Alexander Sokolov anthropogenesis biography. Old and new myths about human origins

Alexander Sokolov, scientific journalist, popularizer of science. Creator and editor of the portal antropogenez.ru, author of the book “Myths about Human Evolution”, finalist of the “Enlightener” Prize, laureate of the Belyaev Prize.

The lecture took place at ITMO University with the information support of the Megabyte media group. Organizers of the meeting: discussion club "A Pinch of Salt".

Alexander Sokolov

The current head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, recognized the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, noting that the very idea of ​​evolution in nature does not contradict the idea of ​​creation, because it requires living beings that develop and change. However, myths about the divine origin of man are still widespread both in Russia and in the world. What is the reason for their popularity? According to the Hamburg account, we decided to ask the creator of the portal "Anthropogenesis.RU", the author of the book "Myths about Human Evolution" Alexander Sokolov.

Stanislav Drobyshevsky

Hamburg account

At one time, the popularization of science in our country was reduced to virtually zero. Then she slowly began to rise. And these rising popularizers suddenly discovered that the niche had already been filled. And it’s busy with some kind of freaks, that is, lovers of all sorts of secrets of aliens, all sorts of reptilians from Nibiru, all sorts of nonsense.

Alexander Sokolov

Who built the pyramids, erected Stonehenge, and made the Easter Island statues walk? Aliens? Hyperboreans? Atlanta? Why do we so underestimate our real and not fictitious ancestors? Scientific journalist Alexander Sokolov will answer these questions in his lecture.

Stanislav Drobyshevsky

Are scientists really hiding the most important and sensational findings and discoveries from the world community? Does it make sense for archaeologists and other scientists to hide the results of their research? In this video, anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky reveals the whole truth and tells whether the mysterious finds of archaeologists are really hidden from us and what false sensations can be found in archaeological practice.

Where do the teachings of evolution and religion conflict? There is a conversation about this in the program “From a Christian Point of View” with Alexander Sokolov, author of the book “Myths about Human Evolution.” The program is hosted by Yakov Kroov.

Alexander Sokolov

Alexander Sokolov, scientific journalist, teacher, editor of the Internet portal Anthropogenesis.ru, talks about human evolution.

Using the example of the story about these supposedly human footprints, which remained next to the paw prints of dinosaurs and whose age is approximately 108-94 million years, one can see how tenacious myths can be. And also understand why they are often guaranteed a long and happy life. As always, this mythological longevity is based on one of the fundamental properties of the human psyche, which can be briefly formulated as follows: the simpler the explanation, the more they believe it.

Identical traces in the human and chimpanzee genomes left by retroviruses indicate a common ancestor. Anti-evolutionists have practically nothing to object to the “argument from endogenous retroviruses,” which is absolutely deadly for them.

Scientific creationism is a term used to refer to that part of creationism that claims to be scientific. Since the scientific nature of creationism is not recognized by the scientific community, the phrase “scientific creationism” is an oxymoron. Creationism itself is the belief that intelligence (specifically supernatural intelligence) influenced the origin of life or the universe. This position in itself is not controversial, but in the context of the evo-creation controversy, various forms of creationism are characterized by the belief that the existence of said intelligence is scientifically demonstrable. The latter belief is not shared by the vast majority of the scientific community, including many Christians.

Alexander Markov

Hamburg account

About 10 years ago, paleontologist Alexander Markov, visiting various forums on the Internet, was surprised to discover that the theory of evolution is not as obvious to modern people as the multiplication table. Despite the school curriculum and all the discoveries of biologists, many people do not accept the principles formulated by Charles Darwin, and then Markov decided to engage in education. Today he is one of the most famous scientific popularizers in Russia, and his books have become bestsellers. We are talking with the winner of the Enlightenment Prize, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Alexander Markov, about the Hamburg account.

Olga Orlova: The current head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, recognized the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, noting that the very idea of ​​evolution in nature does not contradict the idea of ​​creation, because it requires living beings that develop and change. However, myths about the divine origin of man are still widespread both in Russia and in the world. What is the reason for their popularity? According to the Hamburg account, we decided to ask the creator of the portal "Anthropogenesis.RU", the author of the book "Myths about Human Evolution" Alexander Sokolov.

Hello, Alexander. Thank you for coming to our program.

