The second problem of the evolutionary theory of biological species is related to the limits of applicability of Darwin’s theory: to what processes can it be extrapolated (supporters of the evolutionism paradigm categorically extend it to the development of all living nature and even matter in general), whether it is possible on its basis to explain the emergence of life itself from inanimate, and also the emergence of new species? And if the emergence of new species occurred through evolutionary changes, then where are the transitional forms?
Darwin himself understood this problem, noting that the number of intermediate varieties that once existed must be truly enormous. Why, in this case, does each geological formation and isn't each layer overflowing with such intermediate links? Indeed, geology does not reveal to us such a completely continuous chain of organization, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be made against his theory.
Today the situation is not much different. Here are the statements of modern scientists: “Palaeontological evidence of evolutionary changes within a single line of inheritance is very scarce. If the theory of evolution is correct, then species arise as a result of changes in predecessor species and therefore the presence of fossil remains should be expected. But in fact there are very few such remains. In 1859, Darwin could not give a single such example” (M. Ridley). “Almost 120 years have passed since Darwin. During this time, our knowledge of fossil remains has expanded significantly. We now have a quarter of a million specimens of fossil species, but the situation has not changed significantly. The evidence regarding evolution is surprisingly sketchy. The irony of our situation today is that we now have fewer examples evolutionary transition than there were in Darwin’s time” (D. Raup). “Forms transitional from one species to another can be observed today. We can also conclude that they existed in the past. And yet the end result is very far from the perfectly woven tapestry in which the Tree of Life can be seen simply by tracing the intermediate links: both living and extinct creatures that connected all species with each other. Not at all. Biologists are much more struck by the discreteness of the organic form and the general absence of intermediate links” (L. Morris).
Thus, one of the main problems of Charles Darwin’s theory is the problem of the absence of transitional forms, which in the paradigm of universal evolutionism turns into the problem of qualitative leaps, which will be discussed below.
The third problem is related to the feasibility of evolution.
In the teleological approach, expediency was explained by the fact that organisms have a certain internal goal of development. Or this goal is set by someone external - God.
Within the framework of Darwin's evolutionary theory, expediency is considered as a result natural selection. As organisms develop, the process of interaction with the environment becomes more complex; the stability of a population is determined by the ability of its individuals to adapt to external conditions, with changes in which the criteria of expediency also change. In organisms we call expedient everything that leads to the continuation of the life of an individual or species; inexpedient - everything that shortens life.
The selection criterion in this case will be stability in relation to the external environment. Thus, according to Eigen, the randomness of the origin of the code of a DNA molecule is determined by the criterion of stability in relation to environmental conditions, and the choice is made from one of many possible alternatives.
In this interpretation, no one from beyond is needed for expediency; everything is determined by natural laws.
Thus, feasibility depends on the external environment and is determined by its conditions and state.
S.D. Khaitun writes that evolution has no goal, but only a direction (vector) that determines the progress of evolution and is associated with changes that include the following:
Intensification of energy exchange and metabolism;
Intensification and expansion of energy and matter cycles;
Increased integrity (systematicity) of structures;
Increased connectivity of “everything with everything” and openness of systems;
- “floor-by-floor” increase in complexity and variety of forms;
Increasing degree of non-Gaussianity of stationary and evolutionary time distributions;
Increasing degree of fractality of evolving systems and the Universe as a whole.
Thus, there is an increase in complexity and hierarchy of evolving structures. This gave rise in the second half of the twentieth century to scientists talking about the evolution of evolution itself. Nevertheless, as S.V. emphasizes. Meyen, in general, we can say that although the problem of evolution deserves attention, it is apparently still very far from its meaningful development, and not a simple list of statements.
Evolutionary theories themselves have also undergone evolution, which today has led to the formation of the main methodological concepts of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which are the concepts of self-organization and global evolutionism.
Olga Orlova: About 10 years ago, paleontologist Alexander Markov, visiting various forums on the Internet, was surprised to discover that the theory of evolution is not for modern people as obvious as the multiplication table. Despite school curriculum and all the discoveries of biologists, many people do not accept the provisions formulated by Charles Darwin, and then Markov decided to engage in education. Today he is one of the most famous scientific popularizers in Russia, and his books have become bestsellers.
We are talking with the winner of the Enlightenment Prize, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Alexander Markov, about the Hamburg account.
Alexander Markov- Doctor of Biological Sciences, paleontologist. In 1987, he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University and was immediately accepted as a research assistant at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2014, he headed the Department of Biological Evolution, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University. Actively popularizes science in the media. Created the website "Problems of Evolution". Prepares scientific news on the portal "Elements.ru". Author of several science fiction novels, as well as books popularizing the doctrine of evolution - “The Birth of Complexity”, “Evolution. Classic Ideas in the Light of New Discoveries”, “Human Evolution”. Author of Russia's main prize in the field of popular science literature "Enlightener".
