Few people escaped acquaintance with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. His book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, first appeared at the end of November 1859 and quickly went through three editions.
By positing chance rather than divine design as the factor in our origin, Darwin's theory came into open confrontation with the literal understanding of the biblical account of creation. And because of one single indication of an evolutionary connection between humans and primates, it became widely ridiculed as the “monkey theory.” During an argument with Darwin's fellow evolutionary biologist Thomas Huxley, Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford asked with exquisite sarcasm: "Do you believe that you descended from an ape through your grandfather or grandmother?"
And it is true, of course, that Darwin's theory had goals hostile to religion, because it implied that life is a random process that has no other purpose than survival.
Darwin's theory rests on two fundamental points:
In nature, small, random changes in structure or function occur. Those who gain an advantage are preserved by natural selection; those who are not are discarded.
This process of evolutionary change is gradual, long-term and continuous: it is happening now just as it happened in the past. The accumulation of these small changes over long periods of time leads to the creation of new species.
This theory was certainly attractive: it had logic, simplicity, and most importantly, it seemed self-evident. Within a decade, Darwin had gained widespread and powerful scientific support that continues to this day.
Origin of species.
Darwin argued that the development of any species from its ancestor is a long and gradual process of change, which passes through an innumerable number of intermediate forms. He realized that if his theory was correct, then there must have been thousands of these intermediate forms. And moreover, he realized that the strength of his theory depended on the existence of these forms. Thus, Darwin wrote that “between all living and extinct species there must have been an inconceivable number of intermediate and transitional connections. But without a doubt, if this theory is correct, such existed on our Earth.” However, why then, he wondered, expressing his own doubts, “do we not find them innumerable in the sediments of the earth’s crust?” He was painfully aware of the lack of such fossils in geological strata, but he deceived himself and his readers: “The answer is mainly that the [fossil] data is not as complete as is commonly believed.”
Nevertheless, this fact haunted him, and he even devoted an entire chapter to it in his book, discussing the topic of “incompleteness of geological data.” Despite his strong argument, he clearly still felt some uneasiness about the situation, since he felt it necessary to express in print his belief that in "future centuries... numerous fossil connections will be discovered."
Excited by the theory and confident that by covering more geological strata containing fossil remains they would successfully eliminate this "incompleteness", geologists and paleontologists (scientists who study fossils) have made Herculean efforts to fill the gaps in the fossil record. Surprisingly, considering the enormous resources that have been deployed to solve the problem over many years, these efforts have not yielded results. Professor Gould said that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in fossil history continues to be guarded as a trade secret in paleontology." In 1978, Gould's colleague, Professor Niles Eldridge, admitted in an interview that "no one has been able to find any 'intermediate' creatures: no 'missing links' appear in the fossil evidence, and many scientists are now increasingly convinced that these transitional forms never existed." Professor Stephen Stanley writes: "In fact, there is not a single convincing case in fossil history of the transition of one species into another. Moreover, species existed for amazingly long periods of time." No one, for example, has been able to find a fossil giraffe with a medium-sized neck. If fossil history refuses to show the expected connections, what does it show? And what does she prove?
Fossil history.
Fossil history as we know it begins in the period geologists call the Cambrian, which they estimate was about 590 million years ago. A few tiny fossils have been found in rocks from earlier times: a few bacteria and some very unusual creatures unlike anything found before or since - the Ediacaran fauna, which dates back about 565 million years. But they all apparently died out soon after. It seems as if several things have been scribbled in the book of life. training exercises, then crossed out with a thick line: from that moment real evolution began - or, at least, something began.
And this something had a dramatic character: as far as the animal kingdom is concerned, everything appeared at the same time. So sudden and mysterious was the emergence of the diversity of life forms at that time that scientists, as we have seen, speak of a Cambrian explosion, which they believe occurred about 530 million years ago.
The most amazing discovery was that animals of all known forms - fossils or living today - arose then. During this period, life chose its basic forms and did not change them anymore.
Moreover, although the entire Cambrian period is thought to have lasted about 85 million years, the actual emergence of all these new forms probably took place in about 10 million years or less.
In other words, the history of life on Earth reveals about 2 percent creativity and 98 percent subsequent development.
Scientists are perplexed. Drawing our attention to the fact that "all evolutionary changes since the Cambrian have been variations on the same basic themes," Professor Jeffrey Lewintop of New York University asks, "Why are ancient forms so persistent?" He doesn't have an answer.
What emerges very clearly from the geological data is that such stability is the norm. Fossil forms of animals or plants appear, exist and develop for millions of years, and then disappear - but their structure changes little. If any changes are observed, they are gradual and limited primarily by size: the entire animal or plant increases - or its individual characteristics. It is not observed that one form changes into another, even relatively close ones: the mouse never evolved into a rat; The sparrow never became a blackbird.
Moreover, such changes appear to be of a very selective nature. A huge number of creatures living on Earth to this day have not undergone any significant changes in their structure over the entire long period of their existence. This goes against everything Darwin expected.
Oysters and bivalves now appear to have first appeared about 400 million years ago. Coelacanths and lungfishes have lived on Earth without any significant changes for about 300 million years. Sharks have maintained their current appearance for 150 million years. Sturgeon, snapping turtles, alligators and tapirs - all these species have demonstrated enviable stability of form for over 100 million years. Modern opossums differ from those that lived 65 million years ago only in the most minor ways. The first turtle had the same shell as today; the first snakes are almost no different from modern snakes; bats also remained virtually unchanged, as did frogs and salamanders.
