The concept of "synthetic theory of evolution (theory of modern synthesis)"

The place of man in the animal world. Biological taxonomy of man

Darwin's evolutionary theory from the point of view of modern ideas

Engels' labor theory "-"

New approaches to the theory of anthropogenesis

Anthropogenesis is the process of evolutionary transformation of an ape-like ancestor into a modern human in the course of the formation of social relationships.

Questions about the emergence and formation of man are among the most important worldview issues. Conceptual ambiguity of the question. A large number of paleontological finds at the turn of the century dramatically increased interest in this field of knowledge. Application of new technical means conceived leads to the need for a complete reassessment of the history of primitive man.

A collection of data from paleoanthropology, paleoanthology, molecular biology, archaeogenetics, paleopsychology and other sciences make up the concept synthetic theory of evolution, she is modern synthesis theory.

This theory was formed as a result of rethinking a number of provisions of classical Darwinism, taking into account the achievements of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century. It can be characterized as a theory of organic evolution through the selection of traits determined genetically. Development of s.t. will continue with the advent of new results in various branches of science.

There is an area of ​​research aimed at finding scientific evidence of the divine origin of man, the so-called. "creation theory". There is radical creationism and "scientific" creationism, in this case it is assumed that an ape-like ancestor arose through organic evolution, and the divine act was the inspiration of man by the spirit.

In modern theology, there has been a departure from the official doctrine, recorded in Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, which recognized the provisions of scientific creationism.

The classical and most widespread theory of anthropogenesis - Darwin's simial hypothesis - asserts the origin of man from the most ancient highly developed ape-like ancestors.

Aristotle, Kant, Diderot, Lamarck, Helvetius wrote about the kinship of man with a highly developed ape, thus being the forerunners of Darwin.

In general, Darwin was not alone. The English naturalist Wallace, independently of him, at about the same time came to the same ideas and postulates of evolutionary theory.

After the publication of "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859 and "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection" in 1871, the animal origin of man was proved with complete certainty, which made it possible to proceed to the search for specific ways of the origin of man.

Darwin proved that man is the highest stage of evolution and has common ancestors with great apes. Note that he has already emphasized that no modern anthropomorph is our ancestor.

About 7 million years ago there was a separation of the evolutionary lines of humans and monkeys. The oldest links in human evolution were found, extremely close to the great apes.

There is direct evidence of the relationship between humans and animals - bone remains of fossil people close to animal ancestors - and indirect - comparative anatomical, biochemical, comparative embryology data, information about rudiments and atavisms in humans. The kinship of a person with an animal is confirmed by the commonality of the structural plan, the respiratory system, and digestion; circulatory system, embryonic development.

The closest thing to humans is the chimpanzee, especially bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee). The closeness of Ch and chimpanzees is demonstrated by genetic data. The similarity is determined by the protein structure - the difference between them is no more than 2% - to common blood groups that allow blood transfusion. In fact, the difference is only in two DNA molecules.

There are also differences between man and higher anthropoids - upright posture, features of the skeleton, the location of organs, the structure of the skull.

The possibility of teaching the language of the deaf and dumb to chimpanzees has been proven, but development oral speech difficult due to the high location of the larynx. In general, their level of development does not exceed the level of development of a three-year-old child.

The degree of proximity of man and animals is reflected in the classification of the animal world. Back in 1735, the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in his work "The System of Nature" drew parallels between humans and animals, identifying a detachment of primates in the class of mammals, including semi-monkeys, monkeys and humans. The order of primates also includes great apes.

In the order of primates, a special, having a special structure, family is distinguished hominid(human), uniting man and his fossil ancestors. All members of the family are characterized by upright posture, a large, complex brain; developed, with an opposed thumb, hand.

Man belongs to the animal kingdom, the class of mammals, the order of primates, the family of hominids, the genus Homo, the species Sapiens.

According to Darwin, the leading factors of humanization were:

Natural selection in the early stages of anthropogenesis

Group selection of social traits at later stages

Sexual selection as a leading sign of the formation of human races

Modern evolutionary genetics has direct evidence of the existence of natural selection and develops its mathematical model.

Darwin and his followers believed that small random changes, mutations, constantly occur in living nature. Favorable changes increase the chances of species survival and are fixed in the process of natural selection, during which individuals with the most evolutionary plasticity survive and leave descendants.

At the moment, Darwin's theory has become more complicated, having gained its genetic justification, having received a theoretical justification for the possibility of the evolution of one species into another.

With t.z. neo-Darwinism, evolution occurs through the selection of traits determined genetically.

Man was formed in the process of natural selection, which formed his dominant position in the modern world.

"When the views developed by myself in this book and by Mr. Wallace, or similar views on the origin of species, become generally accepted, it will be accompanied, as we dimly foresee, by a profound revolution in the field of natural history."

C. Darwin

During the period of active human intervention in the biosphere, evolutionary doctrine became one of the important biological disciplines. The theory of evolution is called upon to determine the optimal strategy for the relationship between man and the surrounding wildlife, and allows us to raise the question of developing the principles of controlled evolution (N.I. Vavilov).

Many problems of the evolutionary doctrine are still waiting for their solution, around others heated discussions are taking place today. Some of the problems that have attracted the attention of researchers in recent years are briefly discussed in Chapter 20.

In the last, 21, chapter, four main approaches to assessing the significance of the evolutionary doctrine from the ideological, theoretical and practical points of view are distinguished.

CHAPTER 20

Modern discussions in evolutionary teaching

The endless progressive development of science determines the posing of new problems for any, the most perfect and, it would seem, complete scientific theory. Darwinism is no exception to this rule. Like any truly living scientific direction, evolutionary teaching constantly refers to previously unresolved or newly emerging problems. And in the process of solving them, either deepens and details the already established points of view, or clarifies the limitation of the scope of those patterns that previously seemed universal, or reveals new patterns, including those previously discovered as special cases. Finally, in the process of studying some problems, it sometimes turns out that these problems themselves were formulated incorrectly.

The overwhelming majority of sayings placed in this collection belong to the most ardent defenders of the theory of evolution. But therein lies the strength of the book. The foundations of evolutionist strongholds are unlikely to be shaken by statements from the mouths of creationist scientists. But even in court, exculpatory testimony given by a hostile witness is considered the most important. Therefore, the comments of an evolutionary paleontologist who admits to the absence of intermediate forms, or an evolutionary biologist who doubts the mechanism of mutations/selection, are very significant (especially if these statements are given accurately and without distortion), even if the author otherwise sings the hymns of evolution. We look forward to the widest possible use of this publication.
Editor.

Today, many believe that the debate about the origin of life is between the scientific views of evolution and the religious views of creation. Is it really?

Prior to the publication of his book, Darwin stated:

1. The future book will puzzle you greatly; it, unfortunately, will be too hypothetical. Most likely, it will only serve to streamline the facts, although I myself think that I have found an approximate explanation for the origin of species. But, alas, how often - almost always - the author convinces himself of the truth of his own dogmas.

Charles Darwin, 1858, from a letter to a colleague on the final chapters of On the Origin of Species. Quoted from John Lofton's Journal, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

Is the theory of evolution scientific?

2. In essence, the theory of evolution has become a kind of scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are ready to "squeeze" their observations into its framework.

H.S. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. A physicist looks at evolution. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p.138.

Evolution - fact or belief?

3. The theory of evolution is the core of biology; thus biology is in the strange position of being a science based on an unproven theory. So is it science or religion? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus akin to belief in purposeful creation—every concept is accepted as true by those who believe in it, but neither has been proven to this day.

L. Harrison Matthews, Royal Physical Society. Preface to Darwin's On the Origin of Species. J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. We have to admit that, contrary to popular belief, the theory of the random occurrence of life under the influence of natural conditions, based on facts, and not on faith, has simply not yet been written.

Hubert P. Yockey, Army Radiation Station, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396.

Can evolution be observed?

5. Evolution - at least in the sense in which Darwin spoke of it - cannot be traced during the lifetime of one observer.

Dr. David B. Kitts, Zoology, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Evolution, vol.28, September 1974, p.466.

Can evolution be tested?

6. It is easy to make up stories about how one form of life turned into another, and find reasons why one or another stage won in natural selection. But these stories are not science, because there is no way to test them.

Personal letter (10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, to Luther D. Sunderland. Quoted from: Luther D. Sunderland. Darwin's Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p119.

7. Our theory of evolution cannot be refuted by any observations - any observations can be "squeezed" into its framework. The theory of evolution is thus "beyond empirical science", although this does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Nobody can think of a way to test it. Conclusions—whether groundless or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out under the most simplistic conditions—have acquired a prevalence that is far from commensurate with their value. They have become part of the evolutionary dogma that we have absorbed in the process of learning.
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University and L. Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, University of Sydney. Evolutionary history and population biology. Nature, vol.214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

8. Evolutionary events are unique, inimitable and irreversible. It is just as impossible to transform a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to reverse the transformation. The application of experimental verification methods to such unique historical processes is strictly limited, primarily because the duration of these processes is much longer than the life of the experimenter. It is from this impossibility of verification that the anti-evolutionists start, demanding evidence that they can generously accept as satisfactory.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, former professor of zoology and biology, Rockefeller University. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1, biology. American Scientist, vol. 45 (5), December 1957, p. 388.

Is evolution supported by facts?

Darwin wrote:

9. I am sure that there is hardly a single point in this book to which it is impossible to pick up facts that would lead to directly opposite conclusions than the facts found by me. The true result can only be obtained by careful calculation and comparison of facts and arguments, both for and against. And this is still impossible.

Charles Darwin, 1859. Preface to The Origin of Species, p.2. Cit. also in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

What do the facts prove?

10. Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. She is unverifiable. Scientists will now and then stumble upon facts that contradict their predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored, and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of further research subsidies.

Professor Whitten, Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia. 1980 Assembly Week address.

What do the facts say?

11. Facts do not "speak for themselves" at all; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in both art and science, directs change of mind. Science is the quintessence of human activity, and not a mechanical, robotic accumulation of objective information, driven by the laws of logic to irrefutable conclusions.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The validation of continental drift. In: Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978, pp.161-162.

12. From time to time, scientists stumble upon facts that seem about to reveal one of the greatest mysteries of science. Such discoveries are very rare. When they occur, the whole brotherhood of scientists becomes extremely delighted.

But strong feelings are not the best barometer of scientific validity. Science, as Adam Smith remarked, should be "the greatest antidote to enthusiasm." Explanations for the extinction of dinosaurs are a wonderful indication that science is based on more than just facts. There is a much more important aspect - the interpretation of these facts.

Dr. Robert Jastrow, physicist, director of the Space Research Institute, USA. The dinosaur massacre. Omega Science Digest, March/April 1984, p.23.

Evolution: fact or belief?

13. After many futile attempts, science found itself in a very delicate situation: having postulated the theory of the origin of species, it could not prove it. Reproaching theologians for relying on myths and miracles, science itself found itself in the unenviable position of creating its own mythology, namely: if, as a result of prolonged efforts, it cannot be proved that something is happening now, it means that it happened in the primitive past.

Dr. Lauren Eisley, anthropology. The secret of life. In: The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p.199.

What did Darwin accomplish?

14. In essence, Darwin's theory anticipated his knowledge - he put forward a new promising theory, but the limited store of knowledge did not allow him to convince himself and others of its correctness. He could neither accept his theory himself nor prove it to others. Darwin simply did not know enough about the areas of natural history on which his theory could be based.

Dr. Barry Gale, History of Science, Darwin College, UK. In: Evolution Without Evidence. Quoted from: John Lofton's Journal, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

Has anything changed?

15. I know that the data—at least in paleoanthropology—remain so sparse and dispersed that their interpretation is very heavily influenced by theory. In the past, theories clearly reflected not real data, but ideological trends.

Dr. David Pilbeam Physical Anthropology, Yale University, USA, Rearranging our family tree. Human Nature, June 1978, p.45.

Consequently...

16. Here is one of the reasons why I began to lean towards an anti-evolutionary, or, better, non-evolutionary point of view: last year I suddenly realized that until now for twenty years I had only thought that I was working on the theory of evolution . One fine morning I woke up and it was as if I was on fire: after all, I have been working on this for twenty years, and I still don’t know anything about it! It's terrible when you realize that you've been led by the nose for so long. One of the two is either something wrong with me or with the theory of evolution. But I know that everything is fine with me! So for the past few weeks, I've been asking all sorts of people and groups a very simple question: Can you tell something about evolution - anything, as long as it's actually true?

