The second problem of the evolutionary theory of biological species is related to the limits of applicability of Darwin's theory: what processes can it be extrapolated to (supporters of the evolutionist paradigm categorically extend it to the development of all living nature and even matter in general), whether it can be used to explain the emergence of life itself from inanimate, and also the emergence of new species? And if the emergence of new species proceeded through evolutionary changes, then where are the transitional forms?
Darwin himself understood this problem, noting that the number of intermediate varieties that once existed must be truly enormous. Why, then, is every geological formation and every layer not overflowing with such intermediate links? Indeed, geology does not reveal to us such a completely continuous chain of organization, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be made against his theory.
Today the situation is not much different. Here are the statements of modern scientists: “Paleontological evidence of evolutionary changes within the same line of inheritance is very scarce. If the theory of evolution is correct, then species arise as a result of changes in the precursor species and therefore the presence of fossil remains should be expected. In fact, however, there are very few such remnants. In 1859, Darwin could not give a single such example ”(M. Ridley). “Almost 120 years have passed since Darwin. During this time, our knowledge of fossil remains has expanded significantly. We now have a quarter of a million specimens of species fossils, but the situation has not changed significantly. The evidence for evolution is surprisingly sketchy. The irony of our position today is that we now have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than there were in Darwin's time” (D. Raup). “Forms that are transitional from one species to another can be observed today. It is possible to draw a conclusion about their existence in the past. And yet the end result is far from the perfectly woven tapestry in which the Tree of Life can be seen simply by tracing the intermediate links: both living and extinct creatures that connected all species together. Not at all. Biologists are much more struck by the discreteness of the organic form and the general absence of intermediate links ”(L. Morris).
Thus, one of the main problems of Charles Darwin's theory is the problem of the absence of transitional forms, which in the paradigm of universal evolutionism turns into the problem of qualitative leaps, which will be discussed below.
The third problem is related to the expediency of evolution.
In the teleological approach, expediency was explained by the fact that a certain internal goal of development is inherent in organisms. Either this goal is set by someone external - God.
Within the framework of Darwin's evolutionary theory, expediency is seen as the result of natural selection. As organisms develop, the process of interaction with the environment becomes more complicated, the stability of a population is determined by the ability of its individuals to adapt to external conditions, with changes in which the criteria of expediency also change. In organisms, we call expedient everything that leads to the continuation of the life of an individual or species, inexpedient - everything that shortens life.
The selection criterion in this case will be sustainability in relation to the external environment. Thus, according to Eigen, the randomness of the origin of the code of the DNA molecule is due to the criterion of stability in relation to environmental conditions, and the choice is made of one of the many possible alternatives.
In this interpretation, for expediency, no otherworldly is needed, everything is determined by natural laws.
Thus, expediency depends on the external environment and is determined by its conditions and state.
S.D. Haitong writes that evolution has no goal, but only a direction (vector) that determines the progress of evolution and is associated with changes, including the following:
Intensification of energy exchange and metabolism;
Intensification and expansion of cycles of energy and matter;
Growth of integrity (consistency) of structures;
Growth of connectivity of “everything with everything” and openness of systems;
- “floor-by-floor” increase in the complexity and diversity of forms;
An increase in the degree of non-Gaussianity of stationary and evolutionary time distributions;
Increasing degree of fractality of evolving systems and the Universe as a whole.
Thus, there is an increase in the complexity, hierarchy of evolving structures. This gave rise to scientists in the second half of the 20th century talking about the evolution of evolution itself. Nevertheless, as S.V. Meyen, in general, it can be said that although the problem of evolution deserves attention, it is apparently still very far from its meaningful development, and not just a list of statements.
Evolutionary theories themselves were also subjected to evolution, which today has led to the formation of the main methodological concepts of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which are the concepts of self-organization and global evolutionism.
XX III Lyubishchev's Readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2009. C. 113 – 124.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES IN THE LIFE AND CREATION OF LAMARCK AND DARWIN)
Nizhny Novgorod State University, Nizhny Novgorod
Great ancestors and modern assessments of their theories
In 2009, progressive mankind celebrates several significant dates in the development of evolutionism, which are interconnected. Firstly, it is 200 years since the publication of the book of the outstanding naturalist-encyclopedist Zh.B. Lamarck (1744-1829) "Philosophy of Zoology" (1809), containing provisions first evolutionary theory, the essence of which was "to recognize the natural origin and progressive development of the organic world along the path of complication, improvement (the law of gradations)" and "to prove the adaptive nature of the evolutionary process (Lamarck's first and second laws)" (Khokhryakov, 1984, p. 31) . Secondly, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great evolutionary biologist Ch.R. Darwin (1809-1882) and 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favorable Races in the Struggle for Life (1859).
