Is it possible to predict the direction of evolution, how mutations occur and where humanity will lead natural selection

Evolution is not a matter of faith. Evolution happened in the past and is happening now, and we know its mechanisms. If you have a fairly complete fossil record, when you study fossils from different layers, you will see that they change.

With mammals, this is not so clear, because there are very few fossils. But microscopic marine foraminifers can be extracted in a column from the ocean floor, sedimentary rocks can be dated and, with an accuracy of ten thousand years, you can see how these foraminifers changed. But much of the evidence about how evolution has happened in the past does not explain any mechanisms. We see neither mutation nor selection, only the end result.

How can evolution be observed?

In search of confirmation of the correctness of the theory of natural selection, Darwin studied examples of artificial selection, with the help of which man created various breeds of domestic animals. Crossing different breeds of pigeons, Darwin sometimes received birds that resembled a wild rock pigeon. He came to the conclusion that domestic pigeons, so dissimilar to each other, descended from a single ancestor. //pxhere.com

A person on a historical scale does not live very long, so we can observe a rather conditional evolution. We will not see how the worm turns into a fly, that is, how one form passes into another. From my point of view, the most best example evolution is not even Darwinian pigeons, but goldfish: in fact, this is goldfish, and it has changed a lot in two thousand years. From Chinese chronicles it is known when different forms appeared: goldfish, red fish and fish without a dorsal fin. The Chinese were engaged in artificial selection: when an interesting mutant appeared, they isolated it from other fish and propagated it.

The most famous example of the study of evolution in the laboratory is the experiment of Richard Lensky, in which he and his laboratory staff have been observing twelve populations of E. coli for thirty years. Escherichia coli. During this time, almost 80,000 generations of E. coli have already changed, many interesting mutations have occurred, but for a non-specialist, this is how it was Escherichia coli, so it remained. New strains with new properties have appeared, but it is impossible to talk about the emergence of a new species.

The concept of species itself is not defined. When a person becomes infected with the HIV virus, it is because of a single viral particle. If the patient is not treated and he dies of AIDS in ten years, viruses will be found in the body that differ from each other by 15%. This means that a serious evolution is taking place. The influenza virus is also evolving all the time. A person who has had the flu will never get sick again with the same strain of the virus: he has immunity for life. And therefore, if the influenza virus had not evolved, there would not have been constant epidemics.

What is a view? When did Australopithecus become human? If we want to divide a continuously evolving line into species, this inevitably means that at some point we will classify mother and daughter as different species. There are such jumps in evolution, but they happen very rarely due to one specific mechanism, when the entire genome is duplicated. This is not possible in mammals. So, while the monkey turned into a man, there was no such thing that parents and children differed greatly. Nevertheless, at the input we have a monkey, and at the output we have a man.

Evolution rate

The rate of evolution is not constant, and we must remember that we measure it in generations, not in years. Fifty mouse generations pass in one human generation, so the mouse can evolve faster. When new conditions arise, evolution also speeds up. But there are so-called living fossils, coelacanths and ginkgoes, which have not changed outwardly for 200 million years, and mammals have traveled a gigantic path over the same period of time.

According to the Hardy-Weinberg law, the rate of evolution of a genome fragment that is not affected by selection is equal to the rate of mutation. The reasons are clear: if selection does not work, then the new mutation is no better and no worse than the old version. That's why new version has the same probability of gaining a foothold in the population as any copy of the old variant. Surprisingly, the mutation rate in all eukaryotes that have been studied is more or less constant and amounts to 10-8 nucleotides per generation.

This refers to neutral evolution, which has nothing to do with evolutionarily significant changes - elk antlers and butterfly wings. Neutral evolution is a change in amino acid and nucleotide sequences that do not affect the fitness of the organism and are not under selection pressure. Random, fitness-independent changes in the frequencies of genetic alleles in a population are called genetic drift. Thus, genetic drift reigns over neutral mutations, and selection over beneficial and harmful ones. Selection that increases the frequency of beneficial mutations is called positive selection. Selection that rejects harmful mutations is negative.

The theory of neutral evolution is the assumption that most mutations at the molecular level are neutral in relation to natural selection. Thus, a significant part of intraspecific variability, especially in small populations, is explained not by the action of selection, but by the random drift of mutant alleles that are neutral or almost neutral.

The evolution of those nucleotides that affect traits and fitness is under selection pressure, and therefore not at all neutral. A conservative protein, such as a histone in humans and peas, will differ by only one amino acid, meaning it will not evolve at all. And some protein important for adaptation can evolve at a high speed. We are currently growing a mushroom in an experiment Podospora. We have eight lines, and in six years the same protein has evolved in seven lines. It turns out that in order to adapt to the conditions of cultivation, this fungus wants to break down a specific protein.

There are entire segments of the genome that do not affect traits and fitness. But a lot of non-coding DNA affects traits. In humans, the total length of such segments is at least ten times the length of the coding segments.