O.O. : Alexander, thank you very much for coming to our program. I wanted to talk to you today about the modern theory of evolution. The fact is that quite a lot of time has passed since the time of Darwin and quite a lot of discoveries have occurred that scientists have made. Even new types of sciences appeared, previously unknown to Darwin, such as genetics and molecular biology. Please tell us what the modern theory of evolution is. What is the "evolutionary view of the world" today?
Alexander Markov: If you need to give an answer in one sentence, then I would say this: despite the colossal progress of science, biology, in particular, over the past 150 years, surprisingly, the main idea that Darwin introduced into science still lies the basis of all modern biology. It has become stronger, and its effectiveness has been proven many times from various angles. This idea is often called simply the mechanism of natural selection, but in essence there is a very simple logic: if you have an object that has the ability to reproduce, variability (that is, its descendants are not absolutely identical copies, but slightly different), heredity (then yes, these individual differences, at least some of them, are hereditary, transmitted by inheritance), and if at least some of these hereditary differences affect the efficiency of reproduction, then where did we start - if these 4 conditions are met, then such the object cannot help but evolve. It will definitely evolve, according to Darwin, on the basis of the mechanism that he introduced into science. Indeed, today we are absolutely sure that this mechanism underlies the development of life on Earth.
O.O. : What then explains the number of myths and strange interpretations of Darwin’s teachings that we encounter today? There is a fairly persistent expression, which many philosophers or modern theologians struggle with, that Darwin argued that we evolved from a monkey, and then there is a long refutation: well, are we similar to a monkey? Why then did the monkey not turn into a man? There are monkeys walking around and so on...
We did not even descend from monkeys, but are one of the species of monkeys that once lived on Earth
A.M. : The whole point is what we understand by the word “monkey”. Here we also need to take into account that in Russian the word “monkey” means both monkey-like apes and apes together. We call them all with one word “monkeys”. IN English language, in which Darwin wrote, these are 2 different words: monkeys are a monkey-like ape, apes are apes. Therefore, there is still confusion here because of this. But Russian word“monkeys” corresponds quite definitely to a group of organisms, a natural group, that is, descended from a common ancestor, which includes New World monkeys and Old World monkeys. Old World monkeys are divided into apes and apes. Man, our species, is a twig on the bush of apes, that is, formally speaking, we belong to the monkeys. We are not even descended from apes, but are a species of apes if we strictly follow the rules of biological classification. We are descended from extinct monkeys that once lived on Earth. We even know which monkeys humans descended from. The bones of these monkeys were found in Africa, they are called "Australopithecus". The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably lived 6-7 million years ago. He was also the ancestor of Australopithecus. But it was, of course, an ape. Darwin, in fact, does not write in such words, but in essence this is exactly what he writes in plain text.
O.O. : Why is it so difficult for people to realize their kinship with monkeys?
A.M. : Ignorance, lack of education, prejudices, what is naturally infected with the consciousness of any person who does not work on developing his brains, simply stupidity, ignorance, lack of education on the one hand. On the other hand, for certain reasons, many people do not want Darwin to be right, that is, they want it to be untrue. Usually all kinds of religious fundamentalists oppose Darwin.
O.O. : If we are still talking not about a worldview or a religious factor, but rather about a psychological one. There are people who are non-believers, and they do not accept the creationist picture of the world, but, nevertheless, it is difficult for them to accept it purely psychologically...
A person who can bear to be related to apes is almost certainly a believer
A.M. : Honestly, I don’t know people like that. For such a combination, for a person to be an atheist, and for it to be difficult for him to recognize the kinship between man and ape - I have never met such people - either one or the other. That is, a person who says that he cannot stand being related to monkeys is almost certainly a believer - I don’t know such atheists with such views on monkeys.
O.O. : So, you think that the fundamental contradiction here lies in the theological picture of the world?
A.M. : Yes, this is not necessarily a believer. This will be a person who believes that everything has a purpose, there is some kind of higher meaning for everything, that evolution, if it exists, then it is a movement towards some goal. This person definitely needs some kind of predetermined meaning for everything to exist.
O.O. : From a biological point of view, does evolution have no purpose?
