Who created the first theory of the evolution of living organisms. Evolution theory. General characteristics of evidence for the evolution of the organic world

The idea of ​​the development of living nature - the idea of ​​evolution - can be traced in the works of ancient materialists in India, China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. In India, there were philosophical schools that defended the ideas of the development of the material world (including the organic) from “primordial matter.” Even more ancient texts of the Ayur-Veda claim that man descended from monkeys who lived about 18 million years ago (when translated into modern chronology on the continent that united Hindustan and southeast Asia. About 4 million years ago, the ancestors of modern people, supposedly switched to collective food acquisition, which gave them the opportunity to stock up. Modern man, according to these ideas, appeared a little less than 1 million years ago. Of course, these were only brilliant guesses based on excellent knowledge of the anatomy of humans and animals.

In China 2 thousand years BC. e. selection of cattle, horses and ornamental plants was carried out. At the end of the 1st millennium BC. e. there was a classification of plants (stone fruits, legumes, succulents, creeping plants, shrubs, etc.). At the same time, teachings about the possibility of transforming some living beings into others during the process of evolution were widespread in China. Close ties between countries Ancient world made this knowledge available to philosophers in the Mediterranean countries, where they received further development. In Aristotle (IV century BC) we already encounter a coherent system of views on the development of living nature, based on an analysis of the general plan of the structure of higher animals, homology and correlation of organs. Aristotle's fundamental works “On the Parts of Animals”, “History of Animals”, “On the Origin of Animals” had a great influence on the subsequent development of biology.

However, despite the external similarity of the ancient and our ideas, the views of the ancient thinkers had the character of abstract speculative doctrines.

Decline of knowledge in the Middle Ages.

After almost two thousand years of development of knowledge in the Ancient World - China, India, Egypt, Greece - the dark Middle Ages, the “dark night for natural science,” began in Europe for many centuries. People were burned at the stake not only for expressing the idea of ​​​​the development of nature, but also for reading the books of ancient naturalists and philosophers. The forced introduction of faith into science turns the latter into an appendage of religion.

Church teachings allotted about 6 thousand years for the entire development of the world; for centuries it has been preserved as the official point of view about the creation of the world by the Lord God in 4004 BC. e. The study of nature was effectively prohibited; hundreds of talented scientists, thousands and thousands of ancient books were destroyed during this time. In Spain alone, about 35 thousand people were burned at the stake of the Inquisition and more than 300 thousand were tortured. The last official fire of the Inquisition burned in 1826. Of course, during these years there was an accumulation of natural science knowledge (in monasteries and universities).

The spread of the ideas of evolutionism during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

The Middle Ages are replaced by the Renaissance (XV-XVI centuries). With its onset, the works of ancient naturalists began to spread again. The books of Aristotle and other ancient authors come to European countries from North Africa and Spain in translations from Arabic. As a result of the development of trade and navigation, knowledge about the diversity of the organic world is rapidly growing, and an inventory of flora and fauna is taking place. In the 16th century the first multi-volume descriptions of the animal and plant world appear, anatomy achieves brilliant successes, in the 17th century. W. Harvey creates the doctrine of blood circulation, and R. Hooke, M. Malpighi and others lay the foundations of microscopy and the study of the cellular structure of organisms. Growing natural science knowledge needed systematization and generalization. The first stage of the process of systematization of biological knowledge ends in the 18th century. the works of the great Swedish naturalist C. Linnaeus (1707-1778).

The ideas of evolution are beginning to be seen more and more clearly in the works of naturalists and philosophers. Even G. Leibniz (1646-1716) proclaimed the principle of gradation of living beings and predicted the existence of transitional forms between plants and animals. The principle of gradation was further developed in the idea of ​​a “ladder of creatures,” which for some became an expression of ideal continuity in structure, and for others - proof of the transformation, evolution of living nature. In 1749, the multi-volume “Natural History” by J. Buffon began to be published, in which he substantiates the hypothesis about the past development of the Earth. In his opinion, it covers 80-90 thousand years, but only in recent periods have living organisms appeared on Earth from inorganic substances: first plants, then animals and humans. J. Buffon saw evidence of unity of origin in terms of the structure of animals and explained the similarity of close forms by their origin from common ancestors.

The idea of ​​evolution is also embedded in the works of the encyclopedist D. Diderot (1713-1784): minor changes in all creatures and the length of time the Earth existed can explain the emergence of diversity in the organic world. P. Maupertuis (1698-1759) expressed brilliant guesses about the corpuscular nature of heredity, the evolutionary role of the destruction of forms not adapted to existence, and the significance of isolation in the development of new forms. C. Darwin's grandfather E. Darwin (1731 -1802) in poetic form affirms the principle of the unity of origin of all living beings and indicates that the organic world has developed over millions of years. In the last years of his life, K. Linnaeus also came to accept evolution, believing that close species within the genus developed naturally, without the participation of divine power.

In the second half of the 18th century. The Age of Enlightenment reaches Russia: in one form or another, evolutionary views are characteristic of such naturalists as M.V. Lomonosov, K.F. Wolf, P.S. Pallas, A.N. Radishchev. M.V. Lomonosov in his treatise “On the Layers of the Earth” (1763) wrote: “... in vain many people think that everything as we see was first created by the creator...”.

Characterizing the development of evolutionary thought in this era, we can say that at this time there was an intensive accumulation of natural scientific material. The most insightful researchers are trying to move from a simple description of the material available in nature to an explanation of the emergence of various forms. In the 18th century There is an ever-increasing struggle between the old ideas of creationism (as the concept of the creation of the world) and new - evolutionary ideas.

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 evolution - the process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, which ultimately lead to fundamental, qualitative changes - the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and species, penetrated into science at the end of the 18th century.

However, it was Darwin who put forward a completely new hypothesis regarding living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one, the so-called theory of evolution, which has become widespread in the world.

During his trip around the world, Charles Darwin collected a wealth of material indicating the variability of plant and animal species. A particularly striking find was a huge fossil sloth skeleton discovered in South America. Comparison with modern, small sloths prompted Darwin to think about the evolution of species.

The richest empirical material accumulated by that time in geography, archeology, paleontology, physiology, taxonomy, etc., allowed Darwin to draw a conclusion about the long-term evolution of living nature. Darwin outlined his concept in his work "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection""(1859). Charles Darwin's book was a phenomenal success; its first edition (1250 copies) was sold on the first day. The book was about explaining the emergence of living beings without appealing to the idea of ​​God.

It should be noted that, despite its enormous popularity among the reading public, the idea of ​​the gradual appearance of new species in wildlife turned out to be so unusual for the scientific community of that time that it was not immediately accepted.

Darwin suggested that there is competition in animal populations, due to which only those individuals survive that have properties that are advantageous in given specific conditions, allowing them to leave offspring. The basis of Darwin's evolutionary theory is made up of three principles: a) heredity and variability; b) struggle for existence; c) natural selection. Variability is an integral property of all living things. Despite the similarity of living organisms of the same species, it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals within a population. This variation in characteristics and properties creates an advantage for some organisms over others.

Under normal conditions, the difference in properties remains unnoticeable and does not have a significant impact on the development of organisms, but when conditions change, especially in an unfavorable direction, even the slightest difference can give some organisms a significant advantage over others. Only individuals with properties appropriate to the conditions are able to survive and leave offspring. Darwin distinguishes between indefinite and definite variability.

Certain variability, or adaptive modification,- the ability of individuals of the same species to respond to changes in the same way environment. Such group changes are not inherited, and therefore cannot supply material for evolution.

Uncertain variability, or mutation, - individual changes in the body that are inherited. Mutations are not directly related to changes in environmental conditions, but it is uncertain variability that plays a critical role in the evolutionary process. Positive changes that occur by chance are inherited. As a result, only a small part of the offspring, possessing useful hereditary properties, survives and reaches maturity.

Between living beings, according to Darwin, a struggle for existence unfolds. Concretizing this concept, Darwin pointed out that within a species more individuals are born than survive to adulthood.

Natural selection- a leading factor in evolution that explains the mechanism of formation of new species. It is this selection that acts as the driving force of evolution. The selection mechanism leads to the selective destruction of those individuals that are less adapted to environmental conditions.

Criticism of the concept of Darwinian evolution

Neo-Lamarckism was the first major anti-Darwinian doctrine to appear in late XIX V. Neo-Lamarckism was based on the recognition of adequate variability that arises under the direct or indirect influence of environmental factors, forcing organisms to directly adapt to them. Neo-Lamarckists also spoke about the impossibility of inheriting traits acquired in this way and denied the creative role of natural selection. The basis of this doctrine was the old ideas of Lamarck.

Among other anti-Darwinian teachings, we note theory of nomogenesisL. C. Berg, created in 1922. This theory is based on the idea that evolution is a programmed process of implementing internal laws inherent in all living things. He believed that organisms are endowed with an internal force of an unknown nature that acts purposefully, regardless of the external environment, in the direction of increasing the complexity of the organization. To prove this, Berg cited a lot of data on the convergent and parallel evolution of different groups of plants and animals.

Charles Darwin believed that natural selection ensures progress in the development of living organisms. In addition, he emphasized that the elementary unit of evolution is not the individual, but the species. However, it was later established that the elementary unit of evolution is not kind, A population.

The weak link of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory was the lack of an accurate and convincing mechanism of heredity. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis did not explain how the accumulation and preservation of beneficial hereditary changes occurs as a result of further crossing of living organisms. Contrary to the popular belief that when crossing organisms with useful properties and organisms that do not have these properties, there should be an averaging of useful characteristics, their dissolution in a series of generations. The evolutionary concept assumed that these traits accumulated.

C. Darwin was aware of the weakness of his concept, but was unable to satisfactorily explain the mechanism of inheritance.

The answer to this question was given by the theory of the Austrian biologist and geneticist Mendel, which substantiated the discrete nature of heredity.

Created in the 20th century. synthetic theory of evolution(STE) completed the integration of evolutionary theory with genetics. STE is a synthesis of Darwin's basic evolutionary ideas, and above all natural selection, with new research results in the field of heredity and variability. Important integral part STE are concepts of micro- and macroevolution. Under microevolution understand the totality of evolutionary processes occurring in populations, leading to changes in the gene pool of these populations and the formation of new species.

It is believed that microevolution occurs on the basis of mutational variability under the control of natural selection. Mutations are the only source of the emergence of qualitatively new characteristics, and natural selection is the only creative factor in microevolution.

The nature of microevolutionary processes is influenced by fluctuations in population numbers (“waves of life”), the exchange of genetic information between them, their isolation and genetic drift. Microevolution leads either to a change in the entire gene pool of a biological species as a whole, or to their separation from the parent species as new forms.

Macroevolution is understood as evolutionary transformations leading to the formation of taxa of a higher rank than the species (genera, orders, classes).

It is believed that macroevolution does not have specific mechanisms and is carried out only through the processes of microevolution, being their integrated expression. As they accumulate, microevolutionary processes are expressed externally in macroevolutionary phenomena, i.e. macroevolution is a generalized picture of evolutionary changes. Therefore, at the level of macroevolution, general trends, directions and patterns of evolution of living nature are discovered that cannot be observed at the level of microevolution.

