Mise à jour : 28/06/16
SITE WEB DU C.E.R.B.I.Centre d'Etude et de Recherche sur la Bipédie Initiale C.E.R.B.I. OFFICIAL WEB SITE
The farther phylogenetical history
of this marine worm, which may have evolved into the first
four-limbed vertebrates with a round skull configuration, is
summarized on fig. 3. Mans large and globular brain
represents the final evolution of a marine animalcules
floating and sustenance organ. Fig. 3 : Phylogenetical series of the aquatic pre-hominid (marine homonculus) showing the fashioning of the human encephalon and of the brain-pan (after de SARRE 1992) ![]() - A-B) : The floating organ
developed on the apical top of the marine worms body,
just like a bubble at the above part of a straw,
or the umbrella in some medusae, intendedly filled with gas
to facilitate an up and down
swimming. - C) : The globular sustenance
organ becomes functional in the same way as, for instance,
the natatory bladder of a fish. - D) : Here is the consolidation of
the bladder-walls through the insert of a mesodermal
membrane between the inner ectodermal bag and the outer skin
(the mesodermal cells originated in the protochorda); it was
this that shaped the round configuration of mans
skull! - E) : The marine homonculus with his four limbs, and a little tail that functioned as a rudder, then started to develop a big brain (the neural cells originated from the spinal chord medulla) and the upright posture, evolving into the first, ever terrestrial, air-breathing vertebrate. This was also a true mammal, since the homonculus developed, yet during the marine phase, typical mammalian characters, such as: hairy coat, viviparity, lactation and sucking, endothemy... The mammals are consequently to be set at the root of all vertebrates! ![]() menu THE
ARCHETYPE FROM WHICH THE OTHER VERTEBRATES HAVE
EVOLVED The characteristics of a big brain in a globular skull were obtained, as we emphasized, before the adaptation of the first bipeds to a terrestrial way of life became complete. Even, some of the archetypal water mammals made the choice to remain where they have ever existed: i.e., in the ocean... Today cetaceans are indeed so well adapted to their aquatic habitat that they never could have left the ocean! As a matter of fact, the skull of the cetaceans is being deeply transformed, consistently with the external fish form. Therefore, the large and efficient encephalon remained quite undamaged, not far different of a human brain. Like the first representatives of our lineage, the cetaceans once developed directly from the common marine homonculus-archetype! The early land-dwelling vertebrates had, as we emphasized, a natural orthograde body position that hindered them to run on four legs, even if they should have liked it. Referring to Louis Bolk (1926), the primordial big brain has locked the curved end of the vertebral column in its original disposition, just under the basis of the cerebral skull. Bipedalism was really advantageous for coming out of the water, for walking long distances on the ground while carrying a young, food or some objects... The free hands were required for tool use and manufacture. If humans have remained more or less morphologically and anatomically the same through out the course of geologic ages, this may be due to cerebralisation, which is centered in the brain and acts on a cellular level as regards behaviour and mind, whereas the (nevertheless!) principal evolutive current of dehumanization tends to reduce and to deform the human skull, to change the body aspect, and to engage new locomotory habits (quadrupedalism, for instance!). As Bernard Heuvelmans claimed, these two antagonistic tendencies in the evolution of the primates are still present in the modern Homo sapiens: the second factor (cerebralisation) may contribute to the slowing down and to the restriction of the free development of the first one (dehumanization)! ![]() menu DEHUMANIZATION AS AN EVOLUTIVE PROGRESS The key error of many evolutionists still consists in assuming that man descends from quadrupedal animals that resembled monkeys or apes (Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Sivapithecus). It inevitably led to the misconception of the phylogenetical tree of man associating fossil apes (like Australopithecus) and some ape-men. We should better call the last ones: pongoid men, i.e. they are only looking like apes. I mean the erectus-hypodigm, for instance. The current human fossils from the Plio-Pleistocene represent dehumanized forms. Like (perhaps still living) representatives of pongoid wild men around the world, they were sometimes branching off from the central and chief trunk of our sapiens-lineage. The evolutive phenomenon of dehumanization exhibits a progressive loss of the facial and bodily structures (then, the mental abilities) that characterize the Homo sapiens. Its major starting-gear may be after a big natural disaster (collision between the Earth and an asteroid) provoking a break in cultural habits, then a change in habitat, and a specialization in feeding habits along with a development