Not everyone can drink milk as an adult. In all mammals, as soon as they finish feeding breast milk, the enzyme lactase, which processes milk sugar, is turned off. A person has a mutation that breaks the shutdown mechanism and allows you to drink milk all your life. It is assumed that this was due to the emergence and development of cattle breeding: the Polynesians do not have a gene that allows them to drink milk in adulthood, because none of the ancestors of the Polynesians ever drank milk or raised cattle in their lives. A mutation that allows you to drink milk, - this is a replacement of just one nucleotide, not even in the coding gene, but 30 thousand nucleotides from it. Two different mutations separately arose in northern Europeans and the Bantu pastoralists in Africa, but they are very close, ten nucleotides apart. And that piece of non-coding DNA breaks there, which is responsible for the complex process of turning off the work of the lactase gene. So if a segment is non-coding, then this does not mean at all that it does nothing. There are transcription factors that bind to non-coding DNA and regulate gene expression. A person has 99% non-coding DNA, and 90% "lounging" DNA. It turns out that a lot of non-coding DNA performs some functions.

In order to understand from the evolution of the genome how traits will change, we must know the mapping from genotype to phenotypes, but this is usually unknown. Suppose I was forbidden to look at signs, but was allowed to look only at genotypes. And I will see that in my population for a hundred generations in such and such a place there was a replacement of the letter A with the letter G. What does this mean in terms of characters? No one knows.

If you give a scientist some new genotype and say: “We caught an animal with such and such a genome. What can you say about it?”, then the only thing this scientist can do is compare this genome with those already known and say: “This animal is a beetle, because its genome is similar to the genome of a beetle.” But if we couldn't cheat like that, we wouldn't say anything at all. We wouldn't know if it has legs or tentacles, what size it is, what it eats.

DNA changes randomly, primarily due to DNA polymerase errors. These changes are usually harmful, because when you take something that is already working and accidentally change it, you will most likely make it worse. But surprisingly, sometimes mutations are useful.

At the same time, we do not understand at all how the accumulation of beneficial mutations leads to the emergence of a new life form. Chimpanzees differ from humans in 30 million letters, that is, 1% of the genome. Most of these differences have nothing to do with traits: if 20 million letters in my genome were replaced with "chimpanzee letters", I would not change. But some letters, on the contrary, are important. The question arises: how many letters must be changed in the chimpanzee genome, or rather, how many “words” to make a person out of it? How strong was the selection that supported the hominizing mutations of monkeys? We don't know.

Natural selection

Using the method of random walks, it is impossible to find in the whole variety of proteins one point that corresponds to the optimal implementation of the function of each protein. Fortunately, such optima are not points, but vast areas. And the search for the optimum in the course of evolution is carried out not by the method of random walks, but by means of directed selection. Directionality arises due to the fact that random deviations in the “wrong” direction worsen the working qualities of the protein and are discarded. And random changes in the “right” direction are remembered and saved.

The more harmful mutations an organism has, the less likely it is to cheat selection. Of course, there is always some random component, but if the mutation is completely harmful, then its carrier is doomed to extinction. If it is moderately harmful, then you may be lucky and he will survive. Human medicine resists selection. Many people a hundred years ago would have died in early age and are now breeding successfully. But there is evidence that selection in human population still continues to work. And it affects not only survival, but also fertility.

Very interesting data have recently been obtained: the genes that contribute to education are under the negative pressure of natural selection. It has long been understood that the higher a person's level of education, the fewer children they have on average. But now this has been confirmed at the gene level, that is, alleles have been identified that are associated with a higher level of education. And it turned out that if you carry such an allele, then you have a higher level of education, and fewer children.

The brain is the most hard part human phenotype in terms of genetics. Severe dementia is caused by mutations in five thousand genes, and every year several hundred more genes are added to this list. This, by the way, to the question of why a man needs his monstrous intellect. In modern industrialized societies, the higher a person's level of education, the greater the income and life expectancy. It would seem that there are only advantages from education, but the selection is directed in the other direction. And among Pithecanthropes, who did not receive any education, the selection for some reason acted in favor of the ability to learn.

Do you have any questions? Set them in Yandex.Connoisseurs

Education is determined by the environment, but the fact that something is more determined by the environment does not mean that it is not a feature. Good example- height and weight. Weight is determined by the environment much more than height. Even in Holy Scripture it is said that none of us can, in spite of our best efforts, add even one cubit to our height. But it doesn't say that none of us can put on 10 kilos, because it's very easy to do if you have money and McDonald's. But this does not mean that height is a sign, and weight is not a sign.

Until now, some people believe that evolution is a theory that still needs to be proven. But natural selection is a very simple thing. If there is a genetically determined variability in milk yield in cows and we slaughter half of the cows with a lower milk yield, the average milk yield will be higher in the next generation. It is not very clear what can be refuted or proved here.

Modern evolutionary biology is based on the fact that DNA, RNA and proteins are the basis of life on Earth. In a living cell, there is a directed flow of information from DNA, which is the original genetic text, consisting of four letters: A, T, G and C. The text is written in the form of sequences of these letters, which are called nucleotides and are stored in the DNA double helix, in one from two chains. During transcription, RNA is synthesized on the DNA template, which is identical to this text, with the difference that in RNA, instead of T, there is U. The RNA text is a cast from the corresponding DNA text.

The resulting RNA, called messenger RNA, or mRNA, is translated using the genetic code as a sequence of amino acid residues in proteins. Text translation in progress nucleic acids DNA and RNA from the four-letter alphabet of nucleotides to the twenty-letter alphabet of amino acids. Sometimes in texts different reasons errors occur: substitutions of one or more letters, repetitions, disappearance of entire fragments. Such errors - mutations - underlie variability.

All laws of evolution are considered only through the prism contemporary ideas about molecular organization alive. Two hundred years ago, Darwin understood the key mechanisms of evolution without knowing anything about the relationship of genotypes and mutations to the phenotype, and this is extremely interesting from the point of view of history. On an intuitive level, he established a connection between variability, heredity and selection. But now it is wrong to study evolutionary biology starting from the Darwinian understanding.

