Darwin's theory - evidence and refutation of the theory of the origin of man. Why the theory of evolution? Evolutionary theory facts

We know about Anaximander's scheme from the historian of the 1st century BC. e. Diodorus Siculus. In his presentation, when the young Earth was illuminated by the Sun, its surface first hardened, and then fermented, rotting appeared, covered with thin shells. All kinds of animal breeds were born in these shells. Man, on the other hand, seems to have arisen from a fish or an animal similar to a fish. Although original, Anaximander's reasoning is purely speculative and unsupported by observation. Another ancient thinker, Xenophanes, paid more attention to observations. So, he identified the fossils that he found in the mountains with the prints of ancient plants and animals: laurel, shells of mollusks, 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 imprints dried up. Heraclitus, despite the impregnation of his metaphysics with the idea of ​​constant development and eternal becoming, did not create any evolutionary concepts. Although some authors still refer to him as the first evolutionists.

The only author from whom the idea of ​​a gradual change of organisms can be found was Plato. In his dialogue "The State" he put forward the infamous proposal: to improve the breed of people by selecting the best representatives. Without a doubt, this proposal was based on the well-known fact of the selection of producers in animal husbandry. In the modern era, the unwarranted application of these ideas to human society has developed into the doctrine of eugenics, which underlies the racial politics of the Third Reich.

Medieval and Renaissance

With the rise in the level of scientific knowledge after the "ages of darkness" of the early Middle Ages, evolutionary ideas again begin to slip in the writings of scientists, theologians and philosophers. Albert the Great first noted the spontaneous variability of plants, leading to the emergence of new species. The examples once given by Theophrastus he characterized as transmutation one kind to another. The term itself was apparently taken by him from alchemy. In the 16th century, fossil organisms were rediscovered, but only by the end of the 17th century did the idea that this was not a “game of nature”, not stones in the form of bones or shells, but the remains of ancient animals and plants, finally captured the minds. In the work of the year "Noah's Ark, Its Shape and Capacity", Johann Buteo gave calculations that showed that the ark could not contain all kinds of known animals. In the year Bernard Palissy arranged an exhibition of fossils in Paris, where he first 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 mollusks belong to extinct types.

Evolutionary ideas of modern times

As we can see, the matter did not go beyond the expression of disparate ideas about the variability of species. This same trend continued with the advent of the New Age. So Francis Bacon, the politician and philosopher, suggested that species could change, accumulating the "errors of nature". This thesis again, as in the case of Empedocles, echoes the principle of natural selection, but there is not yet a word about the general theory. Oddly enough, but the first book on evolution can be considered a treatise by Matthew Hale (Eng. Matthew Hale) "The Primitive Origination of Mankind Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature". This may seem strange just because Hale himself was not a naturalist and even a philosopher, he was a lawyer, theologian and financier, and 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 anticipates many of the controversies about chance that have arisen since the establishment of Darwinism. In the same treatise, the term "evolution" in the biological sense is mentioned for the first time.

Ideas of bounded evolutionism like those of Hale 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 precipitation from water, he came to the conclusion that 6 thousand years, which were assigned to the history of the Earth by natural theology, are 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 features, they also have those to which it is impossible to attribute any utility. This again contradicted natural theology, which held that every hair on an animal's body was created for its benefit, or for man's benefit. 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. Having applied Leibniz's "law of continuity" to taxonomy, he opposed the existence of discrete species in a year, considering species to be the fruit of the imagination of taxonomists (this can be seen as the origins of his ongoing polemic with Linnaeus and the antipathy of these scientists to each other).

Lamarck's theory

The move to combine transformist and systematic approaches was made by the naturalist 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 by successive development from previous embryos." Thus, he opposed the concept of preformism as autogenetic, and his follower Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) defended the idea of ​​the unity of the body plan of animals of various types. Lamarck's evolutionary ideas are most fully set forth in the Philosophy of Zoology (1809), although Lamarck formulated many of his evolutionary theory in introductory lectures to the course of zoology as early as 1800-1802. Lamarck believed that the steps of evolution do not lie in a straight line, as follows from the "ladder of beings" of the Swiss natural philosopher C. Bonnet, but have many branches and deviations at the level of species and genera. This performance set the stage for future family trees. Lamarck proposed the very 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 the organs, depending on the adequate direct influence of the environment. A certain naivety of Lamarck's and Saint-Hilaire's arguments contributed greatly to the anti-evolutionary reaction to the transformism of the early 19th century, and caused criticism from the creationist Georges Cuvier and his school, absolutely reasoned on the factual side of the issue.

catastrophism and transformism

Cuvier's ideal was Linnaeus. Cuvier divided animals into four "branches", each of which is characterized by a common body plan. For these "branches", his follower A. Blainville proposed the concept of type, which fully corresponded to the "branches" of Cuvier. A phylum is not just the highest taxon in the animal kingdom. There are no and cannot be transitional forms between the four distinguished types of animals. All animals belonging to the same type are characterized by a common structural plan. This most important position of Cuvier is extremely significant even today. Although the number of types has significantly exceeded the figure 4, all biologists who talk about the type proceed from the fundamental idea that gives a lot of trouble to the propagandists of gradualism (gradualism) in evolution - the idea of ​​​​the isolation of the plans of the structure of each of the types. Cuvier fully accepted the Linnaean hierarchy of the system and built his system in the form of a branching tree. But it was not a genealogical tree, but a tree of similarity of 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 for the evolutionary doctrine against which he fought." 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. The theoretical basis for distinguishing the boundaries between the layers was Cuvier's idea of ​​catastrophic extinctions of faunas and floras at the boundaries of periods and epochs. He also developed the doctrine of correlations (italics by N.N. Vorontsova), thanks to which he restored the appearance of the skull as a whole, the skeleton as a whole, and, finally, gave 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 of the doctrine of the form of organisms - morphology - was introduced into the biological science of Goethe, and the doctrine itself arose at the end of the 18th century. For the creationists of that time, the concept of the unity of the structural plan meant a search for the similarity, but not the relationship, of organisms. The task of comparative anatomy was seen as an attempt to understand according to what plan the Supreme Being created all the variety of animals that we observe on Earth. Evolutionary classics call this period of development of biology "idealistic morphology". This trend was also developed by an opponent of transformism, the English anatomist and paleontologist Richard Owen (1804-1892). By the way, it was he who proposed to apply the now known analogy or homology to structures that perform similar functions, depending on whether the compared animals belong to the same structural plan, or to different ones (to the same type of animal or to different types).

Evolutionists - contemporaries of Darwin

The English arborist Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) in 1831 published a monograph "Ship timber and tree planting". The phenomenon of uneven growth of trees of the same age, the selective death of some and the survival of others have 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 in the course of 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). The principle of the struggle for existence coexisted with Matthew with the recognition of the existence of catastrophes: after revolutions, a few primitive forms survive; in the absence of competition after the revolution, the evolutionary process proceeds rapidly. Matthew's evolutionary ideas went unnoticed for three decades. But in 1868, after the publication of On the Origin of Species, he published his evolutionary pages. After that, Darwin got acquainted with the works of his predecessor and noted the merits of Matthew in a historical review of the 3rd edition of his work.