Alexander Sokolov: Hello.

Alexander Sokolov, born in 1975 in Leningrad. In 1997 he graduated from St. Petersburg State University with a degree in Applied Mathematics. In 2010, together with anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, he created the scientific and educational portal "Anthropogenesis.RU", the organizer of the exhibitions "10 skulls that shocked the world" and the forums "Scientists against myths". Participant of 5 archaeological expeditions, author of the book “Myths about Human Evolution”, finalist of the “Enlightener” Prize, laureate of the Belyaev Prize.

O.O.: Alexander, you wrote the book “Myths about Human Evolution.” Apparently, scientific or anti-scientific myths are most of all dedicated to people and the origins of people. So that’s why you ended up with such a solid volume?

A.S.: You understand that a lot of this has to do with my personal interest. That is, since I was interested in the topic of human origins, I collected myths in this area.

O.O.: We don’t often come across myths about quantum mechanics.

A.S.: Yes. Even if we take biology, it is clear that, say, the evolution of some seahorses is also probably an interesting topic, there are specialists there, some discoveries, but the general public is of little concern about seahorses. That is, they evolved, and for God's sake. As for humans, everyone cares where they came from. Accordingly, the topic is popular. Since it is popular, there are inevitably a huge number of misconceptions, prejudices, and some legends.

O.O.: Judging by the sections, you have directly systematized them. From myths that are associated with the most ancient events, that is, the most ancient finds, about fossil bones. And then it goes straight to the myth of reconstructions, about ancient people, about our Neanderthal brothers, and right up to the paleo diet.

You know, your colleague on the Anthropogenesis.RU portal Stanislav Drobyshevsky was in our studio. And he spoke very fascinatingly about the myths that are associated with the origin of races and the difference between race studies and racology. But if we talk about myths associated with a more ancient period, when races had not yet formed, which of them are the most widespread and the ones that, say, cause the greatest indignation and indignation in you, that these myths are still alive.

A.S.: Yes, I calmed down a long time ago. It’s just that when you’ve been doing this for many years, you’re no longer surprised by anything. In fact, it depends on the level of the person, the interlocutor. If I talk to someone, this inevitably comes up in his speech. But depending on his education, these are myths of different levels.

We took part in the Geek Picnic festival. And a completely typical dialogue occurs. We have a stand there with our exhibition, with skulls. A man comes up, looks for a minute and then says a completely standard phrase: “You may have descended from a monkey, but not me.” He thinks that he said something very smart and witty and, as it were, throws down the gauntlet.

And we have skulls there, just the evolutionary series from proconsul to sapiens. I take the skull from the middle and ask: “Who is this?” And here he first begins to think about this topic. Before that, he said some standard phrases that he did not come up with himself, but read somewhere.

But in fact, this topic has not particularly bothered me for several years. And, oddly enough, these creationists... I have the impression, though perhaps subjective, that they have quieted down a little. And a huge number of other people came out.

O.O.: Sorry, you say that - it got out. What does it mean? After all, these are our compatriots, neighbors, colleagues. If we just go out into the street and start asking passers-by who live in the same city as us, and among them the percentage of people who do not like being descended from a monkey will be quite high.

A.S.: He will be tall. It’s just that now they are talking more often not about religious topics (it seems that religion is already somehow becoming boring), but about aliens, reptilians, and the Anunnaki.

O.O.: That is, in the sense that it is no longer the divine origin of man that is being discussed, but from extraterrestrial civilizations.

A.S.: Sci-fi.

O.O.: Don’t you think this is a bad sign?

A.S.: No, this is not a bad sign. It seems to me that some kind of replacement of religion is happening now in the spirit of the era.

O.O.: When you meet a person who once again tells you that he does not believe in the evolutionary origin of us and himself, how do you convince him?

A.S.: I talked about the dialogue with the man. Of course, he didn’t say that I convinced him. But, as it was not I who noticed, but other witnesses to this dialogue, and these were just people who came up, they noticed that during the dialogue he changed his face several times.

O.O.: Okay. Why did he change? What system of evidence...

A.S.: Because he suddenly found out that, it turns out, he doesn’t know much. And what he remembers poorly from his school days... His knowledge is limited to what he was once told at school that labor made a man out of a monkey. All. And since then, his knowledge on this topic has only worsened. And suddenly it turns out that modern scientific ideas about the origin of man are based on enormous factual material, that there are things that he heard about for the first time.