How it all started

The very first fossils of living things date back to 3.5 billion years - these are bacterial communities, stromatolites in Australia and South Africa. These two places were located close and formed the so-called Pilbara Craton. Several papers have now come out claiming that life was already 3.8 billion years ago. The remarkable thing is that there is a lower bound: life cannot be older than 4.2 billion years, because the Moon was knocked out of the Earth at that time. Everything on our planet was melted and red-hot, and even if some life existed before that, a complete reset had to happen. So for the emergence of life, it took either 700 million years, or even 400.

Approximately half of the E. coli genes Escherichia coli there are clear relatives in the human genome. In the other direction, the ratio is smaller, but the person simply has more protein-coding genes: twenty thousand versus three thousand. But it also happens the other way around: in a nematode C.elegans dozens of genes that only other nematodes have, but no one else has. Whether these genes have evolved so much that we no longer see the similarities, or whether they arose out of nowhere, no one knows.

Last universal common ancestor (LUCA) -

last universal common ancestor. No fossil remains of LUCA have survived, so it can only be studied by comparing genomes. LUCA is believed to have lived 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, during the Paleoarchean era.

All living species are equally ancient and descended from LUCA. But some species have changed more and others less. The evolutionary approach says that all living things are interconnected. At the level of fundamental genes, what a person has should also be in a crocodile. by the most fundamental process for all living things, protein synthesis is considered. Why exactly this? It would seem that DNA synthesis is also important process, everyone has it. But now they say that the latter common ancestor LUCA may not have been DNA, only RNA and proteins.

This situation is possible: DNA could have appeared later and turned out to be useful acquisition that, through horizontal transfer, it spread throughout all living things. It is most likely impossible to verify this, because it is impossible to catch a live LUCA, or even find its remains: this is a derived concept, and not some specific and specific organism. But in the first approximation, if everyone has something, then LUCA probably had it. Or, shortly after his appearance, it spread like wildfire through all his descendants.

You can try to talk about the evolution of LUCA itself and look into the history before it. Imagine that everyone has two related proteins that are clearly descended from a common ancestral protein. So they are products of gene duplication and divergence that have been going on since before LUCA. With the help of such reasoning, we conclude that LUCA itself has already passed a very difficult selection and was the product of a long evolution. There were many proteins in it, clearly descended from each other. If you ask Evgeny Kunin, he will say that all the most interesting things happened before LUCA. And from a certain point of view, he is right: no one knows anything about the origin of life. The RNA world hypothesis is widespread: maybe it was, or maybe it wasn’t. Everything sounds very plausible, but we have no facts. Evgeny Kunin argues that the ribosome cannot arise spontaneously, but since there are 10,500 universes, it happened in one of them.

what is evolution

1. Evolution is a development process consisting of gradual changes, without sharp jumps (as opposed to revolution).
2. Wikipedia rules 🙂
3. this is a change on earth
4. historical development wildlife
5. 2nd answer is good.
6. Wikipedia rules 🙂
7. Evolution is a development process consisting of gradual changes, without sharp jumps (as opposed to revolution). Most often, when speaking of evolution, they mean biological evolution.

   Biological evolution is an irreversible and directed historical development of living nature, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, the formation of adaptations, the formation and extinction of species, the transformation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. Biological evolution is the study of evolutionary biology. Remove content

   There are several evolutionary theories that have in common the claim that living forms of life are the descendants of other life forms that existed before. Evolutionary theories differ in explaining the mechanisms of evolution. AT this moment the most common is the so-called. synthetic theory of evolution, which is the development of Darwin's theory.

   Genes that are passed on to offspring, as a result of expression, form the sum of the characteristics of the organism (phenotype). When organisms reproduce, their descendants develop new or altered traits that arise as a result of mutation or when genes are transferred between populations or even species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes arise when genetic recombination. Evolution occurs when hereditary differences become more frequent or rarer in a population.

   Evolutionary biology studies evolutionary processes and put forward theories to explain their causes. By the middle of the 19th century, the study of fossils and species diversity had convinced most scientists that species change over time. driving force evolution 3. The theory of Darwin and Wallace was eventually accepted by the scientific community 45. In the 1930s, the idea of ​​Darwinian natural selection was combined with the laws of Mendel, which formed the basis of the synthetic theory of evolution (STE) . STE made it possible to explain the relationship between the substrate of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). The evolution of organisms occurs through changes in the hereditary characteristics of the organism. An example of a hereditary trait in a person is the brown color of the eyes, inherited from one of the parents 6. Hereditary traits are controlled by genes. The totality of all the genes of an organism forms its genotype 7
   A complete set of behavioral and structural features an organism is called a phenotype. The phenotype of an organism is formed by the interaction of the genotype with the environment. Many phenotypic traits are non-hereditary. So, for example, sunburn is not inherited, since its appearance is due to exposure to sunlight. However, some people tan more easily than others. This is a hereditary trait.
   The transfer of hereditary traits from one generation to another is provided by DNA 7. DNA is a biopolymer consisting of four nucleic bases. During cell division, DNA is copied, resulting in each of the daughter cells receiving a DNA sequence.
   The parts of the DNA molecule that determine the functional unit of heredity are called genes. Inside cells, DNA is found in chromatin, which in turn forms chromosomes. The position of genes on a chromosome is called a locus. Various forms genes located at the same loci homologous chromosomes and defining various manifestations of signs are called alleles. The DNA sequence can change (mutate), creating new alleles. If the mutation occurs within a gene, then the new allele can affect the trait controlled by the gene and change the organism's phenotype.
   However, most of the signs are determined not by one gene, but by the interaction of several genes (epistasis and polymerism can serve as an example of such phenomena)

