Has Evolutionary Theory Been Refuted? 4. What Is the Human Being?

With Angels or with Apes? Resuming the publication of this series of articles devoted to the arguments of so-called "scientific creationists," serious attention must be paid to the central problem: the nature of the human being. In coming to know the world, the human being first and foremost comes to know themselves, and the dispute between scientists and "scientific creationists" is, to a large degree, a dispute about the nature of humanity. For a person with a natural-scientific outlook, it is clear that the human being is one of the animals that has mastered a very specific mode of adaptation to its environment. For creationists, the human being is an ahistorical object whose properties are determined not by the history of its formation but by the design of God. Several arguments of the opponents of evolution are connected to this problem; some of them are as follows. If the human being is an animal, there is no basis for ethics ("everything is permitted"). Acknowledging the important role of natural selection in progressive evolution means acknowledging the rightness of fascism. The human being possesses such diverse abilities that they could not have had adaptive significance during its evolutionary development. Let us give examples. "For if the human being is simply an animal, then why is it forbidden to fornicate or commit adultery? After all, many of them do not have permanent pairs. Why is bestiality an extreme abomination, if any beast is the same as a human being? ... It is no wonder that among evolutionists some have already come out in favor of legalizing cannibalism, for what distinguishes human flesh from pig flesh if their nature is one?" (15) This text is an example of manifest logical errors and deception. If a human being is an animal, this does not mean that only what applies to all animals is applicable to it, and it does not mean that any beast is the same as a human being. Evolutionists do not call for vice or cannibalism at all. "From the point of view of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, there was nothing wrong in treating people like animals, since, in their opinion, Darwin "proved" that people were not created by God but descended from some single-celled organism. All three believed that in the destruction of the less fit ... there was nothing immoral, if these measures contributed to the achievement of the main goal of Darwinist philosophy." (16). These lines were written by an American creationist who is reported to hold 7 academic degrees. They reflect a misunderstanding of fascism or communism, or a deliberate deception. People of the older generation understand very well that Stalin was not at all concerned with Darwinism: even if the dictators of the 20th century referred to certain doctrines, they merely used them as a cover for their actual goals. "Why then do those who today declare their hatred of Nazism and racism not object to Darwin's teaching, upon which Hitler founded his criminal regime?" (17). "Trotsky chose the faith of Marx and Darwin. The consequence of this conversion ... were rivers of blood. ... In the entire history of humanity, there was probably not a murderer who destroyed more people than Stalin. Both he and Trotsky acted in full accordance with their worldview: if no one created me, then I belong to no one, and there exists no absolute good and evil. With such a worldview, based on evolution, there is nothing wrong with killing millions." (18). The necessity (and naturalness!) of ethical behavior among people toward one another is not at all refuted by the animal nature of the human being or by its evolutionary origin. Whatever we may be, we are social beings capable of diverse interactions, endowed with the capacity to seek joy and avoid suffering, capable of empathy and self-sacrifice, benefiting from cooperation and losing from mutual enmity... This list could be continued. It is important that these qualities are characteristic not only of us but also of certain animals (to varying degrees in different species). But perhaps Darwin is indeed responsible for the actions of people who appealed to him? To demonstrate the unacceptability of this argument, let us consider an analogous one. Is Christ guilty of the actions of Christians? It was not only Catholic inquisitors who burned their opponents, but also Protestants (Calvin contributed to the execution of Servetus), and the Orthodox (Archpriest Avvakum and a number of other Old Believers were burned after torture). Hitler and Stalin were little interested in Darwin, whereas the pastors who handed heretics over for burning did so in the name of Christ. Those who were burned differed from those who burned them only in the interpretation of certain theological questions, whereas Darwinism addresses problems that have no relation to politics. Perhaps the crimes of tyrants and fanatics are a reflection of the "bad" human nature? Without going into this question in more detail (it requires a separate discussion), let us note that various ideological executioners had to struggle against the manifestations of human nature, overcoming the action of the innate mechanisms of our psyche that impede killing and violence. And the existence of these mechanisms is not at all a matter of God, but a result of