Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis

---

The inversion theory of anthropogenesis (ITA) is the nonlinear evolutionary process that led to the emergence of Homo sapiens, beginning with the evolutionary history of human progenitor animals of marine etiology and leading to the emergence of modern man. The theory presents an alternative approach to the traditional Human evolution paradigm that posits the emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates.. The inversion theory of anthropogenesis was proposed by the Russian philosopher and anthropologist Victor Ten at the beginning of 2000.

The inversion theory of anthropogenesis begins with the justification of the methodology of scientific research, and extensively uses the principle of uniformitarianism justified by Charles Lyell, since the natural history of the Earth is the same evolutionary concept as the theory of anthropoid evolution: past evolutionary events must be explained by causes identical to those now in operation, so the present is the key to the past. The inversion theory of anthropogenesis takes as the point of reference the corporeality of modern man, and analyzes it from an evolutionary point of view without prejudging conclusions based on external similarity.

The novelty of the theory

The fundamental novelty of the inversion theory lies in the fact that it links human morphogenesis and psychogenesis into a single entity. The rationale for morphogenesis is the foundation of the theory, but the main element is the inversion theory of psychogenesis. This states that consciousness appeared as a result of inversion, an evolutionary dialectical leap (discontinuity of the continuity of quantitative changes), rather than as a result of the step-by-step complication of monkey reflexes, which is impossible, as proved by neuroscience during the 20th century. A possible reason for the inversion is the malfunction of the harmonious animal psyche of pre-sapiens into a schizophrenic state. The anatomical basis for this malfunction was the situation when there were two autonomous brains in one organism, which man inherited from his ancestors.

The inversion theory of anthropogenesis adapted the principle of actualism to the theory of anthropoid evolution by systematically proposing to identify in the human body such anatomical and physiological exclusives (APE) that distinguish it from monkeys and other animals and to denote the biological specificity of man . Many human anatomical and physiological exclusives, such as fat distribution, nasopharyngeal, nose and ear shapes, bending of the foot and other signs, sharply distinguish man from hypothetical aquatic monkeys, who would have a completely different type of adaptation to the aquatic environment, characteristic of terrestrial animals. Therefore, one can hypothesize that man’s distant ancestors were marine mammals. The inversion theory of anthropogenesis differs from the Aquatic ape hypothesis that considers the shallows of seas, rivers and lakes as the dominant crucible of human evolution and that many of the physical dissimilarities between human beings and apes may be explained as adaptations to wading, swimming and diving. That is, man is an animal of marine etiology, adapted to the terrestrial way of life as opposed to aquatic apes, which are terrestrial etiology animals, adapted to a semi-aquatic life. The possible landscape of anthropogenesis is the coastal border of water and land and not the tropical forest and savannah as was thought before. Moreover, the specific nature of man is the absence of specificity; man is a universal animal.

The main hypotheses

Many human anatomical and physiological exclusives sharply distinguish man from apes, who have a completely different type of adaptation, characteristic of terrestrial animals. Therefore, one can hypothesize that man’s distant ancestors were marine mammals. In human evolution there could have been a period when development proceeded on the paedomorphosis type and the ancestor of man could have been a neotenic form of Acrodelphinidae. Their morphology was close to their distant ancestors living at the intersection of two environments: round heads on mobile necks and limbs, as evidenced by the development of modern dolphin embryos. When the Tethys regression began, due to irregularity of the landscape, numerous groups of Acrodelphinidae were isolated in some reservoirs that had no connection with the ocean. Evolution could offer to land-locked archaeocetes only the paedomorphosis development through the neotenic form. At the beginning of the regression of Tethys, Acrodelphinidae already had some adaptation to the shallows, so a reduction of the water area was a positive factor for evolution. Neoteny, in this case, meant that their cubs were able to feed onshore and in shallow water.

The possible landscape of anthropogenesis is the coastal border of water and land and not the tropical forest and savannah as supposed by supporters of the simian theory. Moreover, the specific nature of man is the absence of specificity. Based on a number of conditions, human ancestors had to be universal creatures, able to live almost anywhere; to conduct a water-terrestrial life, and the human body was formed in a moderately warm and wet atmosphere in salty water.

Human progenitors could not be effective hunters or scavengers because they did not stand in competition with species more adapted for hunting and they did not have a specific phenotype and endocrinology, which scavengers have. Therefore, the primary ecological niche of human ancestors, when they occupied its early stages, was obtaining food hiding under a hard shell. Dwelling in marine waters, they consumed mainly chiton, and this niche was environmentally exclusive for a human ancestor. Palaeolithic preferences of seafood were preserved for a long time, and scattered around the whole of Europe, from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, are a large number of heaps of shellfish coverings, discarded by primitive people throughout the Mesolithic and Neolithic.