Some events that are usually cited as evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis can be reproduced in the laboratory, but this does not mean that they actually occurred in the past. They only indicate that these events could have happened.

Many objections to the evolutionary hypothesis are still unanswered.

In connection with criticism of Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection, it is advisable to note the following. Currently, having marked a civilizational crisis - a crisis of the basic ideological principles of humanity - it is becoming increasingly clear that Darwinism is just a particular model of competitive interaction that unjustifiably claims to be universal.

Let us take a closer look at the central link of Darwinism - the property of adaptability or adaptability of the evolutionary process. What does it mean - a more adapted individual or individuals? Strictly speaking, there is no answer to this question in Darwinism, and if there is an indirect answer, it is erroneous.

The indirect answer is as follows: the fittest individual will be the one that wins the competition and survives. The latter inevitably leads to the idea of ​​a gangster individual and an aggressor species. Populations and ecosystems with such an aggressor species would be clearly unstable: they would not be able to exist for a long time. This contradicts the facts and ideas established in biology that sustainable ecosystems are generally in equilibrium, and replacement processes do not occur in them.

The way for sustainable existence of populations, communities and ecosystems is cooperation and mutual complementarity 115].

Competition is of a private nature: it is fully involved in a non-equilibrium population moving towards equilibrium, and plays the role of a kind of catalyst, accelerating the movement of the ecosystem towards equilibrium. However, directly related to evolution, i.e. progress, this kind of competition does not exist. Example: the introduction of a species into a new area - the importation of a rabbit to Australia. There was competition for food, but no new species, much less a progressive one, arose. Another example: a litter of rabbits was also released on the island of Porto Sonto in the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike their European counterparts, these rabbits have become smaller and have different colors. When crossed with a European species, they did not produce fertile offspring - a new species of rabbits emerged. It is clear that competition was also involved in the establishment of an equilibrium population. However, speciation did not occur at its expense, but due to new environmental conditions. At the same time, there is no evidence that the emerging species of rabbits is more progressive than the European one.

Thus, the purpose of competition is completely different from that in Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection. Competition eliminates abnormal, “decay” individuals (with disturbances in the genetic apparatus). Thus, competitive interaction eliminates regression. But the mechanism of progress is not competitive interaction, but the discovery and development of a new resource: as evolution proceeds, the smarter one gets an advantage.

Darwin's concept is constructed as a negative process in which not the strongest survive, but the weakest perish.

Darwinism denies trends—patterns that are quite obvious (for example, Georgians and Ukrainians sing well), arguing that all essential properties are determined by their usefulness for survival.

Darwinism is generally pointless, since natural selection simply does not exist in nature.

As is known, Darwin did not give examples of natural selection in nature, limiting himself to an analogy with artificial selection. But this analogy is unsuccessful. Artificial selection requires the forced crossing of desired individuals while completely excluding the reproduction of all others. There is no such selective procedure in nature. Darwin himself recognized this.

Natural selection does not represent selective crossing, but selective reproduction. In nature, only a few examples have been found of how, thanks to selective reproduction, the frequency of carriers of a certain trait changes, but that’s all. It was not possible to find a single example where something new appeared as a result of this procedure (except for that boring case when turning on or off already existing gene).

The only justification for Darwinism is still the analogy with artificial selection, but also it has not yet led to the emergence of at least one new genus, not to mention the family, detachment and above. Thus, Darwinism is not a description of evolution, but a way of interpreting a small part of it (changes within a species) using a hypothetical cause called natural selection.

Evolution not according to Darwin

The direction of evolution is determined by whose set of genes is introduced into the next generation, not by whose set of genes disappeared in the previous one.

The “modern” theory of evolution - the synthetic theory of evolution (STE), based on the synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics, proves that the cause of variability is mutations - sudden changes in the hereditary structure of an organism that occur randomly, also doesn't solve the problem.

IN evolution is based not Darwinian selection, not mutations (as in STE), but individual intraspecific variability, which exists constantly in all populations. It is individual variability that provides the basis for the preservation of certain functions in the population. It’s as if aliens arrived and started beating us with a huge colander, into the holes of which the smartest (smartest) would slip. Then those who think worse would simply disappear.

Horizontal gene transfer has been known for many years, i.e. acquisition of hereditary information in addition to the process of reproduction. It turned out that in the chromosomes and cytoplasm of the cell there are a number of biochemical compounds that are in a chaotic state and are capable of interacting with the nucleic acid structures of another organism. These biochemical compounds were called plasmids. Plasmids are capable of being incorporated into a recipient cell and activated under the influence of certain external factors. The transition from a latent state to an active state means the combination of the donor's genetic material with the recipient's genetic material. If the resulting construct is functional, protein synthesis begins.

Based on this technology, insulin was synthesized - a protein that helps fight diabetes.

In unicellular microorganisms, horizontal gene transfer is decisive in evolution.

Migrating genetic elements show significant similarity to viruses. Discovery of the phenomenon of gene transduction, i.e. transfer of genetic information into plant and animal cells using viruses that include part of the genes of the original host cell, suggests that viruses and similar biochemical formations occupy a special place in evolution.

Some scientists express the opinion that migrating biochemical compounds can cause even more serious changes in cell genomes than mutations. If this assumption turns out to be correct, then it will be necessary to significantly revise current ideas about the mechanisms of evolution.

Hypotheses are now being put forward about the significant role of viruses in the mixing of genetic information of different populations, the occurrence of leaps in the evolutionary process, in a word, we are talking about the most important role of viruses in the evolutionary process.

Viruses are among the most dangerous mutagens. Viruses- the smallest of living creatures. They do not have a cellular structure and are not capable of synthesizing protein themselves, so they obtain the substances necessary for their life activity by penetrating a living cell and using foreign organic substances and energy.

In humans, as in plants and animals, viruses cause many diseases. Although mutations are the main suppliers of evolutionary material, they are random changes that obey probabilistic laws. Therefore, they cannot serve as a determining factor in the evolutionary process.

Nevertheless, the idea of ​​the leading role of mutations in the evolutionary process formed the basis theory of neutral mutations, created in the 1970s and 1980s by Japanese scientists M. Kimura and T. Ota. According to this theory, changes in the functions of the protein-synthesizing apparatus are the result of random mutations that are neutral in their evolutionary consequences. Their true role is to provoke genetic drift - a change in the purity of genes in a population under the influence of completely random factors.

On this basis, the neutralist concept of non-Darwinian evolution was proclaimed, the essence of which lies in the idea that natural selection does not work at the molecular genetic level. And although these ideas are not generally accepted among biologists, it is obvious that the direct arena of natural selection is the phenotype, i.e. living organism, ontogenetic level of life organization.

Recently, another concept of non-Darwinian evolution has emerged - punctualism. Its supporters believe that the process of evolution proceeds through rare and rapid leaps, and 99% of its time the species remains in a stable state - stasis. In extreme cases, the leap to a new species can occur in a population of only a dozen individuals within one or several generations.

This hypothesis rests on a broad genetic basis laid by a number of fundamental discoveries in molecular genetics and biochemistry. Punctualism rejected the genetic-population model of speciation, Darwin's idea of ​​varieties and subspecies as emerging species, and focused its attention on the molecular genetics of the individual as the bearer of all the properties of the species.

The value of this concept lies in the idea of ​​the disunity of micro- and macroevolution (as opposed to STE) and the independence of the factors controlled by them.

Thus, Darwin's concept is not the only one trying to explain the evolutionary process. However, Darwin was made into an icon, and Darwinism into a religion (the word “selection” is used colloquially, like bread and water). If a religion can only be superseded by another religion, then what religion can replace Darwinism today with benefit to people? Classical religions cannot do this because they profess creationism, and it contradicts science and therefore alienates precisely those on whom one should rely.

The religion of veneration of nature as a whole can supplant Darwinism, to the common benefit(where man is only a part of nature, a product of it). This is the only way to replace the ideology of “fight against nature” that the dominance of Darwinism asserts on planet Earth.

The seeds of reverence for nature as a whole are already visible in the emerging environmental movements.

The temporary establishment in the world of the Darwinian worldview, supplemented by economic market mechanisms, was one of the main ideological causes of the modern civilizational crisis.

You should also pay attention to the review of Darwinism made back in the 19th century. the leading pathologist R. von Virchow, at the congress of naturalists in Munich. He demanded that the study and dissemination of the ideas of Darwinism be prohibited, since its spread could lead to a repetition of the Paris Commune.

Perhaps in the future, STE and non-Darwinian concepts of evolution, complementing each other, will unite into a new single theory of life and development of living nature.

Anaximander. We know about Anaximander’s scheme from the historian of the 1st century BC. e. Diodorus Siculus. In his account, when the young Earth was illuminated by the Sun, its surface first hardened and then fermented, and rot arose, covered with thin shells. In these shells all kinds of animal breeds were born. Man supposedly arose from a fish or a fish-like animal. Despite the originality, Anaximander's reasoning is purely speculative and not supported by observations. Another ancient thinker, Xenophanes, paid more attention to observations. So, he identified the fossils that he found in the mountains with the imprints of ancient plants and animals: laurel, mollusk shells, fish, seals. From this he concluded that the land once sank into the sea, bringing death to land animals and people, and turned into mud, and when it rose, the prints dried up. Heraclitus, despite his metaphysics being imbued with the idea of ​​constant development and eternal formation, did not create any evolutionary concepts. Although some authors still attribute him to the first evolutionists.

The only author in whom one can find the idea of ​​gradual change in organisms was Plato. In his dialogue "The State" he put forward the infamous proposal: improving the breed of people by selecting the best representatives. Without a doubt, this proposal was based on the well-known fact of selection of sires in animal husbandry. In the modern era, the unfounded application of these ideas to human society developed into the doctrine of eugenics, which underpinned the racial policies of the Third Reich.

Middle Ages and Renaissance

With the rise of scientific knowledge after the “Dark Ages” of the early Middle Ages, evolutionary ideas again begin to creep into the works of scientists, theologians and philosophers. Albertus Magnus was the first to note the spontaneous variability of plants, leading to the emergence of new species. Examples once given by Theophrastus he characterized as transmutation one type to another. The term itself was apparently taken by him from alchemy. In the 16th century, fossil organisms were rediscovered, but only towards the end of the 17th century the idea that this was not a “play of nature”, not stones in the shape of bones or shells, but the remains of ancient animals and plants, finally took hold of minds. In his work of the year, “Noah’s Ark, Its Shape and Capacity,” Johann Buteo cited calculations that showed that the ark could not contain all the species of known animals. In the year Bernard Palissy organized an exhibition of fossils in Paris, where he for the first time compared them with living ones. In the year he published in print the idea that since everything in nature is “in eternal transmutation,” many fossil remains of fish and shellfish belong to extinct species

Evolutionary ideas of the New Age

As we see, things did not go further than expressing scattered ideas about the variability of species. The same trend continued with the advent of modern times. So Francis Bacon, politician and philosopher, suggested that species can change by accumulating “errors of nature.” This thesis again, as in the case of Empedocles, echoes the principle of natural selection, but there is no word yet about a general theory. Oddly enough, the first book on evolution can be considered a treatise by Matthew Hale. Matthew Hale) "The Primitive Origin of Mankind Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature." This may seem strange already because Hale himself was not a naturalist or even a philosopher, he was a lawyer, theologian and financier, and he wrote his treatise during a forced vacation on his estate. In it, he wrote that one should not assume that all species were created in their modern form; on the contrary, only archetypes were created, and all the diversity of life developed from them under the influence of numerous circumstances. Hale also foreshadows many of the controversies about randomness that arose after the establishment of Darwinism. In the same treatise, the term “evolution” in the biological sense was first mentioned.