evolution (19). In many security forces it is necessary to specially "break" the resistance of the majority of recruits, forcing them to overcome the innate rejection of killing or violence against women and children. However, can one discuss whether human nature is good or bad? If a human being chooses between a worthy and an unworthy action, their choice may be subjected to moral evaluation. The animal nature of the human being, its close kinship with apes, the innate characteristics of one or another individual are not the result of choice and are therefore "pre-moral." However the human being came into being, the sphere of moral choice and the possibility of ethical evaluation arises already at a certain stage of maturity. It is meaningless to condemn a newborn for appearing in the world as a result of aesthetically imperfect childbirth, or for not conforming to the rules of behavior in a collective — it is incapable of making conscious decisions. Readers are, however, probably familiar with the view that the newborn is already guilty, answering for the sin of its distant ancestors, will be punished for this throughout its life, and that this accords with Divine justice. "The human being, as Sacred Scripture teaches us, is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This highest property of the human being is imprinted in all of its appearance, which, in comparison with all living beings, possesses a regal majesty. However, people can lose this majesty when enslaved by various passions and vices, which distort in them the image of their Creator. And then, instead of this majestic image after which the human being was created, its caricature begins to manifest, which in all its fullness it can observe in apes. The latter must, in such an understanding, gently and unobtrusively warn the human being through their appearance, serving it both as an object of amusement and as food for reflection: into whom the human being will come to resemble 'if it loses its image.'" (20) [IMG_1] [IMG_2] Are the great apes our closest relatives or a caricature-warning from the Creator? Of course, the human being is a quite typical animal, connected by a multitude of shared traits with the totality of species inhabiting the Earth. Of course, the human being is a very unusual animal, with whose appearance life on our planet entered a new phase. In what, then, does the unusualness of the human being consist? How does the human being differ from other animals? What is the principal characteristic of the human being? Based on the experience of seminars that the author conducted with biology students, several frequently proposed answers may be considered. "The human being is rational." It is difficult for us to know what is happening in the psyche of our neighbor, not to mention that of animals. Be that as it may, the psyche of highly developed animals, including the human being, ensures their interaction with the surrounding environment and adaptation to it. What goes on inside this "black box" is very difficult to describe and name. Apparently this answer is correct, but there are probably some outwardly manifested characteristics as well? "The human being uses abstract symbols (the second signal system)." In order to communicate to other bees the location of a food source, the scout bee performs a special dance, running "in a figure-eight." The number of abdominal waggles during the passage of the central part of the figure indicates the distance to the food source, while the angle of inclination of this part to the vertical indicates the direction of flight relative to the sun, with a correction for its diurnal movement! [IMG_3] The central line of the dance performed by the scout bee is positioned vertically, which means that food should be sought by flying straight toward the sun from the hive. "The human being creates a model of the world in its psyche and is guided by it." From the angle of the axis of the bees' dance it is possible to determine where, according to their "calculations," the sun is located. It turns out that in their model of the world, during the day the sun moves uniformly from east to west above the earth, and at night from west to east beneath the earth (bees "use" a geocentric system). This distinguishes them, for example, from fish capable of orienting themselves by the sun, for whom the sun at night "moves" from west to east above the earth, remaining invisible. "The human being lives in society." Many other species of animals also live in society — from social insects to gregarious and herd mammals. The social behavior of the human being is connected by many similar traits to that of other primates. "The human being is capable of learning." But have you seen how a trained dog differs from an untrained one? And does not an old hare surpass a young one in the ability to escape from predators? "All other animals change themselves, adapting to the environment, while the human being changes the environment." The burrowing marmot changes the environment in the desired direction. Accustoming ourselves to the cold over winter, we ourselves change — recall that at 0°C one's face feels cold in autumn, but not in spring. "The human being is capable of working." And what do wasps do when they obtain for themselves pieces of sweet food and for their larvae pieces of protein food