O.O.: For example.

A.S.: It was the first time he saw these finds, for example. Our exhibitions dedicated to the paleontropological theme, the origin of man, those that we have in museums... Firstly, these museums are practically non-existent. That is, everything that exists is in Moscow. Not even in St. Petersburg. Because in St. Petersburg there is the only exhibition dedicated to anthropogenesis, in the Kunstkamera. It has been closed for a long time. The only thing we can look at there is the mammoth in the Zoological Museum. In Moscow there are several exhibitions in three museums. And all these exhibitions were created... In short, since the early 1980s they have not been updated at all.

O.O.: And since then, a lot of discoveries have been made. And what solution did you find? Do you make layouts? What are you doing?

A.S.: They are dummies and dummies there. Nobody will give you Kenyan Homo rudolfensis. It is in a safe in a museum in Kenya. But all over the world these things have long been studied and demonstrated from exact copies, from dummies.

O.O.: What finds are we talking about?

A.S.: When we talk about anthropogenesis... That is, the emergence of the first erect walkers. 7 million years ago, Sahelanthropus, the oldest upright walking primate, lived on the territory of the Republic of Chad. And here are his remains. And then Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, all sorts of Homo habilis, Homo ergaster. And there are many of them. And many of these species have been described for many decades. Some are known from dozens, some from hundreds of finds. Therefore, there is something to show.

Our exhibition is called "17 skulls and one tooth". In fact, there are already more exhibits there. And we were very happy and proud... More than a year ago, in St. Petersburg we had... We had 4 finds of the Heidelberg man: 3 skulls and a jaw. But in fact, we thought we could count several hundred. That is, in fact, the material accumulated is very large. Another thing is that the majority of people don’t know anything about it. And what they still show us is Pithecanthropus Dubois, which was found at the end of the 19th century, and people think that nothing else has been found since then.

The same Neanderthal. That it was found in the 19th century. And Rudolf Virchow said that it was an old man with arthritis, or a Russian Cossack. And now this tale with a beard is retold by the same creationists in brochures. And the fact that 600 Neanderthals were found and there are complete skeletons, and there are many of them... Who knows about this?

O.O.: Can you really tell us in more detail what we now know about Neanderthals?

A.S.: Yes, we know a lot about them. Because their genetics have been studied. It is clear that their structure and skeleton have been fully studied, because all the bones of their skeleton have been found, including the hyoid bone, the bones of the inner ear, the entire skeleton, and all age stages - from babies to decrepit toothless old people. And he studies the diet of Neanderthals - what they ate, how they hunted, who they hunted, their diseases, their genetics. Thanks to genetics, the color of their skin and the color of their hair are known. Stanislav Drobyshevsky jokes about this topic. These ancient guys have been studied better than some modern races precisely because of the things that were discussed, that Neanderthals can be studied, but some modern Australian aborigines are not very well studied.

O.O.: That is, it is even harder for a modern anthropologist to work in some ways than...

A.S.: With modern ones than with ancient ones. Because by studying the ancients, you don’t seem to offend the moderns. Although, it is true, for example, in popular culture and in cinema, a tendency has also appeared for an overly politically correct representation of the same Neanderthals. Previously, they were shown in movies as almost half-monkeys who had just climbed down from a tree. And now we see such high-brow dreamy philosophers, highly moral noble savages who are offended, you know, by these Cro-Magnons. This trend can also be seen in popular culture.

O.O.: Apparently, this is a consequence of the fact that Neanderthals are now studied quite well and ideas about them have changed. And how intellectually in this sense were they equal to us - the Cro-Magnons, the Denisovans? Can we understand? You have a separate chapter about the myth about the Neanderthal brain.

A.S.: Intelligence and brain are, firstly, different things. It is known that Neanderthals did have very large brains. And on average it was larger than that of modern people. Another thing is that ancient sapiens had an even larger brain on average. But Neanderthals did have large brains. And they had a relatively advanced culture. They made a variety of complex tools. Among other things, they had such a conveyor production, that is, they made many standard flakes from a blank (core), from which they then made a tool.