Charles Lyell (1797-1875) is a major figure of his time. He brought back to life the concept of actualism (“Basic Principles of Geology”, 1830-1833), which comes 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 knowing the past through the study of the present meant the creation of the first integral 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 of the invariability of the action of geological factors in time. Uniformism was the complete antithesis of Cuvier's catastrophism. “Lyell's teaching now prevails just as much,” wrote the anthropologist and evolutionist I. Ranke, “as Cuvier's teaching once dominated. At the same time, it is often forgotten that the doctrine of catastrophes could hardly for so long give a satisfactory schematic explanation of geological facts in the eyes of the best researchers and thinkers, if it were not based on a certain amount of positive observations. Here, too, the truth 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 gone so fast.”

The 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 propagated the ideas of Lamarck, talked 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 it went through 10 editions with a circulation of at least 15 thousand copies (which in itself is impressive for that time). Controversy erupted around the book by an anonymous author. Always very restrained and cautious, Darwin stood aloof from the discussion that unfolded in England, but he carefully watched how criticism of particular inaccuracies turned into criticism of the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200bvariability 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 doctrine.

In the 20th century, they remembered Edward Blyth (1810-1873), an English zoologist and explorer of the Australian fauna. 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 a lack of resources, only the strongest had chances to leave offspring.

Thus, even before the famous work was published, the whole course of the development of natural science had already prepared the ground for the perception of the doctrine of the variability of species and selection.

Proceedings of Darwin

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 Favorable Races in the Struggle for Life. According to Darwin, the main driving force behind evolution is natural selection. Selection, acting on individuals, allows those organisms that are better adapted to life in a given environment to survive and leave offspring. The action of selection leads to the breakup of species into parts - daughter species, which, in turn, diverge over time to genera, families, and all larger taxa.

With his usual honesty, Darwin pointed out those who had 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, Blite). Lyell and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) had a direct influence on Darwin in the process of creating the work, with his geometric progression of numbers from the demographic work An Essay on the Law of Population (1798). And, it can be said, Darwin was "forced" to publish his work by a young English zoologist and biogeographer Alfred Wallace (1823-1913), 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 evolutionary doctrine, for the latter himself wrote to him about this in a letter dated May 1, 1857: “This summer it will be 20 years (!) Since I started my first notebook on the question of how and in what way 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... Indeed, it is impossible (within a letter) to state 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 - true or false, this must be judged by others; because, 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 sanity can be seen here, as well as the gentlemanly attitude of the two scientists towards each other, which is clearly seen when analyzing the correspondence between them. Darwin, having received the article on June 18, 1858, wanted to submit it to the press, keeping silent about his work, and only at the urgent persuasion of his friends wrote a "brief extract" from his work and presented these two works to the judgment of the Linnean Society.

Darwin fully accepted 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 failed to do. First, he gave his work a very topical title that was "on everyone's lips." The public had a burning interest precisely 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 recall another book in the history of world natural science, the title of which would equally clearly reflect its essence. Perhaps Darwin had seen the title pages or the titles of his predecessors' works, but simply had no desire to get acquainted with them. We can only guess how the public would have reacted if Matthew had thought to release his evolutionary views under the title "Possibility of changing plant species over time through survival (selection) of the fittest." But, as we know, "The ship's construction timber ..." did not attract attention.

Secondly, and most importantly, Darwin was able to explain to his contemporaries the reasons for the variability of species on the basis of his observations. He rejected as untenable the notion of "exercise" or "non-exercise" of organs and turned to the facts of breeding new breeds of animals and plant varieties by people - to artificial selection. He showed that the indefinite variability of organisms (mutations) is inherited and can become the beginning of a new breed or variety, if it is useful to man. Transferring 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 of the struggle for existence and natural selection, to which he attributed an important, but not the only role of the driving force of evolution. Darwin not only gave theoretical calculations of natural selection, but also showed on the basis of actual material the evolution of species in space, with geographic isolation (finches) and, from the standpoint of strict logic, explained the mechanisms of divergent evolution. He also introduced the public to the fossil forms of giant sloths and armadillos, which could be seen as evolution over time. Darwin also allowed for the possibility of long-term preservation of a certain average norm of the species in the process of evolution by eliminating any deviant variants (for example, sparrows that survived after a storm had an average wing length), which was later called stasigenesis. Darwin was able to prove to everyone the reality of the variability of species in nature, therefore, thanks to his work, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe strict constancy of species came to naught. It was pointless for the statics and fixists to continue to persist in their positions.

Development of Darwin's ideas

As a true follower of gradualism, Darwin was concerned that the absence of transitional forms could be the collapse of his theory, and attributed this lack to the incompleteness of the geological record. Darwin was also worried about the idea of ​​"dissolving" a newly acquired trait in a number of generations, with subsequent crossing with ordinary, unaltered 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 the hereditary trait does not “dissolve” in a number of generations, but passes (in case of recessivity) into a heterozygous state and can be propagated in a population environment.

In support of Darwin, scientists such as the American botanist Aza Gray (1810-1888) began to come forward; Alfred Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley (Huxley; 1825-1895) - in England; the 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, a major zoologist, paleontologist and geologist Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), 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 who believes that the new idea has the right to exist (modern evolutionist and popularizer N.N. Vorontsov pays tribute to Bronn in 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. In this way, the species gets its place in the natural order of the universe. It was curious to know that Haeckel, an ardent supporter of Darwin, widely promotes the triad postulated by Agassiz, the “method of triple parallelism” already applied to the idea of ​​kinship, and it, warmed up by Haeckel’s personal enthusiasm, captures contemporaries. All zoologists, anatomists, embryologists, and paleontologists of any seriousness begin to build entire forests of phylogenetic trees. With the light hand of Haeckel, it spreads as the only possible idea of ​​​​monophilia - origin from one ancestor, which reigned supreme over the minds of scientists in the middle of the 20th century. Modern evolutionists, based on the study of the method of reproduction of the Rhodophycea algae, which is different from all other eukaryotes (fixed and male and female gametes, the absence of a cell center and any flagellar 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 sub-kingdoms 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 proto-organism, but at least from three. In any case, it is noted that already “no other scheme, like the one proposed, can turn out to be monophyletic” (ibid.). The theory of symbiogenesis, which explains the appearance of lichens (combination of algae and fungus) also led scientists to polyphyly (origin from several unrelated organisms) (p. 318). And this is the most important achievement of the theory. In addition, recent research suggests that they are finding more and more examples showing "the prevalence of paraphilia and in the origin of relatively closely related taxa." For example, in the “subfamily of African wood mice Dendromurinae: the genus Deomys is molecularly close to the true Murinae mice, 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 undoubted, which indicates the paraphyletic 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 form about the cell nucleus as the carrier of heredity. Regardless of Mendel, he came to the most important conclusion about the discreteness of hereditary units. Mendel was so far ahead of his time that his work remained virtually unknown for 35 years. Weismann's ideas (sometime after 1863) became the property of a wide range of biologists, 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 of the chromosome theory of heredity in 1912-1916. – all this was strongly stimulated by August Weismann. Investigating 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 speculation in his ideas about the mechanism of heredity transmission. He thought that the whole set of discrete factors - "determinants" - have only cells of the so-called. "germ line". Some determinants get into 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, Weismann was mistaken in predicting the fate of the distribution of genes. 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. 20th century in many respects have something in common with the Weismann competition of determinants. Weisman emphasized that the "germ plasm" is isolated from the cells of the soma of the whole organism, and therefore spoke of the impossibility of inheriting the characteristics acquired by the body (soma) under the influence of the environment. But many Darwinists accepted this idea of ​​Lamarck. Weismann's harsh criticism of this concept caused him personally and his theory, and then to the study of chromosomes in general, a negative attitude on the part of orthodox Darwinists (those who recognized selection as the only factor in evolution).