from our tables? "The human being creates artificial ecosystems." Beavers build dams up to a kilometer in length, flooding attractive sections of forest. They pursue two goals: to reach forage plants and to protect themselves from predators. The dam depends in its construction on local conditions, is constantly repaired and reinforced with branches and mud. [IMG_4] A beaver dam — a magnificent structure. "The human being can destroy its habitat." Reflect on the sad history of yeast that settled in grape juice and processed sugar into alcohol, until the alcohol-saturated medium became unsuitable for their life. "The human being builds cities and uses other species." Ants do not merely build anthills. Leaf-cutter ants fill underground chambers with chewed leaves, grow specific fungi on them (combating "weeds"), and feed on their fruiting bodies. Common red ants settle aphids on plants, protect them from ladybugs and other hazards, and feed on their sugary secretions. [IMG_5] [IMG_6] Leaf-cutter ants carry a piece of a leaf — the nutrient medium for fungi. Tailor ants sew two leaves together with the silky secretions of their larvae. Both are complex technologies requiring the efforts of many individuals. "The human being is capable of believing in the afterlife and in God." It is very difficult to penetrate into the psyche of animals, but even here there are certain hints at analogies. Elephants display considerable interest in the corpses and bones of their kin, demonstrating that these remains represent a certain value for them. K. Lorenz described in geese behavior analogous to superstitious behavior in humans. The owner represents a supreme value for a good dog, and the attitude toward it is akin to a religious feeling. "The actions of the human being are purposeful." During his military service, the author saw two conscripts sawing a leaning tree with a two-handed saw from the side toward which it was leaning. The author's warning that the tree would pinch their saw provoked verbal aggression from them. When the saw got stuck, they tried to chop it out with an axe, and again they chopped "with the lean." When the axe got stuck as well, their commander ordered the tree to be yanked with a vehicle. The fallen tree damaged both the vehicle and the driver. "The human being is capable of harming its own health." Lomechusa beetles, which secrete narcotic substances causing ants to cease performing necessary work, may live in anthills. Ants take every care of these beetles and may breed them in numbers that lead to the death of the anthill. "The human being is the only animal ashamed of its nakedness." Of course, shame is the first acquisition of Adam and Eve after partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, in many primates the display by a male of his genitals is a challenge to other males, leading either to their submission or to conflict. A female, by displaying her genitals to an "outsider" male, communicates her sexual readiness and may provoke aggression from the dominant male. The mechanism of avoidance of conflict-prone situations was transformed into what we call shame. "The human being experiences friendly feelings toward those close to it." Toad tadpoles swim in schools. They choose schools consisting of their relatives (with siblings being more attractive than cousins), and from non-related individuals they choose "acquaintances" — those in whose company they have previously been. So then, does the human being not differ in principle from other animals? Ecological Characteristics of the Human Being Of course, the human being is characterized by many unique features. Let us consider how it differs ecologically (that is, in its way of life and in its exchange of matter, energy, and information with the environment). All animals inhabit populations — aggregations of individuals inhabiting specific habitats and exploiting their resources. This also applies to cosmopolitan species found throughout the entire Earth. Humanity is the only global species. Its individual populations are in a state of resource exchange with one another (in how many countries was that which you put on and take with you when leaving home produced?). The numerical size of humanity is determined not by the carrying capacity of the specific habitats populated by its populations, but by the quantity of resources on the entire planet! The maximum "ceiling" of the flow of energy transformed by all other animals is determined by the current primary production of plants (the quantity of "fixed" solar energy). Humanity has surpassed these limits, using not only current but also fossil primary production (in the form of coal, oil, gas, etc.), and even energy sources inaccessible to other species (atomic energy)! All living organisms use one or another mode of information exchange, but only in the human being has informational exchange overcome distances (we are interested in events on the other side of the planet) and, though only in one direction, time (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, not to mention the Buddha and Christ, exert a greater influence on us than most of our contemporaries). The greater part of the energy it uses, the human being transforms not with its own body but with the aid of the technosphere — a distinct part of inanimate nature possessing many properties