Homo sapiens - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

Name

The term Homme (with tiny) designates the male individual of the species. The individual female is, as for him, called Femme .

However, whereas one speaks about Musée of the Man, one will speak about the Human rights (in Canada, one speaks rather about “rights of the person”). This ambiguity is also found in several dictionaries, which disregard sometimes capital letter to indicate the human being.

Scientific name

The name Homo sapiens concerns the scientific terminology introduced by Carl von Linné, worked out for its systematic classification of the species: the binomial denomination. The complete scientific denomination of the mankind is, according to this terminology:

Homo sapiens , Linné 1758.

The significance of the various elements of this denomination is the following one:

Homo is a Latin word with personal (with capital letter and in italic,) which means Homme in French. He indicates the biological kind here.
sapiens is a Latin adjective (with tiny and Italic), which means in French: intelligent, wise, reasonable or careful. He indicates the Espèce here.

Linné is the name of the scientist who named and described the species.

1758 is the year of name.

However, in practice, in zoology, the name and the year are seldom specified.

Until 2003, the species Homo sapiens was subdivided in two distinct groups, considered as two subspecies, of which one was the current mankind, and the other, a species extinct cousin, that of the Homme of Néandertal. The terminological consequence was to add an adjective, always Latin (and in italic), after the name of species. Thus the mankind was called Homo sapiens sapiens . Although often still heard, this terminology is not in force any more for the majority of the scientists. Indeed, not being a terminology constitutive, but referential, it is the evolutionary receptacle which reflects the state of knowledge and the place of the Man in comprehension that this one has world: new knowledge or a new comprehension will be able to produce a new classification, which will be able to lead to a new denomination.

The second asset of this terminology is, since Linné, to have offered a common language. Across the specific vernacular names to each language to indicate the mankind or the members of this one: Human, Mensch, Ser humano,… and sometimes multiples within the same language: the mankind, the Man, the Human one; Homo sapiens is presented in the form of a term of reference, certainly of scientific nature, but which in addition knew to acquire a notoriety exceeding that of the jargon.

Origins

The Research S in human Paleontology or Paléoanthropologie, as of the studies in Génétique lead to the idea that the original population for all the human ones was located in Africa, very roughly 200.000 years ago.

Paleoanthropology

The classification of the fossil bones in the species Homo sapiens , is carried out by the bringing together of osseous morphologies like:

a reduced face (a Facial angle between 82 and 88°);
the know-orbital absence of Pad;
a projecting chin.

Moreover these clean characters must be combined with other characters like an important cerebral volume: between 1400 and 1600 cm. For example “recent” the fossil of the Homme of Flora could not be allotted to Homo sapiens because of a cerebral volume of only 400 cm.

Their Dating and the delimitation of geographical areas of distribution is invaluable information on our origins. They make it possible to make deductions or to refine the assumptions. The precision of this science is limited because it is dependant on the elements osseous and material put at the day progressively of the Fouille S. These discoveries do not make it possible today paleontology to explain with precision where, when, and how was born the first representative from Homo sapiens . It is known nevertheless, that Homo sapiens finds its origin in the evolutionary tree structure of the Homininé S being in Africa. Whereas the Homme of Néanderthal has made its appearance in Europe for 250.000 years, Homo sapiens would have migrated from Africa towards Europe and Asia only towards the end of the great glaciations around -40.000 years. Both were contemporary one of the other, but the conditions of their meeting and the details of their “relations” are not known; The Homme of Néanderthal is a extinct Espèce whereas Homo sapiens was maintained and colonized all the continents.

Oldest bones discovered

It is in Africa that the oldest bones were discovered. Today, the paleontologists give to Homo sapiens an age of approximately: 200000 years since the oldest found bones are two craniums gone back to: - 195000 years, and called Omo 1 and Omo 2; then those come from the Man of Herto still called Homo sapiens idaltu , gone back to approximately: - 154000 years.