Ideas of limited evolutionism like Hale's arose constantly, and can be found in the writings of John Ray, Robert Hooke, Gottfried Leibniz, and even in the later work of Carl Linnaeus. They are expressed more clearly by Georges Louis Buffon. Observing the deposition of sediments from water, he came to the conclusion that the 6 thousand years allotted for the history of the Earth by natural theology were not enough for the formation of sedimentary rocks. The age of the Earth calculated by Buffon was 75 thousand years. Describing the species of animals and plants, Buffon noted that, along with useful characteristics, they also have those to which it is impossible to attribute any usefulness. This again contradicted natural theology, which asserted that every hair on the body of an animal was created for the benefit of it or man. Buffon came to the conclusion that this contradiction can be eliminated by accepting the creation of only a general plan, which varies in specific incarnations. Applying Leibniz's “law of continuity” to systematics, he spoke out against the existence of discrete species in 2010, considering species to be the fruit of the imagination of taxonomists (in this one can see the origins of his ongoing polemics with Linnaeus and the antipathy of these scientists towards each other).

Lamarck's theory

A step towards combining the transformist and systematic approaches was made by the natural scientist and philosopher Jean Baptiste Lamarck. As a proponent of species change and a deist, he recognized the Creator and believed that the Supreme Creator created only matter and nature; all other inanimate and living objects arose from matter under the influence of nature. Lamarck emphasized that “all living bodies come from one another, and not through sequential development from previous embryos.” Thus, he opposed the concept of preformationism as autogenetic, and his follower Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) defended the idea of ​​​​the unity of the structural plan of animals of various types. Lamarck’s evolutionary ideas are most fully presented in “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809), although Lamarck formulated many of the provisions of his evolutionary theory in introductory lectures to a zoology course back in 1800-1802. Lamarck believed that the stages of evolution do not lie on a straight line, as followed from the “ladder of creatures” by the Swiss natural philosopher C. Bonnet, but have many branches and deviations at the level of species and genera. This introduction set the stage for future “family trees.” Lamarck also proposed the term “biology” in its modern sense. However, the zoological works of Lamarck - the creator of the first evolutionary doctrine - contained many factual inaccuracies and speculative constructions, which is especially evident when comparing his works with the works of his contemporary, rival and critic, the creator of comparative anatomy and paleontology, Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Lamarck believed that the driving factor of evolution could be the “exercise” or “non-exercise” of organs, depending on the adequate direct influence of the environment. Some naivety of the argumentation of Lamarck and Saint-Hilaire largely contributed to the anti-evolutionary reaction to transformism of the early 19th century, and provoked absolutely factual criticism from the creationist Georges Cuvier and his school.

Catastrophism and transformism

Cuvier's ideal was Linnaeus. Cuvier divided animals into four “branches,” each of which is characterized by a common structural plan. For these “branches,” his follower A. Blainville proposed the concept of type, which fully corresponded to Cuvier’s “branches.” A phylum is not simply the highest taxon in the animal kingdom. There are not and cannot be transitional forms between the four identified types of animals. All animals belonging to the same type are characterized by a common structure plan. This most important position of Cuvier is extremely significant even today. Although the number of types has significantly exceeded the number 4, all biologists speaking about type proceed from a fundamental idea that gives much concern to the promoters of gradualism in evolution - the idea of ​​​​the isolation of the structural plans of each type. Cuvier fully accepted the Linnaean hierarchy of the system and built his system in the form of a branching tree. But this was not a family tree, but a tree of similarities between organisms. As rightly noted by A.A. Borisyak, “having built a system on ... a comprehensive account of the similarities and differences of organisms, he thereby opened the door to the evolutionary doctrine that he fought against.” Cuvier's system was apparently the first system of organic nature in which modern forms were considered side by side with fossils. Cuvier is rightfully considered a significant figure in the development of paleontology, biostratigraphy and historical geology as sciences. Theoretical basis Cuvier’s idea of ​​catastrophic extinctions of faunas and floras at the boundaries of periods and eras became a way to highlight the boundaries between layers. He also developed the doctrine of correlations (italics by N.N. Vorontsov), thanks to which he restored the appearance of the skull as a whole, the skeleton as a whole, and, finally, provided a reconstruction of the external appearance of a fossil animal. Together with Cuvier, his French colleague paleontologist and geologist A. Brongniard (1770-1847) made his contribution to stratigraphy, and, independently of them, the English surveyor and mining engineer William Smith (1769-1839). The term for the study of the form of organisms - morphology - was introduced into biological science by Goethe, and the doctrine itself arose at the end of the 18th century. For creationists of that time, the concept of unity of body plan meant a search for similarity, but not relatedness, of organisms. The task of comparative anatomy was seen as an attempt to understand by what plan the Supreme Being created all the diversity of animals that we observe on Earth. Evolutionary classics call this period in the development of biology “idealistic morphology.” This direction was also developed by the opponent of transformism, the English anatomist and paleontologist Richard Owen (1804-1892). By the way, it was he who proposed, in relation to structures that perform similar functions, to apply the now well-known analogy or homology, depending on whether the animals being compared belong to the same structural plan or to different ones (to the same type of animal or to different types).

Evolutionists - Darwin's contemporaries

In 1831, the English forester Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) published the monograph “Ship logging and tree planting.” The phenomenon of uneven growth of trees of the same age, the selective death of some and the survival of others has long been known to foresters. Matthew suggested that selection not only ensures the survival of the fittest trees, but can also lead to changes in species during historical development. Thus, the struggle for existence and natural selection were known to him. At the same time, he believed that the acceleration of the evolutionary process depends on the will of the organism (Lamarckism). For Matthew, the principle of the struggle for existence coexisted with the recognition of the existence of catastrophes: after upheavals, a few primitive forms survive; in the absence of competition after the revolution, the evolutionary process proceeds at a high pace. Matthew's evolutionary ideas went unnoticed for three decades. But in 1868, after the publication of On the Origin of Species, he republished his evolutionary pages. After this, Darwin familiarized himself with the works of his predecessor and noted Matthew’s achievements in the historical review of the 3rd edition of his work.

Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was a major figure of his time. He brought back to life the concept of actualism (“Fundamentals of Geology”, 1830-1833), coming from ancient authors, as well as from such significant personalities in human history as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Lomonosov (1711-1765), James Hutton (England, Hutton, 1726-1797) and, finally, Lamarck. Lyell's acceptance of the concept of knowledge of the past through the study of modernity meant the creation of the first holistic theory of the evolution of the face of the Earth. The English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell (1794-1866) in 1832 put forward the term uniformitarianism in relation to the assessment of Lyell's theory. Lyell spoke about the invariability of the action of geological factors over time. Uniformitarianism was the complete antithesis of Cuvier's catastrophism. “The teaching of Lyell now prevails as much,” wrote the anthropologist and evolutionist I. Ranke, “as the teaching of Cuvier once dominated. At the same time, it is often forgotten that the doctrine of catastrophes could hardly have provided a satisfactory schematic explanation of geological facts for so long in the eyes of the best researchers and thinkers if it had not been based on a certain amount of positive observations. The truth here also lies between the extremes of theory.” As modern biologists admit, “Cuvier’s catastrophism was a necessary stage in the development of historical geology and paleontology. Without catastrophism, the development of biostratigraphy would hardly have progressed so quickly.”

Scotsman Robert Chambers (1802-1871), a book publisher and popularizer of science, published in London “Traces of the Natural History of Creation” (1844), in which he anonymously promoted the ideas of Lamarck, spoke about the duration of the evolutionary process and about evolutionary development from simply organized ancestors to more complex forms . The book was designed for a wide readership and over 10 years went through 10 editions with a circulation of at least 15 thousand copies (which in itself is impressive for that time). Controversy has flared up around a book by an anonymous author. Always very reserved and cautious, Darwin stood aloof from the debate that was unfolding in England, but carefully observed how criticism of particular inaccuracies turned into criticism of the very idea of ​​mutability of species, so as not to repeat such mistakes. Chambers, after the publication of Darwin's book, immediately joined the ranks of supporters of the new teaching.

In the 20th century, people remembered Edward Blyth (1810-1873), an English zoologist and researcher of the fauna of Australia. In 1835 and 1837 he published two articles in the English Journal of Natural History in which he said that in conditions of fierce competition and lack of resources, only the strongest have a chance of leaving offspring.

Thus, even before the publication of the famous work, the entire course of development of natural science had already prepared the ground for the acceptance of the doctrine of the variability of species and selection.

Darwin's works

A new stage in the development of evolutionary theory came in 1859 as a result of the publication of Charles Darwin's seminal work, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” The main driving force of evolution according to Darwin is natural selection. Selection, acting on individuals, allows those organisms that are better adapted for life in a given environment to survive and leave offspring. The action of selection causes species to break apart into subspecies, which in turn diverge over time into genera, families, and all larger taxa.

With his characteristic honesty, Darwin pointed to those who directly pushed him to write and publish the doctrine of evolution (apparently, Darwin was not too interested in the history of science, since in the first edition of The Origin of Species he did not mention his immediate predecessors: Wells, Matthew, Blyte). Darwin was directly influenced in the process of creating the work by Lyell and to a lesser extent by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), with his geometric progression of numbers from the demographic work “Essay on the Law of Population” (1798). And, one might say, Darwin was “forced” to publish his work by the young English zoologist and biogeographer Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) by sending him a manuscript in which, independently of Darwin, he sets out the ideas of the theory of natural selection. At the same time, Wallace knew that Darwin was working on the doctrine of evolution, for the latter himself wrote to him about this in a letter dated May 1, 1857: “This summer will mark 20 years (!) since I started my first notebook on the question of about how and in what ways species and varieties differ from each other. Now I am preparing my work for publication... but I do not intend to publish it earlier than in two years... Really, it is impossible (within the framework of a letter) to expound my views on the causes and methods of changes in the state of nature; but step by step I came to a clear and distinct idea - whether true or false, this must be judged by others; for - alas! – the most unshakable confidence of the author of the theory that he is right is in no way a guarantee of its truth!” Darwin's common sense is evident here, as well as the gentlemanly attitude of the two scientists towards each other, which is clearly visible when analyzing the correspondence between them. Darwin, having received the article on June 18, 1858, wanted to submit it for publication, keeping silent about his work, and only at the insistence of his friends he wrote a “short extract” from his work and presented these two works to the Linnean Society.

Darwin fully adopted the idea of ​​gradual development from Lyell and, one might say, was a uniformitarian. The question may arise: if everything was known before Darwin, then what is his merit, why did his work cause such a resonance? But Darwin did what his predecessors could not do. Firstly, he gave his work a very relevant title, which was “on everyone’s lips.” The public had a burning interest specifically in “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” It is difficult to remember another book in the history of world natural science, the title of which would so clearly reflect its essence. Perhaps Darwin came across the title pages or titles of the works of his predecessors, but simply did not have the desire to familiarize himself with them. We can only wonder how the public would react if Matthew had released his evolutionary views under the title “The Possibility of Variation of Plant Species Over Time through Survival (Selection) of the Fittest.” But, as we know, “Ship’s timber…” did not attract attention.

