and arrived at the
hypothesis that monkeys and especially the big apes are degenerated humans,
more like specialized and isolated branches of a clear dominating evolutionary
line, being the most flexible animal, the human race. Our common ancestors (and
humankind had some trial and errors) were not some evolutionary predecessor of
unclear signature, but definitely a proto-human. This proposition makes much
sense, as DNA, embryo and genotype development supports this, and the
(humanlike) learning abilities of apes are mostly copycat or re-engaging human
capabilities (that were present in their wiring), not new capabilities. Plus of
course there are all the stories of the theosophical, Maya, Hopi etc. traditions
about earlier root-races. In the Maya Popul Vuh the third human (root) race is
mentioned as degenerating to apes.
Humans are
considered very neotenic (Louis Bolk retardation theory), meaning the retention
of some immature characteristics in adulthood. We are like embryos when born
and need longtime care to allow adulthood, because our skull needs to be able
to grow and develop our brains some say, but then why did the Neanderthals with
even larger skulls but less cognitive skills were not even more neotenic? The
typical human characteristics (extended life history; long limbs, and very long
legs; very low brachial and crural indices; highly developed pollex and hallux;
long ovarian cycles; reduced prognathism; advanced telencephalization etc.) are, according to Bolk, Bok and Josef
Verhulst, proof that ontogenetic
latecomers tends to be more neotenic than a corresponding forerunner, but why
not turn this around. Neotenic could be the ‘evolutionary’ normal way of
evolution towards a non-specialized and universal animal with the highest
survival potential under earthly conditions. The way we reproduce and take care
of newborns is different from other mammals, but consider how marsupial life
evolved in similar forms but with a different way to rear babies than mammals,
Bok’s and Bolke’s retardation has not led to intelligent kangaroos or did it?
The human
time frame tends to extend into the past. There are now many fossils and
findings (the environment the fossils were found) that indicate human ancestors
like Ardipithecus (4.5 Ma), Orrorin (6 Ma), Sahelanthropus and Homo
naledi. We never found a real missing link
specimen, but there are many findings of the various proto-apes, different
branches of the hominids, and it is clear that over time evolution took many
routes, like parallel evolution, divergent evolution, and many branches ended
or because of natural disaster like the Toba eruption, showed bottlenecks. The interpretation
of those fossils is mainly based on looking at the skulls, more specifically at
the jawbones and teeth, as those survived the best. Those specimens do indicate
the differences between human and ape-like development, even as the variety in
findings makes this a very complex puzzle.
Some apes
can learn things humans do, to some degree, but only with human help. They can
learn to recognize human voices and commands, use symbols, some kind of sign
language, learn to use all kinds of tools, but always from humans teachers, who
spend a great deal of time to develop these skills. In their million year
history (apes are not newcomers) they never developed much of this by
themselves. Even as psychedelics, the root of human development people like
Terence McKenna posed, were available all the time. So why can we teach them
this, if not because the roots of cognitive capabilities were still there and
only needed some refreshment?
There are
many reports of regression along the evolutionary trail by users of
psychedelics, and they mention fish and reptiles, but never being part of a
monkey or big ape lot. Now tripping is not a very scientific research model
(yet), but the consistency of the reports, even by people with little
background or prior knowledge makes this another pointer supporting the
hypothesis.
The young
baby champanzeee looks much more like a human child than a mature chimpanzee,
less hairy and if we look at the embryonic development, humans and the big apes
are very much alike, even as we look beyond Ernst Haeckels misrepresentations,
the pictures so long used to illustrate the development of our human race along
the fish, reptile, primate path. The big apes show a marked adaptation of what
is much more human in the embryo, the adults are better adapted to their
situation, more specialized.
The embryo
stages point at the possibility that the humans are the root, not a sideline of
the hominidae branch of evolution and that earlier proto-humans were there, and
the apes are the ones that lost intelligence or use of fire and became
specialized. But also in the DNA there is some support for my hypothesis. There
is the whole discussion about Dollo’s law (hypothesis proposed in
1893 by Belgian paleontologist Louis Dollo), which states
hat evolution tends to run in one direction. that once an anatomical feature
was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. The human
evolution tree as a branch of the apes went against this and was cited to prove
Dollo was wrong (myology-based cladistic analyses of primate phylogeny provide
evidence of anatomical reversions violating Dollo's law: of the 220 character
state changes unambiguously optimized in the most parsimonious primate tree, 28 (13%) are
evolutionary reversions, and of these 28 reversions six (21%) occurred in the
nodes that lead to the origin of modern humans; nine (32%) violate Dollo’s law.
, the structures that were lost in adults of the last common ancestor and are
absent in adults of most subgroups of a clade are actually present in early
ontogenetic stages of karyotypically normal individuals as well as in later
ontogenetic stages of karyotypically abnormal members of those subgroups. For
instance, the presence of contrahentes and intermetacarpales in adult
chimpanzees is likely due to a prolonged/delayed development of the hand
musculature, that is, in this case chimpanzees are more neotenic than modern
humans.) The exceptions in the development of the
neck, pectoral region, and upper limb musculature in primates were
seen as invalidating Dollo. This however, is thus seen from the perspective of
the classic cladistics/tree. If we, in this hypothesis, we assume that the
lineage leading to humans started before the apes branched off, Dollo is still
valid. Recent publications indicate that Dollo is more of a statistical law,
that re-appearance of certain traits would become improbably after some
millions of years. Then Dollo only makes clear that another ape-to-human
mutation is highly improbable,and a new human-ape mutation would not be the
same as present species. Within the Dollo logic, it makes more sense for apes
to be degenerated/adapted humans.