Then the bones come from Qafzeh and Skhul in Israel/Palestine gone back respectively to: - 97000 and: - 80000 years.

Most famous are those of the Homme of Cro-Magnon, gone back to: - 35000 years and discovered in France.

Until 2003, the species Homo sapiens was subdivided into two Sous-espèce S, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis . The results of genetic analyzes led the majority of the authors to regard this last taxon as a species with whole share, named Homo neanderthalensis . The modern man and his immediate ancestors are not regarded any more Homo sapiens sapiens but as Homo sapiens , of which they are the only representatives.

The current human beings belong to this only species, and its subdivision in races is generally regarded as nonrelevant, from a biological point of view. The December 21st 2005 the Planet Ground saw the mankind reaching 6,5 billion representatives.

The genetic studies agree with a African origin

The comparisons between various current human populations of the sequences of DNA mitochondrial and the Y chromosome strongly suggest that all the human current ones have a common origin located in Africa. The comparisons with the Homme of Néanderthal confirmed that there no was crossing with this species.

With what does owe one the appearance of the Man?

From the Scientific point of view, the appearance of the Man results from a biological evolution starting from species Ancêtre S, initially from the Bactérie S, then Poisson S, Reptile S and also of the Mammifère S Arboricole S which resembled the current monkeys. This recent evolution since our common ancestor most recent with the chimpanzees, is relatively well documented thanks to the fossils, although important gaps exist.

Geographical surface and history

By its capacity to control techniques enabling him to face difficult climatic conditions, the human being lives in almost all the terrestrial environments and under almost all the Latitude S. Seules certain areas extreme, like the the Antarctic, are not colonized in a permanent way.

It is estimated that in 2007 humanity counts 6,671 billion individuals.

Place de l'Homme in the alive world

The Man does not go down from the monkey. Homo sapiens is only the current species nearest to the Chimpanzé S, and conversely. This idea rises from the methods of Phylogénie, which recall the evolution by drawing up only family ties. Our remote ancestors are theoretically unknown for us. Thus among all the current alive species, there is no ancestor, but simply species which are more or less related between them. No species is less advanced than others. Point of sciences of the evolution the Man is a “higher” species, neither with the monkeys, nor with the bacteria.

The species living currently closest to the human being are thus the two species of Chimpanzé: Side troglodytes (the common chimpanzee) and Side paniscus (the bonobo). With a least degree, the Gorilla and the Orang-outan are also rather close to the Man. The Génome of the human beings differs only from 0,27 % of that of the chimpanzees, and 0,65 % of that of the gorillas. These figures result in estimating that our line separated from that of the chimpanzees there is approximately cinq million years, and the gorillas there is approximately sept million years.

The Phylogenetic step share of the idea that the Vie evolves/moves of the most organized simplest forms to, with acquisition more and more of new characteristics. Thus, the mankind belongs to several encased groups of which each one is characterized by a new character, which is added with those already accumulated. Thus, the mankind is classified in:

the group of the Eucaryotes (Cell S with a core), as well as a Vegetable ;

the Animal reign , as well as a Slug;

Vertebrate S (presence of vertebrae.), as well as a Frog;

Mammalian S (hairs, breast feeding…), as well as a Mouse;

the Primate S (opposable inch…), as well as the Lemur S.

In the group of the primates, Homo sapiens belongs to:

Haplorhiniens (more Rhinarium, but a Nose), as well as the Tarsier S.

Simiiformes (back of the closed orbits cranial S), as well as the Ouistiti S.

Catarhiniens (the nostrils are directed downwards), as well as the Colobe S or the Babouin S.

Hominoïdes (not of tail), as well as the Gibbon S or monkeys hurleurs.

Hominoïdés, as well as the Orang-outang.

Hominides, as well as the Gorilla S.

Homininés, as well as the Chimpanzee S and bonobo S.

Hominines, as well as the Australopithecus S (extinct) , Ardipithèque S (extinct) , Paranthropus (extinct)

the kind Homo , as well as the Men of Néandertal.