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws took place 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 justification for Mendelism: diploid and haploid sets, homologous chromosomes, the conjugation process during meiosis, the prediction of the linkage of genes located on the same chromosome, the concept of dominance and recessiveness, as well as allelic genes - all this was demonstrated on cytological preparations, based on the exact calculations of Mendeleev's algebra, and very different from hypothetical family trees, from the style of naturalistic Darwinism of the 19th century. The mutational theory of de Vries (1901-1903) was not accepted not only by the conservatism of orthodox Darwinists, but also by the fact that on other plant species, researchers were unable to obtain the wide range of variability achieved by him on Oenothera lamarkiana (it is now known that evening primrose is a polymorphic species , which has 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 (Petersburg) about sudden spasmodic "heterogeneous" deviations, thought that the possibility of the manifestation of macromutations rejected Darwin's theory. At the dawn of the formation 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, also came under criticism from the Darwinists, where he rightly drew attention to the role of hybridization in speciation in plants.

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 by visually distinguishable large mutations could not be accepted by the gradualism of the Darwinists.

Trust in mutations and their role in shaping the variability of a species was restored by Thomas Gent Morgan (1886-1945) when this American embryologist and zoologist turned to genetic research in 1910 and eventually settled on the famous Drosophila. Probably, one 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, gradualness 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 could take place. Once again, once-opposite concepts have united. (names, conclusions of evolutionists and chronology of events are taken from Nikolay Nikolaevich Vorontsov, "Development of evolutionary ideas in biology, 1999)

Recall that in the light of the latest biological ideas put forward from the positions of materialism, now again there is a distance from the law of continuity, now not genetics, but the evolutionists themselves. The famous S.J. Gould raised the issue of punctualism (punctuated equilibrium), as opposed to generally accepted gradualism, in order to explain the reasons for the already obvious picture of the absence of transitional forms among fossils, i.e. the impossibility of building a truly continuous line of kinship from the origins to the present. There is always a break 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 at the beginning of the 20th century. After the rediscovery of Mendel's laws (in 1901), the 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 an adaptive value. Most biologists accept a number of results of the theory of neutral evolution, although they do not share some of the strong statements originally made by M. Kimura.

Epigenetic theory of evolution

The main provisions of the epigenetic theory of evolution were formulated in the th year by M. A. Shishkin on the basis of the ideas of I. I. Schmalhausen and K. H. Waddington. As the main substrate of natural selection, the theory considers a holistic phenotype, and selection not only fixes beneficial changes, but also takes part in their creation. The fundamental influence on heredity is exerted not by the genome, but by the epigenetic system (ES) - a set of factors affecting ontogenesis. From ancestors to descendants, the general organization of ES is transmitted, which forms the organism in the course of 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 creod into another under the perturbing influence of the environment. In response to the perturbation, the ES destabilizes, 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 the course of subsequent generations, their ES develops a new stable development trajectory, a new creod 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, and not 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 real-life (and not isolated for the convenience of the researcher) object, which is a system of interacting biological and non-biological (eg soil, water) objects territorially and functionally delimited from other similar objects. The boundaries between ecosystems are clear enough to speak about the independent evolution of neighboring objects.
• The decisive 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 of 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 many unclear questions about the mechanisms of evolution remain in modern biology, the vast majority of biologists do not doubt the existence of 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 doctrine from the religious side (see creationism), which at some times and in some countries has reached criminal sanctions for teaching evolutionary doctrine (which caused, for example, the scandalous well-known "monkey process" in the USA in g.).

It should be noted that the accusations of atheism and the denial of religion, cited by some opponents of evolutionary doctrine, 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 otherworldly subjects, like God (if only because God, when creating living nature, could use evolution, as the theological doctrine of "theistic evolution" claims).

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, that is, its natural origin, which is therefore alien to any otherworldly or divine intervention; alien for the reason that the growth of scientific knowledge, penetrating into the previously incomprehensible and explainable only by the activity of otherworldly forces, somehow beats the soil 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 can be aimed at denying the existence of extranatural forces, or rather their interference in the process of development of the living world, which one way or another suggests religious systems.

Efforts to oppose evolutionary biology to religious anthropology are also mistaken. From the point of view of the methodology of science, the popular thesis "man descended from apes" is just an oversimplification (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 of "man" is ambiguous: man as a subject of physical anthropology is by no means identical to man as a subject of philosophical anthropology, and it is incorrect to reduce philosophical anthropology to physical one.

Many believers of different religions do not find evolutionary teachings 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 the sacred texts that tell about the creation of the world, and for some believers this is the reason for rejecting almost all the conclusions of the natural sciences that study the past of the material world (literalist creationism ).

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

Literature

• Berg L.S. Nomogenesis, or Evolution based on regularities. - 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: DVNTs AN SSSR, 1986. - S. 140.
• Lima de Faria A. Evolution without selection: Autoevolution of form and function: Per. from English. - M.: Mir, 1991. - S. 455.
• Nazarov V.I. Evolution not according to Darwin: Changing the evolutionary model. Tutorial. Ed. 2nd, corrected .. - M .: Publishing house LKI, 2007. - 520 p.
• Tchaikovsky Yu.V. The science of life development. Experience of the theory of evolution. - M.: Association of scientific publications KMK, 2006. - 712 p.
• Golubovsky M. D. Non-canonical legacy changes // Nature. - 2001. - No. 8. - S. 3–9.
• Meyen S.V. The path to a new synthesis, or where do homologous series lead? // Knowledge is power. - 1972. - № 8.

Disputes about the origin of man have been going on for a long time. One of the theories, namely evolutionary, was developed by C. Darwin. This concept is the basis of all modern biology.

This article is intended for persons over 18 years of age.

Are you over 18 already?

Mistakes and

Evidence for Darwin's theory

According to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, humans evolved from apes. Traveling around the world and studying different types of flora and fauna, the scientist came to the conclusion that the world is constantly evolving. Living organisms, adapting to changing environmental conditions, change themselves. Having studied the results of research in physiology, geography, paleontology and other sciences that existed at that time, Darwin created his theory, which described the origin of species.