A.M. : From the point of view of natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all. This is called teleology - an attempt to explain natural processes by the desire for some goal. In effect, this means that we place the cause of events in the future. scientific picture The world proceeds from the fact that, firstly, a cause exists - the principle of causality. Secondly, the causes of events are in the past. Something happened, after some time the impact reached this place - it can have an impact. The cause must be in the past - the cause cannot be in the future - states modern science. Accordingly, it follows from this that nothing can have any goals. The rotation of the Earth around the Sun has no purpose - it rotates due to the natural laws of gravity in some orbit, but this rotation has no purpose.
O.O. : How would you comment on the attempts that, it seems to me, have been made since the first works of Darwin, to reconcile the natural-scientific worldview that you described with the religious one. It seems to me that one of the most touching attempts was made by Darwin’s wife, when it was very difficult for her to understand and accept what her husband was doing, his discoveries, she was a deeply religious person, and then she told him: “As long as you honestly seek the truth, you will not you can be an enemy of God.” This may be such a naive attempt, but understandable. Is such a reconciliation of the two approaches generally possible?
From the point of view of natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all
A.M. : A very subtle remark from Emma, Darwin's wife. The essence of the problem of this psychological conflict of incompatibility is as follows: Darwin’s book actually changed the general vector of development of the natural sciences, let’s talk about biology. Before Darwin, the study of nature was a very God-pleasing activity. There was a philosophical movement called natural theology. The essence of the idea is as follows, and Lomonosov, by the way, wrote about this: God seemed to give us two books - “The Holy Scriptures,” in which he outlined his will, and the natural world around us, in which he demonstrated his greatness to us. Accordingly, scientists who study nature comprehend God’s plan, come closer to understanding this plan, in general, they come closer to God, in fact, they read a certain “Holy Scripture” - this was a very God-pleasing deed.
Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living things can be explained without the involvement of divine intervention
In the same book “Natural Theology” by William Paley, a famous metaphor about clocks is given: they say, if we found a clock on the road in a field, of course, we cannot admit that this clock spontaneously originated here by chance, arose there from the dust, particles. It is clear that if there is a watch, then there is also a watchmaker who made this watch. Look around us: any insect is more complex, more harmonious than this unfortunate clock. So how can we assume that there is no watchmaker who created it? Of course, the Lord created all this. What did Darwin do? Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living things can be explained without involving divine intervention. That it, based on the mechanism of natural selection shown by Darwin, should develop by itself. That is, God was no longer needed. It is similar to how Laplace, in a conversation with Napoleon, said his famous phrase: “Sire, I do not need this hypothesis,” when Napoleon asked him: “Where is God in your theory?” Biologists before Darwin could not say so - they needed this hypothesis. Only after Darwin were they able to mentally, so to speak, join Laplace. After this, natural sciences ceased to be the study of sacred scripture, and this already turned out to be a movement away from God, because the further biology develops now, the better we understand that, yes, indeed, it all develops this way, not under the control of any then a reasonable start.
O.O. : How can agnosticism be interpreted from this point of view? You were the scientific editor of Richard Dawkins' famous book The God Delusion. There, Dawkins, considering agnostics, perceives them as some kind of intellectual cowards, people who show intellectual weakness, who do not have the courage to get rid of the divine principle, like Laplace or like Darwin. What is agnosticism?
A.M. : Look, Laplace didn’t say: “Sire, I proved that there is no God!” - he said: “Sire, I do not need this hypothesis,” that is, I can explain these natural phenomena without invoking the hypothesis of divine intervention. This is not atheism yet - it does not yet consider this issue. Darwin himself began as a believer, and even studied to be a priest for some time, but gave up. Then, as he developed his evolutionary theory, he realized that God could not specially create for each island on each island of the Galapagos archipelago separate species of finches with just such a beak, or with some other beak. God would not engage in such nonsense - it is much more like the result of a natural natural process, which it is. It was a severe shock. He had a believing wife whom he did not want to upset. Everything was very difficult back then: just give up religion. But by the end of his life, Darwin himself assessed himself as an agnostic. I know for sure that God did not create the Galapagos finches like this: each island has its own species, but otherwise I don’t know. If Darwin himself was an agnostic, then why should we condemn agnostics?
O.O. : How do you assess agnosticism yourself? In your experience, are there natural agnostic scientists in your community?
A.M. : Let's say Kirill Eskov always says about himself: “I am an agnostic.”
O.O. : How do you perceive this?
A.M. : Of those who openly state this, so it is not a secret. I can understand, imagine, build a model of the psyche of a person who considers himself an agnostic.
O.O. : One of the most important things that we get as a result of a religious picture of the world is morality and the idea of good and evil. Somehow it so happened that in a person’s culture these things are directly related to his worldview and religious views, and from there, in fact, they take their religious origin. Now, if we are talking about an evolutionary attitude to reality from the point of view of evolution, how then are morality and the idea of good, of evil, of what is permissible and unacceptable?