8. Roughly speaking, evolution is the development of a process or phenomenon. In more detail, there are constant, consistent internal and external changes, as a result of which an object or phenomenon becomes qualitatively better.

directed change of any process, system, object, which is irreversible. This change always takes place in real (dynamic or historical) time. Evolution can be of various types: 1) from simple to complex and vice versa, 2) progressive and regressive, 3) linear and non-linear, 4) spontaneous and conscious, etc. As a rule, it occurs gradually, through accumulation a large number micro-changes of the phenomenon. Directed changes play an important role not only in the biological, and even more so in the social sphere, but also in the physical and chemical processes, and also in cognitive sphere. (See change, progress, revolution).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Evolution

(Evolution). Ch. Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" (1859) caused heated debate between theologians and scientists. The defenders of Darwin raised it to the shield as a new word in science, with the help of which one can reinterpret the entire experience of the existence of mankind. Others called the theory of evolution a product of the devil, having no scientific value. But most people are in between. In this article, we will try to analyze the various theories that explain the origin of man and connect them with the biblical story of the creation of man, as well as present criticism of these theories.

liberal outlook. A contemporary of Darwin, O. Comte put forward an evolutionary theory of three stages in the development of religion: (1) fetishism is a separate will, the edges affect material objects; (2) polytheism many gods acting through inanimate objects; (3) monotheism is a single, abstract will that governs the entire universe. Liberal theologians have applied this theory to the interpretation of the Bible (the concept of "gradual revelation"). According to this theory, God revealed himself to people gradually at first as a cruel, ruthless OT tyrant who treated them as temporary members of the community with no personal value. But ideas about God changed through the suffering experience of the Babylonian captivity Israel comes to the intense expectation of a personal God, expressed in the psalms, and, finally, to faith in Jesus Christ, the personal Savior and Lord of every Christian.

The growth of high-level criticism contributed to the development of liberal exegesis. Commenting on the Pentateuch, liberals questioned not only the authorship of Moses, but also the authenticity of the biblical story of the creation of the world and the flood because of their alleged similarity with the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish. From now on, liberal theologians consider the Bible a great literary monument and, along with the necessary, vital important truths find in it many purely human errors and obsolete teachings.

The Catholic theologian and anthropologist P. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) considered the theory of evolution in a biblical context. He tried to interpret the Christian gospel in terms of evolution. According to his concept, original sin is not a consequence of the disobedience of the first people, but rather the action of the negative forces of counter-evolution, i.e. evil. This evil is the mechanism of creation of the unfinished universe. God creates the world of the beginning of time, constantly transforming the universe and man. The blood and the cross of Christ are symbols of the new rebirth, through which the universe develops. Accordingly, Christ is no longer the Savior of the world, but the pinnacle of evolution, which determines its movement and meaning. Then Christianity is first of all faith in the gradual unification of the world in God. The mission of the Church is the relief of human suffering, not the spiritual redemption of the world. This mission is directly related to the inevitable progress generated by evolution.

Evangelical Christian Perspectives. Evangelical Christians consider the Bible to be the Word of God and the only infallible guideline for faith and conduct. However, among evangelical Christians there are widespread, at least, four theories relating biblical exegesis to discoveries in modern science: (1) theories about humans before Adam, (2) "fundamentalist creationism", (3) theistic evolutionism, and (4) the theory of gradual creation of the world.

Theories about people before Adam. These theories fall into two groups. The "interval theory" says that after the creation of heaven and earth and before the situation described in Genesis 1:2, there was a chronological gap, during which a great cataclysm devastated the earth. Jer 4:2326 is usually quoted in support; Isaiah 24:1; 45:18. According to this theory, early human remains testify to humans before Adam, whose creation is described in Genesis 1:1. The theory of two Adams states that the first Adam from Genesis 1 was the Adam of the bygone Stone Age, and the second Adam from Genesis 2 was the Adam of the New Stone Age and the ancestor modern man. Thus, the whole Bible tells about the fall and salvation of Adam of the new Stone Age and his descendants.

"Fundamentalist Creationism". It includes all theories, according to Crimea, the creation of the world, described in Genesis 1, literally lasted twenty-four hours. These ideas suggest that the age of the Earth is 10 thousand years, and most of the modern (if not all) organic fossils were formed as a result of the Flood. They accept the chronology developed by Archbishop J. Asher (15811656) and J. Lightfoot, the edge being built on the assumption that the biblical genealogy was to serve as the basis of the chronology. Proponents of "fundamentalist creationism" reject any evolutionary development organisms and explain modern species differences by differences among the original organisms created by God. From their point of view, the theory of evolution is the culmination of an atheistic worldview, which undermines the authority of the Bible and casts doubt on the story of the creation of the world. Thus, any evolutionary approach to the Genesis 1 story is a blow to the Christian faith.