They had compound tools, that is, they were the first to learn how to attach a stone tip to a wooden stick or a wooden handle. Moreover, they did this, apparently, with the help of ropes and resin. They had bone tools. They actively used fire. They hunted the largest animals successfully. They had decorations. That is, there are finds of shells and teeth. There are finds of bird claws, which apparently hung on their necks in the form of a necklace. They actively used dyes. There are a large number of finds of ocher (red dye). Moreover, it is interesting that they dragged him tens of kilometers away. That is, the deposit of this ocher is located many tens of kilometers from the Neanderthal site, that is, it was necessary to go there, get this stuff and bring it back. But in the end, the Neanderthals did not have any kind of fine art as such. That is, on the topic of their difference from our ancestors, from us, for all that, their behavior was varied and subject-specific, but they were not very good with symbolic things.

O.O.: So you are now talking about the ability to generalize, that is, about a very complex form of intelligence. Who was smarter after all - Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals or Denisovans?

A.S.: Much less is known about Denisovans.

O.O.: After all, they lived at the same time.

A.S.: They often come to the conclusion that since the Neanderthals became extinct, but the Cro-Magnons remained, it means that the Cro-Magnons were smarter. But in terms of culture, the Cro-Magnons, the people of the Upper Paleolithic, were superior to the Neanderthals. And, apparently, that’s why, yes, maybe, in terms of ingenuity, in terms of cultural diversity, the Cro-Magnons were still cooler. But there are different points of view on this matter. I am sure that some very famous archaeologists will disagree with me. But the Neanderthals really... That is, the coolest fine art from the Neanderthals is such a lattice on the wall of one of the caves in Gibraltar. Such a clumsy thing was found there. This is the maximum that Neanderthals were capable of.

O.O.: As far as I understand, paleoanthropologists do not have a consensus on where the Neanderthals disappeared and how it happened. Which version is closer to you?

A.S.: The fact remains that Neanderthals became extinct. Cro-Magnons came to Eurasia - Neanderthals disappeared. There was probably a complex of reasons. That is, this is probably a typical result of competition between two species that occupy a similar niche. One displaces the other. Did they have aggressive clashes, or did they just gradually push them out? We also know that there was partial miscegenation, mixing. That is, somehow the Neanderthals disappeared into this stream of guests from the south. That is, something happened there. There were probably illnesses. There were fewer Neanderthals. The climate changed, there was less game. That is, it was probably a complex of reasons.

O.O.: Have you ever wondered: how would human evolution have proceeded in general if everything had happened the other way around?

A.S.: You should ask science fiction writers about this. You know that the idea of ​​cloning a Neanderthal is currently being discussed. At least someone is already talking about cloning a mammoth. Although geneticists look at this very skeptically. But if it suddenly works out, then it seems to me that why not, maybe someday it will work out, then we can talk about cloning a Neanderthal. And when we receive this creature in the flesh, then it will be possible to evaluate its intelligence and think about what to do with it now.

Another thing is that we clone the biological shell, but we do not clone their culture. We will not revive their language, their customs, traditions. This way you can't clone.

O.O.: I just wonder what we would have inherited from them if we were...

You and I have this 2.5% Neanderthal DNA. And now geneticists are actively studying precisely this contribution that he gave to modern man. It gave something in terms of immunity, in terms of metabolism, something else.

A.S.: We inherited something. That is, there was an exchange. And some archaeologists believe that there was also a cultural exchange. In any case, there was a genetic exchange. That is, you and I have this 2.5% of Neanderthal DNA. And now geneticists are actively studying precisely this contribution that he gave to modern man. It gave something in terms of immunity, in terms of metabolism, something else.

O.O.: You also have a whole separate chapter devoted to how ancient people ate. And indeed, now we very often hear references when modern nutritionists, based on paleo diets, build dietary patterns for us today. And at the same time they say that let’s see how our ancestors ate. On this occasion, Alexander Panchin really likes to joke that our ancestors ate everything fresh, without GMOs, without chemicals, without pesticides, but they only lived for a short time. And in general they all ate well. Tell us about these food myths. Firstly, we know that these were people... One version is that they were vegetarians, that they ate only plant foods and did not eat anything...

A.S.: There are two opposing camps there. Because when you mentioned the paleo diet... The paleo diet is a well-defined trend in popular nutrition.