Among all the Species S quoted above, none is “lower” and the Man is not a species with share. Only the degrees of relationship differ, while going from the most distant species until the species closest to us.

Physical characteristics

Description

Homo sapiens can be presented summarily as being a terrestrial Mammifère; drawn up on two lower extremities, who constitute the base of sound body, in proportion approximately of half, prolonged, in top, by the trunk, the Cou, then the head. Laying out of two upper limbs, finishing each one by a Main, which enables him to seize and handle; of a size at the adulthood being able to go from approximately 80 cm to approximately 2,50 m in the two extremes of the nanism and gigantism (more usually of 1,40 to 2 m) m; laying out of sexual organs; with the color of Skin borrowing the degrees of the black, chestnut, the beige or rosy, being able to be covered with Hair S by places, with form going from curly to the stringer and whose color is, independently from the color of the skin, of dyed black, brown, fair, russet-red or white; with the Eyes with the colors of chestnut, blue, green or gray…

The evolution towards Homo sapiens is characterized by the following elements:

expansion of the cranial box and the volume of the Brain, on average 1 400 cm ³ (more twice that of the chimpanzees or gorillas). For certain anthropologists, the modification of the structure of the brain is more important still than the increase in its size;
reduction in the Canine size of the S;
biped locomotion , walk; however for certain anthropologists, the aptitude to be run is more important than the aptitude to be gone.
descent of the Larynx, which allows the language articulated.

The bonds between these elements, their adaptive value, and their role in the social organization is prone to debate among the anthropologists.

The intermediate size of the men, today, in France, is of 1,75 m, and that of the women of 1,62 m, for average respective masses of 75 and 61 kg. The individual data are very variable around these averages, with a strong influence of environmental factors, nutritional behaviors and modes. The averages themselves vary much according to the populations and the times.

The young people are born with a mass around 3 kg, and a size from approximately 50 with 60 cm, after a Gestation nine months. Completely dependant with the birth, their growth lasts several years. Sexual maturity occurs between 12 and 15 years. The growth of the boys often continues until around 18 years (the growth finishes towards 21-25 years with the solidification of the Clavicule). The life expectancy is very dependant on the material conditions and the availability of medical care. The life expectancy is today around 75 years in the richest countries, and is lower than 40 years in poorest. Cases isolated from longevity approach 120 years, and the person having lived longest undoubtedly possible is the Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment, who lived more than 122 years.

The human being has 23 pairs of Chromosomes (against 32 for the Cheval).

See also: Human genome, Human anatomy, Stature, human body Mass

Representation of Homo sapiens

Although the first esthetic demonstrations of concerns or symbolic systems are ascribable to the Homme of Néandertal during the Paléolithique means, the oldest authenticated human representations as such are the fact of Homo sapiens and can be dated from the Paléolithique superior (towards 40.000 to 10.000 years BP). Thus with the Aurignacien (towards 40.000 to 28.000 years BP), the cultural facies oldest and ascribable to the anatomically modern man in Europe, is associated the statuettes with Vogelherd, Geissenklösterle and Hohlenstein-Stadel which restore figures in round bump representing of the mammoths, cat-like, the bears, the horses and the men. One also notes in the parietal Art, as with the Grotte Chauvet, the representation of Vulve S female as well as individuals semi-man semi-bison. Then with the Gravettien (29 000 to 22.000 years BP) figures are carved female S known as paleolithic Venus S. With the Magdalénien (19 000 to 10.000 years BP), the human representations on wall or on object are done more frequent. All that perhaps regarded as one of the signs of the Conscience of their existence .

Léonard de Vinci, with its Drawing S of Anatomy, is the first studied the human body with a medical eye, followed by Michel-Angel (see for example the " David " below); its tables endeavor to represent the body of the Man with the precision of the organic mass which composes it.

the Man seen by modern technologies of imagery : Thus, even within the framework of the modern theories of the evolution, that one calls neodarwinism or synthetic theory of the evolution - term invented not Julian Huxley - and which dominates the evolutionary thought between 1947 and 1977, the evolutionists endeavor to reserve a special place with the man, given that if its corp with evolved/moved, it remains that what makes the human one escapes the laws of the evolution.