I asked this question in the geology department of the Natural History Museum. / Silence was my answer. I tried it on a seminar on evolutionary morphology at the University of Chicago, a very representative body of evolutionists, and again the answer was only a long silence, until finally someone said: "I know one thing: it should be forbidden to teach this in school,"

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.

Did the theory of evolution help?

... scientists?

17. Darwin's On the Origin of Species I find extremely unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very superficially, and contains a special chapter on "The Difficulties of Theory"; it includes a lot of reasoning about why there is no evidence of natural selection in the fossil record...
...As a scientist, I am not enthusiastic about these ideas. But it seems to me unworthy of a scientist to reject a theory only because of his own prejudice.

H. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. origin of species. "Letters", New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452.

18. No doubt the opening of the Salford meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science was Dr. John Durant, a young lecturer at University College, Swansea. Delivering a lecture on Darwin to the largest audience of the entire week of the convention, Durant put forward a stunning theory - Darwin's explanation of the origin of man through evolution has become a modern myth, a brake on science and social progress ...

Durant concluded that the secular myth of evolution had a "destructive effect on scientific research" and led to "distortions, fruitless disputes, and gigantic abuses in science."

Dr. John Durant university college Surnsey, Wales. Quoted from: "How evolution became a scientific myth". New Scientist, September 1980, p.765.

19. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. This theory contributed nothing to the progress of science. She is useless.

Professor Louis Bounoure, former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, former director of the French National Center for Scientific Research. Quoted from Advocate, 8 March 1984, p.17.

20. Scientists who claim that evolution is a fact of life are great scammers, and their stories are perhaps the greatest hoax of all time. We don't have an iota of evidence to explain evolution.

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA, in The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. Quoted from N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983.

... philosophers?

21. Personally, I am sure that the theory of evolution, and especially the widespread use that it has received, will be presented in future history textbooks as the greatest anecdote. Our posterity will admire the incredible credulity with which such a dubious and unproven hypothesis was accepted.

Malcolm Muggeridge, world famous journalist and philosopher. Pascal Readings, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Is the theory of the creation of the world really unscientific?

22. The attitude to species as "natural genera" is in perfect agreement with the views of the creationists of the pre-Darwinian era. Louis Agassiz even argued that childbirth is the thoughts of the Lord, embodied in such a way as to make us understand His greatness and His message. Species, wrote Agassiz, "are created by the Divine Mind as categories of His way of thinking." But how could the division of the organic world into discrete things be justified by the theory of evolution, which proclaimed meaningless changes to be a fundamental fact of nature?

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "A quahog is a quahog". Natural History, vol. LXXXVIII(7), August-September, 1979, p. eighteen.

23. If living matter arose not because of the interaction of atoms, natural forces and radiation, then how then? There is another theory - rather unpopular these days - based on the ideas of Lamarck: if the body needs improvement, then it will develop it, and then pass it on to descendants. However, I think we should go even further and agree that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, myself included, but we shouldn't reject a theory supported by experimental evidence, even if we don't like it.

H.S. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. A physicist looks at evolution. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.

Creation ex nihilo?

24. In 1973, I came to the conclusion that our universe was really suddenly created from nothing (ex nihilo), and this is a consequence of known physical laws. This assumption struck people: some as absurd, others as charming, and others as both at the same time.

Novelty scientific theory creation ex nihilo is quite obvious, because for many years science has taught us that one cannot create something from nothing.

Edward P.Tryon, Professor of Physics, New York University, USA. What made the world? New Scientist, March 8, 1984, p.14.

Blind chance or intelligent design?

25. The more incredible it is statistically, the less we believe that everything happened by chance. The obvious alternative to chance is the thinking Designer.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Great Britain. The necessity of Darwinism, New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p. 130.

But is it all that difficult...?

26. But let's drop the illusions. If today we turn to situations in which the analogies with the natural sciences are especially impressive, even if we find processes in biological systems that are far from equilibrium, still our research will remain far beyond the ability to explain such an incredible complexity of the simplest organisms.

Ilya Prigogine, Professor, Director of the Department of Physics, University of Brussels. Can thermodynamics explain biological order? Impact of Science on Society, vol.23(3), 1973, p. 178.

27. And three pounds of brain in Man is the most complex and highly organized device in the Universe, as far as we know.

Dr. Isaac Asimov, biochemist, former professor at Boston University School of Medicine, world-renowned writer. In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even. Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10.

So???

28. Since we see, however, that the probability of the accidental origin of life is so negligible as to reduce the whole concept of chance to absurdity, it is reasonable to think that the favorable physical properties on which life depends have arisen intentionally ...

Thus, it becomes almost inevitable to assume that the level of our mind only essentially reflects the higher mind that gave birth to us, right down to the idea of ​​God.

Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge, and Chandra Wick-ramasinghe, Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, University College Cardiff. Convergence to God. In: Evolution from Space, J.M. Dent & Sons, London, 1981 pp.141, 144.

29. I have always said that reasoning about the origin of life leads to a dead end, because even the simplest of living organisms is too complex to be understood within the extremely primitive chemistry that scientists use to explain the inexplicable things that happened billions of years ago. God is incomprehensible by such naive thinking.

Ernst Chain, world famous biochemist. Quoted from R.W. Clark in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Wiedenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.

Do fossils support evolution?

In 1850 Darwin wrote:

30. Why then do we not find all these intermediate links in every geological formation and every stratum? Geology by no means presents us with such a complete successive chain of organisms. And this is probably the most obvious and serious objection that can be raised against our theory. The explanation for this, I believe, lies in the extreme imperfection of geological data.

Charles Darwin. Origin of species. Chapter X, On the imperfection of geological data. J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.

Ho 120 years later!

31. Since the time of Darwin, 120 years have passed, and our knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded. But despite the fact that we now know a quarter of a million fossil species, the situation has not changed significantly. Information about evolution is still surprisingly scarce, and. ironically, we now even fewer examples evolutionary transformations than it was under Darwin. I mean, some classic Darwinian examples of changes in the fossil sequence. as, in particular, the evolution of the horse in North America, now, with more accurate information, it is necessary to discard or revise - what, with a small amount of data, looked like a nice simple progression, now turned out to be much more complex and much less consistent. So Darwin's problem has by no means ceased to be such in the past 120 years. And while chronology shows change, natural selection is far from the most logical explanation for it. Also the great extinctions of, say, dinosaurs and trilobites are still a mystery.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geology Consultant, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.25.

32. Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to the study of fossils, and it is probably assumed by many that fossils constitute a very important piece of general evidence in favor of Darwin's interpretation of the origin of life. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geology Consultant, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.22.

33. Significantly, nearly all the stories about evolution that I heard as a student, from Truman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been refuted. In the same way, my own experience of more than twenty years of unsuccessful search for the evolutionary relationships of the Mesozoic Brachiopod proves their complete inconsistency.

Dr. Derek V.Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College Swansea, UK. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists" Association, vol.87(2), 1976, p.132.

34. Lack of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major changes in body structure; the fact that we are often unable, even in imagination, to replicate these functional gaps is the most burning problem in the concept of progressive evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980, p.127.

So what links of evolution are "lost"?

Are there transitional forms?

35. ...I completely agree with your remark about the lack of illustrations of evolutionary intermediate forms in my book. If I knew at least one of them (living or petrified), I would certainly include it in the book. You believe that the artist can depict these forms, but where does he get the information from? I don’t have it, and if we trust the artist’s intuition, where will we lead the reader?

I wrote this book four years ago. If I were writing it now, it would be completely different. I believe in the concept of gradualism, not so much because of the authority of Darwin, but because my understanding of genetics requires it. But it's still hard to argue with Gould and the staff of the American Museum when they talk about the absence of transitional fossils. As a paleontologist, I am very concerned with the philosophical problem of identifying antecedent forms in fossils. You ask me to at least "show a photograph of the fossil from which all kinds of organisms originated." I will tell you frankly: there is not a single fossil about which this could be said with certainty.

Personal letter (10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Chief Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, to Luther D. Sunderland. Quoted from: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p.89.

36. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains extremely few intermediate forms; the transitions between the main groups are typically spasmodic.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History, vol.LXXXVJ(6), p.24.

37. Up until 1859, the most irritating characteristic of the fossil record has been its sheer imperfection. For evolutionists, this imperfection is the most deplorable, because it prevents the construction of a clear scheme of the evolution of organisms, requiring an infinite number of "lost links". Consistent groups of species with overlapping morphologies can be found among the fossils, arranged in descending order in time. The same can be said about many groups of genera, and even families. However, above the family level, in most cases it is impossible to find irrefutable paleontological evidence for the existence of morphological intermediates between different taxa. Generally, this lack of evidence is considered by opponents of the theory of organic evolution to be the main shortcoming of this theory. In other words, the failure of the fossil record to provide "missing links" is taken as irrefutable evidence of the theory's failure.

Dr. Arthur J. Boucot, Professor of Geology, Oregon State University, USA, In: Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, p. 196.

38. The extreme rarity of intermediates in fossils remains the trade secret of paleontologists. The evolutionary trees that grow in our textbooks have data only at the tips of the branches and at the ramifications; the rest is conjecture, though plausible, but not supported by fossil evidence. However, Darwin was so in love with gradualism that, denying indisputable facts, he completely opposed his whole theory to them:

"Geological data are extremely imperfect. This largely explains the fact that we cannot find intermediate links that would connect extinct and existing life forms together through completed successive steps. Anyone who rejects such a view of the essence of geological data will reject , respectively, and my whole theory.

Darwinian reasoning is to this day a pet ploy of paleontologists in the face of the discouraging fact that the data show us so little evolution. In revealing the cultural and methodological roots of gradualism (similar to all general theories), I am in no way trying to question its potential value. I just want to emphasize that he was never "observed in stone".

Paleontologists have paid dearly for adhering to Darwin's argument. We imagined ourselves to be the only true investigators of natural history, although, wishing to preserve our beloved idea of ​​evolution through natural selection, we admit that the data we obtained are so bad that we have never seen the very process that we are supposed to study.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology. Harvard University. Evolution "s erratic race. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p. 14.

39. Despite all the assurances that paleontology allows you to "see" evolution, it presents evolutionists with very annoying problems, the main of which are "gaps" in the fossil record. Interspecies intermediates are required to prove evolution, and paleontology provides none. Thus, gaps appear to be a normal occurrence in the annals.

Dr. David B. Kitts, Zoology, School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Evolution, vol.28, September 1974, p.467.

40. Notwithstanding the examples given, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, as well as almost all categories above the level of families, appear suddenly in the fossil record, and do not constitute a step-by-step, complete sequence with all intermediate stages.

Dr. George Gay lord Simpson, Vertebrate Paleontology, Former Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Professor of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson. In: The Major Feattires of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1953, p.360.

41. The fossil record known to us shows the sudden emergence of most taxa. They almost never appear as a result of a chain of almost imperceptible changes in previous taxa, which, as Darwin believed, is characteristic of evolution. Chains of two or more temporally related species are known, but even at this level, most species appear without known intermediate ancestors; the appearance of really long, completely completed sequences of numerous species is extremely rare. At the genus level, more or less successful sequences (not necessarily represented by populations directly involved in the transition from one genus to another) are more familiar, and may be longer than the known sequences of species. The emergence of a new genus in the annals, as a rule, is even more sudden than the emergence of a new species: the "gaps" increase, so that the newly appearing genus is usually morphologically clearly separated from the majority of known genera similar to it. The higher the step in the hierarchy of categories, the more universal and more essential this regularity becomes. Gaps between known species are occasional and often minor. The gaps between known orders, classes, phyla are systematic and almost always significant.

Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, Vertebrate Paleontology, Former Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Professor of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson. The history of life. In: The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax (editor), Vol. 1 of Evolution After Darwin, The University of Chicago Centennial, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p. 149.

Are "gaps" in the fossil record real?

42. But how good is the geological data? I have already said that the traditional paleontological view of evolution leaned in favor of incremental change. The fossil record, paleontologists say, is too incomplete to be taken seriously. And, they continue, it is impossible to prove a gap. However, it can be proved, especially if the gap really took place. If there is a break in the data, it should be possible to trace how it came about. The trouble with the gaps is that if they really were random, as Darwin claimed, then in a hundred and fifty years of research they would have been "closed" long ago. However, the white spots did not disappear. They keep gaping. Some scientists explain this by saying that the missing links simply did not survive. What these scientists forget is that even if there is only one chance in a million that only one individual of the entire population survives in fossils, then given that the species lives 5-15 million years, we would still have to find in fossils from 5 up to 15 representatives of these populations. In fact, the trouble is most likely that we cannot find and describe the necessary material. References to gaps and poor preservation are nothing more than excuses. We just need to take a closer look at exactly what the data says.