Secondly, and this is the most important thing, Darwin was able to explain to his contemporaries the reasons for the variability of species based on his observations. He rejected, as untenable, the idea of ​​“exercising” or “non-exercising” organs and turned to the facts of the breeding of new breeds of animals and varieties of plants by people - to artificial selection. He showed that indefinite variability of organisms (mutations) are inherited and can become the beginning of a new breed or variety, if it is useful to humans. Having transferred these data to wild species, Darwin noted that only those changes that are beneficial to the species for successful competition with others can be preserved in nature, and spoke about the struggle for existence and natural selection, to which he attributed an important, but not the only role as the driver of evolution. Darwin not only gave theoretical calculations of natural selection, but also showed, using factual material, the evolution of species in space, with geographic isolation (finches) and explained the mechanisms of divergent evolution from the standpoint of strict logic. He also introduced the public to the fossil forms of giant sloths and armadillos, which could be seen as evolution through time. Darwin also allowed for the possibility of long-term preservation of a certain average norm of a species in the process of evolution by eliminating any deviating variants (for example, sparrows that survived a storm had an average wing length), which was later called stasygenesis. Darwin was able to prove to everyone the reality of the variability of species in nature, therefore, thanks to his work, ideas about the strict constancy of species came to naught. It was pointless for staticists and fixists to continue to persist in their positions.

Development of Darwin's ideas

As a true gradualist, Darwin was concerned that the lack of transitional forms would be the downfall of his theory, and attributed this lack to the incompleteness of the geological record. Darwin was also concerned about the “dissolution” of a newly acquired trait over a series of generations, with subsequent crossing with ordinary, unchanged individuals. He wrote that this objection, along with breaks in the geological record, is one of the most serious for his theory.

Darwin and his contemporaries did not know that in 1865, the Austro-Czech naturalist Abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) discovered the laws of heredity, according to which a hereditary trait does not “dissolve” in a series of generations, but passes (in the case of recessivity) into a heterozygous state and can be propagated in a population environment.

Such scientists as the American botanist Asa Gray (1810-1888) begin to speak out in support of Darwin; Alfred Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley (Huxley; 1825-1895) - in England; classic of comparative anatomy Karl Gegenbaur (1826-1903), Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), zoologist Fritz Müller (1821-1897) - in Germany. No less distinguished scientists criticize Darwin's ideas: Darwin's teacher, professor of geology Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), the famous paleontologist Richard Owen, the prominent zoologist, paleontologist and geologist Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), the German professor Heinrich Georg Bronn (1800-1873). 1862).

An interesting fact is that it was Bronn who translated Darwin’s book into German, who did not share his views, but believed that the new idea had a right to exist (the modern evolutionist and popularizer N.N. Vorontsov gives Bronn credit for this as a true scientist). Considering the views of another opponent of Darwin, Agassiz, we note that this scientist spoke about the importance of combining the methods of embryology, anatomy and paleontology to determine the position of a species or other taxon in the classification scheme. Thus, the species receives its place in the natural order of the universe. It was interesting to learn that an ardent supporter of Darwin, Haeckel, widely promoted the triad postulated by Agassiz, the “method of triple parallelism” already applied to the idea of ​​kinship, and it, fueled by Haeckel’s personal enthusiasm, captivated his contemporaries. All any serious zoologists, anatomists, embryologists, paleontologists begin to build entire forests of phylogenetic trees. With the light hand of Haeckel, the idea of ​​monophyly - descent from one ancestor, which reigned supreme over the minds of scientists in the middle of the 20th century, is spread as the only possible idea. Modern evolutionists, based on the study of the method of reproduction of Rhodophycea algae, which is different from all other eukaryotes (immobile both male and female gametes, the absence of a cell center and any flagellated formations), speak of at least two independently formed ancestors of plants. At the same time, they found out that “The emergence of the mitotic apparatus occurred independently at least twice: in the ancestors of the kingdoms of fungi and animals, on the one hand, and in the subkingdoms of true algae (except Rhodophycea) and higher plants, on the other” (exact quote, p. 319) . Thus, the origin of life is recognized not from one ancestral organism, but from at least three. In any case, it is noted that “no other scheme, like the proposed one, can turn out to be monophyletic” (ibid.). Scientists were also led to polyphyly (origin from several unrelated organisms) by the theory of symbiogenesis, which explains the appearance of lichens (a combination of algae and fungus) (p. 318). And this is the most important achievement of the theory. In addition, recent research suggests that more and more examples are being found showing “the prevalence of paraphyly in the origin of relatively closely related taxa.” For example, in the “subfamily of African tree mice Dendromurinae: the genus Deomys is molecularly close to the true mice Murinae, and the genus Steatomys is close in DNA structure to the giant mice of the subfamily Cricetomyinae. At the same time, the morphological similarity of Deomys and Steatomys is undeniable, which indicates the paraphylitic origin of Dendromurinae.” Therefore, the phylogenetic classification needs to be revised, based not only on external similarity, but also on the structure of the genetic material (p. 376). The experimental biologist and theorist August Weismann (1834-1914) spoke in a fairly clear manner about the cell nucleus as the carrier of heredity. Independently of Mendel, he came to the most important conclusion about the discreteness of hereditary units. Mendel was so ahead of his time that his work remained virtually unknown for 35 years. Weismann's ideas (sometime after 1863) became the property of wide circles of biologists and a subject for discussion. The most fascinating pages of the origin of the doctrine of chromosomes, the emergence of cytogenetics, the creation of T.G. Morgan's chromosome theory of heredity in 1912-1916. – all this was greatly stimulated by August Weismann. Studying the embryonic development of sea urchins, he proposed to distinguish between two forms of cell division - equatorial and reduction, i.e. approached the discovery of meiosis, the most important stage of combinative variability and the sexual process. But Weisman could not avoid some speculativeness in his ideas about the mechanism of transmission of heredity. He thought that only the so-called cells have the entire set of discrete factors - “determinants”. "germinal tract". Some determinants enter some of the cells of the “soma” (body), others – others. Differences in the sets of determinants explain the specialization of soma cells. So, we see that, having correctly predicted the existence of meiosis, Weisman was mistaken in predicting the fate of gene distribution. He also extended the principle of selection to competition between cells, and, since cells are carriers of certain determinants, he spoke of their struggle among themselves. The most modern concepts of “selfish DNA”, “selfish gene”, developed at the turn of the 70s and 80s. XX century have much in common with Weismann's competition of determinants. Weisman emphasized that the “germ plasm” is isolated from the soma cells of the whole organism, and therefore spoke about the impossibility of inheriting characteristics acquired by the organism (soma) under the influence of the environment. But many Darwinists accepted this idea of ​​Lamarck. Weisman's harsh criticism of this concept caused a negative attitude towards him and his theory personally, and then towards the study of chromosomes in general, on the part of orthodox Darwinists (those who recognized selection as the only factor of evolution).

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws occurred in 1900 in three different countries: Holland (Hugo de Vries 1848-1935), Germany (Karl Erich Correns 1864-1933) and Austria (Erich von Tschermak 1871-1962), which simultaneously discovered Mendel's forgotten work. In 1902, Walter Sutton (Seton, 1876-1916) gave a cytological basis for Mendelism: diploid and haploid sets, homologous chromosomes, the process of conjugation during meiosis, prediction of the linkage of genes located on the same chromosome, the concept of dominance and recessivity, as well as allelic genes - all this was demonstrated on cytological preparations, was based on precise calculations of Mendeleev's algebra and was very different from hypothetical family trees, from the style of naturalistic Darwinism of the 19th century. The mutation theory of de Vries (1901-1903) was not accepted not only by the conservatism of orthodox Darwinists, but also by the fact that in other plant species researchers were unable to obtain the wide range of variability he achieved with Oenothera lamarkiana (it is now known that evening primrose is a polymorphic species , having chromosomal translocations, some of which are heterozygous, while homozygotes are lethal. De Vries chose a very successful object for obtaining mutations and at the same time not entirely successful, since in his case it was necessary to extend the results achieved to other plant species). De Vries and his Russian predecessor, the botanist Sergei Ivanovich Korzhinsky (1861-1900), who wrote in 1899 (St. Petersburg) about sudden spasmodic “heterogeneous” deviations, thought that the possibility of macromutations rejected Darwin’s theory. At the dawn of genetics, many concepts were expressed according to which evolution did not depend on the external environment. The Dutch botanist Jan Paulus Lotsi (1867-1931), who wrote the book “Evolution by Hybridization,” where he rightly drew attention to the role of hybridization in speciation in plants, also came under criticism from Darwinists.

If in the middle of the 18th century the contradiction between transformism (continuous change) and the discreteness of taxonomic units of systematics seemed insurmountable, then in the 19th century it was thought that gradualistic trees built on the basis of kinship came into conflict with the discreteness of hereditary material. Evolution through visually discernible large mutations could not be accepted by Darwinian gradualism.

Confidence in mutations and their role in the formation of species variability was restored by Thomas Ghent Morgan (1886-1945), when this American embryologist and zoologist moved on to genetic research in 1910 and, ultimately, chose the famous Drosophila. Probably, we should not be surprised that 20-30 years after the events described, it was population geneticists who came to evolution not through macromutations (which began to be recognized as unlikely), but through a steady and gradual change in the frequencies of allelic genes in populations. Since macroevolution by that time seemed to be an indisputable continuation of the studied phenomena of microevolution, gradualism began to seem an inseparable feature of the evolutionary process. There was a return to Leibniz’s “law of continuity” at a new level, and in the first half of the 20th century a synthesis of evolution and genetics was able to occur. Once again, once opposing concepts came together. (names, conclusions of evolutionists and chronology of events are taken from Nikolai Nikolaevich Vorontsov, “Development of evolutionary ideas in biology, 1999)

Let us recall that in the light of the latest biological ideas put forward from the position of materialism, now there is again a movement away from the law of continuity, now not by geneticists, but by evolutionists themselves. The famous S.J. Gould raised the question of punctualism (punctuated equilibrium), as opposed to generally accepted gradualism, so that it became possible to explain the reasons for the already obvious picture of the absence of transitional forms among the fossil remains, i.e. the impossibility of building a truly continuous line of kinship from origins to the present. There is always a gap in the geological record.

Modern theories of biological evolution

Synthetic theory of evolution

The synthetic theory in its current form was formed as a result of rethinking a number of provisions of classical Darwinism from the standpoint of genetics of the early 20th century. After the rediscovery of Mendel's laws (in 1901), evidence of the discrete nature of heredity and especially after the creation of theoretical population genetics by the works of R. Fisher (-), J. B. S. Haldane Jr. (), S. Wright ( ; ), the teaching Darwin acquired a solid genetic foundation.

Neutral theory of molecular evolution

The theory of neutral evolution does not dispute the decisive role of natural selection in the development of life on Earth. The discussion is about the proportion of mutations that have adaptive significance. Most biologists accept a number of results from the theory of neutral evolution, although they do not share some of the strong claims originally made by M. Kimura.