A.M. : This is very interesting topic. It deals with a branch of biology called evolutionary ethics- just the problems of the evolution of altruism, kindness, the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps the most developed model or mechanism for the development of altruistic behavior and cooperative behavior during evolution is the so-called theory of kin selection. Which is based on the fact that evolution, very roughly speaking metaphorically, proceeds in the interests of genes, and not in the interests of individuals. That is, those genetic variants that have the ability to spread more efficiently for any reason are distributed in the gene pool. Gene variants or alleles compete with each other. For example, there is allele A and allele B. In some cases, it happens that the “interest” of a gene or genetic variant may not coincide with the interests of the individual in whom this gene resides. Because an individual is a single object, one organism, and an allele is a multiple object, many identical copies of the same gene in different individuals.
O.O. : So you want to say that the genes require one decision, and the biological animal itself makes a different decision from the one that needs to be made in terms of genetic improvement.
A.M. : Yes. Selection favors mutations that cause more copies of our allele to appear. If, in order for there to be more of these copies, one or two carriers of a given allele need to be sacrificed so that the remaining carriers receive a gain, this happens.
O.O. : Give an example of experiments where it is shown that animals behave irrationally and altruistically and, say, somehow sacrifice themselves, and in general, how appropriate is it to talk about morality in this case.
A.M. : You probably want mammals right away.
O.O. : Want.
If natural selection favors altruistic behavior, then the result of this selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience
A.M. : There is such a thing as emotions - this is what we experience - a feeling of joy, grief, fear, love, some kind of strong desires, shame, etc.. Accordingly, if we say that in the course of evolution behavior this and that have changed - this means that in the course of evolution the emotions that regulate behavior have changed. This means that the mammal begins to behave not like this, but like this, because it becomes unpleasant for him to behave like this, but this is pleasant, she feels that this is bad, but this is good. This means that this center of discrimination between what is good and what is bad sits very deep in the midbrain, not even in the cerebral hemispheres. It integrates many signals that come there from different senses and, as it were, weighs them and makes decisions about what is good and what is bad - such a center for distinguishing between good and evil. These signals, in the form of neuron processes that secrete the substance dopamine, go to our cortex. cerebral hemispheres in the frontal lobes, the orbitofrontal cortex, and there we are aware of the work of this center for distinguishing between good and evil, and we feel whether it is good or bad when we make a choice, when we make a decision. Therefore, if natural selection supports altruistic behavior in mammals, such as our ancestors, then the result of this natural selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience - an internal moral law. It will simply be unpleasant to act in a certain way, and if we did so, our self-esteem will suffer. Conscience, this moral law that Kant was so surprised by, is a natural, predictable result of the evolution of altruistic behavior in animals such as mammals, and this is how it should have been.
O.O. : Do scientists understand at what stage of evolution a person developed a conscience? Some didn't show up?
A.M. : For some it is not very developed, that is, it is not a self-sufficient instinct. Not like some other instincts, this internal moral law - it must be perfected by education, and it is very easily lost. Social life is impossible without a certain self-restraint. Monkeys are very social animals; it is impossible to live in a group if you do not take into account the interests of others, if you do not at least sometimes sacrifice your interests for the sake of others. If you can't do it, and others can't do it, social life simply impossible.
O.O. : It turns out that conscience is a kind of creation of society.
A.M. : Definitely.
O.O. : You have been actively popularizing for more than 10 years and your news is on the Internet at elementy.ru; there are also several books that have become bestsellers and are sold widely. Why are you doing this?
A.M. : I discovered that there is such a thing in the world as creationists - people who these days manage to believe in all seriousness that the theory of evolution has not been proven, that evolution is in fact not a fact, but only a theory.
O.O. : That there are no transitional forms?
A.M. : So much completely wild, crazy nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. People believe in this, prove it to themselves, to others, and that such people really exist and they have websites on the Internet. When I came across it, I thought, Lord have mercy, what is this, what ignorance! We quickly need to explain to people what’s what - they just don’t know, they didn’t take biology at school, they don’t know some banal facts - we need to make a website and quickly explain everything to us in a popular way.
O.O. : This “quick” thing lasts more than 10 years. There are many scientists, but there are indeed very few popularizers.
A.M. : On the other hand, if I really don’t discover something in science, I won’t discover some fact that I would have discovered.
O.O. : Someone else will do it.
A.M. : Yes, someone else will do it, say, two days later. Actually, there will be no loss for humanity, but there are really few popularizers. If people like my books, read them, buy them, then I have found my calling, I need to do this.