O.O.: In modern dietetics.

A.S.: And they just come from the fact... If the hardcore paleo diet, which has been going on since the 1970s, is that our ancestors were originally carnivores, ultra-meat eaters.

O.O.: Scavengers. No?

A.S.: No. They are precisely predators. I just like to joke about scavengers. Because who wants to eat carrion now? I just like to joke that if you want a natural diet, let's get habilis. According to one of the reconstructions (and it is important that we are talking about reconstructions), they ate carrion. Let's eat carrion. It `s naturally.

For example, the diet of Australopithecus sediba was recently studied. And it turned out that a significant part of his diet was tree bark. Let's eat tree bark. Want to? It `s naturally. Therefore, this talk about naturalness is very funny. Because this is how vegetarians, supporters of the paleo diet (raw foodists), and so on and so forth justify their approaches. Who will we take as the standard of naturalness? How far back in time will we go? Why did people eat naturally 100 thousand years ago? Why not a million years ago or 2 million years ago? Where do we get this measure of naturalness?

O.O.: How did they actually eat?

A.S.: And the trick is that there has never been any single diet.

O.O.: Not at any time, right?

A.S.: These same supporters of the paleo diet take either the hypothetical diet of their ancestors as a standard, or consider some modern traditional peoples as confirmation of their hypotheses. But depending on who it is, they take Papuans or Bushmen, or some northern Eskimos. And if we take, for example, the Eskimos and Papuans, we will see exactly the opposite things. That is, if the Eskimos (say, at the beginning of the 20th century, now they have all become globalized) the diet consisted of 80% meat and fat. Moreover, an Eskimo ate a kilogram of meat and 200 grams of pure fat a day. That's all. Simply because nothing grows there. And if a European is put on this “natural” diet, the European will die. And some Papuan tribes eat more than 90 percent of their diet from sweet potatoes. They are not, strictly speaking, hunter-gatherers. They are such primitive farmers. They are Neolithic. And they grow these yams, sweet potatoes. And they eat nothing but sweet potatoes. And now they have more than 90 percent carbohydrates.

In addition, by the way, they all smoke. This is already European influence. Both men and women smoke there. And they live...

O.O.: And if a European is put on 90% carbohydrates... If we eat 90% potatoes, then the effect is clear.

A.S.: In general, probably nothing good. If a person is strong... Natural selection is there. Why can they eat it? Because they ate it for many generations. And those who couldn’t, they simply died. Natural selection took place. So, if someone believes that evolution stopped when the Paleolithic ended, the Neolithic revolution took place, as they argue, they switched to agriculture and began to eat incorrectly... For many thousands of years, people have been eating what they grew in the fields. Dairy products, grains, legumes, tubers - everything that supporters of the paleo diet consider evil. In the end, it turns out that if an elderly person... We now have elderly people. This is something that did not exist globally then. The age profile has completely changed. If an elderly person eliminates dairy products, osteoporosis is highly likely to develop. If he cuts out grains, there are studies that show he has an increased chance of bowel cancer. Why exclude these things, except for some individual indications?

O.O.: That is, it is actually still very interesting that knowledge about ancient people, about their way of life helps us better navigate our modernity, about how we should now build our survival strategy.

A.S.: Yes. And what’s also interesting is that our knowledge of how they ate is changing a lot. And literally over the last few years we have learned a lot that we did not know. Who thought that Neanderthals actually ate boiled barley? In various classic books it was written that Neanderthals were practically specialized predators, that is, they ate meat (mammoths, sometimes rhinoceroses). Now we are finding out thanks to the study of dental calculus, the study of coprolites (fossilized feces) ... The approach to how to eat now should probably be based on our modern body, on our individual characteristics, and not on what we think we should eat naturally. That ancestors 100 thousand years ago did not drink milk, and therefore we will not do this. But this is stupid.

Although the idea for the masses sounds convincing. And many succumb to this fashion and in the process harm themselves.

O.O.: And in order for this not to happen to them, they, of course, need to read the book “Myths about Human Evolution.”

A.S.: At least.

O.O.: Or go to your portal “Anthropogenesis.RU”.

According to your observations, can a professional anthropologist believe in God?