• the idea of ​​the evolution of living organisms of the scientist was prompted by the discovery of the skeleton of a sloth, which differed from modern representatives of this species in larger sizes;
• Darwin's first book was a phenomenal success. During the first day, all the books in the circulation were sold;
• the explanation of the process of the appearance of all life on the planet did not have a religious connotation;
• despite the popularity of the book, this theory was not immediately accepted by society, and it took people time to appreciate its significance.

The main provisions of Darwin's theory

If we recall a school biology course, its distinctive feature is a peculiar approach to structuring materials. Species are not considered separately, but in such a way that one of the species is derived from the other. Let's try to explain what we mean. The basic principles of the theory demonstrate that amphibians are descended from fish. The next stage of evolution was the transformation of amphibians into reptiles, and so on. A natural question arises, why, then, are the processes of transformation not taking place now? Why did some species take the path of evolutionary development, while others did not?

The provisions of Darwin's concept are based on the fact that the development of nature occurs according to natural laws, without the influence of supernatural forces. The main postulate of the theory: the cause of all changes is the struggle for survival based on natural selection.

Prerequisites for the emergence of Darwin's theory

• socio-economic - a high level of development of agriculture has made it possible to pay considerable attention to the selection of new species of animals and plants;
• scientific - a large amount of knowledge was accumulated in paleontology, geography, botany, zoology, geology. Now it is difficult to say what data of geology served for the development of the concept of evolution, but in combination with other sciences they made their contribution;
• natural science - the emergence of cell theory, the law of germinal similarity. Darwin's personal observations made during his travels made it possible to develop the basis for creating a new concept.

Comparison of evolutionary theories of Lamarck and Darwin

In addition to the well-known evolutionary theory of Darwin, there is another theory, the author of which is J. B. Lamarck. Lamarck argued that changing the environment changes habits, so some organs also change. Since parents have these changes, they are passed on to their children. As a result, depending on the habitat, degrading and progressive series of organisms arise.

Darwin refutes this theory. His hypotheses show that the environment affects the death of unadapted species and the survival of adapted ones. This is how natural selection works. Weak organisms die, while strong ones multiply and increase their population. The growth of variability and adaptability leads to the emergence of new species. To understand the overall picture, it is important to analyze the similarities and differences between Darwin's conclusions and the synthetic theory. The differences are that the synthetic theory arose later, as a result of combining the achievements of genetics and the hypotheses of Darwinism.

Refutation of Darwin's theory

Darwin himself did not claim that he put forward the only true theory of the origin of all living things and there can be no other options. The theory has been debunked many times. The criticism is that, under the condition of the evolutionary concept, for further reproduction there must be a pair with the same characteristics. What cannot be according to Darwin's concept and what confirms its inconsistency. Facts that refute evolutionary hypotheses reveal lies and contradictions. Scientists have not been able to identify genes in fossil animals that would confirm that there is a transition from one species to another.

A natural question arises, what had to happen in order for creatures that reproduced by laying eggs to begin to reproduce sexually? Thus, humanity has been deluded for a long time, blindly believing in evolutionary theories.

What is the essence of Darwin's theory?

Building the theory of evolution, Darwin was based on several postulates. He revealed the essence through two statements: the world around him is constantly changing, and the reduction of resources and limited access to them leads to a struggle for survival. Perhaps this makes sense, since as a result of such processes, the strongest organisms are left that are capable of producing strong offspring. The essence of natural selection also boils down to the fact that:

• variability accompanies organisms throughout their lives;
• all the distinctions that a creature acquires during its lifetime are inherited;
• organisms with useful habits have a higher propensity to survive;
• organisms multiply indefinitely, if conditions favor it.

Errors and advantages of Darwin's theory

When analyzing Darwinism, it is important to consider the pros and cons. The advantage of the theory, of course, is that the influence of supernatural forces on the emergence of life was refuted. There are many more disadvantages: there is no scientific evidence for the theory and examples of “macroevolution” (transition from one species to another) have not been observed. Evolution is not possible at the physical level, this is due to the fact that all natural objects grow old and collapse, for this reason evolution becomes impossible. Rich imagination, curiosity in studying the world, lack of scientific knowledge in biology, genetics, botany, led to the emergence of a trend in science that has no scientific basis. Despite criticism, all evolutionists can be divided into two large groups that speak out for and against evolution. They give their arguments, speaking for and against. And it's hard to say who's really right.

There is a debate in scientific circles on the topic: "Darwin abandoned his theory before his death: true or false?". There is no real evidence for this. Rumors arose after the statements of one pious person, but the children of the scientist do not confirm these statements. For this reason, it is not possible to reliably establish whether Darwin abandoned his theory.

The second question that follower scientists struggle with is: “In what year was Darwin’s evolutionary theory created?”. The theory appeared in 1859, after the publication of the result of scientific research and discoveries of Charles Darwin. His work "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life" became the basis for the development of evolutionism. It is difficult to say when the idea of ​​creating a new trend in the study of the development of the world arose, and when Darwin formulated the first hypotheses. Therefore, it is the date of the publication of the book that is considered the beginning of the creation of an evolutionary trend in science.

Evidence for Darwin's theory

Is Darwin's hypothesis true or false? There is no definite answer to this question. The followers of evolutionism cite scientific facts, the results of studies that clearly show that when living conditions change, organisms acquire new abilities, which are then passed on to other generations. In laboratory research, experiments are carried out on bacteria. And Russian scientists went even further, they experimented with stickleback fish. Scientists moved fish from sea waters to fresh waters. For 30 years of habitation, the fish has perfectly adapted to new conditions. Upon further study, a gene was discovered that is responsible for the possibility of their habitat in fresh water. For this reason, to believe in the evolutionary origin of all living things or not to believe is a personal matter for everyone.

Some people, having heard such concepts as "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may assume that these concepts are only in the field of biology and have no meaning in their lives. In fact, this assumption is wrong. Because in reality the theory of evolution is not so much a biological concept as the basis of a distorted philosophy that has become widespread on earth. This philosophy, which hides how and for what we actually appeared, is called "materialism". Materialism, or otherwise "materiality", claims that the basis of everything is matter and, thus, denies the existence of the Creator of everything, i.e. Allah.

Such a thought, which reduces everything to materialism, turns a person into an egoistic being who thinks only about material things and does not attach importance to spiritual values. This is the beginning of the collapse of human life. Materialism is not limited to harming individuals. First of all, materialism, destroying the basic values ​​in the state and the people, creates a soulless and insensitive society that attaches importance only to things. Such a society, in the absence of such concepts and values ​​as love for the motherland, justice, devotion, brotherhood, decency, self-sacrifice, honor and morality, is subject to disintegration in a short period of time. Consequently, materialism is a serious threat to the social and political structure of any country.

Another harm of materialism lies in the fact that it is the basis for the development of anarchy and the ideology of "divide and rule." At the head of these ideologies is communism, a natural political consequence of materialistic philosophy. Communism, destroying to the root such sacred concepts as religion, state, family, personifies a fundamental ideology directed against the unitary structure of the state.