O.O. : I think Darwin will not forget you. What would you say to Darwin if you had the opportunity to talk to him?
A.M. : I would tell him, the first thing is that you shouldn’t believe Lord Kelvin - the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, everything is okay, there’s enough time for evolution. Because Darwin was very worried that the largest expert on the age of the Earth of that time, Lord Kelvin, argued that the Earth was only 10 million years old. He calculated this, as it turned out later, on the basis of incorrect premises. 10 million was not enough for the evolution of life according to Darwin, but 4.5 billion is just enough. And second, if it were possible, I would tell him that, as you expected, the Pre-Cabrian fossil record has been found. That is, for Darwin it was a very big headache that fossil organisms from the most ancient layers of the Precambrian were not known, and it turned out that life seemed to suddenly arise out of nothing at the beginning of the Cambrian period, but now they have found it. I think Darwin would have been very pleased with these two pieces of news.
O.O. : And if Darwin, on the contrary, went to us in a time machine, what discoveries would shock him the most, in your opinion?
A.M. : DNA. Because DNA is cool. As the molecule of heredity, DNA is one of the most striking and brilliant proofs of Darwin's correctness.
O.O. : Thanks a lot. Our guest was Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution, Alexander Markov.
Must watch
The film is produced by the Living Waters team behind the award-winning TV program The Master's Way and the hit films 180 and Evolution vs. God.
1 fact
Evolution theory tells us tales that all this happened very gradually. Through gradual (step-by-step) complication and restructuring of the Russian stove into an internal combustion engine.
However, this explanation has two weaknesses. Firstly, the famous "irreducible complexity" problem, which is difficult functional system it simply cannot be created in a step-by-step manner. It must be collected immediately. Otherwise, it simply will not work (Darwinists have been butting heads with proponents of Intelligent Design over this problem for a long time).
- Second problem! If a complex character was formed gradually, then, firstly, the corresponding paleontological traces of this evolution should remain (the so-called “transitional forms”), and secondly, a rather long evolutionary time is required for such a scenario (gradual formation). And so, the second problem is that often (more precisely, almost always) neither one nor the other is found in nature.
Instead, we observe a sudden “falling out of singularity” (i.e., out of nowhere) of a complex feature immediately in finished form, and immediately with a new biological taxon that possesses this trait. It is clear that this state of affairs (which is observed in fact) obviously contradicts the scenario of “gradual evolution of complex traits.”
Even in the first year of archeology, it is explained quite clearly that the transitional link has never been found, and the existing finds are very doubtful. Everyone knows the fact
Fact 2
70 -80% of the world's population are imitators and have no opinion of their own. As you were taught, so you will think according to the system. Take for example the famous story of Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit. Many will say that it was an apple, confirming their judgment with the Bible, but there is nothing of the kind in the book. Someone once decided that it must be an apple, and everyone else just believed it.
The Bible does not indicate anywhere that the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate was the apple.
Only 20% can question another person's theory. This is the reason that for many years humanity has been misled by Darwin's theory.
3 fact
Charles Darwin did not present in his book"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" not a single piece of evidence, but was based only on his own guesses and imagination.
“Having read Darwin’s Origin of Species from cover to cover, one can count at least 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood, such as “suppose ...”, “probably ...”, “perhaps”, “etc.” L Merson Davies, Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
There is still no direct evidence that man descended from apes. Scientists constantly put forward different hypotheses about the origin of man and evolution, but all of them are not particularly conclusive, without facts.
Fact 4
The current paradox- this is a really, really serious problem for Darwinism.
One of our most believing Darwinists (Russia), Alexander Markov, finally proved to himself that evolution is impossible. He did it very in a simple way. He just took it, and finally became acquainted with the famous paradox of current flow.
The fact is that the so-called proves in fact that no evolution (even under the influence of the most powerful selection pressure) is impossible.
On my own behalf, I will add that the current paradox is a really, very serious problem for Darwinism. In its extreme manifestations, it refutes Darwinism in fact.
5 fact
Even nature decreed this, then for the subsequent preservation of a new species, its first representative needs a partner to continue the race, therefore at least two individuals must evolve simultaneously, which is impossible at the genetic level
This fact alone can completely disprove the theory, however, there is even more serious evidence. So far, among the numerous fossil animals, no gene chain has been found that would clearly show the transition between the two species.
Every animal loves what is like itself, and every man loves his neighbor. All flesh is united according to its kind, and man is joined to those like himself - Biblical Wisdom
6 fact
Holy Darwinian Faith in that everything was formed randomly out of nothing. The belief that there was nothing, nothing happened to anything, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-producing pieces that then turned into people, animals, and birds . Very meaningful...