What then, has evolution stopped? Or is there some other mechanism or factor at work?
An example often used to demonstrate evolution is the horse. It is thought to have started with a small, four-toed Hyracotherium that lived 55 million years ago and evolved into the modern Equus, which has lived for about 3 million years. Elegant and compelling diagrams and museum displays depicting progressive evolution are everywhere. horses. They skillfully demonstrate how the fingers were gradually reduced to one, how the size of the animal noticeably increased, and how the teeth changed with changes in diet.
However, experts now generally accept that this line of slow but steady transformation from a dog-sized animal to today's large horse is "mostly apocryphal." The problem is - and this is a common problem in reconstructing evolution from fossil data - that there are many gaps between the different species of fossil horse that are included in the series. Starting with the first species, Hyracotherium, whose own ancestor remains a mystery, no known connection with the supposed "second" horse, and so on. What we have is not a line of development, it is not even family tree, leading to the modern Equus, but is a huge bush, of which only the tips of its many branches are evident, and any question as to the existence of its trunk is left open. At any given time, there were several different types of horses - some with four toes, others with fewer, some with large teeth, others with small ones. The horses also first increased in size, then decreased, and then increased again. And as a constant source of irritation - the absence of uniting species. Finally, we must also recognize that the supposed ancestral horse is not all that different from the modern horse. Other than a few minor changes to the feet and teeth and an increase in size, not much has changed significantly. This very slight difference, presented as evidence of evolution, even if true, is hardly impressive compared to the 52 million years it took to do so. To put it bluntly, considering this pseudo-sequence as evidence for evolution is more an act of faith than scientific fact.
Sudden origin of species.
Fossil history is characterized by two things. The first, as we have already seen, is the stability of plant or animal forms once they have appeared. The second is the suddenness with which these forms appear and, strictly speaking, subsequently disappear.
New forms arise in fossil history without obvious ancestors; just as suddenly they disappear without leaving any obvious descendants. It can be said that practically fossil evidence represents the history of a huge chain of creations, united only by the choice of form, and not by evolutionary connections. Professor Gould sums up the situation thus: "In any particular region a species does not arise gradually by the systematic transformation of its ancestors; it appears suddenly and at once and 'fully formed.'
We can observe this process almost everywhere. When, say, about 450 million years ago, did the first fossils appear? land plants, then they arose without any signs of previous development. And yet, even in that early era, all the main varieties are present. According to the theory of evolution, this cannot be - unless we assume that none of the expected connecting forms became fossilized. Which seems highly unlikely.
It is the same with flowering plants: although the period preceding their appearance is characterized by a large variety of fossils, no forms have been found that could be their ancestors. Their origin also remains unclear.
The same anomaly is found in the animal kingdom. Fish with a backbone and a brain first appeared about 450 million years ago. Their direct ancestors are unknown. And an additional blow to evolutionary theory it turns out that these first jawless, but shell-bearing fish had a partially bony skeleton. The commonly presented picture of the evolution of a cartilaginous skeleton (as in sharks and rays) into a bony skeleton is, frankly, incorrect. In reality, these boneless fish appear 75 million years later in fossil history.
In addition, a significant step in the supposed evolution of fish was the development of jaws. However, the first jawed fish in fossil history appeared suddenly, and it is impossible to point to any earlier jawless fish as the source of its future evolution. Another oddity: lampreys - jawless fish - still exist today. If jaws provided such an evolutionary advantage, then why didn't these fish go extinct? No less mysterious is the development of amphibians - aquatic animals capable of breathing air and living on land. As he explains in his book "Beyond Natural Selection" Dr Robert Wasson:
“The stages at which fish gave birth to amphibians are unknown... the very first land animals appear with four well-developed limbs, a shoulder and pelvic girdle, ribs and a distinct head... Several million years later, over 320 million years ago, in fossil history suddenly reveals a dozen orders of amphibians, none of which appears to be the ancestor of any other."
Mammals demonstrate the same suddenness and rapidity of development. The earliest mammals were small animals that lived secretive lives during the era of dinosaurs - 100 million or more years ago. Then, after the mysterious and still unexplained extinction of the latter (about 65 million years ago), a dozen or so groups of mammals appear in fossil history at the same time - about 55 million years ago. Among the fossils of this period are fossilized specimens of bears, lions and bats that have a modern appearance. And what further complicates the picture is that they appear not in one particular area, but simultaneously in Asia, South America and South Africa. To top it all off, there is no certainty that the small mammals of the dinosaur era were indeed the ancestors of later mammals.
The entire fossil history is replete with gaps and mysteries. There are no known fossil connections, for example, between the first vertebrates and the primitive creatures of an earlier period - the chordates - which are considered the ancestors of vertebrates. The amphibians that exist today are strikingly different from the first known amphibians, with a 100-million-year gap in fossil history between these ancient and later forms. It seems that Darwin's theory of evolution is literally crumbling into dust before our eyes. It is probably possible to somehow save Darwin's idea of “natural selection,” but only in a significantly modified form. It is clear that there is no evidence of the development of any new forms of plants or animals. Only when the living form has appeared, then only perhaps natural selection plays its role. But it only works on what already exists.
Not only scientists, but also college and university students conduct breeding experiments on the fruit fly, Drosophila. They are told that they are demonstrating clear evidence of evolution. They create mutations of the species, giving her different colored eyes, a leg growing out of her head, or perhaps a double thorax. Perhaps they even manage to grow a fly with four wings instead of the usual two. However, these changes are only a modification of already existing species characteristics of the fly: four wings, for example, are nothing more than doubling the original two. Never managed to create any new internal organ, how it was impossible to turn a fruit fly into something resembling a bee or a butterfly. It is not even possible to transform it into another type of fly. As always, it remains a member of the genus Drosophila. "Natural selection may explain the origin of adaptive changes, but it cannot explain the origin of species." And even this limited application faces problems.
