Must watch
The film is produced by the Living Waters team behind the award-winning TV program The Master's Way and the hit films 180 and Evolution vs. God.
1 fact
Evolution theory tells us tales that all this happened very gradually. Through gradual (step-by-step) complication and restructuring of the Russian stove into an internal combustion engine.
However, this explanation has two weaknesses. Firstly, the famous "irreducible complexity" problem, that a complex functional system simply cannot be created in an incremental manner. It must be collected immediately. Otherwise, it simply will not work (Darwinists have been butting heads with proponents of Intelligent Design over this problem for a long time).
- Second problem! If a complex character was formed gradually, then, firstly, the corresponding paleontological traces of this evolution should remain (the so-called “transitional forms”), and secondly, a rather long evolutionary time is required for such a scenario (gradual formation). And so, the second problem is that often (more precisely, almost always) neither one nor the other is found in nature.
Instead, we observe a sudden “falling out of singularity” (i.e., out of nowhere) of a complex feature immediately in finished form, and immediately with a new biological taxon that possesses this trait. It is clear that this state of affairs (which is observed in fact) obviously contradicts the scenario of “gradual evolution of complex traits.”
Even in the first year of archeology, it is explained quite clearly that the transitional link has never been found, and the existing finds are very doubtful. Everyone knows the fact
Fact 2
70 -80% of the world's population are imitators and have no opinion of their own. As you were taught, so you will think according to the system. Let's take as an example famous story about Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit. Many will say that it was an apple, confirming their judgment with the Bible, but there is nothing of the kind in the book. Someone once decided that it must be an apple, and everyone else just believed it.
The Bible does not indicate anywhere that the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate was the apple.
Only 20% can question another person's theory. This is the reason that for many years humanity has been misled by Darwin's theory.
3 fact
Charles Darwin did not present in his book"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" not a single piece of evidence, but was based only on his own guesses and imagination.
“Having read Darwin’s Origin of Species from cover to cover, one can count at least 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood, such as “suppose ...”, “probably ...”, “perhaps”, “etc.” L Merson Davies, Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
There is still no direct evidence that man descended from apes. Scientists constantly put forward different hypotheses about the origin of man and evolution, but all of them are not particularly conclusive, without facts.
Fact 4
The current paradox- this is a really, really serious problem for Darwinism.
One of our most believing Darwinists (Russia), Alexander Markov, finally proved to himself that evolution is impossible. He did this in a very simple way. He just took it, and finally became acquainted with the famous paradox of current flow.
The fact is that the so-called proves in fact that no evolution (even under the influence of the most powerful selection pressure) is impossible.
On my own behalf, I will add that the current paradox is a really, very serious problem for Darwinism. In its extreme manifestations, it refutes Darwinism in fact.
5 fact
Even nature decreed this, then for the subsequent preservation of a new species, its first representative needs a partner to continue the race, therefore at least two individuals must evolve simultaneously, which is impossible at the genetic level
This fact alone can completely disprove the theory, however, there is even more serious evidence. So far, among the numerous fossil animals, no gene chain has been found that would clearly show the transition between the two species.
Every animal loves what is like itself, and every man loves his neighbor. All flesh is united according to its kind, and man is joined to those like himself - Biblical Wisdom
6 fact
Holy Darwinian Faith in that everything was formed randomly out of nothing. The belief that there was nothing, nothing happened to anything, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-producing pieces that then turned into people, animals, and birds . Very meaningful...
But let us not encroach on their holy faith.
P.S. Theory big bang, arose in the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. However, few people know that this theory has many opponents in the scientific community and in particular evolutionists because it sounds pretty implausible.
7 fact
Charles Darwin did not have his own laboratory and he did not receive special biological education, but had only amateur interest. He did all his research only superficially using primitive tools.
As indirect evidence, one can cite the fact that when developing his theory, Darwin was not a biologist, he only loved nature and had rich in imagination and fantasy.
This primitive microscope that belonged to Darwin. He used it to study plants and insects during his voyage on the Beagle.
Storing genetic information, subjected the theory to complete collapse.
8 fact
Evolutionists can't find an acceptable explanation for the extraordinary diversity of languages and their complexity. It is impossible to establish or recreate any of the proto-languages that supposedly arose through evolutionary means.
All agree with the fact that language is the main feature that distinguishes people from other biological species. In general, the gift of speech is inherent in all people - and in none of the other living creatures inhabiting the Earth.
I had to admit evolutionist Ashley Montagu: "Many 'primitive' languages... are often much more complex and expressive than the languages of so-called higher civilizations." Language obviously did not have a crude, primitive beginning. Although Ashley was an evolutionist until the end of his life, he had many unanswered questions.
9 fact
Humans have 46 chromosomes, and monkeys have 48. Darwinists claim that the ape lost two chromosomes during evolution, but how can one evolve in mental development after losing two chromosomes? It has been scientifically proven that the loss of chromosomes leads to degradation and subsequent death. Unfortunately, we can observe this phenomenon in our time.
Also, in the process of evolution, animals develop underdeveloped organs, which cannot in any way contribute to existence on Earth.
10 fact
Darwin himself realized that in his theory there were, to put it mildly, huge gaps, which he wrote about in a specially dedicated chapter “Difficulties encountered by the theory.”
The hypothesis that evolutionary processes could create highly organized life from inanimate chaotic matter clearly contradicts one of the fundamental laws of physics, The second law of thermodynamics.
And although many people still cling to this theory, nevertheless every thinking person understands perfectly well that our complex and amazing world couldn't happen on its own. It is obvious that he was created by Someone. And we call his Creator God.
Olga Orlova: About 10 years ago, paleontologist Alexander Markov, visiting various forums on the Internet, was surprised to discover that the theory of evolution is not for modern people as obvious as the multiplication table. Despite school curriculum and all the discoveries of biologists, many people do not accept the provisions formulated by Charles Darwin, and then Markov decided to engage in education. Today he is one of the most famous scientific popularizers in Russia, and his books have become bestsellers.
With the winner of the Enlightenment Prize, Dr. biological sciences, We are talking with Alexander Markov about the Hamburg account.
Alexander Markov- Doctor of Biological Sciences, paleontologist. In 1987, he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University and was immediately accepted as a research assistant at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2014 he headed the department biological evolution Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University. Actively popularizes science in the media. Created the website "Problems of Evolution". Prepares scientific news on the portal "Elements.ru". Author of several science fiction novels, as well as books popularizing the doctrine of evolution - “The Birth of Complexity”, “Evolution. Classic Ideas in the Light of New Discoveries”, “Human Evolution”. Author of Russia's main prize in the field of popular science literature "Enlightener".
O.O. : Alexander, thank you very much for coming to our program. I wanted to talk to you today about modern theory evolution. The fact is that quite a lot of time has passed since the time of Darwin and quite a lot of discoveries have occurred that scientists have made. Even new types of sciences appeared, previously unknown to Darwin, such as genetics and molecular biology. Please tell us what the modern theory of evolution is. What is the "evolutionary view of the world" today?
Alexander Markov: If you need to give an answer in one sentence, then I would say this: despite the colossal progress of science, biology, in particular, over the past 150 years, surprisingly, the main idea that Darwin introduced into science still lies at the base of all modern biology. It has become stronger, and its effectiveness has been proven many times from various angles. This idea is often called simply the mechanism of natural selection, but in essence there is a very simple logic: if you have an object that has the ability to reproduce, variability (that is, its descendants are not absolutely identical copies, but slightly different), heredity (then yes, these individual differences, at least some of them, are hereditary, transmitted by inheritance), and if at least some of these hereditary differences affect the efficiency of reproduction, then where did we start - if these 4 conditions are met, then such the object cannot help but evolve. It will definitely evolve, according to Darwin, on the basis of the mechanism that he introduced into science. Indeed, today we are absolutely sure that this mechanism underlies the development of life on Earth.
O.O. : What then explains the number of myths and strange interpretations of Darwin’s teachings that we encounter today? There is a fairly persistent expression, which many philosophers or modern theologians struggle with, that Darwin argued that we evolved from a monkey, and then there is a long refutation: well, are we similar to a monkey? Why then did the monkey not turn into a man? There are monkeys walking around and so on...
We did not even descend from monkeys, but are one of the species of monkeys that once lived on Earth
A.M. : The whole point is what we understand by the word “monkey”. Here we also need to take into account that in Russian the word “monkey” means both monkey-like apes and apes together. We call them all with one word “monkeys”. In the English language in which Darwin wrote, these are 2 different words: monkeys are apes, apes are apes. Therefore, there is still confusion here because of this. But Russian word“monkeys” corresponds quite definitely to a group of organisms, a natural group, that is, descended from a common ancestor, which includes New World monkeys and Old World monkeys. Old World monkeys are divided into apes and apes. Man, our species, is a twig on the bush of apes, that is, formally speaking, we belong to the monkeys. We are not even descended from apes, but are a species of apes if we strictly follow the rules of biological classification. We are descended from extinct monkeys that once lived on Earth. We even know which monkeys humans descended from. The bones of these monkeys were found in Africa, they are called "Australopithecus". The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably lived 6-7 million years ago. He was also the ancestor of Australopithecus. But it was, of course, an ape. Darwin, in fact, does not write in such words, but in essence this is exactly what he writes in plain text.
O.O. : Why is it so difficult for people to realize their kinship with monkeys?
A.M. : Ignorance, lack of education, prejudices, what is naturally infected with the consciousness of any person who does not work on developing his brains, simply stupidity, ignorance, lack of education on the one hand. On the other hand, for certain reasons, many people do not want Darwin to be right, that is, they want it to be untrue. Usually all kinds of religious fundamentalists oppose Darwin.
O.O. : If we are still talking not about a worldview or a religious factor, but rather about a psychological one. There are people who are non-believers, and they do not accept the creationist picture of the world, but, nevertheless, it is difficult for them to accept it purely psychologically...