But let us not encroach on their holy faith.
P.S. The Big Bang theory arose in the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. However, few people know that this theory has many opponents in the scientific community and in particular evolutionists because it sounds pretty implausible.
7 fact
Charles Darwin did not have his own laboratory and he did not receive special biological education, but had only amateur interest. He did all his research only superficially using primitive tools.
As indirect evidence, one can cite the fact that when developing his theory, Darwin was not a biologist, he only loved nature and had rich in imagination and imagination.
This primitive microscope that belonged to Darwin. He used it to study plants and insects during his voyage on the Beagle.
Storing genetic information, subjected the theory to complete collapse.
8 fact
Evolutionists can't find an acceptable explanation for the extraordinary diversity of languages and their complexity. It is impossible to establish or recreate any of the proto-languages that supposedly arose through evolutionary means.
All agree with the fact that language is the main feature that distinguishes people from other biological species. In general, the gift of speech is inherent in all people - and in none of the other living creatures inhabiting the Earth.
I had to admit evolutionist Ashley Montagu: "Many 'primitive' languages... are often much more complex and expressive than the languages of the so-called higher civilizations" Language obviously did not have a crude, primitive beginning. Although Ashley was an evolutionist until the end of his life, he had many unanswered questions.
9 fact
Humans have 46 chromosomes, and monkeys have 48. Darwinists claim that the ape lost two chromosomes during evolution, but how can one evolve in mental development after losing two chromosomes? It has been scientifically proven that the loss of chromosomes leads to degradation and subsequent death. Unfortunately, we can observe this phenomenon in our time.
Also, in the process of evolution, animals develop underdeveloped organs, which cannot in any way contribute to existence on Earth.
10 fact
Darwin himself realized that in his theory there were, to put it mildly, huge gaps, which he wrote about in a specially dedicated chapter “Difficulties encountered by the theory.”
The hypothesis that evolutionary processes could create highly organized life from inanimate chaotic matter clearly contradicts one of the fundamental laws of physics, The second law of thermodynamics.
And although many people still cling to this theory, nevertheless, every thinking person understands perfectly well that our complex and amazing world could not have happened on its own. It is obvious that he was created by Someone. And we call his Creator God.
· The concept of “synthetic theory of evolution (theory of modern synthesis)”
· Man's place in the animal world. Biological taxonomy of man
· Darwin's evolutionary theory from the point of view of modern ideas
· Engels' labor theory "-"
· New approaches to the theory of anthropogenesis
Anthropogenesis is the process of evolutionary transformation of an ape-like ancestor into a modern human during the formation of social relationships.
Questions about the emergence and development of man are among the most important ideological issues. Conceptual ambiguity of the issue. A large number of paleontological finds from the turn of the century sharply increased interest in this field of knowledge. The use of new technical means often leads to the need for a complete reassessment of the history of primitive man.
The totality of data from paleoanthropology, paleoantology, molecular biology, archaeogenetics, paleopsychology and other sciences make up the concept synthetic theory of evolution, she's the same theory of modern synthesis.
This theory was formed as a result of rethinking a number of provisions of classical Darwinism, taking into account the achievements of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century. It can be characterized as a theory of organic evolution through the selection of genetically determined traits. Development of s.t. will continue with the emergence of new results in different branches of science.
There is an area of research aimed at finding scientific evidence of the divine origin of man, the so-called. "the theory of creationism". There is radical creationism and “scientific” creationism, in this case it is assumed that an ape-like ancestor arose through organic evolution, and the inspiration of man by the spirit was a divine act.
In modern theology, there has been a departure from the official doctrine, recorded in the encyclical of Pius XII of 1950, which recognized the provisions of scientific creationism.
The classical and most widespread theory of anthropogenesis - Darwin's simial hypothesis - asserts the origin of man from the most ancient, highly developed ape-like ancestors.
Aristotle, Kant, Diderot, Lamarck, Helvetius wrote about the kinship of man with a highly developed ape, thereby being the predecessors of Darwin.
In general, Darwin was not alone. The English naturalist Wallace, independently of him, at about the same time, came to the same ideas and postulates of evolutionary theory.
After the publication of "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859 and "The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection" in 1871, the animal origin of man was proven with complete certainty, which made it possible to move on to the search for specific paths of human origin.
Darwin proved that man is the highest stage of evolution and has common ancestors with apes. Note that he already emphasized that no modern anthropomorph is our ancestor.
About 7 million years ago, the evolutionary lines of humans and apes separated. The most ancient links in human evolution were found, extremely close to apes.
