Not from the Apes: A History of Man's Origin and Evolution

by Björn Kurtén

English, Swedish (translation)

Genres: Science

183 pages, Hardcover

Published January 1, 1972

About the author

Björn Olof Lennartson Kurtén (1924–1988) was a distinguished vertebrate paleontologist. He belonged to the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland. He was a professor in paleontology at the University of Helsinki from 1972 up to his death in 1988. He also spent a year as lecturing guest professor at Harvard University in 1971.
In Not from the Apes (1971) Kurtén argued that man's development has been separate from that of monkeys and apes for at least 35 million years, and that man did not descend from anthropoids, but rather the reverse.
He was also the author of an acclaimed series of books about modern man's encounter with Neanderthals, such as Dance of the Tiger (1978, 1980). When asked what genre these works belonged in, Kurtén coined the term paleofiction to describe his oeuvre. This genre was popularized by Jean M. Auel in her Earth's Children series of books. He received several awards for his books around popularized science, among others the Kalinga Prize from UNESCO.
In the 1980s, Kurtén also hosted a 6-part TV series about the ice age, co-produced by several Scandinavian TV channels.

Reviews

[Mohammad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Kurten shows, with the impeccable thoroughness and the clear, logical writing style that is his hallmark, that man and the anthropoid apes, such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan, separated from a common ancestor over 12 million years ago, deep in the Miocene. He traces the history of Ramapithecus, an ape-like creature that lived in India, and shows that Ramapithecus and its descendants, the australopithecines, although simian in look, were actually hominids; the ancestors of man. Dr. Kurten's anatomical studies are copious and well-reasoned, and his proofs impressive in support of his theory.

Refreshingly, Dr. Kurten does not claim to have all of the answers, and, indeed, some of his material is now superseded by other findings, but the essential premise he chose remains valid. I was very impressed with this book, short though it was, and commend it to any student of anthropology or anatomy.

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

DID APES AND MONKEYS DESCEND FROM EARLY ANCESTORS OF MAN?

Björn Olof Lennartson Kurtén (1924-1988) was a Finnish vertebrate paleontologist who was a professor in paleontology at the University of Helsinki.

He wrote in the ‘Propositions’ section of this 1972 book, “I did not set out to ‘prove’ the following theses. On the contrary, they were formulated gradually in the course of my work, and many of them are contrary to my own previous beliefs. 1. The ancestry of man on the one hand, and the apes and monkeys on the other, has been separate for more than 35 million years. 2. Man did not descend from the apes. It would be more correct to say that apes and monkeys descended from early ancestors of man… man is primitive, apes and monkeys are specialized. 3. Our ancestors were tree-living up to about 10 million years ago… 4. Our ancestors were not forced to leave the trees by some kind of crisis, such as death of the forest by desiccation. They came down to the ground to invade a new, favorable life zone. 5… there was no absolute division between foraging-hinting-fighting males, on the one hand, and stay-at-home, baby-sitting females, on the other. 6. Mankind has repeatedly split up into distinct species of which all but one died out, presumably by competition if not by direct struggle or fighting with one another. 7. Natural selection is still a vital force in human evolution…and its importance will probably increase.”

He explains, “The main types of extinct men known today are the Neanderthal man discovered in 1857, Java man discovered in 1892, and the Dartian or Australopithecus, discovered in 1924. Of the three, the Dartian is the oldest and most primitive.” (Pg. 8)

He states, “it seems evident that the transitional forms had small canines and front teeth, and the primitive, unspecialized nines and front teeth, and the primitive, unspecialized premolars that recur in some Propliopithecus and later on perhaps in Ramapithecus, in Dartians, and in ourselves. From forms of this primitive type the ape and monkey lines probably arose by the evolution of larger canines and the specialized premolar, all of this in adaptation to a particular type of diet. If we derive the hominids from apes, this would mean that the man-like teeth of the earliest forms would have to evolve into the ape teeth, and then evolve back into man-like teeth again. To a paleontologist familiar with evolutionary sequences, this is not a likely alternative. Then the most logical answer suggested by the fossil evidence is this: hominids are not descended from apes, but apes may be descended from hominids.” (Pg. 42)

He argues that “the transition from a life in the trees to an upright, two-legged existence on the ground … is seen as a phase of evolution when they were ‘particularly vulnerable to predators and other hazards of the environment.’ … Although theoretically possible, this hypothetical situation must be regarded as extremely unlikely. We ought rather to postulate that unless really compelling evidence to the contrary can be brought forth, the ancestral hominids were well adapted to their mode of life and led a highly successful existence… The logic behind the assumption is obvious. A population that is poorly adapted to its current way of life gets very little chance to evolve into something else (for example, into man)---it is much more likely to become extinct.” (Pg. 76-77)

He asserts, “Probably much more important… is the differential fertility within the population of the world as a whole. Those populations that increase at the highest rate---for instance that of Latin America---will form an ever-increasing fraction of humanity as a whole. While the population increase as such is obviously a serious threat to man’s future, the increasing predominance of certain races can hardly be regarded as good or bad so long as we have no objective way to judge the genetic excellence of different races. In any case, it is one of the clearest examples of contemporary natural selection by differential fertility, but it is a case of selection between, and not within, populations.” (Pg. 144)

He concludes, “In this book, I have tried to show that man’s uniqueness does have a historical explanation. For more than 35 million years, our lineage has been a separate one. Julian Huxley thinks this is unique in another sense, too: it is the only lineage which has a future evolutionary potential, the only one that can still give rise to something really new. A horse, a cat, a bat, etc. cannot evolve into anything really different; only men can d that. Perhaps he is right. If so, let all of us partake. There are now three great races of man on earth---the black, the white, and the yellow. We rule the earth, but we are not alone; there are others: the Bushmen, the Australoids, and so forth… not a single leaf of the great tree of mankind should be lost, for there may be a role for all of us in the future.” (Pg. 172)

This book may appeal to those who seek ‘alternative’ theories about human evolution.