Any scientist can believe in God. This shouldn't bother him. He must clearly separate the professional sphere and this. Although, if a person works with seahorses, it is easier for him. If he works with a person’s origins, some kind of conflict is inevitable.

A.S.: Yes, any scientist can believe in God. It seems to me that if a person is intelligent, this should not bother him. He must clearly separate the professional sphere and this. Although, if a person works with seahorses, it is easier for him. If he works with a person’s origins, some kind of conflict is inevitable. How will he deal with this conflict... But somehow they sort it out. You asked about whether an anthropologist can be a believer. And here, on the other hand, we can say whether a priest can be an evolutionist. All around. Such people came to us at events and wrote letters to me.

O.O.: Over the past decades, maybe the last 50 years in total, anthropologists have discovered, discovered, and described more than 12 species of different Homo. We're the only ones left. Which of the extinct species do you feel most sorry for?

A.S.: On the one hand, why feel sorry for them? Because some of them are our ancestors. That is, we are them, only in the future for them. But, of course, it would be interesting to see the hobbits. They are, in my opinion, the most bizarre. But in principle, any of these species would probably be a decoration... I don’t know, it’s probably not right to keep them in a zoo. But that would be very cool. And we are at least trying to bring them to life using computer graphics. We are currently making a computer cartoon. We collected funds from the whole world. They collected something. And now we are making a computer cartoon called "From Ape to Man." We have a computer graphics specialist, Sergei Krivoplyasov. At least they will come to life on the screen. Maybe not in the flesh, but we will bring them to life on screen.

O.O.: Of the discoveries of the last decade related to paleoanthropology, which finds would you note as the brightest, most important, most memorable? What surprised you the most?

A.S.: Yes, Homo naledi was just found in South Africa this fall. This is amazing. There are 15 of them, perhaps, individuals. And there is a whole skeleton, almost including skulls. In general, no one has ever found finds of such antiquity, such complete skeletons. And we are very proud that we already have the skull of this Homo naledi. Moreover, this is a personal gift from Lee Berger, their discoverer. He sent it to us by parcel from South Africa. And we have already shown it to everyone on our “Scientists against Myths” forum. In general, I was happy to hold it in my hands. And, by the way, if you put the skull of Australopithecus Sediba and this Homo naledi next to each other, you can simply see with the naked eye that this is clearly his descendant. And the fact that they were both found in South Africa... Moreover, they are quite close to each other there. Clearly this is an ancestor and a descendant. Will wait. There are no exact dates for these Homo naledi. How did they get there, into this hidden chamber in the depths of the cave? Also a question. It was very cool. And this just means that, I think, there will be many such finds in the coming years. There are many more. And maybe cooler ones.

O.O.: And you, of course, will tell the readers of the Anthropogenesis.RU portal about this.

A.S.: We have to do this.

O.O.: Thank you very much. On our program was the creator of the portal "Anthropogenesis.RU", the author of the book "Myths about Human Evolution" Alexander Sokolov.

I’ll say right away that it was not written by a scientist-anthropologist, but by a scientific journalist, whom I would without any reservations call the Enlightener (not Voltaire, but nevertheless :)), a popularizer of science and a fighter against various kinds of myth-makers. I learned about Alexander Sokolov even before the publication of the book “ Myths about human evolution"on the website http://anthropogenez.ru/, of which he is the creator and editor. I remember when I first came across this portal, I was literally infected by the energy of the scientific and educational enthusiasm of Alexander and his like-minded people. It was from this site that my largely “humanitarian” consciousness became fascinated by the natural science anthropological discourse. And even then on this site there were many articles devoted, so to speak, to “working on the mistakes” of those people who, for various reasons, were covered by the topic of human evolution (A. Nevzorova, a regular on the SPAS TV channel, Prof. A. Osipov, etc.) d.). It was precisely this kind of “work on mistakes” and letters from readers with possible myths and stereotypes that led him to think about a book in the “myth-refutation” format. And I want to say that this format itself is a very correct decision.