of the living (the technosphere is characterized by metabolism, evolution, and the "life cycle" of individual units, etc.). With the activity of the technosphere is also connected the release into the biosphere of xenobiotics (substances foreign to living organisms). The list begun may be continued, yet it cannot exhaust the specificity of the human being. For instance, several thousand years ago the enumerated characteristics were not yet typical of our species, and yet it already stood apart among other animals! By virtue of what? On the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics Every species evolves to correspond to a particular way of life under conditions characteristic of its habitat. The adaptations acquired in the course of evolution may be connected both with changes in the body (the emergence of new organs or new functions) and with changes in behavior (the emergence of new reactions or modes of action). The differences in the way of life of many spiders are connected with how they use their webs, not with the structure of their silk glands. Corvid birds are highly adapted not so much by virtue of their morphological or physiological characteristics as by virtue of the flexibility of their behavior. Naturally, a necessary condition for behavioral adaptation is the availability of the "base" — a brain, sense organs, and organs that execute the "commands" of the brain. To understand what follows, it is necessary to turn to one longstanding problem of evolutionary biology. In our understanding, the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics has become associated with the name of J. B. Lamarck, although in this matter Lamarck merely shared the views accepted in his time. Changes that occurred in an organism during its lifetime are transmitted to its offspring — so, accordingly, the correspondence of the organism to its environment develops. That acquired characteristics are not inherited was proclaimed by A. Weismann. Subsequently, ideas about evolution "according to Darwin" became associated with Weismann's views on the non-inheritance of acquired characteristics. The only exception worth examining in more detail was Soviet biology during the period of the dominance of T. D. Lysenko. With the final victory of Soviet power in the USSR, a radical restructuring of animal husbandry and crop production was required — the transition from individual to collective farming. New breeds of animals and varieties of plants were needed. Within the framework of the planned national economy, scientific institutes and breeding stations were required to fulfill the assignment of the party and government within a short and specified period. By that time, an advanced school of genetics and breeding had developed in the USSR, whose leader was N. I. Vavilov. Given that predispositions, not the qualities of organisms, are inherited, specialists would have been obliged to demand sufficient time for their work. Even if the cow Manka gives a lot of milk, her daughters may not inherit this quality; in order to determine how their hereditary dispositions will manifest, they need to be raised to maturity. Moreover, it turns out that the quantity of milk in cows depends on the sire — their father — and he does not give milk at all... Thus, selective breeding is a long and complex undertaking. The essence of life was clear at that time: Engels had established that it consisted in metabolism. The assertion of the existence of "genes" that are not destroyed and not created in the course of metabolism was inevitably perceived as idealistic. It could be understood to mean that the hereditary program (the "idea") is primary, and its realization in the course of metabolism ("matter") secondary. A clear social demand arose for biologists who, with the aid of dialectical materialism, would manage the exchange of heredity and change the properties of organisms in the desired direction. The most successful in promising to fulfill this demand was T. D. Lysenko, a not-untalented protege of Vavilov. Lysenko claimed that heredity could be "destabilized" and in the shortest time it would be possible to achieve the inheritance of the acquired characteristics required by the party and government. Naturally, the country's leadership supported Lysenko and his adherents, and when geneticists began to explain why Lysenko's efforts would yield nothing, suppressed the "anti-Soviet agitation" with all severity. Vavilov died in prison of starvation shortly before Stalin agreed to Churchill's demand to hand him over to the Red Cross; many biologists of lower rank were ground into camp dust or intimidated. [IMG_7] [IMG_8] [IMG_9] Could Vavilov have prevailed in the debate with Lysenko? Since the country's leadership had no interest in scientific truth, he could not. Pictured: N. I. Vavilov in his office and in detention; T. D. Lysenko. Why did we turn to this tragic history? For the reasoning that follows, it is very important that the inheritance of acquired characteristics should substantially accelerate evolution. Cultural Inheritance Thus, both a structure and a specific behavioral reaction may be an adaptation to certain demands of the environment. On what basis is behavior formed? For the majority of animals, on the same basis as other characteristics. In the course of development proceeding under genetic