The theory of evolution is of great importance exactly at this stage, because it is the so-called scientific foundation of materialism, on which the communist ideology relies. Communism, taking the theory of evolution as a starting point, tries to elevate and present its ideology as correct. That's why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, said of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, which forms the basis of the theory of evolution, that: "This is exactly the book that includes our view of natural history."

Today, all kinds of remarks of materialists, including the ideas of Marx, are considered rotten. Because the theory of evolution, which is the basis of materialism, and in fact nothing more than a dogma of the 19th century, has been completely refuted by the discoveries of modern science. Science has proved and continues to prove the inconsistency of the assumptions of the materialists, who do not allow anything but matter, and shows all living things as the result of a higher creation.

The purpose of this book is to bring to the attention of the reader the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution, as well as to acquaint with the true face and true purpose of this scientific fraud. It is also very important that the supporters of the theory of evolution did not put up significant resistance to this book. Because they realize that such an act will only help society to better understand what kind of deception evolution is.

When it comes to evolution, then inevitably and inalienably it comes to materialism. No matter how evolutionists distance themselves from the unresolved problem of the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) and the self-emergence of the universe (the “big bang theory”), these questions are the prerequisites and the logical foundation of the evolutionary hypothesis. If everything developed by itself, then everything was born by itself. And here we come across a completely absurd confusion on the part of evolutionists of worldview philosophy (materialism) with science (objective knowledge). Materialism, as a worldview concept, does not have any scientific evidence base. And in this regard, it differs from religion only in the absence of moral norms and types of behavior. Otherwise, it is an absolute religion based on supernatural premises and root causes.

However, in modern society there is a strong prejudice that materialism (a philosophical doctrine) and evolution (an unproven hypothesis) are SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (!) But this is absolutely not true.

Here you should immediately define the terms, because after the scientific refutation of Darwin's theory at the beginning of the 20th century (!), the term "evolution" was skillfully encrypted and complicated for the understanding of the masses with the sole purpose of masking objective observable facts under the so-called "evidence of evolution" .
So, in addition to introducing circular reasoning, which we talked about in , the term "evolution" has been complicated and expanded. There was simply "evolution", "MICROevolution" and "MACROevolution". You can look at the definitions of all three on Wikipedia, but I will briefly describe their essence and "connection" with Darwin's theory. Here you need to immediately isolate the philosophical essence of the evolutionary hypothesis - All life in this world has developed itself through variability and natural selection. And all living things came from a single ancestor - the first bacterium, which also originated by itself from inanimate matter. And since, as we said above, materialism is not scientific knowledge, the very edge of this philosophical doctrine through the evolutionary hypothesis carries its main thesis - There's no God!

I suppose for many the above will be a revelation, but it is a fact - materialism has nothing to do with science, like the theory of evolution. Both are mere beliefs that are covered by science as a defense against comparing one's own teachings with religion.

Let us explain in more detail the scheme of deception used by evolutionists.
As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that all living things came from one bacterium (you will read the rationale for this statement below). And this is a medical fact! But if you say that to evolutionists right now, they will bombard you with “evidence” that looks convincing. Why? Because the main thing will be hidden from you - this is evidence of MICRO-, not MACRO-evolution. What is the difference?

The fact is that all animals and man himself have the ability to change. This ability is embedded in their DNA, as a means of protection, allowing them to adapt to changing environmental circumstances. This is called "MICROevolution". A rather wise and far-sighted decision, if we are talking about the Designer's idea. Is not it? And in no way logically explicable, in the context of the theory of self-development, because a change in circumstances cannot be a physical reason for the emergence of new abilities. It can be a logical motive. But in order to perceive it logically and physically react to it, reason is needed as a motive.
Any kind of animal and person can change under the influence of the environment. For example, there are different types (races) of people - whites, blacks, Asians, etc. Their appearance and structural features of some parts of the body are the result of changes associated with living conditions. But it should be noted that all people are people. All races of people can interbreed with each other and give viable offspring, since they all belong to the same human GENUS. So are animals. There are many types of animals, but not all of them can interbreed and produce new species. Only animals of the same kind can interbreed! Let's say wolves and dogs (they both belong to the genus "Wolves"). Or Tigers and Lions (both from the Panther family). But a Tiger with a wolf will never give live offspring (as well as a man with a monkey) - any zoologist knows this. And these are the boundaries of MICROevolution, beyond which she cannot!
Species variability, for all its breadth, is limited by the GENUS!

But on the basis of this variability, evolutionists argue that all life came from a single ancestor (that is, they postulate MACROevolution).
But there is no evidence of MACROevolution from the word at all. Moreover, there are FACTS that directly refute it (the impossibility of intergeneric transitions is one of them). The atheists just really want it to be so. But that's not the case at all! And they did not come up with anything better than to lie that their hypothesis was scientifically confirmed. It should be recognized that due to the circular argumentation and division of the concept of "evolution" this statement has taken root in the minds of the inhabitants.

Thus, you and I must understand that the main philosophical idea of ​​evolution - the absence of God - is sewn up precisely in MACROevolution, however, evidence of MICROevolution is used to assert it. But MICROevolution itself does not contradict the Bible and creationism. Moreover, it (microevolution) is fully consistent with the Bible:

“And God created the beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.”
(Genesis 1:25)

Also, Noah did not need to take all kinds of animals with him on the ark. He did not collect 250 types of dogs (as the materialists interpret mockingly); but took only a few individuals from the GENUS "Wolves":

“From the birds according to their kind, and from the cattle according to their kind, and from every creeping thing on the earth according to their kind, two of them will come in to you to live.”
(Genesis 6:20)

All other species of the genus Wolves, due to variability, are descended from these few individuals, as are other species of animals in their genera.

* * *

So, we have decided that the denial of the Creator lies in MACROevolution - the supposedly real (and supposedly scientifically proven) process of development of all living beings from one bacterium. Next, we will analyze in more detail the question of why MACROevolution is not scientific...

How does science work?
Science makes objective observations. Based on these observations, he makes a hypothesis (assumption). Then he proves this assumption, or refutes. Unproven hypotheses have no scientific validity.

Let's imagine a situation: you entered a room in which there is a table, a stool and a wardrobe, and a broken raw egg lies on the floor. Everything that you see - a table, a stool, a cupboard and an egg - these are your observations and they are objective. And so you, as a scientist, decided to find out what happened ... Then you make an assumption (make a hypothesis):
— The egg fell off the table and broke.
— Ok. Why not from a stool or closet?
“Judging by the radius of the shell and the size of the stain, it looks like it fell off the table. It seems that if it were a cabinet, then the shell would spread more, and the splashes would remain on the wall. But they are not. And if the egg fell from the stool, then vice versa - such a large blot, most likely, would not form, and the shell would lie more closely.