A person who can bear to be related to apes is almost certainly a believer
A.M. : Honestly, I don’t know people like that. For such a combination, for a person to be an atheist, and for it to be difficult for him to recognize the kinship between man and ape - I have never met such people - either one or the other. That is, a person who says that he cannot bear to be related to monkeys is almost certainly a believer - I don’t know such atheists with such views on monkeys.
O.O. : So, you think that the fundamental contradiction here lies in the theological picture of the world?
A.M. : Yes, this is not necessarily a believer. This will be a person who believes that everything has a purpose, there is some kind of higher meaning for everything, that evolution, if it exists, then it is a movement towards some goal. This person definitely needs some kind of predetermined meaning for everything to exist.
O.O. : From a biological point of view, does evolution have no purpose?
A.M. : From the point of view of natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all. This is called teleology - an attempt to explain natural processes by the desire for some goal. In effect, this means that we place the cause of events in the future. The scientific picture of the world proceeds from the fact that, firstly, a cause exists - the principle of causality. Secondly, the causes of events are in the past. Something happened, after some time the impact reached this place - it can have an impact. The cause must be in the past - the cause cannot be in the future - states modern science. Accordingly, it follows from this that nothing can have any goals. The rotation of the Earth around the Sun has no purpose - it rotates due to the natural laws of gravity in some orbit, but this rotation has no purpose.
O.O. : How would you comment on the attempts that, it seems to me, have been made since the first works of Darwin, to reconcile the natural-scientific worldview that you described with the religious one. It seems to me that one of the most touching attempts was made by Darwin’s wife, when it was very difficult for her to understand and accept what her husband was doing, his discoveries, she was a deeply religious person, and then she told him: “As long as you honestly seek the truth, you will not you can be an enemy of God.” This may be such a naive attempt, but understandable. Is such a reconciliation of the two approaches generally possible?
From the point of view of natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all
A.M. : A very subtle remark from Emma, Darwin's wife. The essence of the problem of this psychological conflict of incompatibility is this: Darwin's book actually changed general vector development of natural sciences, we will talk about biology. Before Darwin, the study of nature was a very God-pleasing activity. There was a philosophical movement called natural theology. The essence of the idea is as follows, and Lomonosov, by the way, wrote about this: God seemed to give us two books - “The Holy Scriptures,” in which he outlined his will, and the natural world around us, in which he demonstrated his greatness to us. Accordingly, scientists who study nature comprehend God’s plan, come closer to understanding this plan, in general, they come closer to God, in fact, they read a certain “Holy Scripture” - this was a very God-pleasing deed.
Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living things can be explained without the involvement of divine intervention
In the same book “Natural Theology” by William Paley, a famous metaphor about clocks is given: they say, if we found a clock on the road in a field, of course, we cannot admit that this clock spontaneously originated here by chance, arose there from the dust, particles. It is clear that if there is a watch, then there is also a watchmaker who made this watch. Look around us: any insect is more complex, more harmonious than this unfortunate clock. So how can we assume that there is no watchmaker who created it? Of course, the Lord created all this. What did Darwin do? Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living things can be explained without involving divine intervention. That it, based on the mechanism of natural selection shown by Darwin, should develop by itself. That is, God was no longer needed. He is like Laplace, in a conversation with Napoleon, said his famous phrase: “Sire, I do not need this hypothesis,” when Napoleon asked him: “Where is God in your theory?” Biologists before Darwin could not say so - they needed this hypothesis. Only after Darwin were they able to mentally, so to speak, join Laplace. After that natural Sciences ceased to be a study scripture, and this has already turned out to be a movement away from God, because the further biology develops now, the better we understand that, yes, indeed, it all develops this way, not under the control of some intelligent principle.
O.O. : How can agnosticism be interpreted from this point of view? You were the scientific editor of Richard Dawkins' famous book The God Delusion. There, Dawkins, considering agnostics, perceives them as some kind of intellectual cowards, people who show intellectual weakness, who do not have the courage to get rid of the divine principle, like Laplace or like Darwin. What is agnosticism?
A.M. : Look, Laplace didn’t say: “Sire, I proved that there is no God!” - he said: “Sir, I don’t need this hypothesis,” that is, I can explain these natural phenomena, without invoking the hypothesis of divine intervention. This is not atheism yet - it does not yet consider this issue. Darwin himself began as a believer, and even studied to be a priest for some time, but gave up. Then, as he developed his evolutionary theory, he realized that God could not create specifically for each island on each island of the Galapagos archipelago individual species There are a few finches with such a beak, and with some kind of beak. God would not engage in such nonsense - it is much more like the result of natural natural process, which is what it is. It was a severe shock. He had a believing wife whom he did not want to upset. Everything was very difficult back then: just give up religion. But by the end of his life, Darwin himself assessed himself as an agnostic. I know for sure that God did not create the Galapagos finches like this: each island has its own species, but otherwise I don’t know. If Darwin himself was an agnostic, then why should we condemn agnostics?
O.O. : How do you assess agnosticism yourself? In your experience, are there natural agnostic scientists in your community?
A.M. : Let's say Kirill Eskov always says about himself: “I am an agnostic.”
O.O. : How do you perceive this?
A.M. : Of those who openly state this, so it is not a secret. I can understand, imagine, build a model of the psyche of a person who considers himself an agnostic.
O.O. : One of the most important things that we get as a result of a religious picture of the world is morality and the idea of good and evil. Somehow it so happened that in a person’s culture these things are directly related to his worldview and religious views, and from there, in fact, they take their religious origin. Now, if we are talking about an evolutionary attitude to reality from the point of view of evolution, how then are morality and the idea of good, of evil, of what is permissible and unacceptable?
A.M. : This is a very interesting topic. It deals with an area of biology called evolutionary ethics - precisely the problems of the evolution of altruism, kindness, the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps the most developed model or mechanism for the development of altruistic behavior and cooperative behavior during evolution is the so-called theory of kin selection. Which is based on the fact that evolution, very roughly speaking metaphorically, proceeds in the interests of genes, and not in the interests of individuals. That is, those genetic variants that have the ability to spread more efficiently for any reason are distributed in the gene pool. Gene variants or alleles compete with each other. For example, there is allele A and allele B. In some cases, it happens that the “interest” of a gene or genetic variant may not coincide with the interests of the individual in whom this gene resides. Because an individual is a single object, one organism, and an allele is a multiple object, many identical copies of the same gene in different individuals.
O.O. : So you want to say that the genes require one decision, and the biological animal itself makes a different decision from the one that needs to be made in terms of genetic improvement.
A.M. : Yes. Selection favors mutations that cause more copies of our allele to appear. If, in order for there to be more copies of one or two carriers of a given allele, it is necessary to sacrifice so that the remaining carriers receive a gain, this happens.
O.O. : Give an example of experiments where it is shown that animals behave irrationally and altruistically and, say, somehow sacrifice themselves, and in general, how appropriate is it to talk about morality in this case.
A.M. : You probably want mammals right away.
O.O. : Want.
If natural selection favors altruistic behavior, then the result of this selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience
A.M. : There is such a thing as emotions - this is what we experience - a feeling of joy, grief, fear, love, some kind of strong desires, shame, etc.. Accordingly, if we say that in the course of evolution behavior this and that have changed - this means that in the course of evolution the emotions that regulate behavior have changed. This means that the mammal begins to behave not like this, but like this, because it becomes unpleasant for him to behave like this, but this is pleasant, she feels that this is bad, but this is good. This means that this center of discrimination between what is good and what is bad sits very deep in the midbrain, not even in the cerebral hemispheres. It integrates many signals that come there from different senses and, as it were, weighs them and makes decisions about what is good and what is bad - such a center for distinguishing between good and evil. These signals, in the form of processes of neurons that secrete the substance dopamine, go to the cortex of our cerebral hemispheres in the frontal lobes, the orbitofrontal cortex, and there we are aware of the work of this center for distinguishing between good and evil, and we feel whether it is good or bad when we do choice when we make a decision. Therefore, if natural selection supports altruistic behavior in mammals, such as our ancestors, then the result of this natural selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience - an internal moral law. It will simply be unpleasant to act in a certain way, and if we did so, our self-esteem will suffer. Conscience, this moral law that Kant was so surprised by, is a natural, predictable result of the evolution of altruistic behavior in animals such as mammals, and this is how it should have been.
O.O. : Do scientists understand at what stage of evolution a person developed a conscience? Some didn't show up?
A.M. : For some it is not very developed, that is, it is not a self-sufficient instinct. Not like some other instincts, this internal moral law - it must be perfected by education, and it is very easily lost. Social life is impossible without a certain self-restraint. Monkeys are very social animals; it is impossible to live in a group if you do not take into account the interests of others, if you do not at least sometimes sacrifice your interests for the sake of others. If you can't do it, and others can't do it, social life simply impossible.
O.O. : It turns out that conscience is a kind of creation of society.
A.M. : Definitely.
O.O. : You have been actively popularizing for more than 10 years and your news is on the Internet at elementy.ru; there are also several books that have become bestsellers and are sold widely. Why are you doing this?
A.M. : I discovered that there is such a thing in the world as creationists - people who these days manage to believe in all seriousness that the theory of evolution has not been proven, that evolution is in fact not a fact, but only a theory.
O.O. : That there are no transitional forms?
A.M. : So much completely wild, crazy nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. People believe in this, prove it to themselves, to others, and that such people really exist and they have websites on the Internet. When I came across it, I thought, Lord have mercy, what is this, what ignorance! We quickly need to explain to people what’s what - they just don’t know, they didn’t take biology at school, they don’t know some banal facts - we need to make a website and quickly explain everything to us in a popular way.
O.O. : This “quick” thing lasts more than 10 years. There are many scientists, but there are indeed very few popularizers.
A.M. : On the other hand, if I really don’t discover something in science, I won’t discover some fact that I would have discovered.