control, a certain structure is formed in the nervous system ensuring the required behavior. A bee is born ready to communicate the location of food by means of a dance, while a raccoon is innately inclined to wash food in water. However, there exists also a second mode of acquiring adaptive behavioral characteristics, called cultural inheritance — that is, the transmission of a characteristic as a result of learning. A well-described example of cultural inheritance is found in the Japanese macaques of Koshima Island. In 1953, observers recorded a case in which a young female named Imo dropped a sand-encrusted sweet potato into the water and ate it already clean. She established the connection between these events and began to dip other sweet potatoes into the water as well. Some of her kin "aped" her and adopted this habit (this did not apply to older monkeys: how often do pensioners imitate the habits of their grandchildren?). After some time, the same female tried throwing rice into the water and thereby separated it from grains of sand. During the lifetime of one generation, these characteristics spread among all the monkeys of the given population! There is no doubt that the spread of this characteristic through biological inheritance (as observed in raccoons) would have required an extraordinarily long period of time. [IMG_10] [IMG_11] Japanese macaques are the northernmost species of monkeys. Cultural inheritance in them has been studied for several decades already. Another example. In England some time ago there were milk bottles roughly similar to those we had in the 1980s: with a tin-foil cap. Milkmen would make their rounds each morning and leave such bottles at the doors of their customers. At a certain moment, some titmice learned to peck open the caps of milk bottles and eat the cream. After a short time, such instances became systematic, and the dairies had to switch to more robust packaging. The speed of spread of the new characteristic unambiguously proves that it was inherited culturally, as are songs in passerine songbirds, certain hunting techniques in carnivorous mammals, and a number of other characteristics of animals. [IMG_12] The pecking-open of milk bottle caps is a characteristic transmitted in titmice through cultural inheritance. [IMG_13] A female cheetah has brought a live gazelle fawn and is teaching her cub to kill prey. Although cultural inheritance is found in many animal species, the human being is the only species for which it has become primary. Lacking many specific adaptations, the human being evolved thanks to its capacity for flexible behavior, adjusted to diverse environmental conditions. As the mechanism of cultural inheritance was perfected (occurring on a biological foundation), the fitness of the individual was increasingly determined not by what it had inherited biologically but by what it had learned. Note: biological inheritance proceeds "according to Darwin," without the inheritance of acquired characteristics, whereas social, cultural inheritance proceeds "according to Lamarck," with their inheritance! Approximately 40-50 thousand years ago, directed biological evolution of the human being ceased; only the elimination of individuals substantially deviating from the biological norm continued. The human being began to adapt to its environment culturally (in this context, the term "culture" denotes not what is financed by the relevant ministry, but the totality of all characteristics transmitted through learning, even "uncultural" ones). It is for precisely this reason that the human being has two natures: biological and social (culturally inherited). The behavioral characteristics of the human being enumerated in this article find certain analogies among other animals. The characteristic of the human being is that they develop on the basis of a more "recent" and more perfect mechanism of evolution — cultural inheritance. For the designation of the unit of cultural transmission (by analogy with the term "gene"), R. Dawkins proposed the word "meme." A meme is any culturally transmitted unit: the manner of pouring lemon juice on oysters, a swear word, the habit of closing Windows with Alt+F4 rather than Shut Down, and so forth (including the ability to peck open milk bottle caps). An exercise in self-observation: trace all the memes manifested in your current behavior, and try to trace the roots of their emergence! Some memes spread rapidly and soon disappear (recall how a fashionable joke spreads through some company), while others have a long history. It is now established that Neanderthals belonged to a different species that existed alongside Homo sapiens for a lengthy period of time. In all probability, there was no exchange of genetic information between these species, but there was an exchange of memes (technological finds). Some of the memes registered in Neanderthals are widespread to this day. Thus, a Neanderthal hunter buried 60,000 years ago in the Shanidar cave on the territory of Iran lay on a layer of pine branches and was strewn with flowers (21). The wreaths with flowers on a base of pine branches that we bring to funerals have a long prehistory... [IMG_14] Perhaps this is what funerals looked like among Neanderthals. The history of the use of flowers and pine branches at funerals goes back more than 60,000 years! The