Well, that's a logical guess. solid hypothesis. But in order to be considered scientific knowledge, it requires proof. This can be done in several ways. The most obvious, and it is also the most illustrative, is to conduct a full-scale experiment: take three eggs and throw them off a stool, table and cabinet. Record the results obtained (the radius of the shell expansion, the nature and size of the spot) and compare them with the original observations. Suppose you conducted such an experiment and received three results, of which the second (when the egg is dropped from the table) is as close as possible in all respects to the observation under study. So, your hypothesis turned out to be correct, and now it has been scientifically proven experimentally.
But what if you don't have three eggs to experiment with? Can the hypothesis be tested differently? Yes, you can - if you have an accumulated scientific database. Let's say someone once conducted experiments, say, to measure the acceleration of free fall. And for this he used raw eggs, which he dropped from different heights onto the floor, simultaneously recording all the data received, including the size of the blots on the floor, and entered them into a table. You can take this table and compare the parameters you are interested in with your observations. Thus, without conducting an experiment, but using the already accumulated scientific experience, you can also reliably prove or disprove the hypothesis put forward.

So, WARNING! We fix three stages of achieving OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE: observation - hypothesis(assumption) - proof.

And now let's see how the materialists "prove" their assumptions about macroevolution to the masses. They say: “Macroevolution has a lot of evidence” (but we cannot consider such a preface as a scientific statement, as long as it is only a lyric). Listen further (see Wikipedia): "Comparative Anatomical Evidence: All animals have the same body plan [objective observation] , which indicates the unity of their origin and the presence of a common ancestor ».

Notice where the trick is? Correct observation and incorrect conclusion: "... which points to..." (c)
There is an objective observation... there is an assumption... but... Yes! There is no proof. They just gave us their HYPOTHESIS as a SCIENTIFICLY PROVEN fact. They think (!) that this indicates a common ancestor - this is their hypothesis. But where is the proof? He is not. Meanwhile, a similar building plan may indicate completely different things. For example, what do the structural similarities between a bus, a truck, a bulldozer, and a sedan indicate? On the COMMON CREATOR (in the face of the human mind). But not a common ancestor. How do we determine the authorship of newly found works of art? We invite experts who find common features with already known works and pass a verdict on who is their COMMON AUTHOR.
See? Similar features of objects in a practical sense are almost always a sign of belonging to a SINGLE AUTHOR of design. Codes for the vast majority of software productsMicrosoft have common blocks and entire arrays. Is this evidence of evolution? No, this is a testament to a common developer.

So the first "proof" presented to us by the materialists is a fiction. They simply do not have evidence of macroevolution in anatomical terms!

Move on:
"Embryological evidence: In all vertebrates, there is a significant similarity of embryos in the early stages of development: body shape, rudiments of gills, tail, one circle of blood circulation, etc. (law of germinal resemblance K. Baer ). However, with development, the similarity between the embryos of various systematic groups is gradually erased, and the features characteristic of the taxa of a lower order to which they belong begin to predominate. So everythingchordates animals are descended from the same ancestors.

What do you think? I no longer need to prompt you, you yourself see: we are again presented with an “observation” (similarity of embryos), followed immediately by the postulation of a HYPOTHESIS (assumption) already as a ready-made scientific PROOF (descended from common ancestors). Who do they take us for?

The most attentive of my readers may have noticed that the word "observation" in this so-called. "proof" I enclosed in quotation marks. And I no longer call it “objective observation”, as when considering the previous so-called. "evidence". Why? Yes, because it is not. This is just a banal lie, a forgery, revealed more than a century ago - vertebrate embryos are NOT similar to each other! But this lie is still in textbooks! Why? Ask this question to the director of the school where your children study, because in court this statement cannot last even five minutes ...

German naturalist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel - a fanatical supporter of Darwin's hypothesis - just came up with it in 1869 in Germany. After reading Darwin's book on evolution in 1860, Haeckel said: "Blimey! Finally, there is a theory that allows me to live the way I want.” Of course, this meant getting rid of God and his moral rules. And Haeckel decided to help with the proofs of Darwin's theory. He just invented them. Haeckel took drawings of a four-week-old human and dog fetus and modified them to make the fetuses the same:

Then he drew different animals in the fetal stage and made them all look alike. And then he began to travel all over Germany and demonstrate "evidence of evolution":

It is noteworthy that Haeckel was immediately suspected of deceit. And he was exposed and convicted in his own university as a forger. But his drawings are still in reference books and school textbooks as “evidence of evolution”, although real embryos look completely different - take a look for yourself (Haeckel’s drawings above, real embryos below):

Separately, I want to say about the "rudiments of gills and tail" mentioned in the "proof". I will quote, only written by leading practitioners: « As a result, many are still convinced that the human embryo passes through the fish stage, that it has gill slits and a yolk sac during this period; then comes the amphibious stage, then the reptiles, and so on. This is the real deal. The so-called "gill slits" have nothing to do with the gills, and with the process of breathing, too. These are folds of tissues of the larynx, in which several glands are located. The "yolk sac" does not contain yolk, but blood; "tail" - the point of attachment of the pelvic muscles; the heart develops before other elements of the circulatory system; tongue before teeth, etc. Actually, any knowledgeable embryologist can explain how a human embryo differs from an animal embryo at any stage of development.

So, the second "embryological proof of macroevolution" is a banal forgery! Moreover, exposed more than a century ago and still brazenly presented to us.

(To be continued…)

P.S.
In the next article, we will consider the so-called. Paleontological, Biochemical and Biogeographical "Evidence for Macroevolution".
If you are interested, follow the publications.
If you are a convinced materialist and do not agree with the stated point of view, then I have a gigantic request for you: state in your own words in the comments your MOST FAVORITE "proof" of macroevolution, and we will definitely analyze it in subsequent articles. Objections of a general nature in the style: "read such and such a book" will not be accepted. Need to be specific, short and to the point.

The history of the origin and further development of man for more than one century excites not only the minds of scientists, but also ordinary people. That is why at various times this issue was tried to explain the theories put forward at that time. In part, they include the Christian concept, which asserted that everything on Earth came from God. There is also a theory of external interference. She claims that people appeared on our planet thanks to extraterrestrial civilizations. There are many other theories, but the most generally accepted and popular of them is the one created by Charles Darwin.

This English naturalist and traveler became one of the founders of the idea that all living organisms have gone through a difficult path of evolution from common ancestors. And the main mechanism in this case in Darwin's theory was considered natural selection. In addition, the scientist worked on the theory of sexual selection. Belongs to Darwin and the theory of the origin of man. How did the English scientist come to his idea? What were the premises of Darwin's theory?

Changes in social and economic life

The 17th century was a difficult period for England. It was the time of the bourgeois revolution, which radically changed the means of production. The number of factories and factories began to increase in the country. At the same time, the demand for agricultural products also increased. All this became a prerequisite for the rapid development of the agricultural sector of the economy.

Somewhat later, Charles Darwin, based on the results of selection of domestic animal species, began to study similar processes occurring in the wild.

Participation in expeditions

In the 19th century England became the most important colonial power. Charles Darwin participated in one of the expeditions as a naturalist. His main task was to study the natural resources of new places. The expedition was sent to one of the colonies, where for five years Darwin studied plants, animals and minerals. He discovered some facts that clearly contradicted the creationist views that claimed the immutability of species. This led the scientist to the idea of ​​creating an evolutionary theory. Darwin suggested that over time there is a consistent development of some types of living organisms from others.