O.O. : Someone else will do it.
A.M. : Yes, someone else will do it, say, two days later. Actually, there will be no loss for humanity, but there are really few popularizers. If people like my books, read them, buy them, then I have found my calling, I need to do this.
O.O. : I think Darwin will not forget you. What would you say to Darwin if you had the opportunity to talk to him?
A.M. : I would tell him, the first thing is that you shouldn’t believe Lord Kelvin - the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, everything is okay, there’s enough time for evolution. Because Darwin was very worried that the largest expert on the age of the Earth of that time, Lord Kelvin, argued that the Earth was only 10 million years old. He calculated this, as it turned out later, on the basis of incorrect premises. 10 million was not enough for the evolution of life according to Darwin, but 4.5 billion is just enough. And second, if it were possible, I would tell him that, as you expected, the Pre-Cabrian fossil record has been found. That is, for Darwin it was a very big headache that fossil organisms from the most ancient layers of the Precambrian were not known, and it turned out that life seemed to suddenly arise out of nothing at the beginning of the Cambrian period, but now they have found it. I think Darwin would have been very pleased with these two pieces of news.
O.O. : And if Darwin, on the contrary, went to us in a time machine, what discoveries would shock him the most, in your opinion?
A.M. : DNA. Because DNA is cool. As the molecule of heredity, DNA is one of the most striking and brilliant proofs of Darwin's correctness.
O.O. : Thanks a lot. Our guest was Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution, Alexander Markov.
The second problem of the evolutionary theory of biological species is related to the limits of applicability of Darwin’s theory: to what processes can it be extrapolated (supporters of the evolutionism paradigm categorically extend it to the development of all living nature and even matter in general), whether it is possible on its basis to explain the emergence of life itself from inanimate, and also the emergence of new species? And if the emergence of new species occurred through evolutionary changes, then where are the transitional forms?
Darwin himself understood this problem, noting that the number of intermediate varieties that once existed must be truly enormous. Why, then, is not every geological formation and every layer overflowing with such intermediate links? Indeed, geology does not reveal to us such a completely continuous chain of organization, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be made against his theory.
Today the situation is not much different. Here are the statements of modern scientists: “Palaeontological evidence of evolutionary changes within a single line of inheritance is very scarce. If the theory of evolution is correct, then species arise as a result of changes in predecessor species and therefore the presence of fossil remains should be expected. But in fact there are very few such remains. In 1859, Darwin could not give a single such example” (M. Ridley). “Almost 120 years have passed since Darwin. During this time, our knowledge of fossil remains has expanded significantly. We now have a quarter of a million specimens of fossil species, but the situation has not changed significantly. The evidence regarding evolution is surprisingly sketchy. The irony of our situation today is that we now have fewer examples evolutionary transition than there were in Darwin’s time” (D. Raup). “Forms transitional from one species to another can be observed today. We can also conclude that they existed in the past. And yet the end result is very far from the perfectly woven tapestry in which the Tree of Life can be seen simply by tracing the intermediate links: both living and extinct creatures that connected all species with each other. Not at all. Biologists are much more struck by the discreteness of the organic form and the general absence of intermediate links” (L. Morris).
Thus, one of the main problems of Charles Darwin’s theory is the problem of the absence of transitional forms, which in the paradigm of universal evolutionism turns into the problem of qualitative leaps, which will be discussed below.
The third problem is related to the feasibility of evolution.
In the teleological approach, expediency was explained by the fact that organisms have a certain internal goal of development. Or this goal is set by someone external - God.
Within the framework of Darwin's evolutionary theory, expediency is viewed as the result of natural selection. As organisms develop, the process of interaction with the environment becomes more complex; the stability of a population is determined by the ability of its individuals to adapt to external conditions, with changes in which the criteria of expediency also change. In organisms we call expedient everything that leads to the continuation of the life of an individual or species, inexpedient - everything that shortens life.
The selection criterion in this case will be stability in relation to the external environment. Thus, according to Eigen, the randomness of the origin of the code of a DNA molecule is determined by the criterion of stability in relation to environmental conditions, and the choice is made from one of many possible alternatives.
In this interpretation, no one from beyond is needed for expediency; everything is determined by natural laws.
Thus, feasibility depends on the external environment and is determined by its conditions and state.
S.D. Khaitun writes that evolution has no goal, but only a direction (vector) that determines the progress of evolution and is associated with changes that include the following:
Intensification of energy exchange and metabolism;
Intensification and expansion of energy and matter cycles;
Increased integrity (systematicity) of structures;
Increased connectivity of “everything with everything” and openness of systems;
- “floor-by-floor” increase in complexity and variety of forms;
Increasing degree of non-Gaussianity of stationary and evolutionary time distributions;
Increasing degree of fractality of evolving systems and the Universe as a whole.
Thus, there is an increase in complexity and hierarchy of evolving structures. This gave rise in the second half of the twentieth century to scientists talking about the evolution of evolution itself. Nevertheless, as S.V. emphasizes. Meyen, in general, we can say that although the problem of evolution deserves attention, it is apparently still very far from its meaningful development, and not a simple list of statements.
Evolutionary theories themselves have also undergone evolution, which today has led to the formation of the main methodological concepts of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which are the concepts of self-organization and global evolutionism.
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University them. K.D. Ushinsky
Test
according to the concept of modern natural science.
Subject:
"The main problems of the theory of evolution."
Female students:
correspondence department
Faculty of Education
YAGPU im. Ushinsky
Kruglikova Lyubov
Alexandrovna.
Speciality:
"Pedagogy and methodology
preschool education".
Teacher: Pizov
Alexander Vitalievich.
DO 2960, group 61 “D”
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………3
2. 1 part. EARLYSTAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY REPRESENTATIONS.............................................................................................................4
3. THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARCKA……………………………………………………………5
4. CH. DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION…………………………………………………….........6
5. part 2 . main problems of the theory of evolution. CRITICISM OF THE MODERN THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY CREATIONISTS………………………….10
6. GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………………………...13
7. MODERN PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………………18
8. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………23
9. LITERATURE………………………………………………………………………………..24
Introduction.
The basic fact of historical existence is that everything living and nonliving comes and then disappears.
The galactic system itself did not always exist. She was born about ten billion years ago and at some point in the future she will die. During the existence of our universe, it gradually gave life to the Sun, the Earth and a certain environment capable of supporting the life that we know. She gave birth human race relatively recently, at most several million years ago. During the time that billions of human beings have lived and died, we have collectively developed a civilization capable of landing a man on the moon.
Modern scientists usually rely on various theories of evolution. According to modern concepts, life is the result of the evolution of matter. Views on the origin of life, its development and essence have long story, but the discussion of these issues until recently was the subject of philosophical reflection. Only in recent decades has the solution to these issues been put to experimental basis and the answer to many of them was obtained in the laboratory.
In modern discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, it is considered almost universally accepted that the theory of evolution faces serious difficulties in explaining the phenomena of living nature and is not able to solve the problems that arise here. Such problems include, in particular, the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, the mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the feasibility of the structure of living organisms. Stereotypical ideas about these sections of the theory of evolution are widely used by modern creationists to discredit science. Meanwhile, a discussion of the available data allows us to assert that in solving each of the mentioned issues, the theory of evolution provides quite satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. These questions pose a problem for creationism rather than for the theory of evolution.
In discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, the same questions constantly come up and are discussed, as is generally believed, not resolved by the modern theory of evolution, such as, for example, problems such as the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the expediency of the structure of living organisms. In all these cases, the theory of evolution provides fairly satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. In my opinion, these issues pose a problem for creationism rather than for the theory of evolution. The relative weakness of modern evolutionism is not surprising. For many reasons, the theory of evolution is more closely connected with philosophy and ideological doctrines than other branches of natural science and has long served as an arena of struggle between supporters of a wide variety of views.
As a result, ideas and entire systems of ideas that are recognized as true without the necessary justification are often consolidated in evolutionary biology. They become a serious obstacle to the development of evolutionary research.
EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY REPRESENTATIONS.
Ideas about the changeability of the surrounding world, including living beings, were first developed by a number of ancient philosophers, among whom Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoys the greatest fame and authority. Aristotle did not explicitly support the idea of changeability of the surrounding world. However, many of his generalizations, which themselves fit into the general picture of the immutability of the world, later played an important role in the development of evolutionary ideas. These 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 types was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of structure in a series of organisms, about the variety of forms of causality. Aristotle identified 4 series of causes: 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 history concepts that lasted almost one and a half thousand years. The dominant dogmatic forms of religious worldview did not allow for the idea of changeability of the world. The corresponding ideas of ancient philosophers were consigned to oblivion.
Creationism and transformationism.
Gradually, numerous data were accumulated indicating an amazing diversity of forms of organisms. This data needed systematization. An important contribution in this area was made by the famous Swedish naturalist C. Linnaeus (1707-1778), who is rightly called the creator of the scientific taxonomy of organisms. It should be noted that Linnaeus consistently adhered to the point of view of the immutability of species created by the Creator.
In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Along with the dominant worldview, based on religious dogmas about the immutability of the world created by the Creator and called creationism, ideas about the changeability of the world and, in particular, about the possibility of historical changes in the types of organisms gradually began to form again. These ideas were called “transformism”.
The most prominent representatives of transformism were naturalists and philosophers R. Hooke (1635-1703), J. Lamettrie (1709-1751), J. Buffon (1707-1788), D Diderot (1713-1784), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) , I.V. Goethe (1749-1832), E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844).