of the jaws which become heavier, and with the whole body bending forward... In his famous book about wild men (Abominable Snowman, Legend come to Life, 1961), Ivan T. Sanderson let us consider with new eyes the condition of human groups that are rejected into mountains, forests or other inhospital areas. In Norway, some adolescents who had grown up in humid valleys that were nearly always deprived of sun rays suffered from physical degenerations due to the lack of vitamins E and D (produced by sun rays). Suffering from mental subnormality, they had grotesque hairs growing on their head and body, their jaws were very large and irregular. Rejected by the community such people lived in the mountains and succeeded in eking out an existence by hunting small animals by hand. These were eaten raw, as well as vegetables. ![]() menu Within the theoretical framework of Initial Bipedalism, the relic and fossil non-sapiens hominids are considered to have issued from the human line of ascent. They are the representatives of collateral lineages who have survived, concurrently with Homo sapiens, during the prehistoric times (man himself was confronted with survival problems and forced to return to the caverns...!), or they are still living until the recent time (relic hominoids). They are perhaps the same forms: so the Asian cryptids, called Almasty, Kaptar, Barmanu, etc, may be the modern representatives of Homo neanderthalensis or Homo erectus, with more or less nocturnal habits. The typical description is: an upright-walking, hair-covered creature with an ape-like face. It might even be fossil-known species, as I emphasized; but it must also be assumed that some specimens of wildmen throughtout the world had retreated for a short time from the humain main lineage (i.e., Homo sapiens): we should consider them as recently dehumanized forms. They sometimes wear clothes and are actually looking more like true humans. Then, wildmen are not an intermediate between the animal and human: they are just the opposite! Most of the wild relic hominoids walk bipedally, like many fossil representatives (Oreopithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus) also did. They have apparently some difficulty to get rid of this locomotion feature, that may cause inconvenience for them, in their habitats. This fact is adduced as a proof for initial bipedalism, that is retained in the skeleton structure, as dehumanization goes on progressing! We are indeed far in mind from the adherents of the ordinary school of thought, who are still receptive to the concept of hairy creatures intermediate between apes and men which once painfully tried to stand and walk on two legs... The wildman, indeed, must still walk erect, even with a forward inclination of the torso, putting his nostrils very close to the ground, in order to follow the scent of some animal, like dogs would do... Therefore, the wildman cannot put his weight on his hands simply because of his bodily structure. This could only more dehumanized descendants realize! According to witnesses in southern China, there are creatures that look like terrestrial orang utans. They are said to stand fully upright. Such an erect posture may be considered as simply deviant by researchers, but a bipedally adapted orang utan cannot be closely related to the normal Indonesian species, which is quadruped, -and a skilled tree-dweller with prehensile feet! There is only one logical explanation, referring to an initial bipedalism of the both forms: the insular orang utans are indeed the more deviant, i.e. they once split from the terrestrial ancestors and then became the accomplished tree-climbers and brachiators we know... In science, the principle of Ockhams razor demands that the simplest explanation should always be preferred to the more complicated one. And this principle surely advises us that bipedal forms have preceded the today quadrupedal apes, and that the inverse cannot be true. Anyone who has ever observed apes, would not deny it! We do suggest that this assumption would resolve many aspects of the evolutionary puzzle. Bipedal locomotion and the upright stance represent an early, intrinsic, characteristic of the Homo sapiens, that is preserved at different stages in the post-human evolution, before it gradually disappears. ![]() menu Même si de nos jours la théorie simienne est encore en vogue, de nombreux arguments vont en faveur dun bipédisme initial, au sein même du groupe qui verra émerger les Primates. Déjà, au tout début de leur croissance, les embryons de mammifères montrent une flexion de la partie antérieure de la corde dorsale, sous le crâne (fig. 1), qui correspond au développement du futur bipède. Chez les animaux concernés, loption quadrupède napparaît que lorsque lembryon grandit, et que les caractéristiques de sa lignée saffirment. Chez lhomme, langulation embryonnaire persiste. Cest parce que nous avons conservé le gros cerveau globulaire originel qui pèse sur la partie fléchie de la tige dorsale que nous marchons debout, et non point linverse! Comme lont souligné Max