If Lamarck's "Philosophy of Zoology" was not appreciated by his contemporaries for objective and subjective reasons (Puzanov, 1947), and his ideas are fairly objectively considered only recently (see Khokhryakov, 1984; Steele et al., 2002), then the book Darwin immediately stirred up the evolutionary and social thoughts of the world community, caused still ongoing discussions between representatives of various sectors of society, scientists, educators, politicians, and religions.
What are the reasons for such a long and active attention to the famous book?
Firstly, apparently, primarily in the fact that, like any classical work, it touched upon universal problems, and their analysis was so deep and clearly stated (in contrast to Lamarck's "scientific romanticism") that the reader finds in it "initiating" thoughts, in some way consonant with his own, in some way contradicting his worldview. The range of opinions about Darwin's concepts, as well as a century and a half ago, is extremely wide.
Secondly, it seems to me that the eternal debatability of Darwin's book is due to its methodological features. At first, being a believer, Darwin subsequently, under the influence of the facts revealed to him, began to consciously express materialistic views. However, at the same time, unfortunately, he was very far from dialectical views on nature, which was reflected in the inconsistency of his ideas about the factors of evolution. He was captured by the idea of the struggle of organisms for their existence (albeit in the most metaphorical sense). The consequence of this struggle, Darwin saw basically one thing - natural selection, which divergently gives rise to the most diverse adaptations of organisms, and hence their numerous species. Such an exaggeration of the role of struggle and selection led to oblivion of the obligatory dialectical opposites - the phenomena of cooperation of organisms and convergence, polyphilia and leaps in the process of historical development, etc.
The factors exaggerated by Darwin were further absolutized by many evolutionists of the past and present, while other researchers, on the contrary, considered them either secondary or non-existent (see Savinov, 2007a, 2008). When politicians also intervene in this process of evaluating Darwinian ideas and their practical use, worldview and social conflicts acquire a tragic coloring (see, for example, Kolchinsky, 2006). All this created and maintains collisions both in the field of evolutionism and in other areas of the activity of society in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries.
Darwin, as a talented logician, far-sighted and painstaking researcher, is rightly assigned priority in justifying principles struggle for existence and natural selection in nature. Although it is important to note that several biologists, primarily English (W.C. Wells, P. Matthew, A. Wallace, etc.), were very close to this independently of each other, and some - much earlier than Darwin (see Sobol , 1962). Undoubtedly, the single vector of their conclusions was due to the reality of the phenomenon of selection. Obviously, two interrelated reasons contributed to this: 1) the peculiarities of the English mentality (the desire to think and act independently and actively, to be closer to nature and practical life) and 2) the high level of socio-economic development of England, which required an adequate state of theoretical and applied science, and provided with a befitting community of scientists (see Le Bon, 1995).
When writing the book On the Origin of Species, Darwin relied on the achievements in theory and practice of many natural scientists. But his hesitations and doubts in the assessments of evolutionary positions, including his own, are known; there are discrepancies with his officially expressed opinions and the views that he expressed in personal letters (see Blyakher, 1971).
So, on the one hand, the provisions of the evolutionary theory of Lamarck, whom he called "the famous naturalist" in his book, undoubtedly had a significant influence on him. In particular, Darwin took into account Lamarck's concept of the evolutionary role behavior living organisms, manifested in exercise–non-exercise" organs. At least in The Origin of Species, Darwin considered this phenomenon important in the evolutionary "fate" of biological species, since, in his opinion, along with natural selection, it determines speciation.
On the other hand, in some personal letters, Darwin called Lamarck's Philosophy of Zoology "an absurd, albeit talented work", "a miserable book ... from which ... he could not take anything" (cited in: Mednikov, 1975, p. 12). Now it is difficult to judge what was behind such statements. I believe that officially stated views are more important for science. And the inconsistency, inconsistency of scientists' statements, obviously, reflects the main attribute of Science - Eternal Doubt.