Transformists have not yet developed a holistic concept of evolution organic world; their views were largely eclectic and inconsistent, combining materialistic and idealistic ideas. Common to all transformists was the recognition of the variability of species of organisms under the influence environment, to which organisms adapt due to the ability initially inherent in them to respond expediently to external influences, and the changes acquired in this way are inherited (the so-called “inheritance of acquired characteristics”). At the same time, changes in species were not so much proven as they were postulated by transformists, which made their position weak in discussions with supporters of creationism. The honor of creating the first evolutionary theories belongs to the great naturalists of the 19th century. J. B. Lamarck (1744-1829) and C. Darwin (1809-1882). These two theories are opposite in almost every way: in their general design, in the nature of the evidence, in the main conclusions about the causes and mechanisms of evolution, and in their historical fate. These are classical theories of the 19th century. continue to remain relevant, albeit in different ways.
THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARC.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck outlined the foundations of his concept in his most famous work, “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809). The title of this book successfully emphasizes an important feature of Lamarck's generalizations - their speculative nature. This theory is a harmonious building of logical constructions that provide answers to most of the basic questions of evolutionary science, but these answers were found not so much by analyzing scientific (i.e., well-tested, reliable) facts, but were logically deduced from several basic provisions accepted as postulates. This philosophical approach is typical for the early stages of the development of science, when accumulated facts already need logical comprehension, but they are not yet sufficient for strict scientific analysis and generalizations.
Variability of organisms.
Among these manifestations of variability, the most obvious were adaptive changes in organisms exposed to new conditions (for example, the development of plants of different appearance from identical seeds when grown in different conditions; strengthening of muscles in humans and animals during their intense exercise and weakening of these muscles in the absence of appropriate physical activity). loads, etc.). Lamarck's general conclusion from these observations was the recognition of historical variability, the transformation of organisms over time, i.e., their evolution. However, this conclusion was no longer original: the historical transformations of species of organisms under the influence of changes in the external environment were recognized, as already noted, by all transformists. The doctrine of gradation. The diversity of species of living beings, according to Lamarck, is not simply a chaos of all possible forms - in this diversity one can discern a certain order, as if stages of a consistent and steady increase in the level of organization. From this, Lamarck made the most important conclusion that changes in organisms are not random, but have a natural, directed nature: the development of the organic world goes in the direction of gradual improvement and complication of organization.
Lamarck considered the driving force behind gradation to be “nature’s desire for progress,” which is initially inherent in all living beings, having been invested in them by the Creator, i.e. By God. On the other hand, the progressive development of living nature, according to Lamarck, is a process of self-development - autogenesis. In carrying out this process (gradation), organisms are completely independent of outside world, from the environment.
The idealism of Lamarck's concepts is quite obvious. The influence of external conditions on organisms. According to Lamarck, the influence of external conditions on organisms violates the correctness of gradations. Gradation, so to speak, “in its pure form” manifests itself with the immutability and stability of the external environment; any change in the conditions of existence forces organisms to adapt to the new environment so as not to die. This disrupts the uniform and steady change of organisms on the path of progress, and various evolutionary lines deviate to the side and linger at primitive levels of organization.
This is how Lamarck explained the simultaneous existence on Earth of highly organized and simple groups, as well as the diversity of forms of animals and plants. According to Lamarck, changes in animals and plants under the influence of external conditions occur in different ways. Plants perceive changes in conditions, so to speak, directly - through their metabolism with the external environment (with assimilated mineral compounds, water, gases and light). For animals, Lamarck developed a more complex transformation mechanism:
1. any significant change in external conditions causes a change in the needs of animals;
2. this entails new actions of animals and the emergence of new “habits”;
3. as a result, animals begin to more often use organs that they previously used little; these organs develop and increase significantly, and if new organs are required, then under the influence of needs they arise “through the efforts of the inner feeling.”
The rationale for this mechanism of evolutionary changes in animals under the influence of changing external conditions is associated with Lamarck’s formulation of two so-called laws:
1 law
In any animal that has not reached the limit of its development, more frequent and constant use of any organ leads to increased development of the latter, while constant disuse of the organ weakens it and ultimately causes its disappearance.
2nd law
Everything that organisms acquire under the influence of prevailing use or lose under the influence of constant disuse of any organs is subsequently preserved in the offspring, if only the acquired changes are common to both parental individuals.
Lamarck's special merit is that he was the first to put forward evolutionary progress as one of the basic laws of the evolution of organisms. However, the main provisions of Lamarck's theory were not so much derived and proven based on scientific facts, how many are postulated, so that the theory as a whole is, in essence, a speculative logical scheme. Lamarck did not prove the evolution of organisms, but postulated it.
CH. DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Charles Darwin's theory, known as the theory of natural selection, is one of the pinnacles of scientific thought in the 19th century. However, its significance goes far beyond its century and beyond biology.
Darwin's theory became the natural-historical basis of the materialistic worldview. Darwin's theory is the opposite of Lamarck's theory not only in its consistently materialistic conclusions, but also in its entire structure. It represents a remarkable example of scientific research, based on a huge number of reliable scientific facts, the analysis of which leads Darwin to a harmonious system of proportionate conclusions. The variability of organisms in a domesticated state, according to Darwin, the stimulus for the occurrence of changes in animals and plants is the impact on organisms of new conditions to which they are exposed in the hands of humans. At the same time, Darwin emphasized that the nature of the organism in the phenomena of variability is more important than the nature of the conditions, since the same conditions often lead to different changes in different individuals, and similar changes in the latter can occur under completely different conditions. In this regard, Darwin identified two main forms of variability of organisms under the influence of changing environmental conditions: indefinite and definite. Artificial selection. Since the main form of variability, according to Darwin, is indefinite, it is obvious that recognition hereditary variability There were still not enough organisms to explain the process of developing new breeds of animals or varieties of agricultural plants.
It was also necessary to indicate the force that, on the basis of minor differences between individuals, forms stable and important breed characteristics. Darwin found the answer to this question in the practice of breeders, who artificially select for a tribe only those individuals who possess traits of interest to humans. As a result of such selection, from generation to generation these characteristics become more and more pronounced. Selection is a creative force that transforms the particular differences of individual individuals into characteristics characteristic of a given breed or variety. If artificial selection was the main force by which man was able, in a relatively short time, to create numerous breeds of domestic animals and varieties of plants that differed significantly from their wild ancestors, it is logical to assume that similar processes can determine evolutionary transformations in nature as well. Variability of organisms in nature. Darwin collected numerous data indicating that the variability of the most diverse types of organisms in nature is very great, and its forms are fundamentally similar to the forms of variability of domestic animals and plants. Various and fluctuating differences between individuals of the same species form, as it were, a smooth transition to more stable differences between the varieties of this species; in turn, the latter just as gradually transform into clearer differences between even larger groups - subspecies, and the differences between subspecies - into well-defined interspecific differences. Thus, individual variability smoothly turns into group differences. From this Darwin concluded that individual differences between individuals constitute the basis for the emergence of varieties.
Varieties, with the accumulation of differences between them, turn into subspecies, and those, in turn, into separate species. Consequently, clearly defined variety may be considered as the first step towards the isolation of a new species. We emphasize that Darwin for the first time put the focus of evolutionary theory not on individual organisms (as was typical of his transformist predecessors, including Lamarck), but on biological species, i.e., in modern terms, populations of organisms. Only population approach allows you to correctly assess the scale and forms of variability in organisms and come to an understanding of the mechanism of natural selection. The struggle for existence and natural selection, comparing all the collected information about the variability of organisms in the wild and domesticated state and the role of artificial selection for breeding breeds and varieties of domesticated animals and plants. Darwin approached the discovery of the creative force that drives and directs the evolutionary process in nature - natural selection. It represents the preservation of useful individual differences or changes and the destruction of harmful changes, neutral in their value (non-useful and harmless), are not subject to the action of selection, but represent a fickle, fluctuating element of variability. Of course, individual individuals possessing some new useful trait may die without leaving offspring, for purely random reasons. However, the influence of random factors decreases if a useful trait appears in a larger number of individuals of a given species - then the probability increases that at least for some of these individuals the merits of a new useful trait will play a role in achieving success in the struggle for existence. It follows that natural selection is a factor of evolutionary changes not for individual organisms considered in isolation from each other, but only for their aggregates, i.e. populations.
The results of the action of natural selection, the emergence of adaptations (adaptation) of organisms to the conditions of their existence, giving 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 preferential leaving of offspring by precisely those individuals who, by virtue of their individual characteristics better adapted to environmental conditions than others. The accumulation by selection from generation to generation of those characteristics that provide an advantage in the struggle for existence gradually leads to the formation of specific adaptations.
The second (after the emergence 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 similar individuals of a given species due to the similarity of their vital needs, the individuals who deviate most from the average state will find themselves in more favorable conditions. These latter get an advantage in surviving and leaving offspring, to whom the characteristics of the parents and the tendency to change further in the same direction are transmitted (continuing variability). As a result, more and more diverse and different descendants should come from a common ancestor in the course of evolution.
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 increasingly complex external environment. The complexity of the environment occurs, in particular, due to divergent evolution, which increases the number of species. Improving the reactions of organisms to an increasingly complex environment leads to gradual progress of the organization. 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 arises from competition between individuals of the same sex in the processes of reproduction.
Concluding the review of Darwin's theory of evolution, we note that it gave a logically consistent and strictly materialistic explanation of the most important problems of the evolution of organisms and the general structure of the organic world that emerged as a result of the evolutionary process. Darwin was the first to prove the reality of evolutionary changes in organisms. The relationship between the organism and the external environment in his theory has the character of a dialectical interaction: Darwin emphasized the role of environmental changes as a stimulus for the variability of organisms, but, on the other hand, the specificity of these changes is determined by the organisms themselves, and the divergent evolution of organisms changes their habitat. The doctrine of natural selection and the struggle for existence is, in essence, an analysis of these complex relationships between the organism and the environment, in which the organism is not opposed to the environment as a self-developing autonomous unit, but also does not passively follow changes in the environment (as the relationship between the organism and the environment is interpreted in the theory Lamarck).
According to Darwin's theory, evolution is the result of the interaction of an organism and a changing external environment.