Westenhöfer (1926), puis Bernard Heuvelmans (1954), lhomme doit essentiellement sa spécificité à lallure verticale de son corps. Dans cette position seule, la colonne vertébrale, pareille à la tige dune fleur, soutient à son sommet la boîte crânienne et son précieux contenu: le cerveau, qui a préservé sa forme ronde originelle. Le milieu aquatique est tout indiqué comme lendroit où une telle configuration a pu apparaître. La forme sphérique est celle quaffecte naturellement un organe qui tend à sépanouir au maximum, dans un minimum de place. Une sphéricité originelle du cerveau des Mammifères -et par voie de conséquence de la boîte osseuse qui le protège- peut donc être admise pour des raisons purement mécaniques. Se référant maintenant aux travaux du professeur Wolfgang Gutmann (Ecole de Francfort), lauteur du présent article considère quun ver marin acéphale (fig. 2) pourrait être lancêtre commun de tous les Vertébrés. Cet animal présentait une tige dorsale flexible, qui allait devenir plus tard notre colonne vertébrale. Quant au cerveau, il était à lorigine une poche ectodermale remplie de gaz, servant à la sustentation, comme chez les méduses actuelles. On explique ainsi la sphéricité originelle de la tête des premiers vertébrés (fig. 3), après ossification de lenveloppe crânienne: le contenant prend ainsi la forme du contenu. Au sortir de locéan, larchétype ancestral des Vertébrés avait lallure verticale bien ancrée dans sa structure anatomique. Lêtre terrestre qui allait en résulter ne pouvait que marcher debout! Les précurseurs des Cétacés actuels, quant à eux, avaient choisi de rester vivre en pleine mer; baleines et dauphins nont donc jamais quitté la mer... Les Vertébrés bipèdes non-humains, ainsi que les quadrupèdes, sont issus de larchétype par une série de transformations évolutives (déshominisation) menant à travers toute la gamme des plans anatomiques. Ce sont aujourdhui les divers Mammifères (à lexception du genre Homo et des Cétacés), les Oiseaux, les Reptiles, les Amphibiens et les groupes de Poissons retournés à la vie aquatique. Contrairement aux certitudes des naturalistes depuis Darwin et Haeckel, la bipédie se trouve bien être à lorigine des autres formes de locomotion, chez les Vertébrés. Les données paléontologiques viennent confirmer ce point de vue en soumettant à la sagacité des chercheurs des formes, telles que Oreopithecus, Ardipithecus ou Australopithecus, qui ont apparemment bien du mal à abandonner la locomotion bipède (ancrée dans leur squelette!), afin de passer à un stade quadrupède mieux adapté, sans doute, à leurs desiderata biologiques. La paléontologiste française Yvette Deloison écrit en substance, après étude des membres et extrémités daustralopithèques: Il apparaît évident que lancêtre commun des Australopithèques, des Grands Singes et de lHomme, était un Primate aux extrémités des membres indifférenciés. De plus, cet ancêtre devait être bipède ce que prouve, entre autres caractères, la structure primitive de la main humaine. Les rapports de témoins oculaires sur la présence, à notre époque, dhommes et autres hominoïdés sauvages, montrent la même contradiction (apparente) que les fossiles: on y voit des créatures bipèdes narrivant pas vraiment à se mettre à quatre pattes... ce qui pourtant les arrangerait bien, pour fuir notamment. Cest une pièce importante à verser au dossier de la bipédie, qui sous sa forme dite la plus élaborée (buste et tête en aplomb sur les jambes) est lapanage de lHomo sapiens, bipède depuis toujours! Mais on sattend dun mode de locomotion aussi ancien quil perdure dans la structure anatomique et dans le comportement des mammifères post-humains, même si ceux-ci sont fortement engagés dans la voie dune évolution déshominisante. Cest précisément ce que lensemble des faits observables tend à démontrer, renforçant par là-même le modèle théorique de la bipédie initiale qui, nous nen doutons pas, simposera bien vite aux chercheurs à laube de ce nouveau millénaire!
BOLK, Louis (1926): Le problème de lanthropogenèse, C.-R. Ass. Anat., 1, Paris. DELOISON, Yvette (1999): LHomme ne descend pas dun Primate arboricole! Une évidence méconnue, Rev. Biométr. Hum. Anthropol., 17 : 147-150, Paris. FRECHKOP, Serge (1941): Remarques pour lembryologie des mammifères, Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat., XVII/69, Bruxelles. HARDY, Alister (1960): Was man more aquatic in the past?, The New Scientist, 7, Londres. HEUVELMANS, Bernard (1954): Lhomme doit-il être considéré comme le moins spécialisé des mammifères?, Sciences & Avenir, 85, Paris. SARRE de, François (1997): About early water stages in humanity: a comparison between the AAT and the Initial Bipedalism Theory, Bipedia, 15, Nice. SNOO de, Klaas (1942): Das Problem der Menschwerdung im Licht der vergleichenden Geburtshilfe, Gustav Fischer, Jena. WESTENHÖFER, Max (1926): Vergleichend-morphologische Betrachtungen über die Entstehung der Ferse und des Sprunggelenks der Landwirbeltiere mit besonderer Beziehung auf den Menschen, Sonderband: Archiv f. Frauenk. u. Konstitutionsforsch., Bd. XII, Leipzig.
|