Recognizing Lamarck's concept of the evolutionary role of the adaptation process, Darwin later tried to formulate a hypothesis about the mechanism of inheritance by descendants of somatic changes acquired by parents as a result of "exercise-non-exercise" of the relevant organs. It is believed that in solving this most complex issue, Darwin used the idea of the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates and his associates (“hippocraticists”) that the seed (sex cells) are formed from substances collected from the entire human body (Blyakher, 1971). Darwin put forward a similar hypothesis of pangenesis, according to which, under the influence of external influences, submicroscopic embryos-gemmules arise in various organs, which migrate through the distribution systems of the body into its germ cells. They are gemmules and transmit changes that have arisen in different parts of the body. As a result, offspring that have developed from altered germ cells are able to inherit the properties acquired by their parents during their lifetime. But Darwin still considered natural selection to be an evolutionary factor controlling the adequacy of inherited properties to the environment (and therefore being the main one).
Thus, despite the exaggeration of the role of the struggle for existence and selection, Darwin, thanks to Lamarck, tried to take into account the impact on the evolution of organisms of their needs. Unfortunately, in the following decades, these beginnings of a comprehensive approach to solving evolutionary problems were not accepted, forgotten, or distorted. As a result, evolutionary science is in the grip of a permanent crisis. Since A. Weisman “declared war” on the Lamarckian principle of “exercise-non-exercise”, and Darwin was attacked by clerics and anti-selectionists, the argumentation of radical opponents has not fundamentally changed. Once again, you can read about the "impregnability" of the "Weismann barrier", about the "evidence" of the inefficiency of natural selection or its absence in nature, and even in a scientific (!) (!?) of Marxism, Nietzscheanism and Freudianism should begin “with Satan” (Rhodes, 2008, p. 89).
However, the growing understanding that the revival of such views only exacerbates the situation and prevents a rational change in the evolutionist paradigm is encouraging (see Grinchenko, 2004; Mamkaev, 2004; Zusmanovsky, 2007; Savinov, 2007a, 2008).
Considering the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin.
An Integrative Approach to Solving the Problems of Modern Evolutionism
Thanks to a number of fair remarks by critics of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, many researchers have now realized that the dominant (in various versions) since the 30s of the last century synthetic theory of evolution(STE) is not a system of evolutionary knowledge adequate to the realities of the world. This is primarily due to the fact that the evolutionary factors (mutational variability, struggle for existence, natural selection, isolation, and population waves) absolutized by STE are insufficient to describe the real mechanisms of phylogenesis (see Savinov, 2008). For this reason, STE initially did not justify its name: it was not "aimed" at the "perception" of new data obtained (in classical and modern areas of biology) and their "synthesis", integration.
The difficult situation in modern evolutionism is caused by objective and subjective reasons. The most important of them is the reluctance of many evolutionists to rely on the corresponding philosophical laws or use them consistently, the preference for idealism over materialism (Ignatiev, 2004). Meanwhile, many evolutionary concepts contain rational provisions that must be separated from obviously unacceptable ones and combined into a rational theory.
In the current situation of "methodological uncertainty", it is possible to integrate the rational elements of alternative concepts through the consistent use of materialistic dialectics(MD). This will serve to resolve the current conflict and prevent new confrontations that hinder the development of science. After all, true dialectics is "thinking in polarities", i.e. inextricably linked, interacting opposites(Zelenov, 2007). MD Laws ( the transition from quantity to quality, unity and opposition of opposites, negation of negation, the spiral course of the historical development of the material world) are not the fruit of ideological tricks, they are objective (see Brief ..., 2004).
Dialectical logic and the system-cybernetic approach generated by it make it possible to naturally combine the rational elements of alternative evolutionary concepts. Thanks to this methodology, provisions can be formulated that take into account the presence of such, for example, dialectical pairs: "tychogenesis - nomogenesis", "antagonism - cooperation of organisms (symbiogenesis)", "endogenous mutation process - exogenous ecosystem factors", "genotype - phenotype" (Savinov , 2007a, 2008). Based on these methodological guidelines and in accordance with the proposed the principle of integration of rational elements of the developed evolutionary theories , the author started the development of philosophical, methodological and general biological foundations integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution (ITE) (Savinov, 2008). The criteria for the rationality of the elements combined in the ITE are determined by compliance with: 1) the laws of MD, the principles of the system-cybernetic approach and biosystemology (Savinov, 2006); 2) practical achievements of the natural sciences.