Prof. J. B. Waterhouse, Department of Geology, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Inaugural Lecture, 1980.

How is it with family trees?

43. The evolutionary trees that grow in our textbooks have data only at the tips of the branches and at the ramifications; the rest is conjecture, albeit plausible, but not supported by fossil evidence.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Evolution "s erratic race. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p 14.

Fossils and evolution - a vicious circle

44. Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not at all prove the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) that we, in fact, use to interpret the fossil record. Thus, by claiming that these data support this theory, we form a vicious circle of evidence.

Dr. Ronald R. West, paleontology and geology, professor of paleobiology, University of Kansas. Paleoecology and uniformitarianism. Compass, vol.45, May 1968, p.216.

Is there evidence for an evolutionary origin...

...plants?

45. The facts obtained as a result of the study of fossilized plants are extremely important, since they have greatly influenced ideas about phylogeny and evolution. Scientists have long hoped that extinct plants would certainly reveal some of the stages that existing groups of plants went through in the development process. However, now we can safely say that these hopes were not justified, although paleobotanical research has been carried out for more than a hundred years. We are still unable to trace the phylogenetic history of even one group of modern plants from beginning to end.

Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Botany, Head of the Division of Plant Fossils, University of Michigan. An Introduction to Paleobotany, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1947, p.7.

46. ​​The theory of evolution is not just a theory of the origin of species, but also the only explanation for the fact that organisms can be classified according to a hierarchy of natural kinship. A lot of data from biology, biogeography and paleontology can be cited in favor of the theory of evolution; but I still think that, bias aside, the evidence from the study of petrified plants is in favor of the theory of creation. If another explanation for the hierarchical system of classification is found, it will sound the death knell for the theory of evolution. Can you imagine that the orchid, duckweed and palm tree came from a single ancestor, and where is the basis for such an assumption? The evolutionist should have an answer ready, but I'm afraid most of them will remain silent...

Textbook authors lead us by the nose. They show ever more complex plants - algae, mosses, fungi, and so on (the examples are randomly chosen in favor of one theory or another), supposedly showing us evolution. If the plant world consisted only of these "learning" types of standard botany, the star of the theory of evolution might not have risen. These textbooks are based on countries with a temperate climate.

The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of plants, mostly tropical, which are not considered at all by general botany, but they are the building blocks from which the taxonomist built his temple of evolution, so what else should we worship?

E. J. G. Corner, Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge university. evolution. In: Contemporary Botanical Thought, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburg, UK, 1961, p.97.

...fish?

47. The data of geology by no means provide evidence of the origin of fish, and as soon as the first fish-like fossils appear in sedimentary rocks, cyclotomes (or agnata), elasmobranchiomorphs and bony fish are not only already clearly clearly distinguished from each other, but are represented by so many different, often of special types, which suggests itself the conclusion: each of these groups has already managed to reach an advanced age.

J. R. Norman, Curator of the Department of Zoology. British Museum of Natural History. Classification and pedigrees: fossils. In: History of Fishes, Dr.P.H.Greenwood (editor), third edition, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1975, p.343.

...amphibians?

48. ... none of the known fish is considered the direct ancestor of the first land vertebrates. Most of them existed after the first amphibians, and those that appeared before did not see progress in developing the rigid limbs and ribs characteristic of primitive tetrapods ...

Since fossil material does not provide evidence for other aspects of the transition from fish to tetrapods, paleontologists were forced to rant about how limbs and breathing apparatus adapted to breathing on land developed ...

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Ansel's College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp.148, 195.

...birds?

49. The conclusion about the [evolutionary] origin of birds is highly speculative. There is no fossil evidence showing the stages of this remarkable transition from reptiles to birds.

W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London. The Origin of Birds, Chapter 1. In: Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), vol.1, Academic Press, New York, 1960, p.l.

50. It is easy to imagine how feathers, once appeared, began to acquire additional functions. But how they developed initially, especially from reptile scales, is beyond understanding...

This problem was shelved not because interest in it faded, but because of lack of evidence. No structure has been found in the fossils that would be an intermediate form between a scale and a feather, and modern researchers refuse to build a theory on speculation alone ...

Based on the complex structure of the feather, it can be assumed that its development from reptile scales would require an incredibly long time and a number of transitional forms. However, the fossil record does not support these assumptions.

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Anselm College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp. 349, 350.

...mammals?

51. Every mammal-like reptile species discovered appears suddenly in the fossil record, without immediate ancestral species. After a while, they just as suddenly disappear, leaving no direct descendant species, although we usually find somewhat similar species that have replaced them.

Tom Kemp (Tot Kemp), consultant on the zoological collections of the Museum of Oxford University, England. The reptiles that became mammals. New Scientist, vol.92, 4 March 1982, p.583.

52. The [evolutionary) transition to the first mammals, which probably took place in only one, at most two, lineages, still remains a mystery.

Roger Lewin. Bones of mammals" ancestors fleshed out. Science, vol.212, 26 June 1981, p.1492.

53. Due to the nature of fossil evidence, paleontologists have had to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history based largely on tooth morphology.

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Anselm College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, p.401.

...particularly horses?

54. Moreover, even in very slowly developing sequences, for example, in the famous equine series, decisive changes occur in a sharp jump, without transitional stages: for example, the appearance and further changes of one middle finger as opposed to two middle fingers during the development of artiodactyl, or a sudden change in the four-fingered legs on three-toed with the dominance of the third ray.

Richard B. Goldschmidt, Professor of Genetics and Cytology, University of California. Evolution, as viewed by one geneticist. American Scientist, vol. 40, January 1952, p. 97.

55. The family tree of a horse is beautiful and consistent only in textbooks. In reality, however, according to research, it consists of three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms that make up the first part are as little like horses as modern hyraxes. Recreating the entire Cenozoic tree of the horse is thus very artificial, since it is composed of non-equivalent parts and therefore cannot be considered as a complete chain of changes.

Prof. Heribert Nilsson. Syntetische Artbildung. Verlag C WE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552

56. It would be dishonest, speaking of the significance of the theory of evolution, to omit the evolution of the horse. The evolution of the horse is one of cornerstones in teaching evolutionary doctrine, although in reality the story largely depends on who tells it and when it was told. Therefore, it is quite possible to discuss the evolution of the story about the evolution of the horse ...

Prof. G.A. Kerkut, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton. In: Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, pp.144-145.

So, in 1979...

57. What I mean is that some of the classic Darwinian examples of changes in the fossil sequence, like the evolution of the horse in North America, now, with better information, need to be discarded or revised - what, with little data, looked like nice simple progression, now it was much more complex and much less consistent.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geology Consultant, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulltin, vot.50(l), January 1979, p.25.

Where did primates come from?

58. Despite new findings, the time and place of the origin of primates is still shrouded in mystery.

Elwin L. Simons, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA; editor of "Nuclear Physics". The origin and radiation of the primates. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, voL167, 1969, p.319.

59. ...the transition from insectivores to primates is not supported by fossil evidence. Information about this transition is based only on the observation of currently existing forms.

A.J. Kelso, Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado. Origin and evolution of the primates. In: Physical Anthropology, J.B. Lippincott, New York, second edition, 1974, p.142.

And the man?

Do people evolve?

60. We do not evolve even slowly. Not in any practical area. It makes no sense to assume that our brains are growing or our toes are getting shorter. We are what we are.

Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Speech in October 1983, op. Quoted from: "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

61. Without any prior explanation, he stated that evolution stopped, not because we have reached perfection, but because we have moved away from this process two million years ago.

Ronald Strahan, former Senior Scientist and Director, Tarong Zoological Park, Sydney; honorary secretary of ANZAAS; now at the Australian Museum, Sydney. Cit. Quoted from Northern Territory News, 14 September 1983, p.2.

Has humanity evolved before?

62. Among the staggering number of fossils of early hominoids, are there any whose morphology definitely points to them as human ancestors? If we take into account the factor of genetic variability, the answer is clear - no.

Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, Human Genetics and Anthropology, Professor of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, USA. Population genetics and human origins. Scientific American, vol.226(l), January 1872, p.94.

63. In recent years, some authors have published popular books on the origins of man based on subjective conjecture rather than actual fact. At the moment, science cannot provide us with a complete answer to the question of the origin of man, but scientific methods are leading us closer to the truth ...

As recent geological evidence emerges—for example, the discovery in East Africa of clear remains of Homo in the same early fossils as Australopithecus (both massive and graceful types)—once again raises the question of the latter's direct relationship to human evolution. So, we are forced to admit that we do not have a clear picture of human evolution ...

Dr. Robert Martin, Senior Fellow, Society of Zoologists, London. Foreword and article Man is not an onion. New Scientist, 4 August 1977, pp. 283, 285.

64. For example, no scientist can logically substantiate the assumption that a person, not being involved in any act of supernatural creation, evolved from some kind of ape-like creature in a very short - by geological standards - period of time, without leaving any there were no fossil traces of this transformation.

As I have already mentioned, those scientists who dealt with primate fossils were not famous for their restraint in their conclusions. logical constructions. Their conclusions are so striking that the question naturally arises: in general, did science spend the night here?

Lord Solly Zuckerman, MD, PhD (anatomy). In: Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970, p.64.

65. Modern great apes seem to have appeared out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil history. And origin modern man- erect, hairless, tool-producing, large-brained - to be honest, the same mystery.

Dr. Lyall Watson, anthropologist. The water people. Science Digest, vol.90, May 1982, p.44.

But what about the fossil ape man?

66. Joining in a critical analysis of the structure of the skulls of habilis, he added that the skull of "Lucy" is so fragmentary that most of it is "a fantasy of plaster"; therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty to which species it belonged.

Comments by Richard Leakey, Director of the National Museum of Kenya. The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p.3.

Are australopithecines (such as "Lucy") intermediate between apes and humans?

67. In any case, even if preliminary studies show that these fossils are similar to humans, or at least represent a cross between human bones and the bones of African anthropoids, further study of the remains convinces us that such a view is very far from the truth. These bones are clearly different from both human and monkey bones much more than the first and second from each other. Australopithecus is unique...

In many respects, the various australopithecines differ from both humans and African great apes much more than humans and apes differ from each other. The basis of this statement was the fact that even those researchers who were skeptical about it, now found these differences - after applying the latest techniques and research methods, independent of the generally accepted approach to the problem ...

In this case, the latest information also comes from scientific laboratories, and not from those who discovered the remains of Australopithecus.

Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Former Professor of Anatomy and Biology, University of Southern California; currently Professor of Human Anatomy and Biology, University of Western Australia. In: Fossils, Teeth and Sex - New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p.227.

[Editor's note: Oxnard's findings regarding Australopithecus are supported by the research of Professor Lord Zuckerman, anatomist (see op. 64). Creationists have been criticized for citing Zuckerman's findings because his work preceded the 1974 discovery of Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy"). The above quotation from Oxnard (1987) is a fitting response to critics].

68. The entire collection of hominid remains available today would easily fit on a billiard table. However, it gave rise to a whole science due to two factors that inflate its real significance to unprecedented proportions. First, these fossils hint at the origin of the animal most important to man - himself. And secondly, the number of these bones is so negligible, and the samples themselves are so fragmentary, that it is easier to talk about what is missing than about what is available. Hence the incredible amount of literature on the subject. Very few fossils allow one, irrefutable conclusion about their evolutionary significance. Most involve multiple interpretations. Various scientific authorities are free to highlight various features and attach importance to them, often highlighting the shape of the supposed missing links. The differences between these interpretations are so obscure and humane that they depend more on the concepts of opponents than on fossil evidence. Moreover, since this meager collection replenished extremely slowly, the long periods of time from discovery to discovery allowed researchers to form a clear opinion about what should be found next. Zinjanthropus boisei is a good example of this phenomenon. Ever since Darwin's time, when it was thought that fossils, intermediate between modern humans and their extinct ancestors, were the most compelling evidence for evolution, prejudice has dragged along all the evidence in the study of human fossils.

John Reader, photojournalist, author of "Missing Links", Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist, March 26, 1981, p.802.

Where does the evidence for evolution come from?

69. ... not being a paleontologist, I do not want to cast a shadow of contempt on them at all; but if you had to spend your whole life collecting bones, finding now a tiny part of the skull, now a small piece of the jaw, how great is the temptation to exaggerate the significance of these fragments ...