How, for example, is natural selection able to explain the fact that humans, the only species of living beings, have different groups blood? How can he explain that one of the earliest known fossil species, a trilobite from the Cambrian period, has an eye so complex and so efficient that it has not been surpassed by any later member of its phylum? And how could feathers have evolved? Dr. Barbara Stahl, the author of an academic work on evolution, admits: “How they arose, presumably from the scales of reptiles, is beyond analysis.”
Even at the very beginning, Darwin realized that he was faced with deep problems. The development of complex organs, for example, undermined his theory to the utmost. For until such an organ began to function, why should natural selection encourage its development? As Professor Gould asks: "What is the use of imperfect rudimentary stages that give advantage to structures? What is the use of half a jaw or half a wing?" Or perhaps half an eye? The same question arose somewhere in Darwin's mind. In 1860, he admitted to a colleague: “The eye still gives me a cold shiver.” And no wonder.
Wrong evolution.
The problems with fossil data have been known from the beginning. For a century or more, scientists simply hoped that the problems were temporary and that discoveries would be made to fill the gaps. Or perhaps some evidence will be found that the cause of these gaps is not problems with evolution, but rather irregularities in the geological process. Eventually, however, patience began to run out. The consensus in the scientific world was broken in 1972, when Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge presented a joint paper at a conference on evolution that was revolutionary. Their report directly refuted Darwin's theory.
They argued that although the fossil record is certainly not satisfactory, the observed sudden appearance of new species is not evidence of incompleteness of the fossil record - on the contrary, it reflects reality. The origin of species may not have been a gradual evolutionary process, but one in which long periods of stability were occasionally punctuated by sudden, large-scale changes in living forms. With this argument Gould and Eldredge could explain the absence of " missing links": they argued that they simply did not exist. However well this idea may explain fossil history, it is still based on the idea that the development of life is random, random. However, it can be demonstrated that evolution , no matter how it occurred, was unlikely to be a random process.
The developmental programs for plant and animal forms are contained in the genetic code. This code is very complex, and the number of variations that could be involved is enormous. Could this code have evolved randomly? A simple look at the numbers shows that this could not have happened. If, for example, a monkey sat at a typewriter, randomly tapping the keys every second, how long would it take for the monkey - by chance - to come up with a meaningful word of twelve letters? For this it would have taken almost 17 million years.
How long would it take for the same monkey to - by chance - come up with a meaningful sentence of 100 letters - a chain of signs much less complex than the genetic code? The likelihood of this happening is so low that the odds against it are greater than total number atoms throughout the Universe. In fact, we should talk about the impossibility of a meaningful sequence of 100 characters being obtained by chance. It remains to be concluded that it is equally impossible that a complex genetic code of life could be obtained by chance, as required by the theory of evolution.
Astronomer Fred Hoyle, with his characteristic accuracy, wrote that the probability of an accidental creation higher forms life is like the possibility that “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a Boeing 747.”
And in this case, if the genetic code was not created by a random process, then it must be assumed that it was created by a non-random process. Where could this thought lead us?
Guided evolution. In 1991, Wasson's book Beyond Natural Selection provided a new and powerful challenge to official science. He dismissed attachment to Darwinian evolution as “an indulgence in the ancient dream of a universe like a vast clockwork.” Wasson points out that one cannot consider any animal in isolation. He invites us to take a broader view: “Organisms evolve as part of a community, that is, as an ecosystem... which inevitably evolves together. Rather, we should talk not about the origin of species, but about the development of ecosystems...”
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after. K.D. Ushinsky
according to the concept of modern natural science.
Subject:
"The main problems of the theory of evolution."
Female students:
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 to the 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 a long history, but 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 the evolution of the 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 of the environment, to which organisms adapt due to the ability inherent in them to respond expediently to external influences, and 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 the recognition of hereditary variability of organisms was not yet enough 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 various types of organisms in nature is very large, 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 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 beneficial individual differences or changes and the destruction of harmful changes, neutral in their value (not useful and harmless), not subject to the action of selection, but representing 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 vision. 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 his 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. At the same time, the polar bear stands on the same high level organizations, like 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 usually present general outline how they could have formed in the process of 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. Creationists believe that the hereditary information of living organisms was created by God during creation, and can only be lost later.
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 basis creative activity completely natural processes lie within the human mind.
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 modern understanding evolution is a series of successive changes with a historically 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 is 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), bearing 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 is 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 as a breeding ground for claims that the ultimate truth is inaccessible 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 of the 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 the entire variety of 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 spasmodic emergence of the new, and the theory of evolution due to sharp deviations in individual development, pushed into the background by the synthetic theory, will again be in the spotlight. 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. In the past, and especially in recent years, there have been 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 the theory of the development of 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 an oxygen atmosphere necessary conditions for the 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 theory “ big bang“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 the existing methods for calculating the mass of living matter for past geological eras based on the amount of fossilized organic matter do not take into account the balance relationships between 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 of organization of biosystems from molecular to genetic to biospheric)? There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the 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, determined by the internal features of the 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 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, the full development of life forms that occupied all the main biotopes on Earth occurred later, when the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere and hydrosphere increased significantly and the ozone screen began to stabilize. 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. The local (point) distribution of “black smokers” and their association with certain geodynamic settings of the lithosphere (mid-ocean ridges - zones of extension of the 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 are beginning to take shape. 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.