Epigenetic theory of evolution

The main provisions of the epigenetic theory of evolution were formulated in the 20th year by M. A. Shishkin based on the ideas of I. I. Shmalhausen and K. H. Waddington. The theory considers a holistic phenotype as the main substrate of natural selection, and selection not only fixes useful changes, but also takes part in their creation. The fundamental influence on heredity is not the genome, but the epigenetic system (ES) - a set of factors affecting ontogenesis. The general organization of the ES is transmitted from ancestors to descendants, which shapes the organism during its individual development, and selection leads to the stabilization of a number of successive ontogenies, eliminating deviations from the norm (morphoses) and forming a stable development trajectory (creod). Evolution according to ETE consists in the transformation of one creed into another under the disturbing influence of the environment. In response to disturbance, the ES is destabilized, as a result of which the development of organisms along deviating paths of development becomes possible, and multiple morphoses arise. Some of these morphoses receive a selective advantage, and over subsequent generations their ES develops a new stable development trajectory and a new creed is formed.

Ecosystem theory of evolution

This term is understood as a system of ideas and approaches to the study of evolution, focusing on the features and patterns of evolution of ecosystems at various levels - biocenoses, biomes and the biosphere as a whole, rather than taxa (species, families, classes, etc.). The provisions of the ecosystem theory of evolution are based on two postulates:

• Naturalness and discreteness of ecosystems. An ecosystem is a really existing (and not allocated for the convenience of the researcher) object, which is a system of interacting biological and non-biological (eg soil, water) objects, territorially and functionally separated from other similar objects. The boundaries between ecosystems are clear enough to allow us to talk about the independent evolution of neighboring objects.
• The determining role of ecosystem interactions in determining the rate and direction of population evolution. Evolution is seen as a process of creating and filling ecological niches or licenses.

The ecosystem theory of evolution operates with such terms as coherent and incoherent evolution, ecosystem crises at various levels. The modern ecosystem theory of evolution is based mainly on the works of Soviet and Russian evolutionists: V. A. Krasilov, S. M. Razumovsky, A. G. Ponomarenko, V. V. Zherikhin and others.

Evolutionary doctrine and religion

Although in modern biology There are still many unclear questions about the mechanisms of evolution; the vast majority of biologists do not doubt the existence biological evolution as a phenomenon. However, some believers of a number of religions find some provisions of evolutionary biology contrary to their religious beliefs, in particular, the dogma of the creation of the world by God. In this regard, in part of society, almost from the moment of the birth of evolutionary biology, there has been a certain opposition to this teaching from the religious side (see creationism), which in some times and in some countries has reached the point of criminal sanctions for teaching evolutionary teaching (which became the reason, for example, for the scandalous famous "monkey process" in the USA in the city).

It should be noted that the accusations of atheism and denial of religion, brought by some opponents of the teaching of evolution, are based to a certain extent on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific knowledge: in science, no theory, including the theory of biological evolution, can either confirm or deny the existence of such subjects from the other world, like God (if only because God could use evolution in the creation of living nature, as the theological doctrine of “theistic evolution” states).

On the other hand, the theory of evolution, being a scientific theory, considers the biological world as part of the material world and relies on its natural and self-sufficient, i.e., natural origin, alien, therefore, to any otherworldly or divine intervention; alien for the reason that the growth of scientific knowledge, penetrating into previously incomprehensible and explainable only by the activity of otherworldly forces, seems to take away the ground from religion (when explaining the essence of the phenomenon, the need for a religious explanation disappears, because there is a convincing natural explanation). In this regard, evolutionary teaching may be aimed at denying the existence of extranatural forces, or rather their interference in the process of development of the living world, which is one way or another assumed by religious systems.

Attempts to contrast evolutionary biology with religious anthropology are also mistaken. From the point of view of scientific methodology, a popular thesis “man came from apes” is only an excessive simplification (see reductionism) of one of the conclusions of evolutionary biology (about the place of man as a biological species on the phylogenetic tree of living nature), if only because the concept “man” is polysemantic: man as a subject of physical anthropology is by no means identical to man as a subject of philosophical anthropology, and reduce philosophical anthropology physically incorrect.

Many believers of different religions do not find the teaching of evolution to be contrary to their faith. The theory of biological evolution (along with many other sciences - from astrophysics to geology and radiochemistry) contradicts only the literal reading of sacred texts telling about the creation of the world, and for some believers this is the reason for rejecting almost all the conclusions of natural sciences that study the past of the material world (literalist creationism ).

Among believers who profess the doctrine of literalist creationism, there are a number of scientists who are trying to find scientific evidence for their doctrine (so-called “scientific creationism”). However, the scientific community disputes the validity of this evidence.

Literature

• Berg L.S. Nomogenesis, or Evolution based on patterns. - Petersburg: State Publishing House, 1922. - 306 p.
• Kordyum V. A. Evolution and the biosphere. - K.: Naukova Dumka, 1982. - 264 p.
• Krasilov V. A. Unsolved problems of the theory of evolution. - Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1986. - P. 140.
• Lima de Faria A. Evolution without selection: Autoevolution of form and function: Trans. from English. - M.: Mir, 1991. - P. 455.
• Nazarov V. I. Evolution not according to Darwin: Changing the evolutionary model. Tutorial. Ed. 2nd, rev. - M.: LKI Publishing House, 2007. - 520 p.
• Tchaikovsky Yu. V. The science of life development. Experience of the theory of evolution. - M.: Partnership of Scientific Publications KMK, 2006. - 712 p.
• Golubovsky M. D. Non-canonical hereditary changes // Nature. - 2001. - No. 8. - P. 3–9.
• Meyen S.V. The path to a new synthesis, or where do homological series lead? // Knowledge is power. - 1972. - № 8.

(47 votes: 4.4 out of 5)

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

Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990.

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

Before publishing his book, Darwin stated:

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

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

Is the theory of evolution scientific?

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

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

Evolution - fact or faith?

3. The theory of evolution is the core of biology; Thus biology is in the strange position of a science based on an unproven theory. So is it science or religion? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus akin to belief in purposeful creation - each concept is considered true by those who believe in it, but neither one nor the other has been proven to this day.

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

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

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

Is it possible to observe evolution?

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

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

Is it possible to test evolution?

6. It is easy to create stories about how one life form evolved into another, and to find reasons why one or another stage won out in natural selection. But these stories are not science, since there is no way to test them.

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

7. Our theory of evolution cannot be refuted by any observations - any observations can be “squeezed” into its framework. The theory of evolution is thus “beyond empirical science,” although this does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect. No one can figure out a way to test it. Conclusions - unfounded or made on the basis of a few laboratory experiments carried out under the most simplified conditions - have become widespread, far from corresponding to their value. They have become part of the evolutionary dogma we have absorbed through our education.
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University and L. Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, University of Sydney. Evolutionary history and biology population. Nature, vol.214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

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

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

Is evolution supported by facts?

Darwin wrote:

9. I am sure that there is hardly a single point in this book for which it is impossible to select facts that would lead to directly opposite conclusions than the facts I found. The true result can only be obtained by carefully calculating and comparing facts and arguments, both for and against. But this is not yet possible.

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

What do the facts prove?

10. Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not verifiable. Scientists will continually stumble upon facts that contradict their predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored, and their discoverers will undoubtedly be denied further research subsidies.

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

What do the facts say?

11. Facts do not “speak for themselves” at all; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in both art and science, guides change of opinion. Science is the quintessence of human activity, and not a mechanical, robot-like accumulation of objective information, guided by the laws of logic to irrefutable conclusions.

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

12. From time to time, scientists stumble upon facts that seem to be about to reveal one of the greatest secrets of science. Such discoveries are very rare. When they happen, the entire fraternity of scientists is extremely delighted.

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

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

Evolution: fact or faith?

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

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

What did Darwin achieve?

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

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

Has anything changed?

15. I know that the data - at least in paleoanthropology - remain so sparse and dispersed that their interpretation is very heavily influenced by theory. In the past, theories clearly reflected ideological trends rather than real data.

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

Hence…

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

I asked this question in the Geology Department of the Natural History Museum. Silence was my answer. I tried it out on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very representative body of evolutionists, and again the response was only a long silence until finally someone said, “I know one thing: they should stop teaching this in school.”

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

Did the theory of evolution help?

...scientists?

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

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

18. Without a doubt, the opening of the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Salford, was Dr. John Durand, a young teacher at University College in Swansea. Giving a lecture on Darwin to the largest audience of the entire week of the convention, Durand put forward a stunning theory - Darwin's explanation of the origin of man through evolution has turned into a modern myth, a brake on science and social progress...

Durant concluded that the secular myth of evolution has had a "devastating effect on scientific research" and led to "distortions, fruitless debates, and enormous abuses in science."

Dr. John Durant, University College Sournsea, Wales. Quoted from: “How evolution became a scientific myth.” New Scientist, September 1980, p.765.

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

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

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

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

...philosophers?

21. Personally, I am confident that the theory of evolution, and especially the widespread dissemination that it has received, will be presented in future history textbooks as the greatest joke. Our descendants will be amazed by the incredible credulity with which such a dubious and unproven hypothesis was accepted.

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

Is the theory of creation really unscientific?

22. The view of species as “natural kinds” fits perfectly with the views of pre-Darwinian creationists. Louis Agassiz even argued that childbirth is the thoughts of God, embodied in such a way as to make us understand His greatness and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, “are created by the Divine Mind as categories of His way of thinking.” But could the division of the organic world into discrete things be justified by the theory of evolution, which proclaimed meaningless change as a fundamental fact of nature?

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "A quahog is a quahog." Natural History, vol. LXXXVIII (7), August-September, 1979, p. 18.

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

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

Creation ex nihilo?

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

The novelty of the scientific theory of creation ex nihilo is quite obvious, because for many years science has taught us that someone cannot create something out of nothing.

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

Blind chance or intelligent design?

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

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

But is it really that complicated...?

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

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

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

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

So?

28. Since we see, however, that the probability of life occurring by chance is so insignificant as to reduce the whole concept of chance to absurdity, it is reasonable to think that favorable physical properties, on which life depends, arose intentionally...

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

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

29. I have always said that speculation about the origin of life leads to a dead end, since even the simplest living organism is too complex to be understood within the framework of the extremely primitive chemistry that scientists use in trying to explain the inexplicable that happened billions of years ago. God is incomprehensible to such naive thinking.

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

Do fossils support evolution?

In 1850 Darwin wrote:

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

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

Ho 120 years later!

31. It has been 120 years since Darwin's time that our knowledge of the fossil record has increased significantly. But despite the fact that we now know a quarter of a million fossil species, the situation has not changed significantly. Information about evolution is still surprisingly scarce, and... ironically, we now have even fewer examples of evolutionary transformations than we had under Darwin. I mean, some classic Darwinian examples of changes in fossil sequences. like, in particular, the evolution of the horse in North America, now, with more accurate information, needs to be discarded or revised - what looked like a nice simple progression with little data, now turned out to be much more complex and much less consistent. So, Darwin's problem has not ceased to be such over the past 120 years. And, although chronology shows changes, natural selection is far from the most logical explanation for them. Also, the great extinctions of, say, dinosaurs and trilobites are still a mystery.