Standing with one foot on scientific facts and the other on common sense, carefully using Occam’s razor, the author confidently, without unnecessary aggression, but with irony cuts off various “atavisms” about anthropology from the public consciousness. He seems to be saying: “Calm down, citizens! No one calls you monkeys, no one tells you how to live, there is no scientific conspiracy, but some facts are quite stubborn and must be taken into account.” Alexander does not attack any established ideology or formed worldview, but acts reactively, which sets the whole book a good dialogue tone. When reacting to myths, the author seems to be dealing with particulars, but these particulars, in the end, add up to the overall picture. Thus, a full-fledged process of enlightenment takes place: misconceptions are dispelled and a more or less holistic picture of the modern scientific view of human genesis is offered. At the same time, where the author cannot say clearly, he, following Wittgenstein’s advice, “keeps silent.” For example, science does not have a clear answer why the genus Homo dragged itself from warm Africa north to Europe, but the fact remains that it dragged itself (see myth No. 39).

Now it would be appropriate to ask: why did the respected author decide that he is the science, if he is not even a scientist? Well, firstly, recognized scientists helped him in writing. Secondly, Alexander Sokolov has been dealing with this issue for quite a long time and not alone. Thirdly, the book provides facts and sources that you can find and study on your own. Fourthly, his text does not have the primary signs of a dubious “scientific pope”, such as statements: “now I will tell you the WHOLE TRUTH that was hidden from you!”, “everyone is talking, but in fact it is deception and the machinations of enemies” etc. Finally, even in science you cannot live without a certain amount of trust, and http://anthropogenez.ru/ has a good reputation.

Despite the scientific and rather complex topic, the book is written in an accessible way, the text is not complicated by special terminology, the material is presented easily and, as expected, “with a spark.” With all this, the book, as I have already noted, has a good tone, which is characterized by neither rage nor rude ridicule. Probably, “educational” language and style should be precisely such as to find the zone of maximum coincidence between the “deep” and “broad” readers. Further studies are the work of everyone.

In conclusion, I will say that, in my amateur opinion, it is unlikely that all the myths in this book can be called “myths”, in the sense of an established form of social consciousness. For example, I’m somehow not convinced that myth No. 24 “Modern man arose out of nowhere. Between him and fossil hominids, the “gap is too big” is really ingrained in people's heads. However, any of the “myths” of this book, in any case, is appropriate, because each of them is an occasion to tell the reader about the modern state of anthropology.

The latest discoveries of anthropologists sound like stories from science fiction: some scientists allegedly found traces of Americans who lived 130 thousand years ago, others were able to extract DNA from cave soil. Alexander Sokolov, editor-in-chief of the portal ANTHROPOGENES.RU and popularizer of science, told Futurist what a breakthrough this will be and how to learn to understand the theory of evolution.

- An article was published in Science that experts have learned to find ancient human DNA not only in bones and teeth, but also in cave sediments. Can we call this a revolution in anthropology?

Unfortunately, scientists' predictions do not always come true, and inflated expectations can ultimately lead to disappointment. When I read the article, it seemed to me that the time had come when the incompleteness of the fossil record for the last several tens of thousands of years could really be “defeated.” The fact is that the remains, soft tissues and even bones decompose, but the DNA remains in the soil. Now the authors of that article have found that cave deposits contain no less DNA than bones from the same layers. Therefore, scientists can take a soil sample from a cave and get a list of animals and plants that lived here at one time or another.

This way we can explore sites where there are no human remains, as well as dubious monuments about which they argue whether ancient people lived here or not. We can create a migration map, a map of the settlement of Neanderthals and sapiens in Europe - much more detailed than what we have now.

In addition, the new method will help with archaeological exploration and the search for promising sites for excavations. Now scientists are making reconnaissance pits, and if there are any finds in such a test excavation, they are already digging like adults. But in the chosen place there may not be visible remains or tools - but there may be DNA. And the sample needed for analysis is very small.

- What would you be interested in studying using this new method?

News about another “sensation” has just spread around the world: people allegedly lived in the United States, in California, 130 thousand years ago. But the evidence, frankly speaking, is controversial. If the discovery is confirmed, it will be a real revolution in ideas. Using a new method, you can check whether there is human DNA there or not. There are many such dubious monuments.

- And on the territory of Russia?

It would be nice to apply the new method at the site in Betovo (Bryansk region) - I took part in excavations there last year. No human remains have been found in Betovo - and we do not know who lived there. Scientists believe that they are most likely Neanderthals, but it could be anyone. Sapiens and Denisovans are the same. There are no bones there, only tools. By the way, throughout the Russian Plain this is the situation with Middle Paleolithic sites - tools are found, but the remains are one unfortunate tooth. This is where paleogeneticists should turn.