Dr. Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology, Flinders University, Adelaide. From a speech on evolution delivered at a meeting of the Association of Biology Teachers (South Australia) in 1976.

70. A 5-million-year-old piece of bone, which everyone thought was the clavicle of a humanoid creature, is in fact nothing more than part of a dolphin's rib. An anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley came to this conclusion.

Dr. Tim White believes that the discovery of this blunder could provide an impetus to reconsider the theory of when exactly human ancestors moved away from the ape line. He compares this case to two other egregious shenanigans committed by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, a fossilized pig tooth that has been presented as evidence of early man in North America; and Eoanthropus, or "Piltdown Man" - the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern man, declared "the oldest Englishman" ... The problem with many anthropologists is that they are so eager to find a hominid bone. that any piece of bone becomes it.

Dr. Tim White, Anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley. Quoted from: Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199.

71. I mean the legends about how things have changed over time. How dinosaurs died out, how mammals evolved, where man came from. But for me it is more than just fairy tales. All this is the result of an orientation towards cladistics. Because, as it turns out (or at least it seems to me), everything that can be known about the history of life on Earth, we learn from the systematics, from the systems and groups that can be found in nature. Everything else is fairy tales and legends of various kinds. We have access to the top of the tree, but the tree itself is theoretical; and people who pretend to know everything about this tree, about what happened to it, how its branches and shoots grew, it seems to me, they tell fairy tales.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. BBC interview March 4, 1982 Patterson is a leading proponent of the new science of cladistics.

Is evolution possible?
What do mutations (genetic changes) give?

72. Some modern biologists talk about evolution whenever they encounter a mutation. They unequivocally support the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary changes; all living beings are subject to mutations; therefore, all living beings evolve.

This logical scheme, however, is unacceptable: first, its main premise is neither obvious nor universal; secondly, her conclusions do not correspond to the facts. No matter how numerous mutations are, they do not lead to evolution.

Let's add: it is easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary significance, since they are limited by natural selection. Lethal mutations (changes for the worse) lead to complete extinction, while others remain as alleles. The appearance of a person gives many examples of this: eye color, auricle shape, dermatoglyphics, hair color and texture, skin pigmentation. Mutants exist in all populations, from bacteria to humans. And there can be no doubt about this. But for evolutionists, the point is something else: that mutations are not related to evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.88.

73. Despite these conceptual problems with natural selection as an evaluative principle, the most serious shortcomings in neo-Darwinism relate to its productive aspect. Random variation, which provides the raw material for natural selection, cannot be regarded as a producing factor either from a theoretical or comparative point of view. They do not provide an understanding of the creative, transformative nature of evolution and the related problem of origin.

Jeffrey S. Wicken, Department of Biochemistry, Burend College, Pennsylvania State University, USA. The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermidynamic and information-theoretical discussion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.77, April 1979, ppMl-352.

74. It is hard to believe in the timely appearance of mutations, which allowed animals and plants to obtain the necessary properties. However, Darwin's theory goes even further: every plant, every animal will require thousands and thousands of successful, favorable changes. Thus, miracles are elevated to the rank of law: events of an infinitely small degree of probability cannot fail to occur.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.103.

Philosophy of evolution

75. We all know that many evolutionary discoveries are nothing more than the mental research of individual paleontologists. One bookworm can do much more than millions of years of genetic change.

Dr. Derek V.Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists" Assocoation, vol. 87(2), 1976, p. 132.

Meanwhile...

76. I have cited several opinions of biologists holding prominent academic positions. There are many other critical views of orthodox doctrine, both spoken and unspoken, and their number is constantly growing. But although this critique has already broken more than one hole in the wall, the citadel still stands - mainly, as mentioned above, because no one is able to offer a satisfactory alternative theory. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can survive many attacks, turning into a knot of contradictions, which corresponds to the fourth phase of the historical cycle - Crisis and doubt, and yet it will be supported by scientific and public circles until it collapses completely and a new one begins. cycle.

But this is not yet foreseen. Meanwhile, the enlightened public continues to believe that Darwin gave the answers to all questions with his magic formula: random mutations plus natural selection. They don't know that random mutations are completely irrelevant as an argument and that natural selection is a tautology.

Arthur Koestler. In: Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185).

On the question of natural selection
("Survival of the fittest")

77. There is no doubt that natural selection is a working system. This has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. There is no doubt that natural selection is at work. The whole question is whether the formation of new species occurs as a result of it. No one has ever obtained a new species by natural selection, no one has even come close to it, and most of the recent debate in neo-Darwinism is about just that: how a new species arises. Here, natural selection is forgotten, and certain random mechanisms are introduced.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum Natural History, London. BBC cladistics interview 4 March 1982.

Darwin suspected...

78. Suppose that the eye, with its most complex systems, is a change of focus at different distances; capturing different amounts of light; correction of spherical and chromatic aberrations - such a complex mechanism was formed as a result of natural selection. Frankly, this idea seems completely absurd to me.

Charles Darwin. Origin of species. J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.176.

And time has confirmed

79. Gradual evolutionary changes by natural selection occur so slowly within existing species that they cannot be considered as the main manifestations of evolution.

Steven M. Stanley, Department of Earth and Planetary Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, vol.72(2), February 1975, p.646.

80. In other words, natural selection throughout its course does not improve the chances of a species to survive, but only keeps it "in a rut", or enables it to adapt to a constantly changing external environment.

Richard C. Lewontin, professor of zoology, University of Chicago, editor of the American Naturalist. adaptation. Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978 p. 159.

81. The role attributed to natural selection in the emergence of fitness has no solid evidence. Paleontology (as in the case of the transformation of the jawbones of the reptile theriodont) provides no evidence; direct observations of hereditary adaptations do not exist (except for the aforementioned bacteria and insects that adapt to viruses and drugs). Formation of the eye, inner ear, whales and cetaceans, etc. by adaptation seems quite impossible.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris; former president of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press New York 1977, p770.

82. The whole essence of Darwinism in one single phrase: natural selection is the driving force behind evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection is at play leading role in the destruction of less adapted individuals. But Darwin's theory requires that he also produce the fittest.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History, vol. LXXXV1(6), June-July 1977, p.28.

Even for the spotted moth...

83. Experiments have demonstrated the effect of predators on the survival of dark and normal spotted moths in clean and smoke-polluted environments. These experiments perfectly demonstrated natural selection—survival of the fittest—in action, but they did not show evolutionary development, because no matter how different the populations were in their light, intermediate, or dark colors, they were all Bistort betularia from beginning to end.

L. Harrison Matthews, Royal Physical Society. Preface to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

So...

84. Instead of proving the gradual development of life, geologists - both from the time of Darwin and modern - find in the highest degree irregular or fragmentary data, namely: species appear in the fossil record suddenly, change little or nothing during the period of their existence, and then just as suddenly disappear. And it is not always obvious (in fact, it is not at all obvious) that the ancestors are worse adapted than the descendants. In other words, it is very difficult to find a biological improvement.

Dr. David M. Raup, Consultant Geology, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.23.

85. Francisco Ayala, a central figure in the Modern Synthesis discussion in the United States, graciously admitted: "We did not intend to predict the stability of population genetics, but now, thanks to paleontological data, I am confident that small changes do not accumulate at all."

Dr. Francisco Ayala, Professor of Genetics, University of California. Commentary on Darwin's evolutionary (progressive) theory. Quoted from: Roger Lewin. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science, vol.210(4472), 21 November 1980, p.884.

What if there was enough time?

In 1954, they thought so:

86. The important thing is that if the emergence of life belongs to the category of phenomena that occur at least once, then time is on its side. Incredible as we may think this event or any of its stages, over a sufficient period of time it could have happened at least once. And for life as we know it, with its ability to grow and reproduce, once is enough.

Time is the true hero of this scenario. The time we are dealing with is on the order of two billion years. What is considered impossible on the basis of human experience, in this case, makes no sense. Over such a long period, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable mdash; almost natural. Time itself works wonders, you just need to wait.

George Wald, former professor of biology, Harvard University. The origin of life. Scientific American, vol.191(2), August 1954, p.48.

In 1978 they already said:

87 There is no reliable information based solely on observations of the Sun, said Dr. Eddy, that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. Personally, I assume that the Sun is indeed 4.5 billion years old. However, I also suspect that with the emergence of new, unexpected results to the contrary, and some time of intensive recalculations and theoretical justifications, we may come to the value of the age of the Earth and the Sun, which Bishop Ussher gives. I don't think we have enough astronomically observable evidence to contradict this.

Dr. John A. Eddy (astrogeophysics), astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory, Boulder, Colorado. Quoted from: R.G. Kazman, It "s about time: 4.5 billion years (Speech at a symposium at Louisiana State University). Geotimes, vol. 23, September 1978, p. 18.

Can the small changes that we observe, even over a sufficiently long period of time, lead to real evolutionary progress?

88. The main question of the Chicago conference was the question of whether the mechanisms that ensure microevolution can be extrapolated to the phenomenon of macroevolution. Not without the risk of offending some of the participants in the meeting, the answer can be formulated clearly and clearly - no.

Roger Lewin. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science, vol.210(4472), 21 November 1980, p.883.

Where did life come from?

89. Prebiotic broth is easy to get. But how to explain how this mixture of organic molecules, including amino acids and organic nucleotide constituents, developed into a self-reproducing organism? Although the evidence we have received allows us to draw certain conclusions, I have to point out that all attempts to recreate this evolutionary process are too speculative.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, biochemist, Salk Institute, California. Darwinism at the very beginning of life. New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 150.

90. One way or another, the transition from a macromolecule to a cell is a leap of fantastic proportions, lying beyond the limits of a hypothesis that can be tested. In this area, everything will be just a guess. The available facts do not give grounds to assert that cells originated on this planet.*
We do not mean to say that some paraphysical forces are at work. We only emphasize the fact that there is no scientific evidence for this. Physicists have learned to get away from the question of when time began and when matter was created, leaving it in the framework of outright demagogy. The origin of the particles that precede the cell is probably in the same category of the unknowable.

* Claiming that life originated somewhere in the universe and then was somehow transported to Earth only takes us back to the starting point, because then the question again arises of how exactly life arose where it managed to arise in the first place.

David E. Green, Enzyme Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA and Robert F. Goldberger, National Institute Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp.406-407.

So...

91. For some biologists, biogenesis is a matter of faith. Having believed in biogenesis, the scientist chooses exactly the system that suits him personally; real evidence of what exactly happened is not taken into account.

Professor G.A.Kerkut, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton. In: Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p.150.

What is the likelihood of evolution?

92. The likelihood that higher forms of life arose in this way is comparable to the likelihood that a tornado, sweeping a garbage dump, can incidentally assemble a Boeing 747 from picked up materials.

Sir Fred Hoyle, English astronomer, professor of astronomy at the University of Cambridge. Quoted from: Hoyle on Evolution. Nature, vol.294, 12 November 1981, p.105.

On the origin of genes...

93. The origin of the genetic code is the narrowest point in the question of the origin of life. And in order to achieve significant progress here, grandiose theoretical or experimental discoveries may be needed.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, biochemist, Salk Institute, California. Darwinism at the very beginning of life. New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p.151. 94. For the evolution of the genetic mechanism, there are no laboratory models: here you can endlessly rant, brushing aside uncomfortable facts...

We can only imagine what really happened, and imagination is not the best helper here.

Dr. Richard E. Dickerson, Physical Chemistry, Professor at the California Institute of Technology. Chemical evolution and the origin of life. Scientific American, vol. 239(3), September 1978, pp. 77, 78.

Consequently...

95. To insist, especially with Olympian certainty, that life arose absolutely by chance and developed in the same way is an unfounded assumption, which I personally consider to be incorrect and inconsistent with the facts.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 107.

But the world is old, isn't it?

96. The estimated age of the globe, judging by the degree of radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, is about 4.5 billion years. But the lifetime of this "statement" may turn out to be short, since it is not so easy to reveal the secrets of nature. In recent years, a stunning discovery has been made - it turns out that the rate of radioactive decay is not so constant as it was previously thought, and, moreover, is subject to the influences of the external environment.

This may mean that the atomic clock was rebuilt as a result of some worldwide catastrophe, and the events that ended the Mesozoic era could not have occurred 65 million years ago, but within the age and memory of mankind.

Frederic B. Jueneman Secular catastrophism. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

97. The reliability of all the above methods for measuring the age of the Earth, its various layers and fossils, is debatable, since over the course of Earth's history the rates of measured processes could vary greatly from each other. The method that was supposed to be the most reliable way to determine the absolute age of rocks is the radiometric method ...