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

32. Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely associated with the study of fossils, and it is probably assumed by many that fossils constitute a very important part of the overall evidence for Darwin's interpretation of the origin of life. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.

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

33. It is important that almost all the legends about evolution that I heard as a student - from Truman's Ostrea / Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei - have now been refuted. In the same way, their complete inconsistency is proven by my own experience of more than twenty years of unsuccessful search for the evolutionary connections of the Mesozoic Brachiopod.

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

34. Lack of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major changes in organismal design; the fact that we are often unable - even in imagination - to reproduce these functional gaps is the most pressing problem with the idea of ​​progressive evolution.

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

So what links of evolution are “lost”?

Are there transitional forms?

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

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

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

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

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

37. Since 1859, the most irritating characteristic of the fossil record has been its apparent imperfection. For evolutionists, this imperfection is most unfortunate, since it prevents the construction of a clear diagram of the evolution of organisms, requiring an infinite number of “lost links.” Coherent groups of species with overlapping morphologies can be found among the fossil record, arranged in descending order through time. The same can be said about many groups of genera, and even families. However, above the family level, in most cases it is impossible to find conclusive paleontological evidence for the existence of morphological intermediate links between different taxa. Generally, this lack of evidence is considered by opponents of the theory organic evolution the main drawback of this theory. In other words, the failure of the fossil record to provide the "missing links" is taken as conclusive evidence of the theory's failure.

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

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

“Geological data is extremely imperfect. This largely explains the fact that we cannot find intermediate links that would connect extinct and existing forms of life together by completed successive steps. Anyone who rejects this view of the essence of geological data will, accordingly, reject my entire theory.”

Darwinian reasoning is still a favorite ploy of paleontologists in the face of the disconcerting fact that the data show us so little evolution. By exposing the cultural and methodological roots of gradualism (which are similar in all general theories), I am in no way trying to cast doubt on its potential value. I just want to emphasize that he was never “observed in stone.”

Paleontologists have paid excessively for their adherence to Darwin's argument. We imagine ourselves to be the only true students of natural history, although, wishing to preserve our favorite idea of ​​evolution by natural selection, we admit that our own data are so poor, and that we have never seen the very process that we are supposedly studying.”

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

39. Despite all the assurances that paleontology allows you to “see” evolution, it presents evolutionists with very annoying problems, the main one being “gaps” in the fossil record. Proving evolution requires interspecific intermediate links, and paleontology does not provide these. Thus, it appears that gaps are normal in the record.

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

40. Despite these examples, it remains true what every paleontologist knows: most new species, genera and families, as well as almost all categories above the family level, appear suddenly in the fossil record, and do not form a gradual, complete sequence with all intermediate stages.

Dr. George Gay Lord Simpson, vertebrate paleontologist, former Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Professor of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson. In: The Major Feattires of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1953, p.360.

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

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

Are "gaps" in the fossil record real?

42. But how good is the geological data? I have already said that the traditional view of paleontologists on evolution tended to favor gradual incremental changes. The fossil record, paleontologists say, is too incomplete to be taken seriously. And, they continue, it is impossible to prove a gap. However, it can be proven, especially if the gap actually occurred. If there is a gap in the data, it should be possible to trace how it occurred. The trouble with the gaps is that if they were truly random, as Darwin claimed, then after one hundred and fifty years of research they would have been “closed” long ago. However, the white spots did not disappear. They continue to gape. Some scientists explain this by saying that the missing links simply did not survive. What these scientists forget is that even if there was only a one in a million chance that only one individual of the entire population would survive in the fossil record, then given that the species lives for 5-15 million years, we would still have to find between 5 million years in the fossil record. up to 15 representatives of these populations. In fact, the problem is most likely that we cannot detect and describe the necessary material. References to both gaps and poor preservation are nothing more than excuses. We just need to take a closer look at what exactly the data says.

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

What about family trees?

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

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

Fossils and evolution - a vicious circle

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

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

Is there evidence of an evolutionary origin...

...plants?

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

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

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

Textbook authors are leading us by the nose. They show increasingly complex plants - algae, mosses, fungi and so on (examples are randomly selected in favor of one theory or another), supposedly showing us evolution. If the plant world consisted only of these “textbook” species of standard botany, the star of evolution might not have risen. These textbooks are based on countries with temperate climates.

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

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

...fish?

47. Geological data by no means provide evidence of the origin of fish, and as soon as the first fish-like fossils appear in sedimentary rocks, cyclotomes (or agnata), elasmobranchiomorphs and teleost fishes are not only clearly distinguished from each other, but are also represented by so many different ones, often of special types, which suggests itself the conclusion: each of these groups has already reached old age.

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

...amphibians?

48. ...no known fish is considered to be the direct ancestor of the first land vertebrates. Most of them existed after the first amphibians, and those that appeared earlier showed no progress in the development of rigid limbs and ribs characteristic of primitive tetrapods...

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

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

...birds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

...mammals?

51. Every discovered mammal-like reptile species appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no immediate ancestor species. After some time, they just as suddenly disappear, leaving behind no direct descendant species, although we usually find somewhat similar species replacing them.

Tom Kemp, Zoological Collections Consultant, Oxford University Museum, England. The reptiles that became mammals. New Scientist, vol.92, 4 March 1982, p.583.

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

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

53. Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have had to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammal history based largely on dental morphology.

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

…in particular – horses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, in 1979...

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

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

Where did primates come from?

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

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

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

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

And the man?

Do people evolve?

60. We are not evolving even slowly. Not in any practical area. It makes no sense to assume that our brain size is growing or our toes are getting shorter. We are what we are.

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

61. Without any prior explanation, he stated that evolution stopped, not because we achieved perfection, but because we abandoned this process two million years ago.

Ronald Strahan, former senior scientist and director of Tarong Zoological Park, Sydney; Honorary Secretary of ANZAAS; now an employee of the Australian Museum, Sydney. Quote from: Northern Territory News, 14 September 1983, p.2.

Has humanity evolved before?

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

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

63. In recent years, several authors have published popular books on the origin of man, based more on subjective speculation than on real facts. At the moment, science cannot provide us with a complete answer to the question of human origins, but scientific methods are leading us ever closer to the truth...

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

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

64. For example, no scientist can logically justify the assumption that man, without being involved in any act of supernatural creation, evolved from some kind of ape-like creature in a very short period of time - by geological standards - without leaving any there were no fossil traces of this transformation.

As I have already mentioned, those scientists who studied the fossil remains of primates were not famous for the restraint of conclusions in their logical constructions. Their conclusions are so amazing that the question naturally arises: did science actually spend the night here?

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

65. Modern apes seem to have appeared out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil history. And origin modern man- erect, hairless, producing tools, having a large brain volume - frankly speaking, the same mystery.

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

What about the fossil ape man?

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

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

Are Australopithecines (like "Lucy") an intermediate between apes and humans?

67. In any case, even if preliminary studies indicate that these fossils are human-like or at least a cross between human bones and the bones of African apes, further study of the remains convinces us that such a view is very far from the truth. These bones clearly differ from both human and monkey bones much more than the first and second from each other. Australopithecines are unique...

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

…IN in this case the latest information also comes from scientific laboratories, and not from those who discovered the remains of australopithecus.

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

[Ed.: Oxnard's conclusions regarding Australopithecines are confirmed by the research of Professor Lord Zuckerman, an anatomist (see, cit. 64). Creationists have been criticized for citing Zuckerman's findings because his work predates the 1974 discovery of Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy"). The above quote from Oxnard (1987) is a fitting response to the critics].

68. The entire collection of hominid remains available today could easily fit on a billiard table. However, it gave birth to an entire science due to two factors that inflate its real significance to unprecedented proportions. First, these fossils hint at the origins of the animal most important to man - himself. And secondly, the number of these bones is so negligible, and the samples themselves are so fragmentary, that it is easier to talk about what is missing than about what is available. Hence the incredible amount of literature on this issue. Very few fossils provide a single, compelling conclusion about their evolutionary significance. Most suggest several interpretations. Various scientific authorities are free to highlight different features and assign importance to them, often highlighting the shape of the supposed missing links. The differences between these interpretations can be so vague and humane that they depend more on the concepts of opponents than on fossil evidence. Moreover, since this meager collection was replenished very slowly, the long periods of time between finds allowed researchers to form a clear opinion about what should be found next. Zinjanthropus boisei is a worthy example of this phenomenon. Ever since the time of Darwin, when it was believed that fossils representing intermediate links between modern man and his extinct ancestors were the most convincing evidence of evolution, prejudice has stole the evidence in the study of human fossils.

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

Where does the evidence for evolution come from?

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

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

70. A 5-million-year-old piece of bone that everyone thought was the collarbone of a humanoid creature is actually nothing more than part of a dolphin rib. This conclusion was reached by an anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley.

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

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

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

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

Is evolution possible?

What do mutations (genetic changes) do?

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

This logical scheme, however, is unacceptable: firstly, its main premise is not obvious and not universal; secondly, its conclusions do not correspond to the facts. No matter how numerous mutations are, they do not lead to evolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy of evolution

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

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

Meanwhile...

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

But this is not expected yet. Meanwhile, the enlightened public continues to believe that Darwin provided the answers to all questions with his magic formula: random mutations plus natural selection. They do not know that random mutations are completely inappropriate as an argument, and natural selection is a tautology.

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

On the issue of natural selection

("Survival of the Fittest")

77. There is no doubt that natural selection is a working system. This has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. There is no doubt - natural selection works. The whole question is whether new species are formed as a result. No one has ever created a new species through natural selection, no one has even come close, and most of the recent debate in neo-Darwinism is just about this: how a new species arises. This is where natural selection is forgotten, and certain random mechanisms are introduced.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Natural History Museum, London. Interview on cladistics for the BBC, March 4, 1982.

Darwin suspected...

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

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

And time has confirmed

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

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

80. In other words, natural selection throughout its entire course does not improve the species’ chances of survival, but only keeps it “in a rut,” or gives it the opportunity to adapt to a constantly changing external environment.

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

81. The role attributed to natural selection in the emergence of adaptability is not supported by a single solid proof. Paleontology (as in the case of the transformation of the jaw bones of the reptile theriodont) does not provide evidence; There are no direct observations of inherited adaptations (except for the aforementioned bacteria and insects adapting to viruses and drugs). Formation of the eye, inner ear, whales and cetaceans, etc. by adaptation seems completely impossible.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris; former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press New York 1977, p.770.

82. The whole essence of Darwinism is in one single phrase: natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary changes. No one denies that natural selection plays main role in the destruction of less adapted individuals. But Darwin's theory requires that he also produce fitter ones.

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

Even for spotted moth...

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

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

So…

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

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

85. Francisco Ayala, a central figure in the discussion of the Modern Synthesis in the United States, generously admitted: “We did not set out to predict the stability of population genetics, but now, thanks to the evidence of paleontology, I am confident that small changes do not accumulate at all.”

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

What if there was “enough” time?

In 1954 they believed so:

86. The important thing is that if the emergence of life belongs to the category of phenomena that occur at least once, then time is on its side. No matter how incredible we may consider this event itself or any stage of it, over a sufficient period of time it could have happened at least once. And for life as we know it, with its ability to grow and reproduce, once is enough.