Theistic evolutionism. Proponents of this theory see Genesis as an allegory and a poetic presentation of spiritual truths about man's dependence on the Creator and falling away from God's grace. Theistic evolutionists have no doubts about the Bible's validity. They also acknowledge that God created man through a process of organic evolution. They believe that the Bible only tells us that God created the world, but does not reveal how He created it. Science has offered a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life in terms of evolutionary theory. But the two levels of explanation should complement each other, not contradict each other. Despite the need to abandon the historicity of the Fall, theistic evolutionists understand that the theory of organic evolution, embedded in the Christian understanding of the origin of life, cannot shake the fundamental Christian doctrine of original sin and the need for redemption.

The theory of the gradual creation of the world. This theory seeks to connect science and Scripture. Proponents of this view are trying to interpret Holy Scripture in a new way, focusing on new scientific discoveries. Without dismissing the irrefutable scientific data testifying to the ancient age of the Earth, they see in traditional theory"days" represents a long period of time, not a day consisting of 24 hours. They regard this interpretation as sound exegesis, in keeping with the ancient age of the earth.

Representatives of this direction are cautious in their assessments. scientific theory evolution. They accept only the microevolutionary theory, according to which mutations, formed as a result of natural selection, contributed to species diversity. They are skeptical of macroevolution (from ape to man) and organic evolution (from molecule to man) because these theories are not consistent with the well-studied mechanism of natural selection. Therefore, for the supporters of the gradual creation of the world modern differences organisms are the result of species divergence and a consequence of microevolution, which began with prototypes originally created by God. There are at least three variants of the "day-age" theory: (1) the theory that a "day" is a geological period, and each day of creation from Genesis 1 corresponds to a specific geological era; (2) the "discontinuous day" theory that each stage of creation was preceded by a day consisting of 24 hours; (3) the theory of overlapping "day-ages" each era of creation begins with the phrase: "And there was evening, and there was morning", but partly coincides with other eras.

Criticism. liberal evolutionism. The influence of humanism, with its exaggerated analytical criticism, which sought to eliminate everything irrational and supernatural from the Bible, led to the fact that the Holy Scriptures began to be seen as simply a great religious book, and not the Word of God. The only truth of Holy Scripture with its obsolete traditions began to be considered human experience which found expression in the Jewish aspirations of personal liberation, and completion in the person of Jesus Christ. However, the attempt to reduce the meaning of the Bible to the search for personal salvation was unsuccessful. Too often it has turned into a verbose sensibility that has nothing to do with the truth and historicity of the biblical narrative.

Liberal evolutionism placed man in a closed space of relative ethics, where there were no moral criteria, with the help of which he could evaluate contradictory friend moral values asserted by himself and others.

Theories about people before Adam. According to some scholars, the "interval theory" is untenable for two reasons: (1) it is not supported by biblical evidence; (2) it was invented by believing geologists who sought to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the creation of light and plants before the sun appeared, and the antiquity of human remains. References to Jer 4:23; Isaiah 24:1 and 45:18, which supposedly testify to God's judgment on His creation before the events described in Genesis 1:2, is a big stretch. The context shows that these passages herald things to come. The word "was" in Genesis 1:2, which the supporters of this theory interpreted as "became", must be understood exactly as "was", since no other interpretation follows from the context. The word "refill" in Genesis 1:28 should be taken literally, and not "refill again" as this theory suggests, trying to depict the once inhabited Earth, the land was devastated. The theory of two Adams cannot be recognized as exegetically legitimate; besides, it contradicts the idea of ​​the unity of the human race, which is shared by all anthropologists and orthodox theologians.

"Fundamentalist Creationism". The main difficulty facing the supporters of this view is how to explain the ancient age of the Earth. Since atheistic theories of evolution consider vast periods of time, representatives this direction thoughts argue that the concept of an ancient age of the earth is a compromise with atheism that undermines the Christian faith. Therefore, they reject the principle of uniformitarianism ("the present is the key to the past") and all dating methods that confirm ancient origin Earth in favor of a global cataclysm. However, due to the lack of clear evidence of a Flood and an explanation for the amazing distribution of various animals on different continents, the Flood theory remains unproven. In addition, its proponents neglect the multitude of data confirming microevolutionary processes that can be observed in nature and in the laboratory. Many saw this biased approach to scientific discoveries based on a specific biblical exegesis, a continuation of the medieval obscurantism that engulfed the Church during the Copernican revolution.

Theistic evolutionism. If a person is a product random events natural selection, then theistic evolutionists must convince the secular world of the supernatural origin of man, created in the image and likeness of God, and of the truth of the doctrine of original sin. The allegorical interpretation of the creation story deals a blow to these two most important Christian teachings. Denying the historicity of the first Adam, this point of view calls into question the meaning of the crucifixion of Christ the Second Adam (Rom. 5:1221) and thus all Christian gospel.

The texts of Gen 1:12:4 are correlated with each other and are introduced in repeated phrases. Therefore, some theistic evolutionists talk about the "poetics" of these structures. However, this interpretation is unconvincing for two reasons. First, the creation story in Genesis 1:12:4 is unlike any known poetic work.

The Genesis story has no parallel in the vast biblical poetry and non-biblical Semitic literature. The command to keep the Sabbath is explained by the events of the first week of creation (Ex 20:811). An allegorical interpretation cannot become the actual basis of this commandment, and therefore it is unconvincing.