There is direct evidence of the kinship between humans and animals - bone remains of fossil people close to animal ancestors - and indirect evidence - comparative anatomical, biochemical, comparative embryology data, information about rudiments and atavisms in humans. The relationship between a person and an animal is confirmed by the common structure of the structure, the respiratory system, and digestion; circulatory system, embryo development.
The closest thing to humans is the chimpanzee, especially bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee). The closeness of Ch and chimpanzees is demonstrated by genetic data. Similarity is determined by protein structure- the difference between them is no more than 2% - common blood groups that allow blood transfusions. In fact, the difference is only in two DNA molecules.
There are also differences between humans and higher apes - upright posture, skeletal features, arrangement of organs, and structure of the skull.
The possibility of teaching chimpanzees the language of deaf-mutes has been proven, but the development of oral speech is difficult due to the high location of the larynx. In general, their level of development does not exceed the level of development of a three-year-old child.
The degree of closeness between humans and animals is reflected in the classification of the animal world. Back in 1735, the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, in his work “The System of Nature,” drew parallels between humans and animals, identifying in the class of mammals the order of primates, including prosimians, monkeys and humans. The order of primates also includes great apes.
In the order of primates, there is a special family with a special structure hominid(human), uniting man and his fossil ancestors. All members of the family are characterized by upright posture and a large, complex brain; well-developed hand with an opposable thumb.
Man belongs to the animal kingdom, class mammals, order of primates, family of hominids, genus Homo, species Sapiens.
According to Darwin, the leading factors of humanization were:
Natural selection in the early stages of anthropogenesis
· Group selection of social traits at later stages
· Sexual selection as a leading sign of the formation of human races
Modern evolutionary genetics has direct evidence of the existence of natural selection and is developing its mathematical model.
Darwin and his followers believed that small random changes, mutations, constantly occur in living nature. Favorable changes increase the chances of survival of the species and are consolidated in the process of natural selection, during which individuals who are the most plastic in evolutionary terms preferentially survive and leave descendants.
On this moment Darwin's theory became more complex, acquiring its genetic justification, receiving theoretical justification for the possibility of the evolution of one species into another.
From the point of view neo-Darwinism, evolution occurs through the selection of genetically determined traits.
Man has been shaped by a process of natural selection, which has shaped his dominant position in the modern world.
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University them. K.D. Ushinsky
according to the concept of modern natural science.
Subject:
"The main problems of the theory of evolution."
Female students:
Faculty of Education
YAGPU im. Ushinsky
Kruglikova Lyubov
Alexandrovna.
Speciality:
"Pedagogy and methodology
Teacher: Pizov
Alexander Vitalievich.
DO 2960, group 61 “D”
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………3
2. 1 part. EARLYSTAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY REPRESENTATIONS.............................................................................................................4
3. THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARCKA……………………………………………………………5
4. CH. DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION…………………………………………………….........6
5. part 2 . main problems of the theory of evolution. CRITICISM OF THE MODERN THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY CREATIONISTS………………………….10
6. GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………………………...13
7. MODERN PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………………18
8. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………23
9. LITERATURE………………………………………………………………………………..24
Introduction.
The basic fact of historical existence is that everything living and nonliving comes and then disappears.
The galactic system itself did not always exist. She was born about ten billion years ago and at some point in the future she will die. During the existence of our universe, it gradually gave life to the Sun, the Earth and a certain environment capable of supporting the life that we know. It gave birth to the human race relatively recently, at most several million years ago. During the time that billions of human beings have lived and died, we have collectively developed a civilization capable of landing a man on the moon.
Modern scientists usually rely on various theories of evolution. According to modern ideas life is the result of the evolution of matter. Views on the origin of life, its development and essence have a long history, but discussion of these issues until recently was the subject of philosophical reflection. Only in last decades the solution to these issues was put to experimental basis and the answer to many of them was obtained in the laboratory.
In modern discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, it is considered almost universally accepted that the theory of evolution faces serious difficulties in explaining the phenomena of living nature and is not able to solve the problems that arise here. Such problems include, in particular, the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, the mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the feasibility of the structure of living organisms. Stereotypical ideas about these sections of the theory of evolution are widely used by modern creationists to discredit science. Meanwhile, a discussion of the available data allows us to assert that in solving each of the mentioned issues, the theory of evolution provides quite satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. These questions pose a problem for creationism rather than for the theory of evolution.
In discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, the same questions constantly come up and are discussed, as is commonly believed, unresolved modern theory evolution, such as, for example, problems such as the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, the mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the appropriateness of the structure of living organisms. In all these cases, the theory of evolution provides fairly satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. In my opinion, these issues pose a problem for creationism rather than for the theory of evolution. The relative weakness of modern evolutionism is not surprising. For many reasons, the theory of evolution is more closely connected with philosophy and ideological doctrines than other branches of natural science and has long served as an arena of struggle between supporters of a wide variety of views.
As a result, ideas and entire systems of ideas that are recognized as true without the necessary justification are often consolidated in evolutionary biology. They become a serious obstacle to the development of evolutionary research.
EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY REPRESENTATIONS.
Ideas about the changeability of the surrounding world, including living beings, were first developed by a number of ancient philosophers, among whom Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoys the greatest fame and authority. Aristotle did not explicitly support the idea of changeability of the surrounding world. However, many of his generalizations, which themselves fit into the general picture of the immutability of the world, later played an important role in the development of evolutionary ideas. These are Aristotle’s thoughts about the unity of the structural plan of higher animals (the similarity in the structure of the corresponding organs in different types was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of structure in a series of organisms, about the variety of forms of causality. Aristotle identified 4 series of causes: material, formal, producing or driving, and target. The era of Late Antiquity and, especially, the era of the Middle Ages that followed it became a time of stagnation in the development of natural history concepts that lasted almost one and a half thousand years. The dominant dogmatic forms of religious worldview did not allow for the idea of changeability of the world. The corresponding ideas of ancient philosophers were consigned to oblivion.
Creationism and transformationism.
Gradually, numerous data were accumulated indicating an amazing diversity of forms of organisms. This data needed systematization. An important contribution in this area was made by the famous Swedish naturalist C. Linnaeus (1707-1778), who is rightly called the creator of the scientific taxonomy of organisms. It should be noted that Linnaeus consistently adhered to the point of view of the immutability of species created by the Creator.
In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Along with the dominant worldview, based on religious dogmas about the immutability of the world created by the Creator and called creationism, ideas about the changeability of the world and, in particular, about the possibility of historical changes in the types of organisms gradually began to form again. These ideas were called “transformism”.
The most prominent representatives of transformism were naturalists and philosophers R. Hooke (1635-1703), J. Lamettrie (1709-1751), J. Buffon (1707-1788), D Diderot (1713-1784), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) , I.V. Goethe (1749-1832), E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844).
Transformists have not yet developed a holistic concept of the evolution of the organic world; their views were largely eclectic and inconsistent, combining materialistic and idealistic ideas. Common to all transformists was the recognition of the variability of species of organisms under the influence environment, to which organisms adapt due to the ability inherent in them to respond expediently to external influences, and the changes acquired in this way are inherited (the so-called “inheritance of acquired characteristics”). At the same time, changes in species were not so much proven as they were postulated by transformists, which made their position weak in discussions with supporters of creationism. The honor of creating the first evolutionary theories belongs to the great naturalists of the 19th century. J. B. Lamarck (1744-1829) and C. Darwin (1809-1882). These two theories are opposite in almost every way: in their general design, in the nature of the evidence, in the main conclusions about the causes and mechanisms of evolution, and in their historical fate. These are classical theories of the 19th century. continue to remain relevant, albeit in different ways.
THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARC.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck outlined the foundations of his concept in his most famous work, “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809). The title of this book successfully emphasizes an important feature of Lamarck's generalizations - their speculative nature. This theory is a harmonious building of logical constructions that provide answers to most of the basic questions of evolutionary science, but these answers were found not so much by analyzing scientific (i.e., well-tested, reliable) facts, but were logically deduced from several basic provisions accepted as postulates. This philosophical approach is typical for early stages development of science, when the accumulated facts already need logical interpretation, but they are still not enough for a strict scientific analysis and generalizations.
Variability of organisms.
Among these manifestations of variability, the most obvious were adaptive changes in organisms exposed to new conditions (for example, the development of plants of different appearance from identical seeds when grown in different conditions; strengthening of muscles in humans and animals during their intense exercise and weakening of these muscles in the absence of appropriate physical activity and so on.). Lamarck's general conclusion from these observations was the recognition of historical variability, the transformation of organisms over time, i.e., their evolution. However, this conclusion was no longer original: the historical transformations of species of organisms under the influence of changes in the external environment were recognized, as already noted, by all transformists. The doctrine of gradation. The diversity of species of living beings, according to Lamarck, is not simply a chaos of all possible forms - in this diversity one can discern a certain order, as if stages of a consistent and steady increase in the level of organization. From this, Lamarck made the most important conclusion that changes in organisms are not random, but have a natural, directed nature: the development of the organic world goes in the direction of gradual improvement and complication of organization.