During the developments of the modern Science, the " spécificités" advanced as being specific to the Man were called in turn in question. Thus, it was advanced that the characteristic of the man was the use of the Outil, and it was a also question of the Culture, which only seemed to exist at our animal specie. However, the recent discoveries show that the Grands monkeys handle them also tools, and are able to transmit elements of culture. The biped character exclusive of the Man is him also called in question: the bipédie could have preexisted among the common ancestor of the Hominoïde S, in this case it is not the human line which would have receipt the bipédie, but in fact the other existing lines of Grands monkeys would have lost it.

From the point of view of biology, this question can seem not very relevant if one takes the angle of incidence of the Sociobiologie: it is “obvious” by its presence. On the other hand, the Paléoanthropologie brings an interesting answer to the question, while concentrating about the biological aspects of the Homo sapiens . A quotation of Pascal Picq summarizes this scientific position: The human one is well an invention of the men, which rests on our divided evolutionary heritage, but is not an obviousness for as much. Homo sapiens is not human of fait.

For philosophy and the religion, the debates continue around the question of gasoline of the " human nature ".

Legal protection

In international law

On Thursday, March 30, 2006 was held with UNESCO a conference having for topic “the mankind domesticate itself? ”. The managing director of UNESCO, Mister Matsuura, had then exposed the two stakes of this question: the scientific stake, but also the ethical stake, and exposed the problems thus: “For the first time of its history, humanity thus will have to make political decisions, of normative and legislative nature, about our species and of its future. It will not be able to do it without working out the principles of an ethics, which must become the business of all. Because sciences and technology are not by themselves carrying solutions to the questions which they cause. Vis-a-vis the possible drifts of a pseudo-science, we must reaffirm the principle of human dignity. It enables us to establish the requirement of non-instrumentalisation of the human being”. The mankind thus apprehended in its genetic vulnerability raises the question of its legal status: Is a subject of right? Is it protected in itself? How is it protected?

Paradoxically, whereas the conferences insist more and more on the mankind and its becoming, the international texts do not protect for the moment the mankind by a device which would be expressly attached to him.

The few rare texts which mention mankind make it in their preamble, under general base to the provisions of the body text, which thus does not aim directly at protecting the mankind itself; thus can one read in the preamble to the Déclaration on the racial race and prejudices adopted by acclamation on November 27th, 1978 with the twentieth session of the general conference of the United Nations for education, science and the culture in Paris to found to it not hierarchisation of his members: subparagraph 5: “Persuaded that the intrinsic unit of the mankind and, consequently, land equality of all the being human and all the people, recognized by the highest expressions of philosophy, morals and the religion, an ideal towards which converge today ethics and science reflect,”. One should not here confuse the protection of the mankind as such, and the prohibition of the hierarchisation of its members which is precisely the object of the provisions of the Declaration.

The Convention for the protection of the Human rights and the dignity of the human being with regard to the applications of biology and medicine: Convention on the Human rights and the biomedecine worked out within the the Council of Europe, convention known as of Oviedo of April 4th, 1997 , also refers to the mankind in subparagraph 10 of its preamble: “Convinced of the need for respecting the human being at the same time like individual and in his membership of the mankind and admitting the importance to ensure its dignity; ”. The mankind of first access is presented again like attribute of a subject of right to found the protection of this one; however, the problems of the Managing director of UNESCO find in the body of convention a resonance within article 13 of convention, heading “Interventions on the human genome” located under Chapter IV relative to the “Human genome”. Indeed, this article states that “an intervention having the aim of modifying the human genome can be undertaken only for preventive reasons, diagnostic or therapeutic and only if the purpose of it is not to introduce a modification into the genome of the descent. ”. This text is worried explicitly, not only genetic definition of the individual himself, but also of his descent through its genetic inheritance, and, consequently, of the species. Protection thus worked out is not it during step absolute. Indeed, the text retains the modification of the genome of the descent as illicit only insofar as this modification is not the objectives; a contrario , if the genome of the descent is not the direct motivation of the modification of the genome, this modification is licit in the cases controlled by “reasons preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic” relating to the person undergoing the intervention.