Eleven verses ending with the words: "This is the genealogy [life] ..." from the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis reproduce the historical picture of primitive and patriarchal life (1:12:4; 2:55:1; 5:26:9a; 6: 9610:1; 10:211:10a; 11:10b27a; 11:27625:12; 25:1319a; 25:19636:1; 36:29; 36:1037:2). The NT considers the events described in Gen. to be real^ 10:6; 1 Corinthians 11:89).

The creation of Eve (Gen. 2:2122) is also a mystery to theistic evolutionists who accept the naturalistic explanation of the origin of man from animals. Furthermore, Genesis 2:7 says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Although the creation process is not described in detail, in the early chapters of Genesis the idea of ​​creating man from inorganic matter and not from a pre-existing living form.

Heb. the word meaning "living soul" (Gen. 2:7) is identical to the expression from Gen. 1:2021,24: "... let the water bring forth reptiles, a living creature..." In the original, all these verses contain the word nepes (" soul"). The difference between man and animals is that man is made in the image of God, while animals are not. Therefore, Genesis 2:7 implies that humans became living souls, like all other animals. Therefore, these verses cannot be interpreted as if human beings arose from an animal being that preceded them.

Religious evolutionists put too much faith in the theory of organic evolution, which has not yet been reasonably formulated. In their desire to reconcile naturalistic and religious approaches to the question of the origin of life, they unwittingly show inconsistency, denying the miracle of the creation of the world, but accepting the supernatural character of the Christian gospel. This inconsistency is partly due to the notion that reality can be analyzed on many levels, each of which is more or less complete. Thus another difficulty arises (with a holistic christian point view) reality is divided into spiritual and physical. Such a dualism lurks in the theistic evolutionary approach to the person as a product natural evolution and spirit, which God "breathed" into him by a supernatural act.

Gradual creation of the world. Supporters of this position argue that, in addition to the scientific data that testify to the ancient age of the Earth, there is also biblical evidence proving that the "day" in Genesis can be understood as an indefinitely long period of time and that biblical genealogies cannot serve as a basis for accurate chronologies were not intended for this.

To prove that the day of creation is a long period of time, the following arguments are given. (1) God created the Sun with the function of determining days and years only on the fourth day. Therefore, the first days did not consist of twenty-four hours. (2) In objection to the "day-ages" theory, the fourth commandment is usually cited, which is not always justified, since this argument is based on analogy, not on identity. The establishment of the Sabbath year (Ex 23:10; Lev 25:37) seems to confirm that the Sabbath is a day of rest. Men must rest one day after six days of work, and the earth must rest one year after six years of harvest, for God worked for six "days" and rested on the seventh. (3) The words: "And there was evening, and there was morning ..." completing each "day of creation," cannot be an argument in favor of the theory of an ordinary day, consisting of twenty-four hours. The word "day" can mean a stretch of time of indeterminate length (Gen. 2:4; Ps. 89:14) and yet daylight opposed to night (Gen. 1:5); therefore the constituent parts of the "day" can also be understood allegorically (Ps. 89:56). Moreover, if these expressions are taken literally, then evening and morning together make night, not day. (4) The events of the sixth day of creation described in Genesis 2 seem to have gone on for an extremely long time. This time span is expressed in Heb. the word happaam (Gen. 2:23) "behold," which Adam utters. This word indicates that Adam waited a long time for his girlfriend, and finally his wish came true. This interpretation confirmed by the fact that the word occurs in the OT in the context of elapsed time (Gen 29:3435; 30:20; 46:30; Ex 9:27; Jd 15:3; 16:18).

As for biblical genealogies, the famous biblical scholar W. Green analyzed them and concluded that they cannot serve as the basis for an accurate chronology. Other biblical scholars have confirmed this conclusion. Green found that in biblical genealogies only the most important names are given, and the rest are omitted, and the words "father" "begotten" "son" are used in a broad sense.

The traditional interpretation of the "days of the epoch" refers the days to different geological periods. However, the days of creation are difficult to correlate with real fossils. In addition, the creation of earthly greenery, sowing seed, and trees, bearing fruit, before creating animals, is a certain difficulty, because. many plants that bear seed and fruit need insects for pollination and fertilization. The theory of discontinuous and overlapping "day-ages" solves this problem by proposing the following hypothesis: fruit-bearing trees and animals were created at the same time. Modern model origin of the earth and solar system agrees well with the story of Gen. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was expanding from a superdense state. Thirteen billion years ago, there was an explosion, and in the process of gradual cooling of the Universe, interstellar matter from which galaxies, stars, the Earth and other planets arose. The events of the first three epochs of the creation of the world correspond to modern theory origin of the Earth and planets from a dark gas-dust nebula. It contained water vapor, from which oxygen was released, which is necessary for plant photosynthesis.

All three of these models assume a process of change after the creation of each prototype of living organisms. Interpreting the seventh day of creation, when the Lord rested, the model of overlapping "day-ages" suggests the following hypothesis: the creation of the world was completed at the end of the sixth day (Gen. 1:31), and on the seventh day God rested. This concept is consistent with traditional views. However, according to the "discontinuous day" model, the creation of the world continues, and we live in an era that began on the sixth solar day and lay between the sixth and seventh days of creation. God continues to create, transforming the inorganic and organic nature. The seventh day, the unconditional day of rest (Heb 4:1), will only begin after the birth of the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:18). This later view creates certain difficulties in interpreting Genesis 2:1: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