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after. 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. It gave birth to the 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 a long history, but discussion of these issues until recently was the subject of philosophical reflection. Only in recent decades has the solution to these questions been put on an experimental basis and the answer to many of them has been 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 species was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of structure in a number of organisms, about the diversity 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 the evolution of the 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 of the environment, to which organisms adapt due to the ability inherent in them to respond expediently to external influences, and 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.
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.
We are talking with the winner of the Enlightenment Prize, Doctor of Biological Sciences, 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 of 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 the modern theory of 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 the basis 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 English language, in which Darwin wrote, these are 2 different words: monkeys are a monkey-like ape, 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". Common ancestor 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 - says 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: “Sire, I do not 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 specially create for each island on each island of the Galapagos archipelago separate species of finches with just such a beak, or with some other 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 is 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.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
ABSTRACT
Problems of evolution
Maintaining
evolution lamarck darwin
Evolution is gradual change complex systems in time. Biological evolution is a hereditary change in the properties and characteristics of living organisms over a series of generations. In the course of biological evolution, coordination is achieved and constantly maintained between the properties of living organisms and the environmental conditions in which they live. Since conditions are constantly changing, including as a result of the vital activity of the organisms themselves, and only those individuals that are best adapted to life in changed environmental conditions survive and reproduce, the properties and characteristics of living beings are constantly changing. Living conditions on Earth are infinitely varied, so the adaptation of organisms to life in these different conditions has given rise to a fantastic diversity of life forms during the course of evolution.
The theory of evolution occupies the main position in modern natural science and biology, uniting all its areas and being their common
theoretical basis. An indicator of the scientific maturity of specific biological sciences is: 1) contribution to the theory of evolution; 2) the degree to which the latter’s findings are used in their scientific practice (for setting problems, analyzing the data obtained and constructing particular theories). Also, the theory of evolution has the most important general ideological significance: a certain attitude towards the problems of evolution of the organic world characterizes various general philosophical concepts (both materialistic and idealistic).
The founders of evolutionary biology as a separate independent science are considered to be Jean Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin, who were the first to address the theory of evolution.
1 . EtcOproblems of the evolution of living organisms
The problems with the evolution of living organisms lie in the theories of evolution themselves, that is, in errors of reasoning.
According to Lamarck's theory, plants and lower animals are directly exposed to the environment and transformed. On higher animals, the environment acts indirectly: a change in external conditions - a change in opportunities - a change in habit - the active functioning of some organs and their development - loss of activity of other organs and their death.
But Lamarck's reasoning contained an error, which consisted in a simple fact: acquired characteristics are not inherited. IN late XIX V. German biologist August Weismann conducted a famous experiment - he cut off the tails of experimental mice for 22 generations. And yet, newborn mice had tails no shorter than their ancestors.
Overall, Lamarck's theory was ahead of its time and was rejected by the scientific community. But then he gained many followers. Neo-Lamarckists of various directions formed the striking fist of opponents of the developments of Charles Darwin111111
The following problems can also be identified:
1) How did life originate on earth? The method of natural evolution of the inorganic world or it was brought from Space - the theory of Panspermia.
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 C12/C13 is practically no different from that in modern living substance; 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.
2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive single-celled life forms on Earth. 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).
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 oils 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.
3. Did conditions exist on the primitive Earth that were favorable to the evolutionary complexity of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell? What is their nature, when did they arise and whether they continue to operate to this day.
The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization (molecular, gene, cellular, multicellular, organismal, population) and the conditions for its implementation. In general, 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 the autogenetic (emergent) and external (living environment) remain unclear ) origin. 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.
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 of organization of biosystems from molecular to genetic to biospheric). There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the 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. What is the immanent essence, due to the internal features of the organization and evolution of biosystems, or due to external reasons.
According to geological data, the massive development of highly organized life forms Metazoa (with muscle tissue, food tract, etc.) 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
2 . Evevolutionary theory of life on earth
The history of evolutionary theory is extremely interesting in itself, since it concentrated the struggle of ideas in all areas of biology.
Evolutionary biology, like any other science, has gone through a long and winding path of development. Various hypotheses arose and were tested. Most hypotheses did not stand up to the test of facts, and only a few of them became theories, inevitably changing in the process.
The problem of the origin of life began to interest man in ancient times. Scientists such as Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Aristotle were involved in the development of ideas about the origin of living beings.
Among them, Heraclitus of Ephesus (late 6th - early 5th century BC) is known as the creator of the concept of perpetual motion and changeability of everything that exists. According to the ideas of Empedocles (c. 490 - c. 430 BC), organisms were formed from initial chaos in the process of random combination of individual structures, and unsuccessful options died, and harmonious combinations were preserved (a kind of naive idea of selection as the guiding force of development ). The author of the atomistic concept of the structure of the world, Democritus (c. 460 - c. 370 BC), believed that organisms can adapt to changes in the external environment. Finally, Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 95-55 BC) in his famous poem “On the Nature of Things” expressed thoughts about the changeability of the world and the spontaneous generation of life.
Of the philosophers of antiquity, Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoyed the greatest fame and authority among naturalists in subsequent eras (in particular, during the Middle Ages). Aristotle did not support, at least in a sufficiently clear form, the idea of 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 species was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of the structure in a number of organisms, about the diversity of forms of causality (Aristotle identified 4 series of causes: material , formal, producing, or driving, and goal).
The era of Late Antiquity and especially the Middle Ages that followed it became a time of stagnation in the development of natural historical ideas 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.