In general, any theory is system generalized knowledge about a certain set of material objects and phenomena, including, first of all, philosophical foundations(corresponding logic) and methodology formation of concepts and operating with them (Kratkiy…, 2004). Thus, in order to create and further improve the rational theory of evolution, first of all, it is necessary to consistently use the corresponding philosophical laws, philosophical categories and, on this basis, form a system of categories of evolutionary biology. After all, each scientific field, including biology, has its own categories - general, basic (especially important) concepts (see Levin, 2007), which are also used to identify the laws of this scientific field (see Furman, 1974).
As already mentioned, for the formation of ITE it is proposed to consider dialectical pairs alternative biological phenomena and objects previously artificially separated in conflicting evolutionary concepts. The interconnection of the dialectical pairs themselves, which together make up a single system, was not always taken into account. I will try to start such a dialectical study, taking into account the experience in creating a dialectical concept of development in biology (see Furman, 1974), based on the fundamental ideas of Lamarck and Darwin. At the same time, due to the novelty and complexity of the questions raised, which require a large amount of theoretical development and their large-scale presentation, the author can only touch on some aspects of the developed theory in this article.
The dialectical pair "nomogenesis – quietogenesis" . In this case, it is necessary to use the philosophical categories "accident" and "necessity" (regularity). Regularity (necessity) is what, firstly, is determined by the very essence of a phenomenon or object (material system) (Kratkiy…, 2004; Ivlev, 1997). Secondly, the natural (law) is “the continuously reproducing necessity of certain phenomena” (Furman, 1974, p. 75), which necessarily occur in the main one way and not otherwise (Kratkiy…, 2004). On the contrary, randomness is something that “has a basis and a reason predominantly not in itself ... that follows not from the main connections and relationships, but from side ones ...” (Kratkiy ..., 2004, p. 250; see also - Ivlev, 1997).
Genetic conditioning of the organism's phenotype in the main- this is the regularity (see Ivlev, 1997), i.e. nomogenetic component of evolution. “Randomness is the ambiguous conditionality of a trait by the specifics of the genetic material” (Ivlev, 1997, p. 119). In this understanding, the mutation process is a quiet genetic component of evolution, basically a stochastic process, mainly due to external factors.
Living beings belonging to a certain biological species have common (species) features that arise in the process of phylogenesis and are inherited. But from a dialectical point of view, these necessary (specific) features always exist in an individual form, which is random in relation to the necessary basis (see Brief ..., 1979). “Some of these initially random for a given (biological - A.S.) the type of signs in the course (historical - A.S.) development are fixed, inherited and become necessary, and those of the necessary features that turn out to be inappropriate in another (new - A.S.) environment, disappear, appearing in subsequent generations only in the form of ... (atavism - A.S.), i.e. random feature” (Kratkiy…, 1979, p. 201). This is how the transition of chance into necessity and the transformation of necessity into chance takes place.
It was noted above that the mutation process is stochastic only in the main. Indeed, various types of mutations (gene, chromosomal, genomic, extranuclear) occur primarily under the influence of external (environmental) mutagenic factors. However, there are reasons to believe that the phenomenon is dialectical here as well. Evidence is accumulating that mutations can be not only random, but also necessary to a certain extent. This is evidenced, for example, by the phenomenon of "adaptive mutagenesis" in microorganisms. In a certain sense, this is also indicated by the epigenetic phenomena caused by external factors (methylation, DNA acetylation), which led to the introduction and use of the concept of "epimutation".
Dialectical pair "genotype - phenotype" . Each system of the organismal level in its most general form is the dialectical unity of the genotype (control subsystem - PM) and phenotype (executive subsystem - IE), interacting on the basis of direct(from UE to IP) and reverse(from IP to UP) informationconnections(Savinov, 2006). This eliminates the conflict between supporters of endogenesis and ectogenesis, since the cybernetic model integrates the rational elements of both approaches. According to this cybermodel, the evolution of systems at the organismal level occurs through coordinated transformations of genotypes and phenotypes, on the one hand, under the influence of environmental changes. This is the result of regular, evolutionarily long-term effects of environmental factors on the phenotype, which gradually translates them to the genotype, where various kinds of mutations of “ectogenetic origin” occur, giving qualitatively and quantitatively different geno- and phenotypic effects. In this case, ectogenetic information through a number of intraorganismal mediator molecules circulating in the system of substance transport, after evolutionary long "exercises" of the corresponding structures, enters the genome of the germ cells of the organism (where it is fixed) and is transmitted to descendants. On the other hand, the dominant alternative process of counteracting genetic changes (reparation), including environmentally conditioned ones, is continuous. After all, such changes to a certain extent violate the species-specific genetic program of "life preservation", i.e. the nature of condensation and dispersion of matter, absorption and release of energy during the interaction of a given biological species with an ecosystem. The contradictory interaction of the genotype and phenotype (with the leading role of the genotype) in a series of ontogenies is the phylogeny of a given biological species. The genotype mainly determines heredity, the phenotype - variability.