The problems that "gradual creationism" faces are not as insurmountable as those that face other models, because it deliberately tries to connect science with Holy Scripture. But there are two more difficult problems. (1) How does the ancient origin of man compare with the highly developed civilization described in Genesis 4? Despite the absence of ancient remnants of material culture, physical anthropology suggests that man has probably existed on Earth for millions of years. Therefore, the first important problem how to explain the huge interval of time between the emergence of man and human civilization, which arose for 9 thousand. BC? Attempts to smooth over the difficulties include references to the civilization of Cain and Abel, described in the Bible extremely sparingly, and to the supposedly extinct civilization (Gen. 4:12), which perished due to sin. Human culture could reappear with the onset of the Neolithic, about 11 thousand years ago. (2) What is the extent of the flood? Due to the lack of clear evidence of a global flood, many "gradual creationists" accept the theory of a local flood that swept only Mesopotamia. The main argument of this theory is that there was a kind of metonymy; the ancient Eastern written records name a significant part instead of the whole (see Gen. 41:57; Deut. 2:25; 1 Sam. 18:10; Ps. 22:17; Mt. 3:5 ; John 4:39; Acts 2:5). Thus, the "universality" of the flood may mean the universality of the experience of those who spoke about it. Yes, Moses could not imagine global flood, without knowing true dimensions Earth.

Conclusion. Liberal evolutionists have questioned the reliability of human moral judgments. Supporters of "fundamentalist creationism" adhere to certain theological traditions, krye belittle the objectivity of science. Theistic evolutionists surrender important theological positions to atheists and liberals by offering an allegorical interpretation of creation and the fall. Proponents of "gradual creationism" seem to be able to preserve the integrity of both Scripture and science.

R. R. T. Pun (trans. A. K.) Bibliography: R. J. Berry, Adam and Are: A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution; R. Bube, The Human Quest; J. O. Busweli, Jr., Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion; H.M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science; R.C. Newman and H.J. Eckelmann, Jr., Genesis one and the Origin of the Universe; E.K.V. Pearce, Who Was Adam? P.P.T. Pun, Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture; J.C.Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood; E.J. Young, Studies in Genesis One.

See also: Creation, doctrine about it; Man (his origin); Age of the Earth.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

I would like to explain what evolution is. Probably every person on earth has heard this word "evolution", but not everyone will be able to connect even two words about it. First, let's define the term, evolution is natural process development of wildlife, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, the formation of adaptations, speciation and extinction of species, the transformation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.

DNA chain

There are two main processes in evolution: mutation and recombination of genes; natural selection. heredity, i.e. transmission genetic information the offspring is accompanied by recombinations and mutations of the gene. Recombination occurs when the DNA of two individuals is mixed. Children's DNA is made up of a combination of parts of their parents' DNA. This promotes diversity within the overall similarity. Without recombination, all children of the same parents would look the same.

Bonobo female with baby

And mutations are random changes in DNA under the influence of the environment, radiation and other factors. It is important to understand that the result of natural mutations is not strange creatures from movies with claws instead of hands, but subtle changes.

But if recombinations and mutations are random? Why, then, are animals so well adapted to their environment? Natural selection includes predators, female competitors, climate in general, the entirety of the habitat. For example, a less noticeable insect has a slightly higher chance of surviving and leaving offspring, since it will not be eaten by a predator. Over time, there will be proportionally more such insects.

Let's look at another bird example. Species of colorful birds survive by efficient reproduction. Females are interested in brighter plumage, and although such males die faster and more often than faded ones, these birds breed much more often. Due to this, the species has a bright color.

By artificial selection, one or another characteristic or plant can be strengthened. Similarly, under natural selection, gazelles that run faster than others are more likely to survive and leave offspring.

Not every trait is favorable for every animal. A lot of fat and powerful fangs help the walrus survive and reproduce, but will have the opposite effect on monkeys jumping over vines. It is not the strongest who survive, but the most adapted to the environment.

Walrus

In general, recombinations and mutations in the genes of numerous offspring provide species diversity. And because of natural selection, many die, and the fittest survive and leave offspring.

Minor changes within a species gradually accumulate over thousands of generations. If individuals eventually spread farther or their living conditions differ, then the genetic properties of the groups will become more and more different. And the groups will gradually become different types and lose the ability to reproduce among themselves. In this way, a group of lizards gradually transformed beyond recognition into birds, and some of the groups can remain almost the same if the environment is stable and the individual is already so well adapted to it, such as a crocodile. And other groups will die out altogether. Extinction is also an integral part of the evolutionary process.

Due to the gradual changes in the genes, a mass of diverse animals is obtained. One species does not suddenly give birth to another species. do not give birth to cats and change does not occur in large chunks. For example, the arch in the shell of the Galapagos tortoise allows it to conveniently eat leaves from the Galapagos bushes. Some believe that some external conscious design is necessary for this. In fact, when turtles first appeared in the region due to natural settlement, these turtles did not have such an expressive arch. Per long years many turtles were born and, due to natural genetic mini-differences, someone’s shell allowed them to lift their heads a little higher. It was a little easier for such turtles to feed and a little easier to live to reproductive age. After that, over time, turtles with raised shells at the neck became proportionally larger and finally this form of shell became dominant.

When the process goes on for many millions of years with multiple natural habitat changes, radical transformations come out. Lizards and birds are close relatives, hippos and whales too. In the end, we are all relatives. Someone demands to see the transformation of a lizard into a bird in the laboratory in order to agree with evolution. But expecting the transition of a large animal species in just a few generations is like expecting to grow long hair in 10 minutes and denying that the hair grows because it didn't grow a meter in 10 minutes.