Obviously, the radiometric technique may not be the absolute method of dating, as it has been proclaimed. The age of the same geological layer, measured by different radiometric methods, often varies within hundreds of millions of years. There is no absolutely accurate long-term radiological "clock". The inherent inaccuracy of radiometric dating methods worries geologists and evolutionists.

William D. Stansfield, PhD (Animal Science), Professor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University. In: The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, pp. 82, 84.

But don't potassium-argon (K/Ag) and uranium-lead (U/Pb) methods complement each other?

98. Conventional interpretation of C/Ag age data typically discards values ​​that are too high or too low compared to the rest of the group, or to other existing data such as the geochronological scale. The gap between the rejected and accepted data is arbitrarily attributed to the excess or loss of argon,

E. Heisshu (AMayatsu), Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada. K/Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol.16, 1979, p.974.

99. Thus, if one considers that the obtained value of age in a particular example contradicts the established facts of geology, he should think about geological processes that can cause anomalies, or about changes in the argon content of minerals.

Professor LF Evernden, Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA and John R. Richards, School of Geosciences, National University Australia, Canberra. Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol.9(l), 1962, p.3.

And isn't the rubidium-strontium method (Rb/Sr) the most reliable?

100. These results show that even entire rock systems can be exposed during metamorphism and their isotope systems can change in such a way that it becomes impossible to determine their geological age.

Prof. Gunter Faure, Department of Geology, Ohio University, Columbus, USA; and Prof. James L. Powell, Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA. In: Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.

101. One of the important conclusions of the mantle isochron model is that the crystallization age determined from volcanic rocks by the Rb/Sr method can be many hundreds of millions of years older than the real age. This problem is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented examples in the literature of inconsistencies between stratigraphic and Rb/Sr ages.

Dr. C.Brooks, Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Dr. D.E.James, Member of the Board of Geophysics and Geochemistry, Carnegie Institution, Washington, USA; Dr. S.R. Hart, Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA. Ancient lithosphe-re: its role in young continental volcanism. science, vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.

What data is published in scientific journals?

102. In most cases, the data from the “fit data set” are considered correct and published. The same data that do not match them are rarely published, inconsistencies are not explained.

Dr. Richard L. Mauger, Professor of Geology, University of East Carolina, USA. K/Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uni-ta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15(1), 1977, p.37. 103. Much remains unclear in determining the isotopic age; and the realization that in many cases the isotopic age does not match the geological age has unfortunately contributed to the development of skepticism among a number of geologists.

Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller. Interpretation of isotopic ages in orogenic belts. In: Time and Place in Orogeny, Geological Society of London Special Publication, No.3, 1969, p. 137.

And carbon-14...?

104. A distinctive feature of the research is that modern mollusk shells from river sediments are not only deficient in C compared to marine molluscs, as noted by Keith, but also extremely low in C14 compared to modern wood, which gives incorrect values ​​for their radiocarbon age in ranging from 1010 to 2300 years.

M.L.Keith and G.M.Anderson, Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634-635.

105. Radiocarbon analysis of samples of mummified seals from southern Victoria Land showed an age ranging from 615 to 4600 years. However, in the Antarctic sea ​​waters the activity of carbon-14 is much lower than generally accepted world standards. Thus, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms shows an age greater than the true, but the difference between these values ​​is unknown and inconsistent. Therefore, the data obtained by the radiocarbon method of studying the mummified remains of seals cannot be considered true. For example, the radiocarbon age of a Lake Bonney seal that died a few weeks ago was determined to be 615 ± 100 years, while a freshly killed seal at McMurdo was 1300 years old.

Wakefield Dort, Jr., Department of Geology, University of Kansas. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol.6, September-October 1971, p.211.

106. The low (only 3.3 ± 0.2%) carbon-14 content (corresponding to an age of 27,000 years) measured in the shells of modern snails Melanoides tuberculatis living in underground springs of southern Nevada can be explained by the precipitation of dissolved CO3, with which the shells were in carbon equilibrium. [Ed.: In other words, these living snails "died" 27,000 years ago.]

Dr. Alan C. Riggs, former member of the US Geological Survey, is now a fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle. Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science, vol.224, April 6, 1984, p.58.

107. In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the method of its application, it is very striking that many authors contrive to present results convenient for themselves as "proof" of their own views ...

The radiocarbon method miraculously did not collapse on its own shaky foundation and is now struggling to maintain balance. The possibility of anomalous contamination and ancient changes in carbon-14 levels are consistently ignored by those who base their system of evidence on the results obtained by this method.

In the old days, experts claimed that they were "not sure if there is even one significant discrepancy" in the data obtained in different laboratories when studying the same sample. These enthusiasts go on to say, incredible as it may seem, that they "do not see any significant discrepancies". However, a discrepancy of 15,000 years for a single soil sample is just a significant discrepancy! And how can huge discrepancies between data from different laboratories be called "minor" if they are the basis for the overestimation of the standard error associated with any and every date?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their meager funds on expensive radiocarbon studies? They do this because random dates have proven to be useful. While this method cannot be relied upon to produce unambiguously accurate results, the numbers impress people by saving them from the worry of overthinking. Looking just like exact calendar years, the numbers are somehow more appealing to both amateurs and professionals than complex stratigraphic correlations; besides, they are also easier to remember. Lab-defined "absolute" dates carry a lot of weight and are quite useful for supporting weak arguments...

No matter how "useful" the radiocarbon method is considered, it is still not able to give accurate and reliable results. Its inconsistencies are great, the chronology is unreliable and relative, and the "common" dates are actually adjusted. "This all-too-blessed undertaking is nothing more than 13th-century alchemy, and the result depends on which entertaining comics you prefer."

Robert E. Lee. Radiocarbon: ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp.117-127.

108. Method C14 was discussed at a symposium on ancient history valley of the Nile. Our well-known American colleague Professor Brew briefly formulated the general attitude of archaeologists towards this method: "If the data obtained by the C14 method support our theory, we introduce them into the text: if they do not really contradict it, into a comment: and if they do not fit at all, we simply omit ". Few archaeologists dealing with accurate chronology have escaped this application of this method; many still doubt whether it is worth using it without restrictions.

T.Save-Soderbergh, Institute of Egyptology and l.U.Olsson, Institute of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden. C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology. In: Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist and Wikselt, Stockholm, and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970, p.35).

How to determine the age of rocks?

From the dogmas of 1949...

109. Since life developed gradually, changing from epoch to epoch, the rocks of each geological period reflect the characteristic types of fossils that distinguish them from any other period. Conversely, each kind of fossil is an index or lead fossil for the corresponding geological epoch...

Over the past hundred years, paleontologists around the world have accumulated so much information on this subject that it is now as easy for a qualified specialist to determine the relative geological age of fossils, as, for example, to determine the place of a page in a manuscript by numbering. Fossils, therefore, make it possible to recognize rocks of the same age in different parts of the Earth and, accordingly, to correlate events in the history of the Earth as a whole. They provide us with a chronology on which events are strung like pearls on a string.

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Geology), Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1949, p.52.

110. Fossils give us the only chronometric scale acceptable in geological history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for the accurate dating of geological events. In view of the irreversibility of evolution, they are an accurate measure for determining the relative age of rocks and correlating them on a world scale.

O.H.Schinderwolf. Comments on some stratigraphic terms. American Journal of Science, vol.255, June 1957 p.395.

...and by the 1970s...

111. Some fossils are limited to a certain geological period. They are called fossils - indexes. Whenever a rock containing this type of fossil is found, its approximate age is set automatically...

This method is not entirely reliable. It happens that an organism that was considered extinct for a long time turns out to be existing. Such "living fossils" naturally cannot act as indexes, except perhaps over the broader time frame of their known existence.

Dr. William D. Stansfield, Animal Science, Professor of Biology, California Polytechnic University. In: The Science of Evolution, Macmillan Mew York, 1977, p.80.

...became obvious...

112. Clever laymen have long suspected a vicious circle in dating fossils by the age of rocks, and rocks by the age of fossils. Geologists, on the other hand, have never bothered to search for a worthy answer - why explain if the work brings results? This is called stubborn pragmatism.

J.E.O "Rourke". Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy. American Journal of Science, vol.276, January 1976 p.47.

Dating does not go beyond the circle

113. It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical point of view, geological reasoning is a vicious circle. The sequence of organisms is determined by studying their remains in rocks, and the relative age of rocks is determined from the deposits of the organisms they contain.

R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, University of Cambridge. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, v.10, p. 168.

114. The spread of life cannot be witnessed; one can only guess about it. The vertical fossil sequence is thought to represent this process, as the rocks included in it are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the deposits themselves date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot get away from this type of argument if it insists on using the concept of time, because a vicious circle is inevitable in the production of time scales.

J.E.O "Rourke". Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy. American Journal of Science, vol.276, January 1976, p.53.

115. The point of view that the creation of a geological scale leads to a vicious circle has certain grounds.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Geology and creationism. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.54(3), March 1983, p.21.

116. A problem arises: if we determine the age of rocks from fossils, then how can we immediately talk about examples of evolutionary changes over time in the fossil record?

Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. In: Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1985 (and William Heinemann Ltd, London, 1986), p.52.

Talk to the earth, and he will guide you... (Job 12:8)

117. I've been working with recent graduate geologists for nearly thirty years, and I keep telling them: forget all the theories you've been taught, just watch what really happens and record it.

A.C.M. Laing, Melbourne. "Letters to the Editor", The Australian Geologist, Newsletter no.48, 19 March 1984, p.7.

Examining fossils: is it possible to recognize
that the theory of evolution is wrong?

118. Paleontologists argue about the speed of evolution, about its various examples. But none of them, at least publicly, doubt the very fact of evolution. Their evidence for evolution does not depend on the fossil record at all.

Some paleontologists believe that animals evolved gradually, through an infinite number of intermediate states, from one form to another. Others believe that the study of fossils does not provide evidence for such gradual changes. In fact, they believe, this is what happened: some species of animals survived almost unchanged over time, while others died out or changed very dramatically, passing into another form (forms). Thus, instead of the theory of gradual changes, they put forward the idea of ​​"punctuated equilibrium". There is a dispute about specific historical examples of evolution; however, outsiders, listening to this dispute, conclude that the subject of discussion is the truth of evolution: did it occur at all? This is a terrible mistake; it is based, in my opinion, on the false idea that fossils contain much of the evidence for evolution. In fact, evolution is proved by a completely separate set of arguments, and the current paleontological debate is not at all aimed at. evidence.

Mark Ridley, zoologist, University of Oxford. Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, voL90, 25 June 1981, p.830.

How important is fossil research to an evolutionist?

In 1960...

119. Although a comparative study of living animals and plants can provide very convincing evidence, fossils alone provide the only historical documentary evidence that life evolved from simpler forms to more and more complex ones.

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar, Geology, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, I960, p.47.

And more than 20 years later...

120. In any case, no true evolutionist, be he a supporter of the theory of gradual change or "punctuated equilibrium", uses the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution as opposed to the theory of purposeful creation.

Mark Ridley, zoologist, University of Oxford. Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.831.

How did this affect the theory of evolution? A new evolutionary theory has emerged - "Punctuated Equilibrium"!

121. The concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium" by Eldridge-Gould has been widely accepted by paleontologists. She attempts to explain the following paradox: within genera it is very difficult to find the gradual morphological changes predicted by Darwin; change occurs by the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldridge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events have not been preserved. They suggest that change occurs rapidly (by geologic standards), in small peripheral populations. They believe that evolution accelerates in such populations because they contain small, random samples of the parent population's gene pool (the founder effect) and thus can diverge rapidly, both by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressures. , which may differ from the parent population. Gradually, some of these divergent, peripheral populations react to changing environmental conditions (species selection), and then grow and spread rapidly in the fossil record.

The punctuated equilibrium model became widespread, not because it had a solid theoretical foundation, but because it was supposed to solve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious research problems inherent in the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its inherent vicious circle (one could argue that speciation occurs only after rapid phylum changes, and not vice versa), this model is currently more of a mixture of different explanations than a theory and stands on unstable ground.

Robert E. Ricklefs, Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Paleontologists confronting macroevolution. Science, vol.199, 6 January 1978, p.59.

122. Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are known for their ability to fabricate plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories and truth are by no means the same thing.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard

University, Dr. David M. Raup, Consultant Geology, Department of the Museum of Natural History, Chicago J. John Sepkoski, Jr., Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, New York, Thomas JMSchopf, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Chicago and Daniel S. Bimherloff, Department of Biology, University of Florida, Tullah Hussey. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology, vol. 3(l), 1977, pp. 34-35.

Think about it!

123. On Pasteur's refutation of the idea of ​​spontaneous generation of life. “We present this story to aspiring biology students as a triumph of common sense over mysticism. In fact, it seems that things are different. The reasonable approach was to believe in spontaneous arising; the only alternative is belief in a single, original act of supernatural creation. There is no third. Therefore, a century ago, many scientists began to consider the belief in the spontaneous origin of life as a "philosophical necessity." The fact that now this necessity is not in the price is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time. The majority of modern biologists, while watching with satisfaction the decline of the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, still does not want to accept an alternative point of view, believe in Purposeful Creation, and are left with nothing.

George Wald, former professor of biology, Harvard University. The origin of life. Scientific American, vol. 191(2), August 1954, p.46

124. The inevitable conclusion is that many scientists and technologists worship Darwin's theory just because it allegedly excludes the Creator from yet another sphere of material phenomena, and not at all because it builds a coherent paradigm of research canons in the sciences of life and the Earth.

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Sydney. That have evolved or to have not? That is the question. Quadrant, October 1981, p.45.

125. I know what question has arisen in the minds of many who have read up to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" That's just science does not prove it!

Dr. Paul A. Moody, Zoology, Professor Emeritus of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont. In: Introduction to Evolution, Harper and Row, New York, 2nd ed, 1962, p.513.

126. The code of honor that a naturalist who wants to understand the problem of evolution must learn is: to be true to the facts and to reject all dogmas and a priori ideas. Facts first, then theories. The only verdict that comes into force is the one that the court recognized as proven facts. Indeed, the best evolutionary research has been carried out by those biologists whose eyes were not blinded by doctrine, who considered the facts calmly, without trying them on one theory or another. Today our task is to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understandable, easily explainable phenomenon that is clearly revealed to us. Biologists should be encouraged by the thought that the interpretations and extrapolations presented by theorists as established truths are untenable. This deception is sometimes accidental, but only sometimes, because some people, because of their sectarianism, deliberately turn away from reality and refuse to admit the inconsistency, the falsity of their ideas.

Pierre-Paul Grasset, University of Paris, former president of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8.

127. Scholars of the highest order today recognize much of Wilberforce's criticism of Darwin's theory, as well as that of the geologist Adam Sedgwick, whose paper was published in The Spectator in April 1860...

Darwin was concerned about the missing links in the fossil record. He had a presentiment that they were about to appear, but these links are missing to this day and, it seems, will never be found. What we should think about this is an open question; but even today conservative neo-Darwinist fanatics and unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who consider themselves enlightened rationalists contemptuously reject evidence that is clear to everyone.

Prof. Sir Edmund R. Leach. From an address to the annual meeting (1981) of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Men, bishops and apes. Nature, vol.293, 3 September 1981, Pp.19, 20.

128. The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some creative idea, a manifestation of the finest aesthetic and mathematical developments, is irresistible. I, like most physicists, believe there is something behind it.

Paul Davies. The Christian perspective of a scientist. New Scientist, 2 June 1983, p.638.

129. ... For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth with unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is clear to them, because God has shown them; For His invisible, His eternal power and Divinity, from the creation of the world through the consideration of creations are visible, so that they are unanswerable. But how, having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, and did not give thanks, but became futile in their thoughts, and their inconceivable heart was darkened: calling themselves wise, they became foolish ...

Bible. Romans, chapter 1, verses 18-22.

130. ...For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Bible. Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16.

- (from Bio ... and ... Logia is the totality of the sciences of living nature. The subject of study is B. all manifestations of life: the structure and functions of living beings and their natural communities, their distribution, origin and development, connections with each other and with the inanimate … …

Darwinism named after the English naturalist Charles Darwin in the narrow sense is a direction of evolutionary thought, whose adherents agree with Darwin's basic ideas on the issue of evolution (their modern form, sometimes with a significant ... ... Wikipedia

Materialistic theory of evolution (historical development) of the organic world of the Earth, based on the views of Charles Darwin. the foundation for creating the theory of evolution for Ch. Darwin was observations during a round-the-world trip on ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

A concept in biology that considers evolution as a spasmodic process occurring as a result of large single hereditary changes. According to M., such changes are called macromutations, or saltations, occurring in ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Correspondence of a phenomenon or process to a certain (relatively completed) state, the material or ideal Model of which is presented as a goal (See goal). C. is considered, on the one hand, as immanent (internal) ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (Late Latin adaptatio adaptation, adaptation, from Latin adapto I adapt) the process of adapting the structure and functions of organisms (individuals, populations, species) and their organs to environmental conditions. At the same time, any A. is also a result, i.e. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Allogenesis (from the Greek állos another, morphē view, form, génesis formation), the transformation of organisms associated with a change in the environment, in which one relationship with the environment is replaced by others, more or less equivalent. At the same time, there is no…… Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (from the Greek áiro I raise and murphsis pattern, form) arogenesis, morpho-physiological progress, one of the main directions of the biological progress of living beings, in which their organization becomes more complicated in the course of evolutionary development. The term... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

A group of organisms that are part of a local population (See Population) that have the same genotype and are similar in almost all respects. The Danish biologist V. Johansen considered homozygous B. in self-pollinating plants to be the most elementary ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Son of N. A. Severtsov, professor of zoology at Yuryev University. Genus. in Moscow in 1866. At the end of the course of the gymnasium, he entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the Moscow University, where he studied under the guidance of prof. Menzbier. From 1893 to 1898 ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

Charles Robert Darwin Charles Robert Darwin Photo 1880 Date of birth: February 12, 1809 Place of birth: Shrewsbury, England Date of death: April 19, 1882 ... Wikipedia

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

ESSAY

Problems of evolution

Doing

evolution lamarck darwin

Evolution is a gradual change in complex systems over time. Biological evolution is a hereditary change in the properties and characteristics of living organisms over a number of generations. In the course of biological evolution, an agreement is achieved and constantly maintained between the properties of living organisms and the conditions of the environment in which they live. Since conditions are constantly changing, including as a result of the vital activity of the organisms themselves, and only those individuals that are best adapted to life in changed environmental conditions survive and reproduce, the properties and signs of living beings are constantly changing. The conditions of life on Earth are infinitely diverse, so the adaptation of organisms to life in these different conditions has given rise in the course of evolution to a fantastic variety of life forms.

The theory of evolution occupies a central position in modern natural science and biology, uniting all its areas and being their common

theoretical basis. An indicator of the scientific maturity of specific biological sciences is: 1) contribution to the theory of evolution; 2) the degree to which the conclusions of the latter are used in their scientific practice (for setting problems, analyzing the data obtained and constructing particular theories). Also, the theory of evolution has the most important general philosophical significance: a certain attitude to the problems of the evolution of the organic world characterizes various general philosophical concepts (both materialistic and idealistic).

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin are considered the founders of evolutionary biology as a separate independent science, who were the first to address the issues of the theory of evolution.

1 . Etcaboutproblems of the evolution of living organisms

The problems of the evolution of living organisms lie in the theories of evolution themselves, that is, in the errors of reasoning.

According to Lamarck's theory, plants and lower animals are directly exposed to the environment and are transformed. The environment acts indirectly on higher animals: a change in external conditions - a change in opportunities - a change in habit - the active functioning of some organs and their development - the loss of activity of other organs and their death.

But Lamarck's reasoning contained an error, which consisted in a simple fact: acquired characteristics are not inherited. At the end of the XIX century. German biologist August Weismann set up a famous experiment - for 22 generations he cut off the tails of experimental mice. And still, newborn mice had tails no shorter than their ancestors.

In general, Lamarck's theory was ahead of its time and was rejected by the scientific community. But then he got a lot of followers. Neo-Lamarckists of various directions were the shock fist of the opponents of the developments of Charles Darwin111111

The following issues can also be identified:

1) How did life begin on earth? By the way of the natural evolution of the inorganic world or it was brought from the Cosmos - the theory of Panspermia.

In the theory of molecular evolution, a significant amount of knowledge has been accumulated, pointing to the possibility of self-origination of life (in the form of the simplest self-reproducing systems) from inorganic matter under the conditions of the primitive Earth.

At the same time, there are facts that testify in favor of the theory of panspermia: a) the oldest sedimentary rocks with an age of 3.8 billion years have preserved traces of the mass development of primitive life forms, and the isotopic composition of carbon C12 / C13 practically does not differ from that in modern living substance; b) features were found in meteorites that can be interpreted as traces of the vital activity of primitive life forms, although there are objections to this point of view.

2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive unicellular life forms on Earth. Was it the main trend to complicate the internal organization of the cell in order to maximize the consumption of any resources of the undifferentiated environment of the primitive Earth, or even then some organisms embarked on the path of adaptation to the predominant use of any one resource (specialization).

It is now considered established that the simplest non-nuclear bacterial organisms gave rise to eukaryotes with a developed nucleus, compartmentalized cytoplasm, organelles, and a sexual form of reproduction. Eukaryotes at the turn of about 1.2-1.4 billion years ago significantly increased their biodiversity, which resulted in the intensive development of new ecological niches and the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms. This explains, in particular, the mass formation of the most ancient biogenic oils 1.2-1.4 billion years ago, perhaps the largest-scale process of transformation of the Earth's biomass that existed at that time (10 times greater than the modern biomass) into inert matter.

3. Whether there were conditions on the primitive Earth that favored the evolutionary complication of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell. What is their nature, when did they arise and whether they continue to operate to this day.

The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization (on the molecular, gene, cellular, multicellular, organismal, population) and the conditions for its implementation. In general terms, one can consider an obvious increase in the evolutionary potential at each new level of biological organization (i.e., the possibilities of morpho-functional differentiation of life at the organismal and ecosystem levels), however, the trigger mechanisms and limiting factors of autogenetic (intrinsic) and external (living environment) remain unclear. ) origin. In particular, the nature of aromorphoses (cardinal changes in the plans of the structure of organisms) and saltations (outbreaks of biodiversification accompanied by the appearance of high-ranking taxa) remains mysterious.

Has there been a global change in evolutionary strategies in the history of the Earth within the framework of stabilizing selection (constancy of environmental conditions), driving selection (pronounced unidirectional changes in critical parameters of the environment) and destabilizing selection (catastrophic changes in environmental parameters affecting hierarchically high levels of organization of biosystems from molecular- genetic to biospheric). There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the physical and chemical conditions of the environment (incoherent evolution). And as the abiotic environment stabilizes, evolution acquires a coherent character, and the development of trophic specializations under the pressure of competition for food resources becomes the leading factor in the evolutionary strategy in ecologically saturated ecosystems.

4. What is the nature of trigger mechanisms that provide a radical change in the modes of evolution of life forms. What is the immanent essence, due to the internal features of the organization and evolution of biosystems, or due to external causes.

According to geological data, the mass development of highly organized Metazoa life forms (with muscle tissues, alimentary tract, etc.) occurred in the Vendian about 600 million years ago, although they may have appeared earlier, as evidenced by paleontological finds of recent years. But these were non-skeletal soft-bodied Metazoa. They did not have a protective skeleton and, in the absence of an ozone layer, apparently had a limited ecological niche. At the turn of 540-550 Ma, there was a taxonomic explosion (massive, almost simultaneous appearance) of all the main types and classes of marine invertebrates, represented mainly by skeletal forms. The full development of life forms that occupied all the main biotopes on Earth occurred later, when the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere and hydrosphere increased significantly and the ozone screen began to stabilize.

5. To what extent photosynthesis and oxygen exchange are obligatory and necessary conditions for the development of life on Earth. The transition from predominant chemosynthesis to chlorophyll-based photosynthesis probably occurred about 2 billion years ago, which may have served as the "energetic" prerequisite for the subsequent explosive increase in biodiversity on the planet. But in the last third of the 20th century, the phenomenon of the rapid development of life near hydrogen sulfide smokers on the ocean floor in total darkness was discovered and studied on the basis of chemosynthesis.

6. The regular and directed nature of macroevolution allows us to raise the question of the possibility of predicting evolution. The solution of this question is connected with the analysis of the ratios of necessary and random phenomena in the evolution of organisms.

7. Among the central problems of the modern theory of evolution, one should name the co-evolution of different species in natural communities and the evolution of biological macrosystems themselves - biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole.