- You said about the incompleteness of the paleontological record... Which spots in this record are the darkest? At least regarding Neanderthals?

Firstly, it is not entirely clear when the Neanderthals disappeared. So it would be interesting to look at the layers where Neanderthal DNA disappears. Secondly, it is controversial how far north the Neanderthals advanced. There is the Byzovaya cave in the Urals - the latest and northernmost site allegedly Neanderthal. But again - only guns were found there. I would like to clarify this issue.

Using this method, you can search for various unknown species of Homo, and not only Homo. What if we discover some other hominids unknown to us who left no traces?

- What breakthrough in anthropology are you waiting for?

When will they finally learn to clone extinct animals? From time immemorial, humans have exterminated other species. It's time to start reviving them. The mammoth cloning project is being seriously discussed (although the first results are still very far away). Maybe someday it will come to the Neanderthals.

- Tell us about the results of paleogenetics that have inspired you most recently.

Perhaps research into the famous “Ice Man” Ötzi, a 5,300-year-old mummy found in the Tyrolean Alps. Thanks to scientists, we learned what Ötzi's clothes were made of (not only the types of animals, but also what geographical areas they came from), what Ötzi ate, what area he lived in, and even what kind of warrior he was. And he was not a weak warrior: on the tip of Etzi’s arrow there was the blood of two people, the blood of a third on a flint knife, and a fourth left bloody marks on Etzi’s clothes.

- What approaches do you consider promising for anthropology and archeology?

In recent decades, various technologies that have been developed for other areas - from medicine to space - have been used to help archaeologists. For example, archaeological exploration using lidars. LIDAR is a laser rangefinder-based thing that scans the earth's (or any other) surface. They were actively used on devices studying other planets. And now they are installing such a thing on an airplane and looking for ancient monuments unknown to scientists. A remarkable feature of lidar is the ability to “see” through vegetation, creating the effect of bare ground. This is how scientists find earthen ramparts, roads or the remains of structures that have long been overgrown with forest and cannot be detected in any other way.

- What, in your opinion, are the main gaps in the knowledge of modern Russians regarding human evolution?

The average Russian - as far as I can tell - does not really understand how evolution occurs in general. That is, at school they said that “the monkey became a man.” This usually remains in the head. How did this happen, why, when, how? And, most importantly, why don’t modern monkeys turn into people? I even devoted an entire chapter to this seemingly hackneyed topic in my new book. It's not that easy to explain.

In general, the process of evolution is difficult to understand, you need to strain your head, and we don’t like this, we need simple explanations. It is difficult to understand why species change and how chance plays an important role in evolution. Why random variations lead to directional changes.

- And what should a person do who still doesn’t fully understand where we came from on Earth?

You can visit us at ANTHROPOGENES.RU - there is a section “The Missing Link”, where human evolution is analyzed at a popular level. We are also holding the fourth forum “Scientists against Myths”, it will take place on June 10 in Moscow.

Not everyone likes the forum - moreover, some people directly state that we are doing garbage. Why fight some myths? You just need to talk about the achievements of science. But, I believe that, firstly, the format of popularization can be very different. And debunking myths is a polemical technique that serves the same thing - conveying knowledge to people in an exciting way. And, secondly, we are fighting pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a dangerous and harmful phenomenon. And in order to “raise people to fight”, it is not enough to give them dry facts. People need to be charged with enthusiasm, inspired, united. They need to feel like they are part of some positive movement. This is what we are trying to do.

- How do you inspire readers in your new book?

As in my previous book, I conceived some kind of provocation. Which one becomes clear if you look at the cover. The very title “Are Scientists Hiding?” quite provocative. Well, as for the content, I tried to analyze the most popular myths that relate not only to human evolution, but also to history in general. For example, who built the pyramids, whether aliens flew to Earth in ancient times, whether races exist or is this a “social construct”, a fiction. If in general - a book about pseudoscience in general. But not only about the fact that “what a terrible pseudoscience has filled everything, let’s be sad,” but about the fact that pseudoscience can and should be fought. A book for everyone who wants to protect themselves and their loved ones from harmful misconceptions.