Modern evolutionary theory developed on the basis of Darwin's theory. Recognizing this, and assessing the specific place of Darwin’s ideas in the totality of modern evolutionary views, they often fall into one of two extremes. Either they believe that now Darwin’s concept as such has only historical interest, or, on the contrary, they argue that since Darwin’s time the foundations of the theory have not undergone significant changes. In reality, as is often the case, the truth lies between these extreme points of view. In the future, when considering modern evolutionary theory, we will specifically stipulate its main differences with the views of Darwin.
Here it is necessary to mention some ambiguities and individual erroneous statements of Darwin. These include:
1. recognition of the possibility of evolutionary changes based on certain variability and exercise and non-exercise of organs;
2. revaluation of the role of overpopulation to justify the struggle for existence;
3. exaggerated attention to intraspecific struggle in explaining divergence;
4. insufficient development of the concept of a biological species as a form of organization of living matter, fundamentally different from subspecific and supraspecific taxa;
5. lack of understanding of the specifics of macroevolutionary transformations of organization and their relationships with speciation.
However, all these not entirely clear or even incorrect ideas on some issues do not at all detract from the historical significance of Darwin’s brilliant work and its role for modern biology. These inaccuracies correspond to the level of development of science at the time of the creation of Darwin's theory. Theory of evolution on modern stage: problems and criticism. Years have passed since Darwin's theory of evolution was created, the historical era has changed, but the discussion on the problems of evolution does not subside.
MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
CRITICISM OF THE MODERN THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY CREATIONISTS.
Nowadays, ideas that would have been considered absurd just a few years ago are being actively promoted and widely discussed. This is the undoubted merit of “scientific” creationists. Naturally, the question arises whether all this is connected with the objective falsity or non-scientific nature of the theory of evolution? Isn't it a fruitless dead end in the development of science? Obviously this is not the case. This is confirmed partly by the successes achieved in recent decades by many biologists working in the field of empirical study of evolution, and partly by the study of those critical remarks that are most often expressed by opponents of evolutionism. Let's look at the most common provisions modern evolution, criticized by its opponents. It is often argued that we can observe microevolutionary changes, but we never see speciation and macroevolution. Indeed, usually these processes occur so slowly that they cannot be the object of direct observation. However, speciation can be recorded empirically from direct or indirect data.
Quite a lot of such data is given in general summaries on speciation. There are also more specific works on individual groups of animals or plants. Sometimes speciation can be repeated experimentally. For example, the research of V. A. Rybin showed that the ancestor of the common plum, in all likelihood, was a natural hybrid of cherry plum and sloe. As a result of experimental crossing of these plants with subsequent doubling of chromosomes, hybrids were obtained - quite viable, very similar to real plums, and cross well both with them and with each other. Some differences between synthesized plums and real ones were also discovered. It can be assumed that since their origin, these latter have managed to change somewhat in the course of further evolution. Man-made species appear to be the majority of our domestic animals and crops.
Sometimes paleontological data allows us to trace how, through gradual transformations, one species turned into another. For example, the polar bear appears to have evolved in the late Pleistocene from the brown bear. The entire process is documented by paleontological evidence; the transition stages of the process are known. Other examples of speciation could be given.
However, modern creationists argue that speciation always occurs through the loss or redistribution of certain already existing hereditary factors and only within the framework of a certain primary type of structure, the so-called “baramin”. The emergence of new hereditary information, and therefore new phenotypic structures, according to creationists, is impossible. The emergence of new “baramins” is also impossible. These latter were created directly by the creator. The following should be noted about these concepts. In evolution, old structures are indeed used more often than new ones arise. Reduction processes are very common, so it will not be a problem to find examples that do not contradict the views of creationists. For example, plum came from sloe and cherry plum through hybridization followed by polyploidy, that is, without the emergence of new genetic information. Some changes to this information may have occurred during further changes. However, fundamentally new structures also appear quite often in evolution. In the evolution of the polar bear, new features emerged: a complex of comprehensive morphological, physiological and behavioral adaptations associated with the transition to life in the extreme conditions of the Far North and to a semi-aquatic lifestyle, which were definitely absent in the brown bear. Genetically, these two species remain very similar (in a zoo they can form fertile hybrids), but their morphological and ecological differences are so great that some scientists have even recommended that the polar bear be separated into a separate genus. Moreover, the polar bear stands at the same high level of organization as the brown bear. He has an equally, if not more, complex lifestyle and behavior. The results of the reduction (in the creationist sense) included among its signs only the transition from omnivory to eating purely animal food, the associated simplification of the dental system and also depigmentation of the coat.
Creationists and some evolutionists argue that the modern theory of evolution cannot explain the early stages of organ formation, as well as the emergence of structures of a high level of perfection, such as humans. In fact, the problems that arise here are associated only with insufficient knowledge of the structure and functioning of these organs. For well-studied organs, we tend to imagine in general terms how they might have formed during evolution. It is often argued that, for example, the eye of higher animals is so perfect that it could not have arisen as a result of evolutionary processes. Let us illustrate this idea with a well-known example. We will assume that the observed changes in organs and structures are arbitrary and not directed, but by chance they may turn out to be more or less useful for their carriers. The cells of almost all organisms produce some amount of pigments. Strictly speaking, any opaque substance can be called a pigment. Often they are synthesized without any connection with photoreception. But they can also be used for orientation in space, if this is useful for the survival of the organism. The ability to respond to light is widespread in nature and is characteristic of both many single-celled and some cells multicellular organisms. The first stage in the formation of complex visual organs in multicellular organisms consisted of the concentration of light-sensitive cells with the formation of the so-called eyespots. The concentration of receptors in one place contributed to the perception of light of lower intensity, so mutants in which light-sensitive cells were brought closer together were more likely to survive. The simplest light-sensitive spots are located on the surface of the body (or under it, if the integument is transparent). However, in the course of further evolution, natural selection promotes the immersion of pigment spots under the level of the integument for protection from damage and extraneous irritants. The pigment spot turns into a pigment pit (sometimes into a pigment groove or canal). The final stage of this is the closure of the fossa into the optic vesicle, the anterior wall of which becomes transparent and the posterior wall sensitive. However, even a transparent substance refracts light rays, and the front wall inevitably begins to act like a lens. The shape of this lens can change due to random mutations, but the optimal curvature for reception is such that it leads to focusing of the rays on the surface of the internal photosensitive layer. As a result, an image of the surrounding world will appear on this surface. This is no longer even the result of natural selection, but simply a consequence of the laws of physics.
Thus, the accumulation of small random quantitative changes leads, through natural selection, to a qualitative leap - the appearance of vision in the proper sense of the word. In the course of further evolution, the organ of vision was further improved. Often, for example, specialized muscles are formed that change the curvature of the lens or its distance from the photosensitive layer, or both of these characteristics. This achieves the possibility of accommodation of the eye.
Another important evolutionary achievement is color vision. Finally, the emergence of stereoscopic vision in some birds and mammals makes it possible to determine the distance to objects by triangulation, as well as, to a certain extent, the shape of objects. All these processes can easily be explained as the results of selective survival of carriers of small random changes. These processes will occur even if a very small part of the mutations changes the structures in the desired direction. Only the complete absence of such mutations would make these processes impossible.
However, we do not know the mechanisms that selectively block mutagenesis in certain directions. So, the described scenario is logically possible and does not contradict any of the known laws of nature. One of the main arguments expressed by creationists against evolutionism is that in the process of progressive evolution, fundamentally new information arises. The fact is that information can be created, in their opinion, only by the mind, but not by stochastic processes. Hereditary information living organisms, creationists believe, were created by God during creation, and later can only be lost.
Creationists quite clearly draw an analogy between the creative activity of God and human creativity, seeing in the human mind an imperfect, but still similarity to the mind of God. However, the available data rather suggest that the creative activity of the human mind is based on completely natural processes.
Let's discuss how new information is formed using a simple model characterized by S. Hawking. A device for receiving and processing information can be simplified to be considered as a system consisting of elements, each of which can be in one of several alternative states. For example, computer memory elements can be in one of two states, and genetic apparatus elements can be in one of four. Any of these states is equally probable, but as a result of interaction with the system, the state of which must be remembered, the elements find themselves in very specific states, depending on the state of the system. The device moves from a state of disorder to a more orderly one. However, there is no contradiction with the second law of thermodynamics. The process of ordering comes with the expenditure of energy, which ultimately turns into heat and increases the degree of disorder in the Universe; the more complex the interaction with the system being studied, the more elements of our device will be recorded, and the more information about the system will be determined. You can also imagine using the information received. This requires special machines connected to our device and functioning differently depending on what states are recorded in the elements of the device. Further complications are possible, but the mechanism underlying the process remains the same. The computer and, apparently, the human brain work on this principle. But a similar process occurs in populations of living organisms. Due to mutations, organisms in populations differ in genotype. In the process of natural selection, some mutants survive and some die. Thus, in this case, too, the choice of one of more or less equivalent possibilities is remembered, quite similar to what occurs during the activity of the human mind.
In other words, new information can be created by natural selection. There is no need for a supreme mind. If we are already talking about higher intelligence, it is necessary to discuss one more argument in support of its existence, often put forward by fideists. In their opinion, the existing laws of the universe can be revealed with the help of the human mind, which in itself indicates the presence of an intelligent legislator. Indeed, we can agree that there is some correspondence between the logic of our thinking and the logic of processes occurring in nature. This correspondence is not absolute, therefore the process of cognition is always accompanied by errors, and the information obtained as a result of cognition is never exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is the existence of this correspondence that makes knowledge of the surrounding world possible in principle. There is, however, no logical necessity to explain this correspondence by the fact that the mind of beings who experience the world is similar to the mind of the creator who created this world. It can be explained much more simply and convincingly by the fact that in human evolution, the adaptive advantage was given to the carriers of such mental structures that better corresponded to the reality of our world. Thus, our ability to understand the world gradually improved. It was based on the same process of natural selection.
GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
In the modern understanding, evolution is a series of successive changes with historical significant result. We are not obliged to stipulate that the genotype, trait, population, species changes. Continuously, intermittently, spasmodically, directionally, reversibly - these epithets are more or less conventional, as we will see later and with what specific result (speciation, phylogenesis, general development life, etc.). But we must recognize that evolution is recognized a posteriori: the change taking place before our eyes may or may not be evolution.
It is commonly believed that paleontological facts support evolution. However, the most implacable opponents of evolutionism in the past were precisely paleontologists - J. Cuvier, L. Agassiz, R. Owen and many others.
The fossil record as such is a list of disparate events. To make a coherent story out of it, you need a guiding idea. The facts we have are that organisms are extremely diverse, adapted to the lifestyle they lead, their living space is limited, and they succeed each other in the geological record. Explanations may vary. The theory of evolution is that the organic world as we know it is a product of evolution (in the sense stated above). If we assume that we see manifestations of some original properties of living things that do not have a history (original purposefulness, for example), then such a theory will not be evolutionary or, in any case, contain non-evolutionary elements. She will resist general theory evolution, and not (as is often thought) a particular theory of natural selection. Many misunderstandings arise due to the inability to distinguish the general evolutionary approach from particular meta-evolutionary problems and these latter from each other. When asked what is the difference between the theories of J.B. Lamarck and Charles Darwin, the majority answers: Lamarck argued the inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin - natural selection. In reality, both Lamarck and Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics (an extremely unfortunate expression, since no characters other than acquired ones exist, but more on that later). In their time, this was a common idea, going back to Aristotle, who even believed in the inheritance of scars (you could believe in anything - there was no theory of inheritance). Evolutionary problems are grouped around three main questions - "why", "how" and "why", which historically were asked in this order.
The ability to arrange various living beings in the form of a ladder from the simple to the more complex, a certain similarity (parallelism) between this ladder and the sequence of individual development, as well as the distribution of fossil forms from ancient layers to younger ones, the nature of divisibility into discrete types and species, changes in population The earth after the biblical flood or similar catastrophes, the impact of lifestyle on the development of organs - these are the main problems that initially fueled evolutionary thought. Evolutionism is often denied the status of a genuine scientific theory for the following reasons:
1. This is mainly a description of all kinds of events, and not a theory (collecting postage stamps, as Rutherford noted). History, of course, is based on facts, but it can be rewritten, and the facts will appear in a different light. Evolutionary history- not so much a description as a reconstruction of events (although there is no clear boundary between one and the other; any historical description, even confirmed by direct testimony, is not free from the interpretation of facts), carrying a theoretical load.
2. The evolution of life is known so far only on our planet, in a single copy. The singular is not subject to theoretical understanding. To this it may be objected that the singular is indeed unsuitable for the derivation of laws, but can become the object of both telic and causal analysis. In addition, evolution proceeds in parallel with many trunks and some phenomena are repeated many times.
3. Evolutionism cannot be refuted. This accusation against Darwin's theory was put forward in a half-joking form by L. Bertalanffy. As the popularity of fundamental falsifiability as a criterion of scientific validity grew, there was no time for jokes. However, anyone who is familiar with the history of biology cannot help but be aware of the numerous ongoing attempts to refute both general and particular theories of evolution. Darwin himself pointed out at least two provisions, the refutation of which would entail, in his words, the collapse of his entire theory: the conclusion that sudden changes in the organic world correspond to gaps in the geological record, and the conclusion that the development of altruism under the influence of natural selection. Both are refutable not only in principle, but also, which is worse, in practice (in order to avoid misunderstandings, let us recall that the possibility of refuting a theory is a positive moment when assessing its scientific nature, successful refutation is a negative moment when assessing its truth, although the significance of this another may be somewhat exaggerated).
4. The theory of evolution is not a theory in the sense that is accepted by physicists. Let us briefly analyze these fundamental issues. The position of physicists is that only repeating, reproducible phenomena belong to the field of science. The singular, the unique, is the domain of the collector of rarities, not the scientist. Life is so far known only on one planet, the biosphere exists in a single copy, each organism is unique, evolution took place once and is irreversible. Biology deals with the unique and, therefore, is an activity that is closer to collecting than to an analytical science, which is primarily physics. From a certain perspective, one gets the impression that even the development of biology itself is fundamentally different from the development of physics. In biology, outdated theories (for example, Lamarck's theory) are refuted and discarded, while in physics new theories do not refute old ones, but only indicate the limits of their applicability.
One of the possible objections, as we have already said, is that organisms, along with the individual, are characterized by a common element repeated in each of them, that the evolution of the organic world as a whole consists of a huge number of evolutionary lines, which are characterized by parallelism to one degree or another , repeated repetition of the same type of events, etc. One can also protest against epistemological reductionism, insisting on the irreducibility of one field of knowledge to another, on the fundamental difference in the methodological settings of physics and biology, which deals with immeasurably more complex phenomena that require a special, more individualized approach , without detracting from the scientific nature. According to a number of scientists, however, traditional doubts about the scientific nature of biological theories, as well as traditional attempts to dispel them, do not reflect the essence of the matter, which lies in the contradiction between historical and extra-historical approaches. In fact, there seems to be no fundamental difference between the uniqueness of biological phenomena and the repeatability of physical ones: any historical event unique. Of course, it is easier for a biologist to understand this due to the more clearly expressed individuality of his objects, although viruses of the same strain seem quite identical and only very subtle studies can reveal their individuality. A physicist is in the position of a person who finds himself in a crowd of aliens for the first time and believes that they are all alike.
The presence of history is the main and, perhaps, the only criterion of existence. A scientist who studies phenomena that have no history cannot be sure that they actually exist. Contradictions between models of cognition and physics and biology also seem to be related to different senses of historicism. The well-known law of the irreversibility of evolution was derived by the Belgian paleontologist L. Dollo, paradoxically, on the basis of the reversible appearance - the loss of the shell in turtles moving from water to land and back. Dollo noticed that the newly acquired shell is different from the lost one, and, therefore, there is no complete reversibility. It is so fallible for a person that he eventually begins to doubt his cognitive abilities. Similar situations serve nutrient medium for claims that the ultimate truth is not available for one reason or another. What we now consider obvious is theoretically loaded and formed as a result of a complex interaction of observation and explanation, with the latter increasingly dominant, replacing direct vision and even imposing a vision of non-existent objects (this is how many generations “saw” the firmament). This kind of cost of theorizing vision gave rise to doubts about the reality of the external world, leading directly to solipsism.
The best remedy for solipsism is the theory of evolution. What doesn’t exist cannot evolve, and there’s still no point in adapting to it. Further, the theory of evolution suggests that the senses cannot constantly deceive us, since otherwise they would promote extinction rather than survival. Theoretically, there is every reason to trust direct observation. The evolutionary approach also helps to understand our epistemological difficulties. They are a product of the evolution of thinking and, apparently, are characteristic of a transitional stage, at which the sharpness and accuracy of direct vision, honed over millions of years of struggle for existence, has already been lost, and the explanatory ability is not yet sufficiently developed. Evolutionary theory suggests that the relationship between observation and theory does not remain constant, but changes over time. And finally, evolutionism explains why we will never get to the ultimate truth: it does not wait for us somewhere at the end of the road, behind seven locks, but evolves along with us, our thinking and everything around us. Neo-Darwinism (synthetic theory of evolution). If anyone can be called the Newton of biology, then, of course, G. Mendel. He did everything that was required to transform biology into a “true science” like classical physics, namely:
1. introduced invisible entities - “rudiments”, subsequently genes;
2. established laws for them without any explanation;
3. resorted to mathematics.
Genes seemed to help answer a number of questions that had puzzled Darwin, in particular why beneficial changes were not "dissolved" when crossed with unchanged individuals, and thus complement classical Darwinism, turning it into neo-Darwinism, or synthetic theory of evolution (STE). . The main merit of STE is usually considered to be the explanation of initial variability, the elimination of teleological (pangenesis, “Lamarckian factors”) and typological (macromutations, abrupt speciation) elements from evolutionism, and the transfer of evolutionary constructions to an experimental basis. Frame new theory formed postulates about the random nature of mutations, a constant rate of mutation and the gradual occurrence of large changes by summing up small ones. The possibilities of testing these postulates during the construction of the STE were very limited. It is believed that the postulate of random mutation was subsequently confirmed at the molecular level. However, molecular mutations are inadequate to their phenotypic manifestations observed by early geneticists; the very understanding of mutation has changed. At the molecular level, there is some reason to talk about the spatiotemporal uncertainty of a single mutational act, but (by analogy with quantum mechanics) uncertainty cannot be a priori extrapolated to the level of phenotypic properties subject to natural selection. The postulate of a constant rate of mutation did not stand up to scrutiny.
Explosive mutagenesis, in particular, transposition explosions, has now been relatively well studied. The idea of macroevolution as the summation of the smallest mutational steps under the influence of selection implicitly assumes some kind of orthogenetic factor, since the probability of the timely random appearance of successive “needed” mutations is negligible. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce an additional factor - genetic drift, which accelerates the fixation of a new mutation and, with a sharp reduction in population size, produces a “genetic revolution”, according to S. Wright and E. Mayr.
Thus, the advantages of STE over classical Darwinism are not entirely obvious. Some contradictions in Darwin's original theory, eliminated by STE, probably reflected the internal inconsistency of the continuous-discontinuous process of evolution and the impossibility of reducing all diversity driving forces to natural selection.
Criticism of Darwinism. One line of criticism is based on the contrast between “struggle” and “love” as the driving forces of evolution. Indeed, Darwin had some difficulty explaining altruism.