It should, in addition, be noted that the legal authenticity of the international instruments is variable because of nature of the text, a Declaration not having a constraining legal authenticity, and owing to the fact that international conventions have authenticity legal only for the countries which having integrated them into their internal rights. The procedure breaks up traditionally into a Signature by plenipotentiary (Head of State, Foreign Minister…) and Ratification, which consists of a confirmation of this signature, by the specific competent authority to each State, which binds thus, in an effective way, the State with the Treaty. Thus, an international convention with theoretically value of substantive law that if, after being signed, it were ratified (in French right the ratification is the fact of the President of the Republic, in accordance with article 52 of the Constitution, after authorization of the Parliament according to the cases enumerated in article 53 of the Constitution). The range of this protection is thus very relative.

The legal authenticity as of these treaties depends on specific comprehension to each legal system of what constitutes an attack with the mankind. France with adoptee recently one of the first specific legislations explicitly aiming at protecting the mankind.

In French right

The law of July 29th, 1994 relating to the human body (one of the laws known as Bioethics S) introduced, in the Droit French, the provision according to which “No one cannot attack the integrity of the mankind” (article 16-4 1st subparagraph Civil code French). This provision appears among the general principles having to control the medical scientific research and practices (articles 16 to 16-9 c.civ.). Important debates exist on the range and the practical significance to give to this prohibition: indeed, the subsequent subparagraphs of article 16-4 state prohibitions of the Eugénisme, the reproductive cloning (this prohibition was introduced by the law bioethics of August 7th, 2004), and of the modification of the “genetic characters with an aim of modifying the descent of the person”. Thus, does the first subparagraph have to be interpreted independently of the others, which would amount distinguishing prohibition to attack the integrity of the Mankind, the prohibition of the eugenic practices and the prohibition of the cloning, in which case the first subparagraph remains enigmatic? Or this first subparagraph does it have to be interpreted in the light of the subsequent subparagraphs, in which case the integrity of the mankind would be reached by the realization of acts of eugenism or cloning?

An answer seems exceptionally to be able to be required in the penal translation of these prohibitions: indeed, in fact the same texts appear in the Civil code French and in the penal code, texts which were, in addition, input by the same laws. Protected penally since 1994 in article 511-1 from the penal code, in the book which protected the animals from the serious maltreatment (the Book V of the penal code), the mankind received by the law bioethics of August 7th, 2004 a reinforced protection, the provisions protecting it having been moved partly in book II, making him now divide the heading of the Title I which repressed the Crimes against humanity, that is to say: “Of the crimes against humanity and the mankind”, and devoting Subtitle II to him heading “ Of the crimes against the mankind ” gathering articles 214-1 and following.

The stake of these provisions is to preserve biological specificities of the mankind which are all its genetic characteristics:

by the repression of the “practical eugenic tending to the organization of the selection of the people ” (article 214-1 Penal code). Moreover the Council of State, in his report/ratio of November 25th, 1999 " Laws bioethics: five years après" , specified that it was necessary to intend in this definition the systematic character of the selection in order not to assimilate the practices of Procréation médicalement assisted with the eugenic practices: their nonsystematic character is appreciated by the requirement of “clean choices by [[natural] contingent,] to couples confronted with the advertisement of a disease of a particular gravity”. The relevance of this criterion is criticized by the doctrines which propose like another criterion of distinction: the therapeutic framework; or, on the Kantian distinction according to which it is necessary to regard the man not a means but as an end, to distinguish the selection moved by the feeling from empathy towards the being to be born reached from a “disease of a particular gravity recognized like incurable at the moment from the diagnosis” (articles 2131-1, 2131-4, 2131-4-1, 2141-2 Code of the Public health), of the selection moved by a utilitarian feeling of this being perceived like having to allow the improvement of the mankind.
by the repression of the reproductive Cloning (article 214-2 Penal code), as bearing reached with the character sexué of the reproduction human (consistent in the meeting of Gamète S of inheritance Genetic different), and bearing reached, with large scales, biological diversity of the mankind (which is one of its factors of adaptation). The Therapeutic cloning, consistent in the creation of an human embryo starting from cells of a sick person, intended to provide taken original cells then cultivated to provide a fabric or a body genetically compatible with the patient, or established in the body of this one so that its organization reconstitutes failing cells, is not repressed with the title of the protection of the mankind, but with the title of the protection of the Embryon in the Book V of the penal code (Article 511-17 and 511-18 Penal code). In addition the Infraction of therapeutic cloning is a offense (punished of maximum a 7 years of imprisonment and 100.000€ of fine), whereas the infringement of reproductive cloning is a Crime (punished, just like the crime of eugenism, a 30 years maximum of imprisonment and 7 500 000€ of fine). This treatment difference however it is also criticized insofar as from an anthropological point of view, always according to the Kantian distinction, the therapeutic cloning downgrades the perception of the human life to the row of Médicament (not to be confused with the Bébé drug which consists, for a couple having an ill child and wishing to have a second child, to seize opportunity that the genetic compatibility of the cells of the little brother can offer to save the elder one, by the taking away of cells on the umbilical cord, the blood donation or of spinal-cord, which by no means blocks the healthy access to the life of this child), thus of means, which can appear at least as serious as the reproductive cloning (anthropological argument suggested by Mrs. Marie-Angele Hermitte, Directeur of study to the École of the high studies in social sciences); however other authors justify this difference by the character in public utility, of General interest (for the people born reached today and tomorrow of a grave disease and incurable), which the motivation can cover to proceed to such research, against the reproductive cloning moved by the only egoistic interest of the couples to have a child (Mikaël Benillouche, Lecturer to the Faculty of Law of the university of Picardy).

Crimes against mankind can to be regarded as second unit of infringements more serious of System legal French, after Crimes against humanity, appearing in second position (after the above mentioned crimes) in stating of infringements in penal code, and Public action prescribing, by exception with right common (10 years for the crimes), by deadlines of 30 years (this time in addition starting to run only in the majority of the child which would have been born from the cloning), the public action relating to the crimes against humanity being, as for it, imprescriptible. One can, in addition, see in the crimes against the mankind the complement of the protection of the Man initiated by the crimes against humanity, the latter protecting the Man in his metaphysical dimension: the respect of its humanity and her Dignity, and crimes against the mankind protecting the Man in his material dimension: its Genetic definition and its biological specificity .

A delicate question must however remain, which can explain the hierarchical difference in repression between the crimes against the mankind and the crimes against humanity: if the metaphysical dimension of the Man is that which forces the Man to be respected, and if metaphysical dimension is the level of reflection which allowed the Man, unlike the others animal Espèce S, d'" évoluer" , does the Man have vocation not to exploit for him knowledge which accompanies and generates its evolution? Does it have vocation to remain a species with exclusively sexuée reproduction? Will the Man resist temptation to organize what he would consider being the improvement of his species? Is the current protection of the mankind dictated by immutable principles suitable for the definition of the Man or it is dictated by contingent principles of precaution vis-a-vis the current ignorance of the consequences of the modification voluntary and brutal of the biological definition of the Man? In other words: does the Man have to condition the respect which it must have for itself and the walk of its evolution to the absence of attack carried out voluntarily by itself with the perenniality of its current biological definition which is Homo sapiens ?

References

Random links:

Opus Dei | Dalmatien | Alpheus Spring Packard | All-in wrestling | Stevan Stojanović Mokranjac