Time is the true hero of this scenario. The time we are dealing with is on the order of two billion years. What is considered impossible based on human experience becomes meaningless in this case. Over such a huge period, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable mdash; almost natural. Time itself works wonders, you just need to wait.

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

In 1978 they already said:

87. There is no reliable information based solely on observations of the Sun, said Dr. Eddy, that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. Personally, I guess the Sun is really 4.5 billion years old. However, I also suspect that with the emergence of new, unexpected results that suggest the opposite, and certainly a time of intensive recalculation and theoretical justification, we may come to the value of the age of the Earth and the Sun that Bishop Ussher gives. I don’t think we have enough astronomically observed facts to contradict this.

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

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

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

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

Where did life come from?

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

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

90. One way or another, the transition from a macromolecule to a cell is a leap of fantastic proportions that lies beyond the limits of a testable hypothesis. In this area, everything will be just a guess. The available evidence does not provide grounds for asserting that cells originated on this planet.*
We do not want to say that some paraphysical forces come into play. We are simply emphasizing the fact that there is no scientific evidence for this. Physicists have learned to avoid the question of when time began and when matter was created, leaving it within the framework of outright demagoguery. The origin of the particles that precede the cell probably belongs to the same category of the unknowable.

* The claim that life originated somewhere in the universe and was then somehow transferred to Earth only brings us back to square one, since it then raises the question of how exactly life originated where it managed to originate in the first place.

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

So…

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

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

What is the probability of evolution?

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

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

About the origin of genes...

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

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

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

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

Hence…

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

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

But the world is old, isn't it?

96. The estimated age of the globe, judging by the degree of radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, is about 4.5 billion years. But the lifespan of this “statement” may be short, since revealing the secrets of nature is not so easy. In recent years, an amazing discovery has been made - it turns out that the rate of radioactive decay is not as constant as previously thought, and is also subject to environmental influences.

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

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

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

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

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

But aren’t potassium-argon (K/Ar) and uranium-lead (U/Pb) methods complementary?

98. Traditional interpretation of age data obtained by the K/Ar method usually rejects values ​​that are too high or too low in comparison with the rest of the group, or with other existing data, such as the geochronological scale. The gap between rejected and accepted data is arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon,

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

99. Thus, if someone believes that the obtained age value in specific example contradicts the established facts of geology, he must remember geological processes that can cause anomalies, or changes in the argon content of minerals.

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

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

100. These results show that even entire rock systems can be exposed during metamorphism, and their isotopic systems can change in ways that make it impossible to determine their geological age.

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

101. One of the important conclusions of the isochronic mantle model is that the crystallization age determined from volcanic rocks using the Rb/Sr method may be many hundreds of millions of years older than the actual age. This problem is more serious in younger rocks, and there are well-founded examples in the literature of discrepancies between stratigraphic ages and Rb/Sr ages.

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

What data is published in scientific journals?

102. In most cases, the data in the “suitable data set” is considered correct and published. The same data that does not coincide with them is rarely published, and the discrepancies are not explained.

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

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

And carbon-14...?

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

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

105. Radiocarbon dating of mummified seal samples from southern Victoria Land showed ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, in Antarctic sea waters, the activity of carbon-14 is much lower than generally accepted global standards. Thus, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms shows ages higher than true, but the difference between these values ​​is unknown and variable. Consequently, the data obtained by the radiocarbon method of studying the mummified remains of seals cannot be considered true. For example, the radiocarbon age of a Lake Bonney seal that died a few weeks ago was determined to be 615 ± 100 years, and the age of a newly killed seal in McMurdo was determined to be 1300 years.

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

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

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

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

Radiocarbon dating miraculously avoided collapsing on its own shaky foundation and is now struggling to maintain its balance. The possibility of anomalous contamination and ancient changes in carbon-14 levels are constantly ignored by those who base their evidence on the results obtained by this method.

In the past, experts said they were “not sure if there was a single significant discrepancy” in the data obtained by different laboratories studying the same sample. These enthusiasts continue to claim, incredibly, that they “see no significant discrepancies.” However, a discrepancy of 15,000 years for one soil sample is just that: a significant discrepancy! And how can huge discrepancies between different laboratories be called “minor” if they are the basis for overestimating the standard margin of error associated with any and every date?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their meager funds on expensive radiocarbon studies? They do this because random dates have proven useful. While this method cannot be counted on to produce definitively accurate results, numbers impress people and save them from the worrying need to think too much. Looking just like exact calendar years, the numbers somehow appeal more to both amateurs and professionals than complex stratigraphic correlations; besides, they are also easier to remember. "Absolute" dates determined in laboratories carry a lot of weight and are very useful in supporting weak arguments...

No matter how “useful” the radiocarbon dating method is considered, it is still not capable of providing accurate and reliable results. Its inconsistencies are great, the chronology is unreliable and relative, and the “generally accepted” dates are in fact adjusted. "This much-blessed endeavor is nothing more than 13th-century alchemy, and the result depends only on the kind of comic book entertainment you prefer."

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

108. Method C14 was discussed at a symposium on the ancient history of the Nile Valley. Our well-known American colleague Professor Brew briefly formulated the general attitude of archaeologists to this method: “If the data obtained by the C14 method. support our theory, we introduce them into the text: if they don’t really contradict it, in the commentary; and if they don’t fit at all, we simply omit them.” Few archaeologists dealing with precise chronology have avoided such application of this method; many still doubt whether it is worth using it without restrictions.

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

How to determine the age of rocks?

From the dogmas of 1949...

109. Because life evolved gradually, changing from era to era, the rocks of each geological period reflect characteristic types of fossils that distinguish them from any other period. Conversely, each type of fossil is an index, or leading fossil, for its corresponding geological era...

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

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (geology), professor emeritus of paleontology and stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1949, p.52.

110. Fossils provide us with the only chronometric scale acceptable in geological history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for the precise dating of geological events. Due to the irreversibility of evolution, they are an accurate measure for determining the relative age of rocks and correlating them on a global scale.

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

...and by the 1970s...

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

This method is not entirely reliable. It happens that an organism that was considered extinct long ago turns out to exist. Such "living fossils" naturally cannot act as indices, except within the broader time frame of their known existence.

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

... it became obvious...

112. Smart lay people have long suspected a vicious circle in dating fossils by the age of rocks, and rocks by the age of fossils. Geologists have never bothered to look for a worthy answer - why explain if the work brings results? This is called stubborn pragmatism.

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

Dating does not go beyond the circle

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

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

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

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

115. The view that the creation of a geological scale leads to a vicious circle has some basis.

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

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

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

Talk to the earth, and he will instruct you... ()

117. I have been working with recent graduate geologists for almost thirty years, and I constantly tell them: forget all the theories you were taught, just observe what is happening in reality and record it.

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

Examining fossils: can we recognize
that the theory of evolution is wrong?

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

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

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

How important is fossil research to an evolutionist?

In 1960...

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

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar, geology, professor emeritus of paleontology and stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, I960, p.47.

And more than 20 years later...

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

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

How did this affect the theory of evolution? A new evolutionary theory has emerged - “punctuated equilibrium”!

121. The Eldridge-Gould concept of “punctuated equilibrium” has gained widespread acceptance among paleontologists. She attempts to explain the following paradox: within genera it is very difficult to find the gradual morphological changes predicted by Darwin; change occurs through the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldridge and Gould equate such occurrences with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. They suggest that change occurs rapidly (by geological standards), in small peripheral populations. They believe that evolution is accelerated in such populations because they contain small, random samples of the gene pool of the parent population (the founder effect) and thus can diverge quickly - both by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressures , which may differ from the parent population. Gradually, some of these divergent, peripheral populations respond to changed environmental conditions (species selection), and then grow and spread rapidly in the fossil record.

The punctuated equilibrium model has become widespread, but not because it has a strong theoretical basis, but because she had to resolve the dilemma. Aside from the obvious research problems inherent in the observations that prompted the model, and aside from its inherent vicious cycle (it could be argued that speciation only occurs following rapid phylum changes, rather than the other way around), the model is currently more of a mixture of explanations than a theory. , and stands on unsteady ground.

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

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

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago, J. John Sepkoski, Jr. ( J. John Sepkoski, Jr., Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, New York, Thomas J. M. Schopf, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Chicago and Daniel S. Bimherloff , Department of Biology, University of Florida, Tallah Hassey. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology, vol.3(l), 1977, pp.34-35.

Think about it!

123. About Pasteur’s refutation of the idea of ​​spontaneous generation of life. - We present this story to beginning biology students as a triumph of common sense over mysticism. In reality, it seems that everything is different. The reasonable approach was to believe in spontaneous emergence; the only alternative is belief in a single, original act of supernatural creation. There is no third. Therefore, a century ago, many scientists began to view belief in the spontaneous origin of life as a “philosophical necessity.” The fact that this necessity is no longer valued is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time. Most modern biologists, watching with satisfaction the decline of the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, still do not want to accept an alternative point of view, to believe in Purposeful Creation, and are left with nothing.

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

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

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

125. I know what question arose in the minds of many of those who read to this point: “Doesn’t science prove that there is no Creator?” Science doesn’t prove this!

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

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

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

127. Scientists top level Much of Wilberforce's criticism of Darwin's theory is today accepted, as is that of the geologist Adam Sedgwick, whose article was published in The Spectator in April 1860...

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

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

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

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

129. ...For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has shown it to them; For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures, so that they are irresponsible. But how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their unthinking hearts were darkened: calling themselves wise, they became fools...

Bible. Romans chapter 1, verses 18-22.

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

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

Evolutionary theory is the doctrine of the general patterns and driving forces of the historical development of living nature. The purpose of this teaching is to identify patterns of development of the organic world for subsequent management of this process. Evolutionary teaching solves the problem of understanding the general laws of evolution, the causes and mechanisms of transformation of living things at all levels of its organization: molecular, subcellular, cellular, tissue, organ, organismal, population, biogeocenotic, biospheric.

The problem of the origin of life has now acquired an irresistible fascination for all humanity. It not only attracts the close attention of scientists from different countries and specialties, but is of interest to all people of the world.

It is now generally accepted that the emergence of life on Earth was a natural process, quite amenable to scientific research. This process was based on the evolution of carbon compounds, which occurred in the Universe long before the emergence of ours. solar system and only continued during the formation of planet Earth - during the formation of its crust, hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Since the origin of life, nature has been in continuous development. The process of evolution has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, and its result is a diversity of living forms that, in many ways, has not yet been fully described and classified.

In the history of the development of the theory of evolution, several stages can be distinguished:

1. Pre-Darwinian period (until the middle of the 19th century): works of K. Linnaeus, Lamarck, Roulier and others.

2. Darwinian period (2nd half of the 19th century - 20s of the 20th century): the formation of classical Darwinism and the main anti-Darwinian trends in evolutionary thought.

3. The crisis of classical Darwinism (20s - 30s of the XX century), associated with the emergence of genetics and the transition to population thinking.