Now, however, very thorough work has been carried out linking the emergence of altruistic behavior with selection. More effective criticism is one that assigns selection the role of a conservative rather than a creative force. Many researchers who distinguished stabilizing and creative forms of selection meant that selection in some cases preserves the existing norm, and in others, when conditions change, it forms a new one. Is it possible to achieve something significantly new through gradual shifts in the norm? Strictly speaking, there is no answer to this question, since no one has checked (artificial selection does not count, the principle of its operation is different). It seems logical to assume, following Darwin, that selection takes a very long time to gradually create a new one. Geological time is measured in millions of years, but at critical moments in Earth's history these millions are not available, which is why Darwin believed that the geological record was unreliable. This really opens up the possibility of testing the theory. If the testimony of the chronicle is confirmed, then a significant argument will be received in favor of the abrupt emergence of the new, and the theory of evolution will again be in the spotlight due to sharp deviations in individual development, pushed into the background by synthetic theory. In the end, artificial selection, the achievements of which so inspired Darwin, operates with sharp deviations from the norm, one might say deformities.
Why is this contraindicated for the natural? But one of the paradoxes of evolutionism lies precisely in the fact that natural and artificial selection give opposite results: the first increases fitness, the second decreases it (varieties and breeds bred by man, as a rule, need his support). Either they have nothing in common at all (and then artificial selection should not be considered as a model of natural selection), or we misunderstand something in the mechanism of natural selection.
Criticism of the synthetic theory of evolution. STE, to a greater extent than classical Darwinism, is modeled on classical physics. It has its own axioms, timeless laws, including those derived mathematically. STE actively promotes this way of constructing a biological theory, suggesting that progress in this area requires more complete axiomatization and mathematization (extreme supporters of these views can even act as critics of STE, blaming it for insufficient formalization). The same convictions force us to see in the massive invasion of physicochemical methods a revolution in biology, its transformation into a truly experimental science, i.e. real science. However, the numbness of science, shackled by axioms and laws, cannot be considered progress. And such “non-evolving” attitudes are especially contraindicated in the theory of evolution. Like any paradigm, STE has a practical impact on science, determining what is worth and what is not worth pursuing.
A strong paradigm sets the direction of research for one or even several generations of scientists. Then this direction is exhausted, and scientists turn their attention to an alternative theory, which until now was supported only by a few cranks. However, let’s leave the achievements and turn to what was left out of the STE. This is, first of all, what is called macroevolution - major transformations of organs, the emergence of new categories of characters, phylogeny, the origin of species and supraspecific groups, their extinction - in general, this is what the theory of evolution was created for. Without in any way downplaying the importance of industrial melanism and the relationship between monochromatic and striped snails, we note that they still interest us mainly as a model of historically more significant phenomena.
But can they serve as such a model? The position of STE in relation to macroevolution is determined by the general attitude toward experimentation as the only path to truly scientific research. In the field of macroevolutionary processes, the possibilities for experimentation are very limited. Therefore, they can only be studied using microevolutionary models, assuming that the differences are mainly quantitative - on time scales. Both in the past and especially in last years There were voices against this reductionist position of the STE.
In contrast, a thesis was put forward about the irreducibility of phylogeny to microevolutionary processes and the need to supplement STE with the theory of macroevolution. It was assumed that microevolution was satisfactorily explained by STE. In reality, neither microprocesses nor macroprocesses are yet understood and it is still premature to talk about their reducibility or irreducibility to each other. STE, like Darwin's classical evolutionary theory, was developed mainly for processes occurring under stable conditions. Nowadays, environmental crises interest us more than anything else, and, in addition, there has been an assumption (the verification of which has become a priority task) that the most important evolutionary events occurred in crisis conditions. And, finally, general biological progress, reduced to an increase in numbers, almost fell out of the field of view of STE. The chronological sequence from cyanophytes to man, whatever one may call it, represents one of the few reliable evolutionary phenomena. For millions of people, it is this sequence that embodies evolution itself. Therefore, what evolutionary theory is required to do first is explain it. STE cannot provide this, since in solving the evolutionary problems recognized by this theory - adaptability, survival, growth in numbers and diversity - cyanophytes are in no way inferior to humans. Therefore, human evolution turned out to be completely incomprehensible. It is either completely divorced from previous biological evolution, or artificially introduced into the framework of school STE. Due to all these circumstances current state the theory of evolution does not cause a feeling of satisfaction.
REVIEW OF MODERN PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
In recent decades, geological and biological sciences have accumulated enormous new information about the evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds of the Earth, as well as about the physiographic, geological and biogeochemical prerequisites for the possible existence of any forms of life in the past or present on other planets of the solar group.
Evolution in many cases can now be represented by measure and number. Extensive information has been collected on numerous biological disasters (crises), primarily during the last billion years; about their correlation with abiotic crises, about possible common causes of these phenomena. At the same time, huge amounts of information have been accumulated about structural organization and molecular genetic mechanisms of cell functioning - the basis of life, factors of genome variability and the patterns of molecular evolution of cells and organisms. At the same time, despite extensive data on the molecular genetic mechanisms that determine the reactions of genomes, cells and organisms to changes in the external environment, we know little about the connections of these mechanisms with the processes of bioevolution that occurred on Earth at moments of global geological restructuring. Despite the abundance of information about the laws of evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds obtained by the Earth sciences and biology, it still remains scattered and requires systematic generalization.
Among the greatest achievements of recent decades is the deciphering by paleontologists and geologists of the Precambrian chronicle of the development of the organic world of the Earth, which expanded the geochronological range of our knowledge about the evolution of life from 550 million to almost 4 billion years. The classical concepts of the evolution of the organic world, based on the experience of studying its Phanerozoic history, when the main features of the taxonomic and ecosystem hierarchy of biological systems, starting with Charles Darwin, developed within the framework of a gradualistic understanding of the phylogenetic process, the central link of which is the species.
The study of Precambrian life forms and the conditions of its existence has put new problems on the agenda. Thanks to the achievements of molecular biology, including molecular phylogeny, since the early 80s of the twentieth century, it became clear that the paths of biological evolution of life in the conditions of the initial oxygen-free (reducing) atmosphere and its gradual transition to an oxidizing one (increasing oxygen concentration in the environment) are associated with the life of three kingdoms (domains of organisms) of nuclear-free prokaryotes:
1. true eubacteria;
2. barchaeobacteria, the genome of which has some similarities with the genome of eukaryotes;
3. eukaryotes that have a formed nucleus and carpathized cytoplasm with various types of organelles.
The most important link on the path to the formation of biodiversity of the living shell of the earth is the Vendian non-skeletal vendobionts with mysterious metabolic features discovered in recent decades, the immediate predecessors of the main types of modern invertebrates, the main phylogenetic trunks (at the level of phyla and families), which arose about 540 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian period.
The study of microbial communities in modern extreme conditions and their experimental modeling made it possible to identify the features of the interaction of autotrophic and heterotrophic forms of prokaryotic life as a special type of adaptation in a spatially inseparable two-pronged organism-ecosystem system. The development of microbial paleontology methods and the discovery, using these methods, of structures resembling traces of bacterial activity in meteorites supposedly brought to Earth from Mars, gave new impetus to the problem of “eternity of life.” In recent years, paleontology and geology have accumulated a lot of data on the correlation of global geological and biotic events in the history of the biosphere. Of particular interest recently has been the “phenomenon” of explosive biodiversification of the organic world in the Ordovician period (450 million years ago), when a huge number of new ecological specializations arose, as a result of which for the first time a global closed biogeochemical cycle was formed in marine ecosystems. The accumulated data on the interrelations of the main trends and the periodicity of global processes in the evolution of the external and internal shells of the Earth and the biosphere as an integral system have put on the agenda the problem of the control link in the evolution of the Earth and its biosphere. In accordance with new ideas consistent with development theory large systems, the evolution of the biosphere is determined by the highest hierarchical levels of the global ecosystem, and at lower levels (population, species) its more “fine” tuning is ensured. From these positions, the problem of combining the concept of speciation of Charles Darwin and the biosphere concept of V.I. arises. Vernadsky. In connection with the discovery in the 1970s of the twentieth century in modern oceans of unique ecosystems, traces of which have now been established in sediments of ancient age (at least 400 million years old), existing due to the endogenous energy of hydrotherms, another problem arose. Are solar energy and oxygen atmosphere necessary conditions evolution of life on planets and what is the evolutionary potential of ecosystems of this type? Thus, we can formulate the following modern problems of the theory of evolution:
1. Did life on Earth arise during the natural evolution of the inorganic world (the theory of the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter)? Or was it brought from Space (panspermia theory) and, thus, is much older than the Earth and is not directly related in its genesis to the conditions of the primitive Earth at the time the first traces of life were recorded in the geological record? The theory of molecular evolution has accumulated a significant amount of knowledge indicating the possibility of the spontaneous emergence 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 massive development of primitive life forms, and the isotopic composition of carbon is practically no different from that in modern living matter; b) features have been discovered in meteorites that can be interpreted as traces of the activity of primitive life forms, although there are objections to this point of view. It should be noted that the question regarding the eternity of life in the Universe ultimately rests on the question of the eternity of the Universe itself. If life was brought to Earth from Space (panspermia theory), this does not remove the problem of the emergence of life, but only transfers the moment of the emergence of life into the depths of time and space. In particular, within the framework of the “big bang” theory, the time of the emergence and spread of life in the Universe cannot be more than 10 billion years. It should, however, be borne in mind that this date applies only to our Universe, and not to the entire Cosmos.