space of cultural inheritance that has arisen has its own characteristics. It developed as a means of adaptation to a changing environment. Alas, the most widespread memes are not those with the greatest adaptive value, but those that are most easily transmitted by virtue of their primitiveness or stickiness. Connected with this are the sad phenomena of mass culture and the brutalization of the crowd. On the other hand, we can influence our cultural evolution (for example, through the proper organization of education) far more than our biological evolution. [IMG_15] Culturally inherited characteristics depend on the biological foundation. From scratches on the teeth of Neanderthals it has been demonstrated that they assisted themselves while eating with stone knives, which they usually held in the right hand. This means that Neanderthals exhibited brain asymmetry, which in modern humans is associated with the development of speech. Biological Characteristics of the Human Being Which specialties of a medical institute are the most difficult to gain admission to? Gynecology, dentistry, and surgery. Specialists in these fields are in the greatest demand, as they ensure the functioning of systems that were restructured in the final stages of the biological evolution of the human being. For the intensification of cultural inheritance, a flexible, reprogrammable brain was necessary, and for its accommodation — a capacious skull. Developmental restructurings occur in evolution through the action of regulators that retard certain parts of the developing system and accelerate others. In the course of human evolution, the development of the facial part was retarded, while that of the cerebral part was accelerated. Disproportions arose in the facial skull, as a result of which the chin appeared (anatomists and physiologists long attempted to establish the functions of this part of the body). The growth of the base of the lower jaw turned out to be better regulated and retarded less than the part that bears the teeth! Unfortunately, as a result of these restructurings, the development of the teeth turned out to be substantially dysregulated, which led to a sharp increase in the frequency of their diseases. With the increase in the size of the brain and skull, childbirth was seriously complicated. The transition to bipedal locomotion led to the pelvis, which had previously enclosed the abdominal organs from the sides, becoming cup-shaped, supporting them from below. As a result, the outlet of the pelvis became narrower, and childbirth even more difficult. The vertical position of the spine led to a change in the loads acting upon it. The curves of the spine, emerging in the course of development of the locomotor system, partially compensate for them; but the spine remains a source of many health problems. The pinching of one or another nerve is probably often the actual cause of many diseases. Thus, the human being is "made" with many deficiencies. Their elimination has been retarded: carriers of biological defects can survive and leave offspring thanks to cultural adaptations. A serious problem has been the increase, as a result of the advances of medicine, in the number of carriers of more or less serious anomalies. The necessity of prolonging the period of susceptibility to cultural inheritance led to the delay in the maturation of the human being and the lengthening of its childhood. The human being cannot be born with a ready-made structure of the neuronal networks of the brain: it must form them in the course of interaction with the surrounding environment and with other people. Naturally, the role of the hereditary component is also very important in this process. Certain hereditary predispositions may substantially alter the characteristics of the human "processor." An example is Turner syndrome — a genetic anomaly in which patients have only one sex chromosome (the female one) and develop as short-statured, infertile women. The mental development of such patients is normal, but with a characteristic impairment of spatial thinking. The impairment of brain function turns out to be very specific! Incidentally, humans are also characterized by one more remarkable biological feature. The human being is the only permanently sexual animal. The reproduction of other animals is in one way or another confined to a specific period of time. Thus, for mammals the estrous reproductive cycle of females is characteristic. In this cycle, at the moment of ovulation (the release of the egg), that is, when the female is capable of becoming pregnant, estrus (heat) occurs, accompanied by the rejection of the uterine epithelium and characteristic secretions. These external manifestations serve as a signal for males, stimulating competition for a sexual partner and mating. Humans are characterized by the menstrual cycle, in which ovulation occurs covertly, between menstruations. Armed with modern knowledge, people calculate the moment of ovulation (for example, for contraceptive purposes) and miscalculate! Contrary to the structure of values of contemporary society, the biological task of the organism is to leave descendants. The menstrual cycle compels the male (that is, the man) to regularly enter into sexual relations with the female (the woman), "catching" the moment when she is capable of becoming