4. Formation and development of the synthetic theory of evolution (30s - 50s of the XX century).

5. Attempts to create a modern theory of evolution (60s - 90s of the XX century).

The origin of the idea of ​​the development of living things dates back to the heyday of the philosophical thought of the Ancient East and Ancient Greece. By the second half of the 19th century, enormous factual material on botany, zoology, and anatomy had been accumulated. Ideas about the variability of species appeared, which were supported by rapid development Agriculture, breeding new breeds and varieties. A great contribution to the development of biology was made by C. Linnaeus, who proposed a system of classification of animals and plants using subordinate taxonomic groups. He introduced binary nomenclature (double species name). In 1808, in the work “Philosophy of Zoology” J.B. Lamarck raises the question of the causes and mechanisms of evolutionary transformations and sets forth the first theory of evolution. Lamarck's evolutionary theory, the creation of cell theory, data from comparative anatomy, systematics, paleontology and embryology prepared the basis for the creation of the doctrine of the evolution of the organic world. This doctrine, which is the largest generalization of natural science of the 19th century, was created by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). In 1859, Charles Darwin published his main work, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” in which, using a wealth of factual material, he showed the patterns of evolution of organisms and the animal origin of humans.

The main provisions of Darwin's theory:

1. Heredity and variability are the properties of organisms on which evolution is based. Charles Darwin distinguished the following forms of variability: definite (according to modern concepts, non-hereditary or modification variability) and indefinite (hereditary) variability. He attached leading importance to the latter for evolution.

2. Natural selection is the driving, guiding factor of evolution. C. Darwin came to the conclusion that it is inevitable in nature that the selective destruction of less fit individuals and the reproduction of more fit ones. Natural selection in nature is carried out through the struggle for existence. C. Darwin distinguished between intraspecific, interspecific and struggle with factors of inanimate nature.

3. Based on ideas about the origin of modern species through natural selection, the theory of evolution solves the problem of expediency and fitness in nature. Adaptation is always relative. According to Charles Darwin, the evolving unit is the species.

4. The diversity of species is considered as a result of natural selection and the associated divergence (divergence) of characters.

Schematically, the essence of Charles Darwin's theory can be depicted as follows: the struggle for existence is natural - selection - speciation.

The importance of Charles Darwin's theoretical works cannot be underestimated. His work revolutionized the views of biologists. Firstly, it became clear that the natural system of living organisms should be built on the basis of phylogeny - on the basis of related relationships between organisms. The presence of purposefulness in living nature can now be explained as an inevitable result of evolution through natural selection. Data from such old sciences as anatomy and morphology, embryology, paleontology, and biogeography received a completely new meaning.

The simplicity and clarity of the concept made it very attractive. However, from the position of genetic Darwinism it is difficult to explain many actually observed phenomena. In particular, species of animals and plants always differ from their ancestors (or related species) by a complex of polygenic traits, and each of the mutations individually is often harmful. Within the framework of this concept, it is also difficult to explain the phenomenon of fixation of modifications, the appearance of new characters that did not previously exist in the original species. The reasons for the repetition of phylogeny in ontogeny remained a mystery.

In addition, in its current form at the beginning of the 20th century, Darwin's theory could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the uneven rates of evolution and the causes of mass extinction of large taxa. This was the reason for many scientists of that time to abandon this theory.

However, by the middle of the 20th century, the main objections to Charles Darwin's theory were removed. The work of Russian scientists played a decisive role in this.

In 1921 Alexey Nikolaevich Severtsov (1866 - 1936) published the work “Studies on the Theory of Evolution,” in which he outlined the theory of phylembryogenesis. Ivan Ivanovich Shmalgauzen (1884 - 1963), a student of A. N. Severtsov, continued this direction in the work “The Organism as a Whole in the Individual and historical development"(1938). It became clear that evolution occurs through changes in ontogenesis. In the course of evolution, new stages of development are added to the stages of development existing in the ancestors. Subsequently, as a result of rationalization and autonomization, ontogenesis is restructured and simplified, but at the same time the “correlations” remain unchanged general meaning"(forming apparatuses). It is by such “nodal” points that we judge the repetition of phylogeny in ontogenesis.

The principles of phylogenetic changes in organs developed by A. N. Severtsov (1931) made it possible to explain how new organs and functions arise in the course of evolution. Around the same time, the autogenetic concepts of geneticists were finally refuted (the spontaneous nature of the occurrence of mutations was emphasized), because convincing evidence was obtained of the influence of physical and chemical factors on the mutation process (G.A. Nadson and G.S. Filippov, 1925; G.J. Möller, 1927, L. Stedler, 1928; V.V. Sakharov, 1932, etc. .).

The American paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1902 - 1984), solving the problem of uneven rates of evolution, introduced the concept of the adaptive zone of a taxon. The entry of a taxon into a new adaptive zone causes very rapid, on a geological time scale, its evolution and differentiation (quantum evolution). As the adaptive zone becomes saturated, a period of slow brately evolution begins.

The impetus for the synthesis of genetics and Darwin's evolutionary theory was the brilliant work of the Soviet geneticist Sergei Sergeevich Chetverikov (1880 - 1959) “On some aspects of evolutionary teaching from the point of view of modern genetics” (1926). The ideas of S.S. Chetverikov served as the basis for the further development of population genetics in the works of S. Site, R. Fischer, N.P. Dubinin, F.G. Dobzhansky, J. Huxley and others. Reinterpretation of a number of provisions of Darwin's theory from the standpoint of genetics of the early 20th century turned out to be extremely fruitful. In the most famous form, the results of the “new synthesis” are presented in the book by F. G. Dobzhansky “Genetics and the Origin of Species” (1937). This year is considered the year of the emergence of the “synthetic theory of evolution.” For the first time, the concept of “isolating mechanisms of evolution” was formulated - those reproductive barriers that separate the gene pool of one species from the gene pools of other species. The term “modern” or “evolutionary synthesis” comes from the title of J. Huxley’s book “Evolution: the modern synthesis” (1942). The expression "synthetic theory of evolution" in precise application to this theory was first used by J. Simpson in 1949.

In the 60s of the 20th century, studies of various forms of selection (driving, stabilizing and destructive) by F. G. Dobzhansky, J. M. Smith, E. Ford and others showed that the speed of driving selection in natural and experimental populations is often significantly higher than previously thought. When studying the mechanisms of insect adaptation to DDT, it was also shown that evolution occurs through directed selection of a combination of small mutations, exactly as S.S. Chetverikov believed, and not through the selection of newly emerging “useful” mutations.

Progress in studying the causes of the mass extinction of taxa and the patterns of evolution of ecosystems began only in the late 70s of the 20th century, after the publication of the works of the Soviet paleontologist Vladimir Vasilyevich Zherikhin (1945 - 2001). He was able to demonstrate that the cause of mass extinctions is global restructuring of the biosphere - biogeocenotic crises. Currently, the synthetic theory is the dominant evolutionary theory in biology. However, many authors note that the simplifications adopted within this theory lead to a significant discrepancy between its predictions and observational results. Similar contradictions concern the rate of evolution of taxa, discreteness of biological diversity (discreteness of parthenogenetic species), epigenetic processes in ontogenesis, etc. As a result, at the end of the 20th century, in continuation of the ideas of Schmalhausen-Waddington, M.A. Shishkin put forward the “epigenetic theory of evolution” (1988 ). According to this concept, “... the direct subject of evolution is not genes, but integral developmental systems, the fluctuations of which are stabilized as irreversible changes... Evolutionary changes begin with the phenotype and spread as they stabilize towards the genome, and not vice versa.”

Research in the field of evolutionary biology at the end of the 20th century showed that, at the level of the organism, due to the complexity of the interaction of its subsystems, many evolutionary changes cannot be explained either by the direct action of selection or by correlative changes in traits related functionally or morphogenetically to those directly affected by selection. selection for fitness. To describe the mechanisms of such changes, a group of scientists led by A.S. Severtsov, a student of I.I. Shmalhausen, began the development of the “episelection theory of evolution.”

Episelection theory considers the following phenomena:

1. The emergence of new or destruction of old morphogenetic correlations, which does not lead to a change in the definitive phenotype, but is expressed only in a change in the pattern of variability;

2. The emergence of morphological innovations based on the self-organization of development processes;

3. The emergence of new directions of selection as a result of changes in genetic and non-genetic mechanisms of self-reproduction of phenotypes;

4. Directed changes in phenotypes as a result of random effects of selection for other traits.

How did the modern theory of evolution develop? The main tasks of evolutionary science changed at different stages of its development. In a very simplified form we can say that in the 19th century. the most important task was to prove the reality of the evolution of the organic world; in the 20th century a causal explanation of the mechanisms and empirically established patterns of the evolutionary process came to the fore. Moreover, in the first half of the 20th century. the attention of researchers focused mainly on the processes of microevolution, while in the second, studies of molecular evolution increasingly developed; next in line is the analysis of macroevolution and a new integration of all areas of evolutionary science.

Any evolutionary theory that claims to be complete and consistent must solve a number of fundamental problems, including:

1) general causes and driving forces of the evolution of organisms;

2) mechanisms for the development of adaptations of organisms to their living conditions and changes in these conditions;

3) the causes and mechanisms of the emergence of an amazing variety of forms of organisms, as well as the reasons for the similarities and differences between different species and their groups;

4) the reasons for evolutionary progress - the increasing complexity and improvement of the organization of living beings in the course of evolution - while maintaining more primitive and simply structured species. Thus, in modern evolutionary theory, three levels of consideration of evolutionary processes have developed: genetic (synthetic theory of evolution), epigenetic (epigenetic theory) and episelection (episelection theory).

Outstanding biologists of the 19th-20th centuries K.F. Roulier, brothers A.O. and V.O. Kovalevsky, I.I. Mechnikov, K.A. Timiryazev, A.N. Severtsov, V.A. Dogel, L.A. Orbeli, I.I. Shmalgauzen, A.I. Oparin, A.L. Takhtadzhyan, A.V. Ivanov, M.S. Gilyarov could not imagine their activities without referring to evolutionary theory. This fruitful scientific tradition is continued by many Russian biologists, as demonstrated by the conference “ Contemporary issues biological evolution" (2007), dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the State Darwin Museum. The interest of foreign researchers in evolutionary problems is also not waning, but, on the contrary, growing. Thus, the number of publications on the theory of evolution in the authoritative American journal “Philosophy of Science” for the period 2000 - 2005. increased almost threefold compared to 1995 - 1999. (Sineokaya, 2007).

An encouraging factor is what has long been brewing among many domestic researchers (S.E. Shnol, V.V. Zherikhin, A.S. Rautian, S.V. Bagotsky, S.N. Grinchenko, Yu.V. Mamkaev, V.V. Khlebovich, A.B. Savinov) understanding the need not to oppose alternative evolutionary concepts, but to identify points of contact and complementary elements. Such rational elements, according to the principle of integration of rational elements developed evolutionary theories(Savinov, 2008a) should be considered evolutionary provisions, which, firstly, do not contradict the laws of dialectical-materialist philosophy, system-cybernetic provisions on adaptive systems (Savinov, 2006); secondly, they are consistent with the achievements of the natural sciences and are verified by practice.

Thus, the development of the theory of evolution after the publication of Charles Darwin’s famous book “The Origin of Species” occurs along a “dialectical spiral”: researchers return to the ideas expressed earlier by outstanding biologists (J.B. Lamarck, Charles Darwin, L.S. Berg and etc.), but interpreted taking into account new ideas. During this process, it is important to avoid mistakes caused, both previously and now, by the absolutization of any views.