As science developed, data began to accumulate that contradicted this idea of antiquity. Fossil remains of ancient animals and plants were found, similar to modern ones, but at the same time differing from them in many structural features. This could indicate that modern views- These are modified descendants of long-extinct species. An amazing similarity was discovered in the structure and characteristics of individual development of different species of animals. This similarity indicated that different species had common ancestors in the distant past.
One of the significant steps towards the emergence of evolutionary biology was the work of Carl Linnaeus. The famous Swedish botanist and naturalist Carl Linnaeus analyzed the existing classifications of plants and animals, himself carefully studied their species composition and as a result developed his own system, the foundations of which were outlined in the works “System of Nature”, “Genera of Plants”, “Species of Plants”. The classic work “The System of Nature” (1735) was reprinted 12 times during the author’s lifetime alone; it was widely known and had an impact big influence on the development of science in the 18th century. As the basis of classification, Linnaeus adopted the species, which he considered as a real and elementary unit of living nature. He described about 10 thousand species of plants (including 1500 species discovered by him) and 4200 species of animals. The scientist combined similar species into genera, similar genera into orders, and orders into classes.
The system of living nature developed by the great Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus was built on the principle of similarity, but it had a hierarchical structure and suggested kinship between closely related species of living organisms. Analyzing these facts, scientists came to the conclusion about the variability of species. Such views were expressed in the 18th century. and at the beginning of the 19th century. J. Buffon, W. Goethe, K. Baer, Erasmus Darwin - the grandfather of Charles Darwin, etc. In particular, Georges Buffon expressed progressive ideas about the variability of species under the influence of environmental conditions (climate, nutrition, etc.), and the Russian naturalist Karl Maksimovich Baer, studying the embryonic development of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, established that the embryos of higher animals do not resemble the adult forms of lower ones, but are similar only to their embryos; in the process of embryonic development, characters of type, class, order, family, genus and species appear successively (Beer's laws). However, none of these scientists offered a satisfactory explanation for why or how species changed.
Thus, the theory of evolution occupies a special place in the study of the history of life. It has become the unifying theory that serves as the foundation for all biology.
3. Lamarck's theory of evolution
The first attempt to build a holistic concept of the development of the organic world was made by the French naturalist J.B. Lamarck. In his work “Philosophy of Zoology” Lamarck summarized all biological knowledge early XIX V. He developed the foundations of the natural taxonomy of animals and for the first time substantiated a holistic theory of the evolution of the organic world, the progressive historical development of plants and animals.
Lamarck's evolutionary theory was based on the idea of development, gradual and slow, from simple to complex, taking into account the role of the external environment in the transformation of organisms. Lamarck believed that the first spontaneously generated organisms gave rise to the entire variety of organic forms that exist today. By this time, the idea of a “ladder of living beings” as a sequential series of independent, unchanging forms created by the Creator had already become quite firmly established in science. He saw in the gradation of these forms a reflection of the history of life, the real process of development of some forms from others. The development from the simplest to the most advanced organisms is the main content of the history of the organic world. Man is also part of this story, he developed from monkeys.
Lamarck considered the main reason for evolution to be the inherent desire in living nature to complicate and self-improvement of its organization. It manifests itself in the innate ability of each individual to increase the complexity of the organism. He called the second factor of evolution the influence of the external environment: as long as it does not change, species are constant, as soon as it becomes different, species also begin to change. At the same time, Lamarck, at a higher level than his predecessors, developed the problem of unlimited variability of living forms under the influence of living conditions: nutrition, climate, soil characteristics, moisture, temperature, etc.
Based on the level of organization of living beings, Lamarck identified two forms of variability:
1) direct - direct variability of plants and lower animals under the influence of environmental conditions;
2) indirect - variability of higher animals that have developed nervous system, perceiving the impact of living conditions and developing habits, means of self-preservation and protection.
Having shown the origin of variability, Lamarck analyzed the second factor of evolution - heredity. He noted that individual changes, if they are repeated in a number of generations, during reproduction are inherited by descendants and become characteristics of the species. At the same time, if some organs of animals develop, then others, not involved in the process of change, atrophy. So, for example, as a result of exercise, the giraffe acquired a long neck, because the giraffe’s ancestors, feeding on tree leaves, reached for them and in each generation the neck and legs grew. Thus, Lamarck suggested that the changes that plants and animals acquire during life are hereditarily fixed and passed on to their descendants. At the same time, the offspring continues to develop in the same direction, and one species turns into another.
Lamarck believed that the historical development of organisms is not random, but natural in nature and occurs in the direction of gradual and steady improvement, increasing general level organizations. In addition, he analyzed in detail the prerequisites for evolution and formulated the main directions of the evolutionary process and the causes of evolution. He also developed the problem of variability of species under the influence of natural causes, showed the importance of time and environmental conditions in evolution, which he considered as a manifestation of the general law of the development of nature. Lamarck's merit is that he was the first to propose a genealogical classification of animals, based on the principles of relatedness of organisms, and not just their similarity.
The essence of Lamarck's theory is that animals and plants were not always the way we see them now. He proved that they developed due to the natural laws of nature, following the evolution of the entire organic world. Lamarckism is characterized by two main methodological features:
1) teleologism as the inherent desire for improvement in organisms;
2) organismcentrism - recognition of the organism as an elementary unit of evolution, directly adapting to changes in external conditions and transmitting these changes to inheritance.