There is a lot of substantiated evidence that it is evolution that is the cause of the diversity of the animal and plant world and the reason for the adaptability of animals to the environment. Understanding the processes of evolution helps to see many purely everyday patterns. For example, primates have a hierarchy. In nature, individuals with a higher social status bred. Ancestral primates who did not want to raise their status simply died without offspring. Genetic properties with this trait accumulated, leaving people with an innate subconscious desire to increase their external status. People also have a natural skill to determine the activity of microorganisms in rotten food by smell, since ancestors who did not dislike this smell died of poisoning. The list of these regularities can be enumerated endlessly.

Gorilla

Evolution does not cease to be a fact because it does not fit into one's picture of the world. How the earth does not stop revolving around the sun, even if this idea seems implausible to someone. Like this.

EVOLUTION

EVOLUTION

(from lat. evolutio - deployment), in broad sense- development; change processes (reim. irreversible) flowing in living and inanimate nature as well as in social systems. E. can lead to complication, differentiation, and an increase in the level of organization of the system. (progressive E.,) or, conversely, to lower this level (regression); E. is also possible while maintaining general level or the height of the organization (E. geological systems, languages). The term "E." most often used to refer to the multidimensional development of biological. objects regulated by nature. selection. As applied to social systems E. is considered as a history associated with the allocation of certain integral social complexes (E. social institutions, ideologies, cultures and t. as part of a common history). AT narrow sense in E. include only gradual quantities. changes, opposing its development as qualities. shear, i.e. revolution. In real development processes and E. (in the narrow sense of "smooth accumulation of changes") serve as equally necessary components and form a contradictory unity: “... and development in nature includes both slow evolution and fast jumps, breaks in gradualness” (Lenin V.I., PSS, t. 20, With. 66) .

Lewis J., Man and E., per. With English, M., 1964; Osipov G.V., Modern. and problem social progress, M., 1970; Smirnov I. N., E. wildlife as dialectical. , M., 1975; Sedov? ?., E. i, M., 1976; ANTomonov Yu. G., Reflections on E. matter, M., 1976,

Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

EVOLUTION

(from lat. evolutio - deployment) - in the broadest sense, ideas about changes in society, organic. world, inanimate nature, their direction, order, patterns. E.'s idea simplest form is that the definition c.-l. The system is the result of more or less lengthy changes in the state that preceded it (for various theories of economics, see the articles Historicism, History, Progress, Development, Philosophy of History, Evolutionary Theory). In a narrower sense - about slow, gradual, quantities. change as opposed to revolution. Dialectic considers E. and revolution as interrelated and interdependent aspects of development, opposing the absolutization of c.-l. one of them.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

EVOLUTION

EVOLUTION (from Latin evulutio - deployment) - in biology - living matter in the course of the development of an organism or in a sequence of generations of organisms. The term “evolution” was first used by the English theologian, lawyer and financier M. Hale (1677), speaking of the structure hidden in the human seed, or image, “in the evolution of which the connection and formation of human body". AT modern sense“evolution” was first used by G. Spencer (1852), in which evolution means any (and not just preformed) process of historical transformation - as certain types and wildlife in general. C. Darwin used the term "evolution" rarely, preferring the old "transmutation of species". In our language, the term "evolution" sometimes also denotes the historical transformations of an organ or function (the evolution of the brain, the evolution of the psyche).

Yu. V. Tchaikovsky

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

Synonyms:

See what "EVOLUTION" is in other dictionaries:

Change over time in physical parameters and observed characteristics of stars as a result. nuclear reactions, energy radiation and mass loss. For stars in close binary systems of beings, the exchange of matter between companions plays a role. About… … Physical Encyclopedia

- (lat., from evolvere to deploy). 1) military movements of the army or navy. 2) progressive development of forms. Dictionary foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. EVOLUTION 1) gradual breaking, the laws of which exclude ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

EVOLUTION, evolution, women. (lat. evolution). 1. only units Development, the process of changing something from one state to another. The evolution of art. The evolution of morals. creative path Pushkin is an example of amazingly rapid evolution. Theory... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

- (evolution) One of a number of words meaning such concepts as growth, development, change, i.e. natural change in a system or structure over time. However, the word evolution was completely fixed certain value: gradual ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

evolution- and, well. evolution f., germ. Evolution lat. evolution. 1. Rebuilding during the movement of troops from one formation to another (for example, from a column to a line). BAS 1. Evolutionary, military exercise, the essence of various changes of battalions, like a doubling of ranks, rows ... Historical dictionary gallicisms of the Russian language

evolution- Neo-Darwinists are not always united in their views on its mechanism. According to some, it is the result of a series of successive small shifts from random mutations according to momentary needs. Others believe that evolution has a certain internal ... ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

Evolution- Evolution ♦ Évolution Since the 19th century, the term is largely due to various theories of evolution (especially Darwin's theory, although the scientist himself used it with great caution), which aimed to ... ... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

- (from the Latin evolutio deployment), in a broad sense, a synonym for development; processes of change (mostly irreversible) in nature and society; in the narrow sense, the concept of evolution includes only gradual changes, in contrast to the revolution. The term... Modern Encyclopedia

- (from lat. evolutio deployment), irreversible process historical living changes. From numerous undirected mutations as an elementary evolutionary. material, natural selection forms such combinations of features and properties that lead to ... ... Biological encyclopedic dictionary