2 . Evevolutionary theory of life on earth

The history of evolutionary theory is extremely interesting in itself, because it concentrated the struggle of ideas in all areas of biology.

Evolutionary biology, like any other science, has come a long and winding path of development. Various hypotheses have been developed and tested. Most hypotheses did not stand up to the test of facts, and only a few of them became theories, inevitably changing in the process.

The problem of the origin of life began to interest man in antiquity. The development of ideas about the origin of living beings was carried out by such scientists as Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Aristotle.

Among them, Heraclitus of Ephesus (late 6th - early 5th century BC) is known as the creator of the concept of perpetual motion and changeability of everything that exists. According to the ideas of Empedocles (c. 490 - c. 430 BC), organisms were formed from the initial chaos in the process of random connection of individual structures, with unsuccessful options dying, and harmonious combinations being preserved (a kind of naive idea of ​​selection as the guiding force of development ). The author of the atomistic concept of the structure of the world, Democritus (c. 460 - c. 370 BC), believed that organisms can adapt to changes in the external environment. Finally, Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 95-55 BC) in his famous poem "On the Nature of Things" expressed thoughts about the changeability of the world and the spontaneous generation of life.

Of the philosophers of antiquity, Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoyed the greatest fame and authority among naturalists in subsequent eras (in particular, during the Middle Ages). Aristotle did not support, at least in a sufficiently clear form, the idea of ​​the variability of the surrounding world. However, many of his generalizations, which by themselves fit into the overall picture of the world's immutability, later played an important role in the development of evolutionary ideas. Such are Aristotle’s thoughts about the unity of the structural plan of higher animals (the similarity in the structure of the corresponding organs in different species was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of the structure in a number of organisms, about the variety of forms of causality (Aristotle singled out 4 series of reasons: material , formal, producing, or driving, and target).

The era of Late Antiquity and especially the era of the Middle Ages that followed it became a time of stagnation in the development of natural-historical ideas that dragged on for almost one and a half thousand years. The prevailing dogmatic forms of the religious worldview did not allow the idea of ​​the change of the world.

As science developed, data began to accumulate that contradicted these ideas of antiquity. Fossil remains of ancient animals and plants were found, similar to modern ones, but at the same time differing from them in many structural features. This could indicate that modern species are modified descendants of long-extinct species. An amazing similarity was found in the structure and in the features of the individual development of different animal species. This similarity indicated that different species had common ancestors in the distant past.

One of the significant steps towards the emergence of evolutionary biology was the work of Carl Linnaeus. The well-known Swedish botanist and naturalist Carl-Linnaeus analyzed the existing classifications of plants and animals, carefully studied their species composition himself, and as a result developed his own system, the foundations of which were set forth in the works “The System of Nature”, “Plant Genera”, “Plant Species”. The classic work The System of Nature (1735) was reprinted 12 times during the author's lifetime, it was widely known and had a great influence on the development of science in the 18th century. As a basis for classification, Linnaeus adopted the form, which he considered as a real and elementary unit of living nature. He described about 10,000 plant species (including 1,500 species discovered by himself) and 4,200 animal species. The scientist combined closely related species into genera, similar genera into orders, and orders into classes.

The system of living nature developed by the great Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus was built on the principle of similarity, but it had a hierarchical structure and suggested a relationship between closely related species of living organisms. Analyzing these facts, scientists came to the conclusion about the variability of species. Such views were expressed in the 18th century. and at the beginning of the 19th century. J. Buffon, V. Goethe, K. Baer, ​​Erasmus Darwin - the grandfather of Charles Darwin, etc. In particular, Georges Buffon expressed progressive ideas about the variability of species under the influence of environmental conditions (climate, nutrition, etc.), and the Russian naturalist Karl Maksimovich Baer, ​​studying the embryonic development of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, found that the embryos of higher animals do not resemble the adult forms of the lower ones, but are similar only to their embryos; in the process of embryonic development, signs of a type, class, order, family, genus, and species (Beer's laws) consistently appear. However, none of these scientists offered a satisfactory explanation for why and how species changed.

Thus, the theory of evolution occupies a special place in the study of the history of life. It has become the unifying theory that serves as the foundation for all of biology.

3. Lamarck's theory of evolution

The first attempt to build a holistic concept of the development of the organic world was made by the French naturalist J.B. Lamarck. In his work "Philosophy of Zoology" Lamarck summarized all biological knowledge early XIX in. He developed the foundations of the natural taxonomy of animals and for the first time substantiated a holistic theory of the evolution of the organic world, the progressive historical development of plants and animals.

Lamarck's evolutionary theory was based on the concept of development, gradual and slow, from simple to complex, taking into account the role of the external environment in the transformation of organisms. Lamarck believed that the first spontaneously generated organisms gave rise to the whole variety of organic forms that currently exist. By that time, the notion of the “ladder of living beings” as a successive series of independent, unchanging forms created by the Creator had already firmly established itself in science. He saw in the gradation of these forms a reflection of the history of life, the real process of development of some forms from others. Development from the simplest to the most perfect organisms is the main content of the history of the organic world. Man is also part of this story, he developed from monkeys.

Lamarck considered the main reason for evolution to be the inherent desire for the complication and self-improvement of its organization inherent in living nature. It manifests itself in the innate ability of each individual to complicate the organism. He called the influence of the external environment the second factor in evolution: as long as it does not change, the species are constant, as soon as it becomes different, the species also begin to change. At the same time, Lamarck, at a higher level than his predecessors, developed the problem of unlimited variability of living forms under the influence of living conditions: nutrition, climate, soil characteristics, moisture, temperature, etc.

Based on the level of organization of living beings, Lamarck identified two forms of variability:

1) direct - direct variability of plants and lower animals under the influence of environmental conditions;

2) indirect - the variability of higher animals that have a developed nervous system that perceives the impact of the conditions of existence and develops habits, means of self-preservation and protection.

Having shown the origin of variability, Lamarck analyzed the second factor of evolution - heredity. He noted that individual changes, if they are repeated in a number of generations, are transmitted by inheritance to descendants during reproduction and become signs of the species. At the same time, if some organs of animals develop, then others, not involved in the process of changes, atrophy. So, for example, as a result of exercises, the giraffe got a long neck, because the ancestors of the giraffe, eating the leaves of trees, reached for them, and in each generation the neck and legs grew. Thus, Lamarck suggested that the changes that plants and animals acquire during life are hereditarily fixed and transmitted by inheritance to descendants. At the same time, the offspring continues to develop in the same direction, and one species turns into another.

Lamarck believed that the historical development of organisms is not accidental, but natural in nature and takes place in the direction of gradual and steady improvement, raising the general level of organization. In addition, he analyzed in detail the prerequisites for evolution and formulated the main directions of the evolutionary process and the causes of evolution. He also developed the problem of the variability of species under the influence of natural causes, showed the importance of time and environmental conditions in evolution, which he considered as a manifestation of the general law of the development of nature. The merit of Lamarck is also the fact that he was the first to propose a genealogical classification of animals, built on the principles of relatedness of organisms, and not just their similarity.

The essence of Lamarck's theory is that animals and plants were not always the way we see them now. He proved that they developed by virtue of the natural laws of nature, following the evolution of the entire organic world. There are two main methodological features of Lamarckism:

1) teleologism as inherent in organisms striving for improvement;

2) organismocentrism - the recognition of an organism as an elementary unit of evolution, directly adapting to changes in external conditions and transmitting these changes by inheritance.

From the point of view of modern science, these provisions are fundamentally wrong, they are refuted by the facts and laws of genetics. In addition, Lamarck's evidence for the causes of species variability was not convincing enough. Therefore, Lamarck's theory did not receive recognition from his contemporaries. But it was not refuted either, it was only forgotten for a while in order to return to its ideas again in the second half of the 19th century, placing them at the basis of all anti-Darwinist concepts.

4. Darwin's theory of evolution

The idea of ​​gradual and continuous change in all kinds of plants and animals was expressed by many scientists long before Darwin. Therefore, the very concept of evolution - a process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, ultimately leading to fundamental, qualitative changes - the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and types, penetrated into science as early as the end of the 18th century. However, it was Darwin who created a completely new doctrine of living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one coherent theory of evolution. Based on vast factual material and the practice of selection work on the development of new varieties of plants and animal breeds, he formulated the main provisions of his theory, which he outlined in the book "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" in 1859 under the name of the theory of natural selection. This theory is one of the pinnacles of scientific thought in the 19th century. However, its significance goes far beyond its age and beyond the scope of biology: Darwin's theory has become the natural-historical basis of the materialistic worldview.

Darwin's theory is opposed to Lamarck's not only in its consistently materialistic conclusions, but also in its entire structure. She is a wonderful example scientific research, based on a huge number of reliable scientific facts, the analysis of which leads Darwin to a coherent system of commensurate conclusions.

Darwin came to the conclusion that in nature any kind of animals and plants tends to reproduce in geometric progression. At the same time, the number of adults of each species remains relatively constant. Thus, a female cod lays seven million eggs, of which only 2% survive. Consequently, in nature there is a struggle for existence, as a result of which signs are accumulated that are useful for the organism and the species as a whole, and new species and varieties are formed. The remaining organisms die in adverse environmental conditions. Thus, the struggle for existence is a set of diverse, complex relationships that exist between organisms and environmental conditions.

In the struggle for existence, only those individuals survive and leave offspring that have a set of features and properties that allow them to compete most successfully with other individuals. Thus, in nature there is a process of selective destruction of some individuals and preferential reproduction of others, i.e. natural selection, or survival of the fittest.

When environmental conditions change, some other signs than before may turn out to be useful for survival. As a result, the direction of selection changes, the structure of the species is rebuilt, and thanks to reproduction, new characters are widely distributed - a new species appears. Useful traits are preserved and passed on to subsequent generations, since the factor of heredity operates in wildlife, which ensures the stability of species.

However, in nature it is impossible to find two identical, completely identical organisms. All the diversity of living nature is the result of a process of variability, i.e. transformations of organisms under the influence of the external environment.

So, Darwin's concept is built on the recognition of objectively existing processes as factors and causes of the development of living things. The main driving factors of evolution are variability, heredity and natural selection.

Variability is the first link in evolution.

It is understood as a variety of signs and properties in individuals and groups of individuals of any degree of kinship. Present in all living organisms. The phenomena of heredity and variability underlie evolution

Variability is an essential property of living things. Due to the variability of characters and properties, even in the offspring of one pair of parents, identical individuals are almost never found. The more thoroughly and deeply nature is studied, the more the conviction is formed in the general universal character of variability. In nature, it is impossible to find two completely identical, identical organisms. Under favorable conditions, these differences may not have a noticeable effect on the development of organisms, but under unfavorable conditions, every minute difference can become decisive in whether this organism will survive and give offspring or die.

Darwin distinguished two types of variability: 1) hereditary (indefinite) and 2) non-hereditary (definite).

A certain (group) variability is understood as a similar change in all individuals of the offspring in one direction due to the influence of certain conditions (changes in growth depending on the quantity and quality of food, changes in skin thickness and coat density with climate change, etc.).

Indefinite (individual) variability is understood as the appearance of various minor differences in individuals of the same species, by which one individual differs from others. In the future, "indefinite" changes began to be called mutations, and "definite" - modifications.

The next factor in evolution is heredity - the property of organisms to ensure the continuity of signs and properties between generations, as well as to determine the nature of the development of an organism in specific environmental conditions. This property is not absolute: children are never exact copies of their parents, but only wheat always grows from seeds of wheat, etc. In the process of reproduction from generation to generation, not traits are transmitted, but a code of hereditary information that determines only the possibility of developing future traits in a certain range. It is not a trait that is inherited, but the norm of the reaction of a developing individual to the action of the external environment.

Darwin analyzed in detail the significance of heredity in the evolutionary process and showed that variability and heredity by themselves do not yet explain the emergence of new breeds of animals, plant varieties, their adaptability, since the variability of different signs of organisms is carried out in the most diverse directions. Each organism is the result of the interaction between the genetic program of its development and the conditions for its implementation.

Considering the issues of variability and heredity, Darwin drew attention to the complex relationship between the organism and the environment, to different forms dependence of plants and animals on living conditions, on their adaptation to adverse conditions. Such diverse forms of dependence of organisms on environmental conditions and other living beings he called the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence, according to Darwin, is a set of relationships between organisms of a given species with each other, with other types of living organisms and inanimate environmental factors.

The struggle for existence means all forms of manifestation of the activity of a given species of organisms, aimed at maintaining the life of their offspring. Darwin singled out three main forms of struggle for existence: 1) interspecific, 2) intraspecific and 3) struggle with adverse environmental conditions.