2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive single-celled life forms on Earth during the first 3.5 billion years (or more) of the development of life? Was the main tendency to complicate the internal organization of the cell in order to maximize the consumption of any resources of the poorly differentiated 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), which should have contributed to the differentiation of the global primitive biosphere into system of local biocenoses? In this regard, the question also arises about the relationship between exogenous (sun) and endogenous (hydrothermal) energy sources for the development of life in the early and later stages. It is now considered established that the simplest anucleate bacterial organisms gave rise to eukaryotes with a developed nucleus, compartmentalized cytoplasm, organelles and a sexual form of reproduction. At the turn of about 1.2-1.4 billion years ago, eukaryotes significantly increased their biodiversity, which resulted in the intensive development of new ecological niches and the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear forms of life. This explains, in particular, the massive formation of ancient biogenic oil fields 1.2-1.4 billion years ago - perhaps the largest-scale process of transforming the then existing biomass of the Earth (10 times greater than modern biomass) into inert matter. It should be noted here that existing methods for calculating the mass of living matter for past geological epochs based on the amount of fossilized organic matter do not take into account the balance ratios of the autotrophic and heterotrophic layers of the biosphere, which should also be considered one of the important problems in the study of global patterns of biosphere evolution. It is possible that the first noticeable increase in the biomass and biodiversity of eukaryotes occurred about 2 billion years ago. The question arises about the connection between this global evolutionary event and the appearance of free oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere.
3. What factors ensured the progressive complication of eukaryotic genomes and the features of the genomes of modern prokaryotes? Did conditions exist on the primitive Earth that were favorable to the evolutionary complexity of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell? If so, what is their nature, when did they originate, and are they still active today? What mechanisms ensured the coordination of the self-assembly of ecosystems “from below” (at the population and species levels) and “from above” (i.e., at the level of interaction of the global ecosystem with global endogenous and exogenous geological processes)? The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization and the conditions for its implementation. IN general view it can be considered obvious that the evolutionary potential increases at each new level of biological organization, i.e. the possibilities of morpho-functional differentiation of life at the organismal and ecosystem levels, but the trigger mechanisms and limiting factors of autogenetic and external (life environment) origin remain unclear. In particular, the nature of aromorphoses (drastic changes in the structural plans of organisms) and saltations (outbreaks of biodiversification, accompanied by the appearance of high-ranking taxa), long established by paleobiology, remains mysterious. Aromorphoses and saltations coincide well with the eras of global biotic rearrangements and cardinal geological changes in the environment (the balance of free oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the state of the ozone screen, the consolidation and collapse of supercontinents, large-scale climate fluctuations). The emergence of new aromorphoses (for example, the appearance of askeletal, then skeletal marine, vascular plants, terrestrial vertebrates, etc.) radically changed the functional and spatial characteristics of the biosphere, as well as evolutionary trends in specific taxonomic groups. This is in good agreement with the theoretical position of cybernetics about the guiding role of the higher links of hierarchical systems in the evolutionary process. 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 environmental parameters) and destabilizing selection (catastrophic changes in environmental parameters affecting hierarchically high levels organization of biosystems from molecular genetic to biosphere)? 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 physicochemical conditions of the environment (incoherent evolution). And as the abiotic environment stabilizes, evolution becomes coherent and the leading factor in the evolutionary strategy in ecologically rich ecosystems becomes the development of trophic specializations under the pressure of competition for food resources.
4. What is the nature of the trigger mechanisms that ensure a radical change in the modes of evolution of life forms? Does it have an immanent essence, conditioned internal features organization and evolution of biosystems, or is it due to external reasons, for example, geological changes? How do these factors relate? According to geological data, the massive development of highly organized life forms occurred in the Vendian about 600 million years ago, although they may have appeared earlier, as evidenced by paleontological finds in recent years. But these were non-skeletal, soft-bodied Metazoa. They had no protective skeleton and, in the absence of an ozone layer, apparently had a limited ecological niche. At the turn of 540-550 million years there was a taxonomic explosion (massive, almost simultaneous appearance) of all the main types and classes of marine invertebrates, represented mainly by skeletal forms. However full development The emergence 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. All these events, on the one hand, are correlated with major geological events, and on the other, the explosive nature of these events requires the formation of new approaches to constructing evolutionary scenarios based on the synthesis of classical Darwinian ideas and the theory of development of large systems, which is in good agreement with the teachings of V.I. .Vernadsky about the biosphere as a global biogeochemical system of the Earth and modern ecological-geochemical models of ecosystems of various types. All major biotic crises are correlated with major geological changes, but are prepared by the self-development of biological systems and the accumulation of ecological imbalance.
5. To what extent are photosynthesis and oxygen metabolism mandatory 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 an “energetic” prerequisite for the subsequent explosive increase in biodiversity on the planet. But in the last third of the twentieth century, the phenomenon of rapid development of life near hydrogen sulfide smokers on the ocean floor in complete darkness based on chemosynthesis was discovered and studied. Local (point) distribution of “black smokers” and their association with certain geodynamic settings of the lithosphere (mid-ocean ridges - extension zones earth's crust) are the most important limiting factors that prevent the formation on this basis of a spatial continuum of life on Earth in the form of a modern biosphere. The evolutionary potential of the endogenous sector of the biosphere is limited not only by spatial, but also by temporal restrictions - the short-lived (on the scale of geological time) discrete nature of their existence, which is interrupted by the periodic attenuation of hydrotherms, and on a global scale by lithospheric rearrangements. Paleontological data show that in the geological past the composition of the producers of these ecosystems (bacterial communities) remained virtually unchanged, and the heterotrophic population was formed by emigrants from “normal” biotopes (facultative biocenoses). The ecosystem of “black smokers” can probably be considered as a good heuristic model for solving problems: 1) the early stages of the development of life on Earth in an oxygen-free atmosphere; 2) the possibilities of life on other planets; 3) the evolutionary potential of ecosystems that exist due to endogenous and exogenous energy sources. The list of problems of the origin and evolution of life that first arose or received new coverage in the light of the latest data from biology, geology, paleontology, oceanology and other branches of natural science can be continued. However, the above problems convincingly indicate that at the present stage of development of our knowledge, the problem of interdisciplinary, systemic synthesis of this knowledge within the framework of a new paradigm, which academician N. N. Moiseev called “universal evolutionism,” comes to the fore.
6. The natural and directional nature of macroevolution allows us to raise the question of the possibility of predicting evolution. The solution to this issue is related to the analysis of the relationships between necessary and random phenomena in the evolution of organisms. As is known, in philosophy the categories of necessity and chance denote different types of connections between phenomena. The necessary connections are determined by the internal structure of interacting phenomena, their essence, and fundamental features. Against, random connections have an external nature in relation to this phenomenon, being caused by side factors not related to the essence of this phenomenon. At the same time, the random, of course, is not without cause, but its causes lie outside the cause-and-effect series that determines the essence of this phenomenon. Randomness and necessity are relative: what is random for one cause-and-effect series is necessary for another, and when conditions change, random connections can turn into necessary ones, and vice versa. A statistical pattern is the identification of necessary, i.e., internal, significant connections among numerous external random interactions.
7. Among the central problems of the modern theory of evolution, one should mention the coevolution of different species in natural communities and the evolution of the biological macrosystems themselves - biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole. Lively discussions continue about the role of neutral mutations and genetic drift in the evolution, about the relationship between adaptive and non-adaptive evolutionary changes, about the essence and causes of typogenesis and typostasis in macroevolution, the unevenness of its pace, morphophysiological progress, etc. Much remains to be done even in the most developed areas of evolutionary science - such as the theory of selection, the doctrine of biological species and speciation.
8. The urgent task of evolutionary science is to rethink and integrate the latest data and conclusions obtained in recent years in the field of molecular biology, ontogenetics and macroevolution.
Some biologists talk about the need for a “new synthesis,” emphasizing the outdatedness of the classical ideas of the synthetic theory of evolution, which is, in essence, mainly the theory of microevolution, and the need to overcome the narrow reductionist approach characteristic of it.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, first of all I will briefly outline the main provisions of modern evolutionary theory. The evolution of organisms is a process of historical transformations at all levels of organization of biological systems - from molecular to biosphere. Evolution is an inevitable consequence arising from the basic properties of organisms - reproduction and reduplication of the apparatus of heredity. In changing external conditions, these processes are inevitably accompanied by the occurrence of mutations, since the stability of any system has its limits.
The result of natural selection is the adaptive evolution of organisms. We can say that evolution is a form of existence of organisms in a changing external environment. At the same time, selection is the main driving factor of evolution, without whose participation it is impossible to realize any development potentials determined by the systemic properties of organisms. Selection drives evolution and gives evolutionary transformations the character of adaptation to changes in the external environment, and organismal guiding factors determine the specific directions and forms of evolutionary rearrangements that occur. Evolutionary science has not yet resolved the entire huge range of problems facing it and continues to develop rapidly.
In addition to the traditional generalization and rethinking of data obtained in the field of other biological sciences, its own methods. Among them, we should mention the setting up of experiments on natural populations of various species to study the action of natural selection, intra- and interspecific relationships and their evolutionary role. Similar problems are solved in model laboratory populations using population genetics methods. Methods for mathematical modeling of various evolutionary processes are being developed. Probably, in the near future, methods of genetic engineering and experimental intervention in ontogenesis will play an important role in solving evolutionary problems.
The integrating principle of modern evolutionary theory in it should be systems approach, the fruitfulness of which has already been demonstrated modern achievements in understanding the mechanisms of macroevolution. In this regard, some scientists propose to call the evolutionary theory emerging as a result of modern synthesis “systemic”. The future will tell whether this name will stick.
Bibliography:
1. Grant V. “Evolutionary process” Moscow 1991.
2. Keylow P. “Principles of Evolution” Moscow 1986.
3. Shamalguazyan I.I. “Paths and patterns of the evolutionary process” Leningrad 1986.
5. Krasilov V.A. “Unsolved problems of evolution” Vladivostok 1986.
6. Reimers N.F. "Ecology. Theories, laws, rules, principles and hypotheses." Moscow 1994
7. Kumura M. “Molecular evolution: the theory of neutrality” Moscow 1986.