From point of view modern science These provisions are fundamentally incorrect; they are refuted by the facts and laws of genetics. In addition, the evidence for the reasons for the variability of species given by Lamarck was not convincing enough. Therefore, Lamarck's theory was not recognized by his contemporaries. But it was not refuted; it was only forgotten for a while in order to return to its ideas in the second half of the 19th century, placing them as the basis for all anti-Darwinian concepts.
4. Darwin's theory of evolution
The idea of gradual and continuous change in all species of plants and animals was expressed by many scientists long before Darwin. Therefore, the very concept of evolution - a process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, ultimately leading to fundamental, qualitative changes - the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and species, penetrated science as early as late XVIII V. However, it was Darwin who created a completely new doctrine of living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one coherent theory of evolution. Based on vast factual material and the practice of breeding work to develop new varieties of plants and animal breeds, he formulated the main provisions of his theory, which he outlined in the book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” in 1859 under the name of the theory of natural selection. This theory is one of the pinnacles of scientific thought of the 19th century. However, its significance goes far beyond the boundaries of its century and beyond the boundaries of 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.
Darwin came to the conclusion that in nature, any species of animals and plants tends to reproduce in geometric progression. At the same time, the number of adults of each species remains relatively constant. Thus, a female cod lays seven million eggs, of which only 2% survive. Consequently, in nature there is a struggle for existence, as a result of which traits that are useful for the organism and the species as a whole accumulate, and new species and varieties are formed. The remaining organisms die under unfavorable environmental conditions. Thus, the struggle for existence is a set of diverse, complex relationships that exist between organisms and environmental conditions.
In the struggle for existence, only those individuals survive and leave offspring that have a complex of characteristics and properties that allow them to compete most successfully with other individuals. Thus, in nature there is a process of selective destruction of some individuals and preferential reproduction of others, i.e. natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
When environmental conditions change, some other signs may turn out to be useful for survival than before. As a result, the direction of selection changes, the structure of the species is rebuilt, and thanks to reproduction, new characteristics are widely distributed - the new kind. Useful traits are preserved and passed on to subsequent generations, since in living nature there is a factor of heredity that ensures the stability of species.
However, in nature it is impossible to find two identical, completely identical organisms. All the diversity of living nature is the result of the process of variability, i.e. transformations of organisms under the influence of the external environment.
So, Darwin's concept is built on the recognition of objectively existing processes as factors and causes of the development of living things. The main driving factors of evolution are variability, heredity and natural selection.
The first link in evolution is variability.
It refers to the diversity of characteristics and properties in individuals and groups of individuals of any degree of kinship. Inherent in all living organisms. The phenomena of heredity and variability underlie evolution
Variability is an integral property of living things. Due to the variability of characters and properties, even in the offspring of one pair of parents, identical individuals are almost never found. The more carefully and deeply one studies nature, the more one becomes convinced of the general universal nature of variability. In nature, it is impossible to find two completely identical, identical organisms. Under favorable conditions, these differences may not have a noticeable effect on the development of organisms, but under unfavorable conditions, every smallest difference can become decisive in whether this organism will remain alive and produce offspring or die.
Darwin distinguished between two types of variability: 1) hereditary (uncertain) and 2) non-hereditary (definite).
A certain (group) variability is understood as a similar change in all individuals of the offspring in one direction due to the influence of certain conditions (changes in growth depending on the quantity and quality of food, changes in skin thickness and coat density due to climate change, etc.).
Indefinite (individual) variability is understood as the appearance of various minor differences in individuals of the same species, by which one individual differs from others. Subsequently, “uncertain” changes were called mutations, and “definite” changes were called modifications.
The next factor in evolution is heredity - the ability of organisms to ensure the continuity of characteristics and properties between generations, as well as to determine the nature of the development of the organism in specific environmental conditions. This property is not absolute: children are never exact copies of their parents, but only wheat always grows from wheat seeds, etc. In the process of reproduction, it is not traits that are transmitted from generation to generation, but a code of hereditary information that determines only the possibility of developing future traits within a certain range. It is not a trait that is inherited, but the norm of reaction of the developing individual to the action of the external environment.
Darwin analyzed in detail the significance of heredity in the evolutionary process and showed that variability and heredity alone do not explain the emergence of new breeds of animals, plant varieties, or their fitness, since the variability of different characteristics of organisms occurs in a wide variety of directions. Each organism is the result of interaction between the genetic program of its development and the conditions for its implementation.
Considering issues of variability and heredity, Darwin drew attention to the complex relationship between the organism and the environment, to different shapes the dependence of plants and animals on living conditions and their adaptation to unfavorable conditions. He called such various forms of dependence of organisms on environmental conditions and other living beings the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence, according to Darwin, is the totality of relationships of organisms of a given species with each other, with other types of living organisms and non-living environmental factors.
The struggle for existence means all forms of manifestation of the activity of a given type of organism, aimed at maintaining the life of its offspring. Darwin identified three main forms of struggle for existence: 1) interspecific, 2) intraspecific and 3) struggle with unfavorable environmental conditions.
Examples of interspecific struggle in nature are common and well known to everyone. It is most clearly manifested in the struggle between predators and herbivores. Herbivores can survive and leave offspring only if they manage to avoid predators and are provided with food. But different species of mammals also feed on vegetation, as well as insects and mollusks. And here a situation arises: what one got, the other didn’t get. Therefore, in interspecific struggle, the success of one species means the failure of another.
Intraspecific struggle means competition between individuals of the same species, whose needs for food, territory and other living conditions are the same. Darwin considered intraspecific struggle to be the most intense. Therefore, in the process of evolution, populations have developed various adaptations that reduce the severity of competition: marking boundaries, threatening poses, etc.