African human-like skeletons that are widely used for various evolutionary lines of anthropogenesis are not human predecessors but pathologically altered skeletons of pre-sapiens who left the coast of Tethys relatively early and migrated along the river banks into equatorial Africa. Having lost access to useful seafood, they inevitably developed a deficiency of vitamin D, which led to rickets, with symptoms such as a massive skull, thickening of the occiput, superciliary arches and curvature of extremities as observed in most findings. Deficiency of iodine caused dementia and microcephaly destroyed the endocrine system, leading to pathological changes in the bone system.

This evolutionary acquisition, through which the activity of human consciousness differs from the dissociated work of the dolphin's brain, was formed as a result of the return of the Archaeocetes to the shallow sea and land. This return led to the fact that both hemispheres, practically autonomous brains, were able to sleep and stay awake at the same time. As a result, they began to conflict with each other, tearing the psyche apart, which led to both the emergence of insanity and the origin of consciousness.

The original state of the psyche can be considered dual-natured; one can assume that the human consciousness is split and has no unity of consciousness. The unity of perception and thinking peculiar to people in their normal state is guaranteed only by the obedience of one part of the consciousness to another and by the rejection of its own initiative. At the dawn of the formation of consciousness, the normal state of hominids was not wakefulness with its wholeness of perception, but a state close to a hypnotic dream. It was an internal dialogue, where a command and execution belonged to different minds living in one brain. At the stage of formation of the human brain, there was no accord, so our ancestors were schizophrenic and autistic.

Consciousness appeared in man, not because of the gradual complication of the reflex activity of ape-like ancestors but through inversion, the breakdown of animal-reflex activity through schizophrenia, the split consciousness merging due to social factors. It was necessary for people with a split mind to find agreement with other people in order to survive and not destroy each other. It can be assumed that where a society could control the behaviour of its members, that society could survive. In primitive societies, self-healing occurred through regular, many-hour trance rituals involving dancing, cries and singing, often influenced by natural narcotic substances obtained from plants and animals.

The inversion theory posits that, in the context of psychogenesis, there is a recapitulation of earlier evolutionary stages of paleo psychics when there is a possibility of the appearance of rudimentary primitive consciousness, after a period of time, just as rudiments of the human body appear. Moreover, the return of man to primitive thinking, and the slipping into primitive schizophrenia, can be much faster than the time spent on acquiring consciousness. The rejection of logical thinking for the sake of expression, the rejection of realism and unlimited expansion of self-expression are the first steps towards splitting of consciousness. Man achieved active reflection of external stimuli because he has an internal mirror that never, in consciousness, stops self-reflecting. Thus, the ability to reflect external incentives is an acquired characteristic of man and not the cause of the emergence of consciousness. The theory gives an essentialist scientific definition of consciousness, defining it as the highest form of the psyche, characterized by its ability of self-reflexion.

Many philosophers see a significant drawback in the fact that the human body is not adapted to any specific landscape. However, in reality this defect is transformed into an advantage since, being not well adapted to any particular landscape, a man is paradoxically adapted to living in virtually any part of the globe. Landscape non-affiliation is in fact a huge advantage of the universal organism. Man is not an unadapted animal; on the contrary, he is successfully embedded in the landscape of his habitat.

Critiques

The first thing critics can point out is its eclecticism, which is a way of constructing a philosophical system by combining different positions borrowed from different philosophical and psychological systems. Every system must reckon with established facts and with true positions, no matter to what philosophical school they belong. Critics may also note the lack of archaeological evidence in contrast to traditional anthropology that presents thousands of archaeological finds. Many academic anthropologists who support the simian theory of human evolution have characterized the inversion theory of human origin as pseudoscience; however, it is generally more popular with scientists who are working in applied science (doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists).

See also

• Endurance running hypothesis
• Hunting hypothesis
• Diving reflex
• Aquatic ape hypothesis

Bibliography

• Morgan, Elaine (1997). The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. London: Souvenir Press. ISBN 9780285639812. Search this book on
• Morgan, Elaine (2008). The Naked Darwinist. Eildon Press. ISBN 9780952562030. Search this book on
• Vaneechoutte, M.; Kuliukas, A. V.; Verhaegen, M., eds. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy - Waterside Hypotheses Of Human Evolution. Bentham Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60805-244-8. Search this book on
• Glazunov, Mikhail (2019). Amphibian men: Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis. ISBN 978-1916253216. Search this book on

Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis

This article "Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

---