This assumption was confirmed by the paleontological finds of the scientist, which were made by him in South America. They clearly indicated that the species that existed on the planet millions of years ago had similar features with living animals, and had differences with them. For example, extinct edentulous could well be the ancestors of modern anteaters, sloths and armadillos.

Darwin also noted that the representatives of the fauna that lived on the Galapagos Islands differed from their related species that lived on the American continent. However, nowhere else they didn't meet.

The scientist was also surprised by the fact that each of the rocky islands of the Galapagos archipelago became home to one of the species of giant tortoises and finches. And this, too, was contrary to creationist views. It is unlikely that the Creator had such a vast imagination to create on small islands such a great variety of diverse animals that did not differ much from each other.

Theories of T. Malthus and A. Smith

There were some other prerequisites that influenced the emergence of Darwin's idea. The evolutionary theory was created under the influence of the statements of T. Malthus and A. Smith, who considered the development of the economy in combination with population growth. In particular, this concerned the fact that the geometric increase in the number of inhabitants of the Earth does not lead to the same phenomenon in the development of the means of subsistence. The number of the latter increases only in arithmetic progression. As a result, livelihoods began to be catastrophically lacking. T. Malthus and A. Smith found an explanation for this in the natural laws of nature. She established balance with the help of hunger, disease, etc.

Ch. Lyell's ideas

This contemporary of Charles Darwin put forward and substantiated the assumption about the changing surface of the Earth. This, as C. Lyell argued, is directly influenced by climate and water, volcanic forces and other factors. He also expressed the idea that the organic world is also subject to gradual change. This work also became a prerequisite for the creation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.

Experiments conducted by Berzelius

The results obtained by chemists also inspired Darwin to create a new theory. They confirmed the unity of inanimate and living nature. So, the Swedish scientist J. Berzelius at the end of the 18th century. the chemical composition of certain organic products and various parts of the body was studied. The scientist concluded that the same elements make up both a living being and an object of inanimate nature.

Other scientific background

Darwin was inspired to create the theory of evolution by some discoveries, as a result of which it became obvious that:

• animals and plants have homologous organs;
• within their divisions and types, living organisms have a similar structure;
• in the early stages of development, the embryos of vertebrates are similar to each other (Bahr's law);
• the cellular structure of organisms has unity (the hypothesis of T. Schwann and M. Schleiden).

Which theory influenced Darwin the most? It's hard to say. Most likely, all the discoveries discussed above became important prerequisites for the creation of Darwin's theory. They strengthened the scientist's confidence in the unity of the organic world.

Of course, the idea that everything in life inevitably develops, due to which the descendants of one species can differ from parental forms, were not new and unusual. However, the merit of Darwin's theory lies in the fact that it suggested the exact path of evolution.

Publication of works

The result of acquaintance with all of the above theories was the creation of a work that was written by Charles Darwin in 1838. This work was published only in 1859. Some circumstances served as the reason for this. In 1858, a young British naturalist, traveler and biologist, Alfred Wallers, sent Darwin a manuscript of an article that examined the tendency for species of living creatures to deviate from their original type. In this work was a statement of the theory that asserted the origin of species through natural selection. After that, Darwin decided not to submit his work for publication. However, his associates Joseph Dalton Hooker and Charles Lyell managed to convince the scientist of the opposite. That is why in 1859 the theory of Charles Darwin saw the light. The work was titled "On the Origin of Species". The success of the publication was overwhelming. Ch. Darwin's theory was perfectly accepted and supported by some scientists and harshly criticized by others. Moreover, all the works of Darwin, which were published after that, were published in many languages, instantly acquiring the status of bestsellers. The world fame immediately came to the scientist.

Darwin's main theories concerned the change in plants and animals during their domestication, the ways of human origin and its sexual selection, as well as the expression of emotions in living organisms.

The essence of the scientist's ideas

How can one describe Darwin's theory briefly? Scientists have introduced a new concept - "natural selection". He argued that nature leaves those organisms that are more adapted to survival. This is the struggle for existence.

Each organism has its own individual characteristics. And this is what makes him different from others. Some of these features make the organism more capable of survival. Such individuals live much longer. Accordingly, they have more offspring. Due to this, the transfer of preferred features to a significant number of born individuals occurs.

In Darwin's theory of origin, it is also said that gradually life forms became so different from their ancestors that biologists began to consider them as independent groups that differ from each other. This theory of Darwin's species still underlies modern ideas about evolution.

Somewhat later, biologists discovered that living organisms contain small chemical particles, which were called genes. It is they who determine those features that are transmitted from parents to the next generation. From time to time, genes mutate or change. This leads to the emergence of new features that can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Principles of Darwin's theory

The whole essence of the idea of ​​the origin of species put forward by the scientist lies in a whole complex of provisions that are quite logical and can be confirmed by facts and verified experimentally. This is the main reason for the popularity of these works.

What are the fundamental principles of Darwin's theory? Let's consider them in more detail.

1. In any of the species of living organisms, there is a huge spectrum of individual genetic variability. It is expressed in physiological, behavioral, as well as in any other signs. Such variability can be continuous quantitative or intermittent qualitative. However, it exists all the time. That is why it is simply impossible to find even two individuals identical to each other in terms of the totality of signs.
2. Any living organism has the ability to rapidly increase its population. And there is no exception to the rule that the reproduction of organisms occurs in such a progression that if not for their extermination, then one pair of their offspring could cover the entire planet.
3. Any kind of animal has only limited resources for life. That is why a large reproduction of individuals serves as a kind of catalyst in the struggle for existence, which is waged between representatives of either one species or different ones. What else does Charles Darwin's theory tell us about this? The scientist argued that the struggle for existence is a broad concept. Representatives of all species strive not only to save lives. Another component of the struggle for existence is the desire of individuals to provide themselves with offspring.
4. Only those individuals remain on Earth that have special deviations that allow them to survive and adapt to specific environmental conditions. Moreover, such individual traits arise quite by accident, and are not the result of any external influences. Individuals pass on such beneficial deviations to their descendants at the genetic level. That is why subsequent generations are more adapted to environmental conditions.
5. Natural selection itself is nothing more than a process of survival, as well as the preferential reproduction of those individuals who were able to quickly adapt to the environment. Ch. Darwin's theory of evolution claims that such a phenomenon is similar to the actions of a breeder. Nature also discards the bad and keeps the good changes in living organisms. And she does it all the time.
6. If we observe separately taken varieties in different living conditions, then natural selection will certainly result in a divergence of their characteristics. This will lead to the formation of a completely new species.

All provisions of Darwin's theory are recognized as flawless in logical terms. Moreover, each of them is supported by a large amount of factual material. The described assumptions are the basis of Darwin's theory of evolution, acquaintance with which we begin in school years.