The fight against unfavorable environmental conditions is expressed in the desire of living organisms to survive sudden changes in weather conditions. In this case, only the individuals most adapted to the changed conditions survive. They form a new population, which generally contributes to the survival of the species. In the struggle for existence, individuals and individuals who have a complex of characteristics and properties that allow them to successfully withstand unfavorable environmental conditions survive and leave offspring.
However, Darwin's main merit in creating the theory of evolution lies in the fact that he developed the doctrine of natural selection as the leading and directing factor of evolution. Natural selection, according to Darwin, is a set of changes occurring in nature that ensure the survival of the most adapted individuals and the predominance of their offspring, as well as the selective destruction of organisms that are unadapted to existing or changed environmental conditions.
In the process of natural selection, organisms adapt, i.e. they develop the necessary adaptations to the conditions of existence. As a result of competition between different species that have similar vital needs, less adapted species become extinct. Improving the mechanism of adaptation of organisms leads to the fact that the level of their organization gradually becomes more complex and thus the evolutionary process is carried out. At the same time, Darwin paid attention to such characteristics natural selection, as the gradual and slow process of change and the ability to summarize these changes into large, decisive causes leading to the formation of new species.
Based on the fact that natural selection operates among diverse and unequal individuals, it is considered as a combined interaction of hereditary variability, preferential survival and reproduction of individuals and groups of individuals better adapted than others to given conditions of existence. Therefore, the doctrine of natural selection as the driving and guiding factor in the historical development of the organic world is central to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for existence and hereditary variability of organisms. According to Darwin, natural selection is the most important creative force that directs the evolutionary process and naturally determines the emergence of adaptations of organisms, progressive evolution and an increase in the diversity of species.
The emergence of adaptations organisms to the conditions of their existence, which gives the structure of living beings the features of “expediency”, is a direct result of natural selection, since its very essence is differentiated survival and the preferential leaving of offspring by precisely those individuals who, due to their individual characteristics, are better adapted to the surrounding 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).
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.
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. The importance of reproductive function is self-evident; therefore, in some cases, even the very preservation of a given organism may take a back seat to its leaving offspring. For the conservation of a species, the life of a given individual is important only insofar as it participates (directly or indirectly) in the process of reproduction of generations. Sexual selection acts on traits associated with various aspects of this most important function (mutual detection of individuals of the opposite sex, sexual stimulation of a partner, competition between individuals of the same sex when choosing a sexual partner, etc.)
5 . Cotemporary evolutionary teachings
The doctrine of evolution is a broad interdisciplinary field of biology, which includes several large sections that are currently developed to varying degrees. The first such section is the history of the emergence and development of evolutionary ideas. Concepts and hypotheses. This section has important general educational and methodological significance, since without history it is impossible to understand modernity.
Another section of evolutionary teaching is private phylogenetics. Its content is to reconstruct the paths of historical development of each group of living organisms. Taken together, these developmental paths of groups constitute the phylogenetic tree of life. Despite the enormous achievements in this area, many important details remain unclear, ranging from the problems of the origin of life to the extremely particular, from the point of view of the phylogeny of all living things, but important for the development of matter in general, the emergence of a thinking being - homo sapiens.
The basis of the modern theory of evolution is the problems of micro- and macroevolution. These are two sides of a single and continuous process of evolution, which are separated, however, quite naturally along the lines of speciation and the difference already noted above in the methodological approaches to their study. Theoretical developments in these areas form the foundation of modern evolutionary theory.
The modern theory of evolution is a synthetic science based on all the sciences of the biological complex. The modern theory of evolution is based on Darwin's teachings about the origin of life, the emergence of diversity in living nature, adaptation and expediency in living organisms, the emergence of man, the emergence of breeds and varieties. Modern Darwinism is often called neo-Darwinism, a synthetic theory of evolution. It is more correct to call the science that studies the process of evolution of the organic world evolutionary theory.
Since the 60s of the 20th century it has become increasingly clear. That the theory of the evolution of the organic world remains incomplete without knowledge of a large section concerning the laws of evolution of biogeocenoses. However, not based on factual material. Based on theoretical developments, this direction cannot yet be named among the studied sections of modern evolutionary teaching. This is an important task for the future.
In modern evolutionary studies, three main areas of research into the evolutionary process have emerged:
1) molecular biology (analysis of molecular evolution, i.e. processes of evolutionary transformations of biological macromolecules, primarily nucleic acids and proteins, by molecular biology methods);
2) genetic-ecological (studies of microevolution, i.e. transformations of gene pools of populations, and speciation processes, as well as the evolution of biological macrosystems - biocenoses and the biosphere as a whole - using the methods of population genetics, ecology, systematics, phenetics);
3) evolutionary-morphological (the study of macroevolution - evolutionary rearrangements of entire organisms and their ontogenies using the methods of paleontology, comparative anatomy and embryology).
Modern evolutionary teaching is based on the foundation of the achievements of genetics, which revealed the material nature of heredity. From this perspective, the evolving unit is not an individual or a species, but a population, i.e. a collection of individuals of the same species that inhabit a certain territory for a long time and freely interbreed with each other. The basis of hereditary changes in a population is mutational variability as a consequence of sudden mutations - hereditary changes in the genetic apparatus. Mutations can occur in any cell, at any stage of development, both under normal conditions of existence (spontaneous mutations) and under the influence of any physical or chemical factors (induced mutations). Consequently, from a modern point of view, the driving factors of evolution are mutagenesis (i.e., the process of formation of mutations) and natural selection. The latter makes it possible to survive for organisms whose mutational changes provide the greatest adaptability to specific environmental conditions. In elucidating the role of mutations in the evolutionary process, the works of Soviet scientists S.S. played a major role. Chetverikova, N.I. Vavilova, I.I. Schmalhausen.