Examples of interspecific struggle in nature are common and well known to everyone. It is most clearly manifested in the struggle between predators and herbivores. Herbivores can only survive and reproduce if they can avoid predators and are provided with food. But various types of mammals also feed on vegetation, and in addition - insects and mollusks. And here a situation arises: what went to one, did not go to another. Therefore, in interspecific struggle, the success of one species means the failure of the other.

Intraspecific struggle means competition between individuals of the same species, in which the need for food, territory and other conditions of existence is the same. Darwin considered intraspecific struggle the most intense. Therefore, in the process of evolution, populations have developed various adaptations that reduce the severity of competition: marking boundaries, threatening postures, etc.

The fight against adverse environmental conditions is expressed in the desire of living organisms to survive under abrupt changes weather conditions. In this case, only the individuals most adapted to the changed conditions survive. They form a new population, which generally contributes to the survival of the species. In the struggle for existence, individuals and individuals with such a complex of features and properties that allow them to successfully withstand adverse environmental conditions survive and leave offspring.

However, Darwin's main merit in creating the theory of evolution lies in the fact that he developed the doctrine of natural selection as the leading and guiding factor in evolution. Natural selection, according to Darwin, is a set of changes occurring in nature that ensure the survival of the fittest individuals and their predominant offspring, as well as the selective destruction of organisms that are unadapted to existing or changing environmental conditions.

In the process of natural selection, organisms adapt, i.e. they develop the necessary adaptations to the conditions of existence. As a result of the competition of different species with similar vital needs, less adapted species die out. Improving the mechanism of adaptation of organisms leads to the fact that the level of their organization is gradually becoming more complicated and thus the evolutionary process is carried out. At the same time, Darwin drew attention to such characteristic features of natural selection as the gradual and slow process of change and the ability to summarize these changes into large, decisive causes leading to the formation of new species.

Based on the fact that natural selection acts among diverse and unequal individuals, it is considered as the total interaction of hereditary variability, preferential survival and reproduction of individuals and groups of individuals better adapted than others to given conditions of existence. Therefore, the doctrine of natural selection as the driving and guiding factor in the historical development of the organic world is the main one in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for existence and the hereditary variability of organisms. According to Darwin, natural selection is the most important creative force that directs the evolutionary process and naturally determines the emergence of adaptations of organisms, progressive evolution and an increase in the diversity of species.

The emergence of adaptations (adaptation) organisms to the conditions of their existence, which gives the structure of living beings the features of "expediency", is a direct result of natural selection, since its very essence is differentiated survival and the predominant leaving of offspring precisely by those individuals who, due to their individual characteristics, are better adapted to environmental conditions than others. The accumulation by selection from generation to generation of those traits that give an advantage in the struggle for existence, and gradually leads to the formation of specific adaptations.

The second (after the advent of adaptation) most important consequence of the struggle for existence and natural selection is, according to Darwin, a natural increase in the diversity of forms of organisms, which has the character of divergent evolution. Since the most intense competition is expected between the most similarly structured individuals of a given species due to the similarity of their vital needs, the individuals most deviating from the average state will be in more favorable conditions. These latter get an advantageous chance of surviving and leaving offspring to which the characteristics of the parents are passed on and the tendency to change further in the same direction (continued variability).

Finally, the third most important consequence of natural selection is the gradual complication and improvement of organization, i.e. evolutionary progress. According to Charles Darwin, this direction of evolution is the result of the adaptation of organisms to life in an ever more complex external environment. The complexity of the environment occurs, in particular, due to divergent evolution, which increases the number of species.

A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is not associated with the survival of a given individual, but only with its reproductive function. According to Darwin, sexual selection occurs when individuals of the same sex compete for reproduction. The importance of the reproductive function is self-evident; therefore, in some cases, even the very preservation of a given organism may recede into the background in relation to the leaving of offspring by it. For the preservation of the species, the life of a given individual is important only insofar as it participates (directly or indirectly) in the process of reproduction of generations. Sexual selection just acts on the traits associated with various aspects of this most important function (mutual detection of individuals of the opposite sex, sexual stimulation of a partner, competition between individuals of the same sex when choosing a sexual partner, etc.)

5 . Sotemporary evolutionary teachings

Evolutionary doctrine is a broad interdisciplinary area of ​​biology, including several large and currently developed sections to varying degrees. The first such section is the history of the emergence and development of evolutionary ideas. concepts and hypotheses. This section has an important general educational and methodological significance, since modernity cannot be understood without history.

Another branch of evolutionary teaching is private phylogenetics. Its content consists in recreating the paths of the historical development of each group of living organisms. Together, these paths of development of groups constitute the phylogenetic tree of life. Despite the great achievements in this area, many important details remain unclear, ranging from the problems of the origin of life to the extremely private, from the point of view of the phylogeny of all living things, but important for the development of matter in general, the emergence of a thinking being - homo sapiens.

The basis of the modern theory of evolution is the problems of micro- and macroevolution. These are two sides of a single and continuous process of evolution, which, however, are quite naturally separated along the line of speciation and the difference already noted above in the methodological approaches to their study. Theoretical developments in these areas form the foundation of modern evolutionary theory.

The modern theory of evolution is a synthetic science based on all the sciences of the biological complex. The modern theory of evolution is based on Darwin's teachings on the origin of life, the emergence of a variety of wildlife, adaptation and expediency in living organisms, the emergence of man, the emergence of breeds and varieties. Modern Darwinism is often called neo-Darwinism, a synthetic theory of evolution. It would be more correct to call the science that studies the process of evolution of the organic world evolutionary theory.

Since the 60s of the 20th century, it has become increasingly clear. That the theory of evolution of the organic world remains incomplete without knowledge of a large section concerning the laws of evolution of biogeocenoses. However, not according to the actual material. Neither by theoretical developments can this direction be named among the studied sections of modern evolutionary doctrine. This is an important task for the future.

In modern evolutionism, three main directions of research into the evolutionary process have been formed:

1) molecular biological (analysis of molecular evolution, i.e. the processes of evolutionary transformations of biological macromolecules, primarily nucleic acids and proteins, using molecular biology methods);

2) genetic and ecological (studies of microevolution, i.e. transformations of the gene pools of populations, and the processes of speciation, as well as the evolution of biological macrosystems - biocenoses and the biosphere as a whole - by methods of population genetics, ecology, systematics, phenetics);

3) evolutionary-morphological (the study of macroevolution - evolutionary rearrangements of integral organisms and their ontogenies by the methods of paleontology, comparative anatomy and embryology).

The modern evolutionary doctrine is based on the foundation of the achievements of genetics, which revealed the material nature of heredity. From such positions, the evolving unit is not an individual or a species, but a population, i.e. a group of individuals of the same species that inhabit a certain territory for a long time and freely interbreed with each other. The basis of hereditary changes in the population is mutational variability as a result of sudden mutations - hereditary changes in the genetic apparatus. Mutations can occur in any cell, at any stage of development, both under normal conditions of existence (spontaneous mutations) and under the influence of any physical or chemical factors (induced mutations). Therefore, from modern positions, the driving factors of evolution are mutagenesis (ie, the process of formation of mutations) and natural selection. The latter makes it possible to survive for organisms whose mutational changes provide the greatest adaptability to specific environmental conditions. In clarifying the role of mutations in the evolutionary process, the work of Soviet scientists S.S. Chetverikova, N.I. Vavilova, I.I. Schmalhausen.

One of the main places in modern evolutionary teaching is the genetic analysis of human populations. The peculiarity of their genetics is that natural selection has lost the role of the leading factor in human evolution. However, the importance of genetics for humans is exceptionally great, since it occupies a key place in the analysis of the spread of hereditary diseases, in assessing the effect of radiation and other physical and chemical effects on the genetic apparatus.

The further development of evolutionary theory is associated primarily with the success of population genetics, which studies the transformation of genetic systems in the process of the historical development of organisms. The latest advances in molecular biology allow us to take a fresh look at the mechanism of evolution. The discovery of the molecular mechanisms underlying mutagenesis, the study of the problem of the development of genetic information in the process of ontogenesis, the laws of phylogenesis paved the way for a new qualitative leap in the development of evolutionary doctrine and biology in general. Thus, the evolutionary doctrine is the main weapon of materialist biologists, who are constantly enriched with new factual and theoretical data, developing as knowledge in living nature deepens.

Conclusion

Modern evolutionary theory has developed on the basis of the theory of Ch. Darwin. The concept of Zh.B. Lamarck is currently considered unscientific. Lamarckism in any of its forms does not explain either progressive evolution or the emergence of adaptation (adaptations) of organisms, since "the desire for progress", "evolution based on laws", "the original ability of organisms to expedient reaction", "assimilation of environmental conditions" and other similar concepts replace scientific analysis with the postulation of certain metaphysical properties allegedly inherent in living matter. However, the importance of Lamarck's theory cannot be denied, since it was precisely the scientific debate with the conclusions and concepts of the French naturalist that was the impetus for the emergence of Charles Darwin's theory.

The conclusions of the English scientist were also subjected to further criticism and detailed revision, which was primarily due to the fact that many factors, mechanisms and patterns of the evolutionary process unknown at the time of Darwin were identified and new ideas were formed that differed significantly from the classical theory of Darwin.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the modern theory of evolution is a development of the main ideas of Darwin, which are still relevant and productive.

Bibliography

1. N.N. Jordanian textbook on the theory of evolution. "The evolution of life". M.: Academy, 2001. - 425 p.

2. Gulyaev S.A., Zhukovsky V.M., Komov S.V. "Fundamentals of Natural Science", Yekaterinburg, 1997

3. Dubnishcheva T.Ya. "Concepts modern natural science”, Novosibirsk, Publishing house of UCEA, 1997

4. Petrovsky B.V. "Popular Medical Encyclopedia", M., "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1997

5. Haken G. "Synergetics", M .: Mir, 1980

6. Berdnikov V.A. Evolution and progress. Novosibirsk, "Nauka", 1991.

7. Ratner V.A. and other Problems of the theory of molecular evolution. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1985.

8. Raff R., Kofman T. Embryos, genes and evolution. - M.: Mir, 1986.

9. A.P. Sadokhin. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2006.

10. Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favorable breeds in the struggle for life. - Works, vol. 3 - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1939.

11. Karpenko S.Kh. Concepts of modern natural science: A textbook for universities. - M.: Academic prospectus, 2000. - 639 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The mystery of the origin of life on Earth. The evolution of the origin of life on Earth and the essence of the concepts of evolutionary chemistry. Analysis of the biochemical evolution of the theory of Academician Oparin. Stages of the process that led to the emergence of life on Earth. Problems in the theory of evolution.

abstract, added 03/23/2012


The origins of the evolutionary doctrine: M.V. Lomonosov, N.A. Severtsov. evolutionary research Ch. Darwin. The main provisions, prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Darwin. K.F. Ruler and its genetic laws.

abstract, added 01/16/2008


Prerequisites for the creation of Ch.Darwin's evolutionary theory. Evolutionary studies of Ch. Darwin. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Ch. Darwin. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution (according to Ch. Darwin).

abstract, added 03/29/2003


Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The concept of variability and its forms. Definition of the general theory of evolution and the circumstances of its appearance. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Ch. Darwin.

control work, added 02/14/2009


Characterization of general ideas about evolution and the basic properties of living things, which are important for understanding the patterns of evolution of the organic world on Earth. Generalization of hypotheses and theories of the origin of life and stages of evolution of biological forms and species.

term paper, added 01/27/2010


Comparison of the basic definitions of the concept of "life". Analysis of the problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. general characteristics modern theories of the origin of life, as well as the process of evolution of its forms. The essence of the basic laws of biological evolution.

term paper, added 10/04/2010


main feature organization of living matter. The process of evolution of living and non-living systems. The laws underlying the emergence of all forms of life according to Darwin. Molecular genetic level of living organisms. Progression of reproduction, natural selection.

abstract, added 04/24/2015


abstract, added 11/19/2010


The first classification of living organisms proposed by Carl Linnaeus. Three stages of the Great Biological Unifications. The concept of evolution of the organic world by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The main prerequisites for the emergence of Darwin's theory. The concept of natural selection.

abstract, added 09/06/2013


The problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. Modeling as a method of natural science research. The discovery of the principle of uniformitarianism by Ch. Lyell. Charles Darwin's doctrine of the factors of evolution by natural selection, modern ideas about her.