Principles of life development

Darwin's theory is at the heart of modern biology. Nevertheless, the attitude of scientists to this discovery is still far from unambiguous. Even those who have embraced the idea admit that there are still a lot of questions about it. Why is Darwin's theory so completely unexplained? The fact is that some of its provisions have not found unambiguous confirmation. This, for example, concerns the question of the origin of animal species. How this happens is not entirely clear to scientists.

Darwin planned to make his book On the Origin of Species one of the parts of a more fundamental and voluminous work that could shed light on this and many other questions. However, he did not manage to do this. But at the same time, the scientist noted that natural selection is far from the only factor that determines the formation and further development of various forms of life. In order to reproduce and breed offspring, living organisms need cooperation. In other words, individuals tend to become part of a particular community. As a result of evolution, stable social groups are created that have a clear hierarchical structure. Life on Earth without cooperation, according to Darwin, could not have advanced beyond its simplest forms.

Human Origins

Darwin's own hypothesis, revealing the secret of the origin of people, was put forward on the basis of the results obtained after many years of research and observation. In the famous works that he wrote in 1871-1872, the scientist argued that man is a part of nature. That is why the very fact of the appearance of people on Earth is not an exception to the rules that are inherent in the evolution of the entire organic world.

According to Darwin's theory, man is related to the ancestors lower on the steps of evolution, and he descended from the monkey. It should be noted that this is not the first time such a hypothesis has been voiced. The idea that humans are closely related to apes was developed by other researchers before Darwin. For example, James Burnett in the 18th century. worked on a theory explaining the evolution of language.

Charles Darwin did a great job of collecting various comparative data of an embryological and anatomical nature. It was they who pointed out the relationship of people with monkeys. This idea was subsequently substantiated by scientists. He suggested that man, as well as all kinds of monkeys, descended from one kind of living beings. This assumption became the basis for the emergence of the simial theory. According to her statements, primates and modern humans have a common ancestor - an ape-like creature that lived in the Neogene period.

Somewhat later, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel gave this intermediate form its name - "Pithecanthropus". At the end of the 19th century. Dutch anthropologist Eugene Dubois discovered the remains of a similar humanoid creature on the island of Java. The scientist described it as "an upright pithecanthropus".

Such creatures were the first "intermediate forms" discovered by anthropologists. Thanks to such findings, Darwin's theory of human evolution received a significant evidence base. But how did this process take place? In order to understand this, one should turn back time and look at what happened on Earth millions of years ago.

The origin of life on our planet occurred in the ocean. In its waters, microorganisms arose that were capable of reproduction. Over time, they continued to develop and improve. At the same time, multicellular life forms such as algae, fish, and other fauna and flora arose.

Over time, living beings began to gradually come out onto land, mastering other habitats for themselves. It is possible that some of the species of fish began to come to the surface by the will of a banal accident, or maybe this was influenced by strong competition. Whatever it was, amphibians appeared on the planet. This is a new class of living organisms that could exist and develop in both environments. More than one million years have passed, and thanks to natural selection, only the most adapted representatives of the Amphibian class remained on land. They also gave an increasing number of offspring, which more and more became adapted to life in land conditions. At the same time, animal species such as mammals, reptiles and birds arose. The natural selection that took place over millions of years led to the fact that only those populations remained on Earth that could best adapt to the changed environmental conditions. Many of these species have not survived to this day. But they left behind more hardy descendants.

One such species is dinosaurs. At one time they were the real masters of the planet. However, the natural disasters that occurred on Earth changed the conditions of life. Dinosaurs could not adapt to them. Among their descendants, only reptiles and birds live today.

As long as the dinosaurs continued to be the dominant species, mammals on our planet were represented by only a few breeds, the size of which did not exceed those of modern rodents. But it was their unpretentiousness in food and small stature that helped them survive in those natural disasters, due to which almost 90% of all living organisms were destroyed.

More than one millennium passed before weather conditions stabilized on Earth. In the absence of their competitors (dinosaurs), mammals began to multiply actively. Thus, a large number of varieties of living beings arose on our planet. Moreover, they all belonged to mammals. Some of them were the ancestors of humans and monkeys. Data from numerous studies confirm that these creatures lived in forests and hid in trees from large predators. But gradually the weather changed. The forests shrunk in size and savannas arose in their place. Because of this, the ancestors of people had to descend from the trees. Such a change in habitat led to upright posture, the development of the brain, a decrease in body hair, etc.

More than one million years have passed. Natural selection has led to the survival of only the fittest groups. Our ancestors evolved through successive stages.

Misunderstanding of the processes described above led to the fact that before the advent of Darwin's theory, biologists could not unravel the mystery of the origin of man for a long time. The very first assumptions that his ancestor is a monkey were attacked by critics.

Evidence for the theory

Despite the fact that Darwin's idea is more than a hundred and forty years old, many people are still not ready to accept the fact that they are related to primates. Scientists have constantly dealt with these questions, trying to prove or disprove the theory of evolution.

However, researchers found more and more evidence in its favor. The fact that in ancient times humans and monkeys had common ancestors is evidenced by the following facts:

1. Paleontological. Scientists are conducting numerous excavations around the world. However, they find only the remains of a person who lived from 40 thousand years BC. e. and up to the present. In earlier breeds, scientists discover Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus, Neanderthals, etc. That is, the deeper the researchers go into the past, the more primitive types of people they find in it.
2. Morphological. Primates and humans are the only creatures on the planet whose head is covered with hair, not wool, and nails grow on their fingers. They have similar morphological structure of organs. Bringing together a person with primates is bad, if we consider the representatives of the animal world, hearing and smell.
3. Embryonic. The human fetus in the mother's body goes through all stages of evolution. Thus, gills develop in embryos, a tail grows, and a coat of wool appears on the body. And only later the features of the embryo become similar to those that a modern person has. Sometimes some newborns have vestigial organs and atavisms (tail and hair).
4. Genetic. Genes prove the relationship between humans and primates. After millions of years, human genes differ from those found in chimpanzees by only 1.5%. Also in humans and these animals is a significant number of retroviral invasions. There are about 30,000 of them. This fact is one of the clearest evidence of the relationship between humans and chimpanzees.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the work of a man who once abandoned the medical profession because he was afraid of blood. After that, he began to study theology. There are some other very interesting facts. So, it is known that Darwin dined on exotic species of animals that he studied. And the phrase “survival of the fittest” was not said by the author of the theory of evolution at all. It belongs to his associate and contemporary Herbert Spencer.

The very idea put forward by Darwin contradicts the claims about the divine creation of the world. Initially, the church accepted this theory with hostility. Interestingly, Darwin himself, in the process of creating his work, stopped believing in God. However, 126 years after the scientist's death, the Anglican Church apologized to him. And it was done officially. To date, many representatives of religious movements have come to the conclusion that real reconciliation is possible. That is, those people who believe in God may not deny evolution. The Anglican and Catholic churches finally accepted the theory of Charles Darwin. They explain it by the fact that God created the beginning of life, and then it continued to develop in a natural way.

It is also interesting that fame came not only to Darwin. Together with him, finches also gained fame. Although it turned out that these birds are called tanagrams, they are still called "Darwin's finches" to this day.