One of the main places in modern evolutionary teaching is occupied by genetic analysis of human populations. The uniqueness of their genetics is that natural selection has lost its role as a leading factor in human evolution. However, the importance of genetics for humans is extremely great, since it occupies a key place in the analysis of the spread of hereditary diseases, in assessing the effect of radiation and other physical and chemical effects on the genetic apparatus.
The further development of evolutionary teaching is associated primarily with the successes of population genetics, which studies the transformation of genetic systems in the process of historical development of organisms. The latest advances in molecular biology allow us to take a fresh look at the mechanism of evolution. The discovery of the molecular mechanisms underlying mutagenesis, the study of the problem of the deployment of genetic information in the process of ontogenesis, and the patterns of phylogenesis have prepared the ground for a new qualitative leap in the development of evolutionary teaching and all biology in general. Thus, evolutionary teaching is the main weapon of materialist biologists, who are constantly enriched with new factual and theoretical data, developing as their knowledge of living nature deepens.
Conclusion
Modern evolutionary theory was developed on the basis of the theory of Charles Darwin. Concept by Zh.B. Lamarck is currently considered unscientific. Lamarckism in any of its forms does not explain either progressive evolution or the emergence of adaptation (adaptations) of organisms, since “the desire for progress”, “evolution based on patterns”, “the original ability of organisms to respond appropriately”, “assimilation of environmental conditions” and other similar concepts replace scientific analysis by postulating certain metaphysical properties supposedly inherent in living matter. However, the importance of Lamarck’s theory cannot be denied, since it was the scientific controversy with the conclusions and concepts of the French naturalist that was the impetus for the emergence of Charles Darwin’s theory.
The conclusions of the English scientist were also subjected to further criticism and detailed revision, which was caused primarily by the fact that many factors, mechanisms and patterns of the evolutionary process unknown at the time of Darwin were identified and new ideas were formed that differed significantly from Darwin’s classical theory.
However, there is no doubt that the modern theory of evolution is a development of Darwin's basic ideas, which remain relevant and productive to this day.
Bibliography
1. N.N. Jordan textbook on the theory of evolution. "The Evolution of Life". M.: Academy, 2001. - 425 p.
2. Gulyaev S.A., Zhukovsky V.M., Komov S.V. "Fundamentals of Natural Science", Ekaterinburg, 1997
3. Dubnischeva T.Ya. “Concepts of modern natural science”, Novosibirsk, “UKEA Publishing House”, 1997.
4. Petrovsky B.V. "Popular medical encyclopedia", M., "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1997.
5. Haken G. “Synergetics”, M.: Mir, 1980.
6. Berdnikov V.A. Evolution and progress. Novosibirsk, “Science”, 1991.
7. Ratner V.A. and others. Problems of the theory of molecular evolution. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1985.
8. Raff R., Coffman T. Embryos, genes and evolution. - M.: Mir, 1986.
9. A.P. Sadokhin. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2006.
10. Darwin Ch. On the origin of species through natural selection or the preservation of favorable breeds in the struggle for life. - Works, vol. 3 - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1939.
11. Karpenko S.Kh. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities. - M.: Academic Avenue, 2000. - 639 p.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The mystery of the appearance of life on Earth. The evolution of the origin of life on Earth and the essence of the concepts of evolutionary chemistry. Analysis biochemical evolution theories of Academician Oparin. Stages of the process that led to the emergence of life on Earth. Problems in the theory of evolution.
abstract, added 03/23/2012
Origins of evolutionary teaching: M.V. Lomonosov, N.A. Severtsov. Evolutionary studies of Charles Darwin. Fundamentals, background and driving forces evolution according to Charles Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Darwin. K.F. Roulier and his genetic laws.
abstract, added 01/16/2008
Prerequisites for the creation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Evolutionary studies of Charles Darwin. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Charles Darwin. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Charles Darwin. The main results of evolution (according to Charles Darwin).
abstract, added 03/29/2003
Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Charles Darwin. The concept of variability and its forms. Definition of the general theory of evolution and the circumstances of its appearance. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Charles Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Charles Darwin.
test, added 02/14/2009
Characteristics of general ideas about evolution and the basic properties of living things, which are important for understanding the patterns of evolution of the organic world on Earth. Generalization of hypotheses and theories of the origin of life and stages of evolution of biological forms and species.
course work, added 01/27/2010
Comparison of basic definitions of the concept “life”. Analysis of the problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. general characteristics modern theories the origin of life, as well as the process of evolution of its forms. The essence of the basic laws of biological evolution.
course work, added 10/04/2010
The main feature of the organization of living matter. The process of evolution of living and nonliving systems. The laws underlying the emergence of all life forms according to Darwin. Molecular genetic level of living organisms. Progression of reproduction, natural selection.
abstract, added 04/24/2015
abstract, added 11/19/2010
The first classification of living organisms proposed by Carl Linnaeus. Three stages of the Great Biological Unifications. The concept of evolution of the organic world by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The main prerequisites for the emergence of Darwin's theory. The concept of natural selection.
abstract, added 09/06/2013
The problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. Modeling as a method of natural science research. Discovery of the principle of uniformitarianism by Charles Lyel. The doctrine of Charles Darwin about the factors of evolution through natural selection, modern ideas about it.