The usual
evolution trees (Cladistics)and biological classification of the hominids are
thus challenged. The assumed last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans
(some 7 milion years ago) then is not an proto-ape, but a proto-human or even a
home sapiens of some sort, that degenerated. There probably have been more home
sapiens branches, that died out or were taken over by other, smarter sapiens
sapiens branches, like the Cro-magnon (European Early Modern Humans (EEMH))
overtaking the Neanderthals. The oldest early humans so far are the
Ardipithecus, but who knows what we will find yet, there are stories about
earlier root-races. The oldest ape-like remains, some 35 million years old, may
have been degenerated humans too, maybe adapted differently to a different
biotope. Their DNA however, shows some remarkable characteristics closer to
human DNA than to present day apes.
Yes, this
hypothesis that the big apes are degenerated humans forces us to rethink
evolution? But has epigenetics (like the recent discovery that not only female
but also male (sperm) epigenetic tags can be inherited) and a re-appraisal of
J.B. Lamarck’s idea of passing on acquired characteristics not challenged the
neo-darwinian notion of chance-mutation (and then survival of the fittest) as
the only (or even most significant) evolution mechanism? Darwin himself did
accept Lamarck’s notions. Natural selection and survival of the fittest can now
be replaced by ‘fitting to survival’ paradigm, more of a syntropic (Luigi
Fantappiè) and directional notion of evolution as having purpose and direction.
We now know that DNA is just a digital and noise-resistant code-carrier that
will respond to the beck and call of the whole cell and organism layers above
it. Gene silencing does not require deletion of the gene, nor a deleterious
mutation in its coding sequences, but can occur through a mutation in its
control circuitry that results in loss of expression or expression below a threshold
level. I would not go as far as stating that gene-expression is a free-will
mechanism or that dolphins are also degenerated (proto-) humans but obviously
the neo-Darwinian paradigm is shaking. Also the question whether evolution is
preprogrammed or opportunistic I leave to others.
This
hypothesis puts our whole nice neo-darwinian evolution on its head and points
at the possibility, that there were humans long before the hominids and early
humans we have found (going back now 7 million year). These earlier proto-human
or human varieties may have disappeared,
due to all kinds of situations, but seemingly the direction of DNA and life
development re-created or re-mutated towards humans enough times to lead to homo sapiens sapiens, to us.
This points at a principle in life, a direction that is part of the whole
evolution. The consequences of this in theological and metaphysical perspective
are serious, but I will leave that discussion to another forum.
Luc
Sala sala@dealerinfo.nl
www.lucsala.nl this article at www.lucsala.nl/evolution.htm
This article
was First published (in Dutch) in Sept 2015.
PS
Of course there can be the argument or the question, where other
pro-simians, strepsirrhine primates, tarsiers and in fact other life forms came
from? Why did humans emerge and when, is the human form somehow hidden in the dna of all earthly life? If they were there before
the apes, they could be 35 million years old, but why not 66 (dinosaur end) or
more? Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mamals about 85 million
years ago. I leave this to theologians and biologists, just expressing an anomality
in the current image of human evolution.
The idea that apes are degenerated or rather hybrid humans was (to uphold
the 7 day Biblical evolution) was defended by
George MG Price (1924 New Geology), Lord Monboddo and Ivan Sanderson,
but they considered apes to be the product of humans mixing with animals. The
idea that we are not descending from the apes, but the apes from us has been
mentioned in antroposophical circles like by Albert Soesman (In De
TwaalfZintuigen page 51,1994). More extensively and referring to vertebrae
paleontology and primate( anthropoid) fossils
comparison Björn Kurtén (in Not from the Apes, Pantheon,
1971) argues that man did not
descend from the ape. By calling Propliopithecus a hominid, Kurten argues for a
straight line from Propliopithecus to Ramapithecus and on to the “Dartians.”
Since Propliopithecus predates the Dryopithecines, and the Dryopithecines were
apes, our ancestors bypassed the apes in the early Miocene.
The books
by R. Sheldrake, Arie Bos, A. Damasio, J. van der Wal, L. Bolk, J. Verhulst, R.
Diogo, R.D. Martin, S. Weyl, S-J Gould are obvious sources and references.
Josef
Verhulst; Bolkian and Bokian retardation in Homo sapiens. 1999
Björn Kurtén; Not from the
Apes, Pantheon, 1971
Ritual, the
magical perspective, 2014 by Luc Sala www.lucsala.nl/ritual
Sacred
Journeys, 2016 by Luc Sala www.lucsala.nl/sacredjourneys.pdf
Sociobiology
THE NEW SYNTHESIS. Edward O. Wilson. 1976 The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England ...
Violation
Of Dollo's Law: Evidence of muscle reversions in primate phylogeny and their
implications for the understanding of the ontogeny, evolution, and anatomical
variations of modern humans, april 2012 by Rui Diogo and Bernard Wood
rui.diogo@howard.edu
Soft-tissue
anatomy of the primates: phylogenetic analyses based on the muscles of the
head, neck, pectoral region and upper limb, with notes on the evolution of
these muscles, JOURNAL OF ANATOMY, Volume 219, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages:
273–359, R. Diogo and B. Wood, online June 20, 2011
Dollo's law
and the death and resurrection of genes (development/gene
inactlivation/functional constraint/evolutionary reversal/molecular evolution)
CHARLES R. MARSHALL*, ELIZABETH C. RAFF, AND RUDOLF A. RAFF Institute for
Molecular and Cellular Biology and Department of Biology, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405 Communicated by Richard E. Dickerson, August 8, 1994
(received for review October 4, 1993)