pregnant. Consequently, he must live constantly with her! It is currently difficult to say definitively at what stage of human evolution this characteristic arose, but its close connection with the creation of the relatively stable family — a social structure that intensifies cultural inheritance — is clear. Since the male cares for the offspring of the woman with whom he lives, he must ensure that these are his offspring (men who raise the children of others leave fewer of their own descendants and disappear from the population). Consequently, he must prevent her connection with other men! For the woman, marital infidelity is biologically admissible, since she will in any case be raising her own child. If the child's outside father is more viable than the permanent cohabitant, this will only increase the child's chances of survival. And for the man, a liaison on the side is quite acceptable as well. His biological costs for a child are small (unlike the woman's!). If in addition to the children raised with a permanent partner he has offspring "on the side," his contribution to future generations will only increase. It is precisely for this reason that in societies dominated by men, a double moral standard is stable: a woman's infidelity is a baseness, while a man's is a prank or an act of valor. However, sometimes these circumstances are attempted to be explained by other circumstances: by the fact that Adam was created before Eve, or by the fact that Eve heeded the serpent... What Determines the Properties of the Human Being? Thus, the social evolution of the human being proceeds in a completely different manner from biological evolution. For the cultural progress of humanity, the elimination of culturally backward individuals is completely unnecessary — it is sufficient only to educate them, or, if they are ineducable, their children. Genocide has no relation to Darwinism and does not follow from it. Of the anti-evolutionary arguments named at the beginning of the article, one remains unexamined. How, as a result of adaptive evolution, could a brain have arisen possessing "surplus" capacities, since there could have been no biological evolution for the development of the capacities manifested by Shakespeare, Bach, or Einstein? "The question arises: why did humanity need to develop gigantic intellectual capacities, far exceeding the minimum necessary for evolutionary survival?" (22, p. 131). The most significant changes that occurred with the biological nature of the human being in the final stages of its evolution turned out to be connected with the perfection of its brain — a self-tuning instrument of cultural evolution. Our brain is sufficiently flexible to have formed, in the conditions in which the main events of the biological evolution of the human being were concluding, a highly adaptive hunter, gatherer, and member of a small group. When the same brain develops in a rich and diverse environment, when its capacities are developed in the course of adequate education, and when its capacities are not spent on the satisfaction of empty temptations (diseases of our time!), it is capable of achieving much more. We have attempted to examine the properties of the human being in their evolutionary conditionality. Naturally, what we have presented is merely a superficial sketch requiring more detailed examination. However, it is evident that this method is fundamentally different from the approach of the "scientific creationists." Comparing the human being and its closest relatives, the evolutionist will better understand its own nature, and will discover the causes of characteristics that without this explanation would seem arbitrary or miraculous. The creationist, however, will only be able to fabricate explanations for God's design, forgetting the thesis about the inscrutability of the Lord's ways. Of course, one can believe that apes were created specifically to amuse and admonish us, that the traces of evolution were introduced into our body to tempt doubters, and that our entire world is a cunning interweaving of temptations and teachings — but what does science have to do with it? Cited Literature: 15. Sysoev D. Evolutionism in the Light of Orthodox Teaching // Hexameron versus Evolution, Moscow: Palomnik, 2000; cited in: Atheolog. Creationist Wars: Lalomov and Khomenkov Strike Back (https://atheism.ru/library/Atheolog_4.phtml) 16. Bergman J. Darwinism as the Basis of Communism (https://www.crimea.com/~creation/text/116.htm) 17. Neward E. What Hitler Owes to Darwin (https://www.crimea.com/~creation/text/36c.htm) 18. Woolley H.B. Trotsky and Darwin: What Do They Have in Common? (https://www.crimea.com/~creation/text/104.htm) 19. Lorenz K. The Waning of Humaneness. Moscow: Respublika, 1998. — 393 pp. 20. Khomenkov A.S. Why Are Some Apes Anthropoid? (https://molitva.narod.ru/kr/1/primates.htm) 21. Constable J. The Neanderthals. Moscow: Mir, 1978. — 159 pp. 22. Ross A. In the Beginning... Zaoksky: Istochnik zhizni, 2001. — 432 pp. Additional materials: Has Evolutionary Theory Been Refuted? 1. Is the choice between evolutionism and creationism scientific? Has Evolutionary Theory Been Refuted? 2. The variability of scientific knowledge — a deficiency or an advantage? Has Evolutionary Theory Been Refuted? 3. The problem of transitional forms. Creationism as a form of intellectual doublethink.