Within the new categories, I propose to highlight specific systems: autogene (syngen) – systemgenotypes demogene– system of autogenomes in democenosis; specialogene – demogenome system in a special cenosis; auto dryer(sinphenom) – phenotype system the host and its symbionts in autocenosis; demophenome – system of autophenomes in democenosis; speciophenome - demophenome system in a special community.
In the STE, due to ignoring symbiogenesis, individuals (organisms) are recognized as elements of the system of the population level, and the population is represented by an elementary evolutionary unit (EEE). Obviously, democenosis should be considered as EEE in ITE. Of course, this does not preclude the use of the classical categories of "organism" and "population" if such a reduction degree in relation to biosystems is correct when solving certain issues.
Thus, already now (and in the future) the ITE is based on consideration of a number of dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors and systems: “genotype – phenotype”, “nomogenesis – tychogenesis”; "endogenesis - ectogenesis"; "monophilia - polyphilia"; "divergence - convergence"; “gradualism – saltationism”, “antagonism – cooperation (symbiogenesis)”, etc. Proceeding from this, evolution seems to be a process of development of contradictions in the system of these dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors. In accordance with this understanding of the nature of phylogeny, ITE can be continuously developed and improved, since it is always “open” to consider new (and in-depth analysis of known) dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors that are identified as various areas of biology develop.
LITERATURE
Blyakher L.Ya. The problem of inheritance of acquired traits. Moscow: Nauka, 1971.
Grinchenko S.N. The system memory of the living. M.: IPI RAN, Mir, 2004. 512 p.
Zelenov L.A. Dialectical Method // Philosophy and Society. 2007. No. 1. S. 5–13.
Zusmanovsky A.G. Evolution from the point of view of a physiologist. Ulyanovsk: UlGSHA, 2007.
Ignatiev V.A. On the lines of Plato and Democritus in the development of culture // Philosophy and Society. 2004. No. 2. S. 99–124.
Kolchinsky E.I. Biology of Germany and Russia-USSR in the conditions of socio-political crises of the first half of the 20th century (between liberalism, communism and national socialism). St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Nestor-History", 2006. 638 p.
Brief Dictionary of Philosophy. M.: Politizdat, 1979. 414 p.
Brief philosophical dictionary. M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2004. 496 p.
Lebon G. Psychology of socialism. St. Petersburg: Maket, 1995. 544 p.
Mamkaev Yu.V. Darwinism and nomogenesis // Fundamental Zoological Research. Theory and methods. M.–SPb.: T-vo nauchn. editions of KMK, 2004, pp. 114–143.
Mednikov B.M. Darwinism in the 20th century. M.: Sov. Russia, 1975. 224 p.
Puzanov I.I. Jean Baptiste Lamarck. M.: Izd-vo MOIP, 1947. 40 p.
Rhodes V.B. Darwinism // Vestn. Tomsk. state university Philosophy. 2008. No. 1(2). pp. 89–119.
Savinov A.B. New population paradigm: population as a symbiotic self-governing system // Vestn. Nizhny Novgorod. un-ta im. N.I. Lobachevsky. Ser. Biology. 2005. Issue. 19). pp. 181–196. (/savinov.htm)
Savinov A.B. Biosystemology (system foundations of the theory of evolution and ecology). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house of UNN, 2006. 205 p. (/Macroevolution/savinov.doc)
Savinov A.B. The problem of a new evolutionary paradigm (philosophical, systemic and general biological aspects) // XXI Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2007a. pp. 60–72. (/savinov2007.htm)
Savinov A.B. Integrative theory of evolution (to the 35th anniversary of the publication of the article by A.A. Lyubishchev “On the postulates of modern selectogenesis”) // XXII Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. T. 1. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2008. S. 107–116. (/Macroevolution/savinov2008.doc)
Sobol S.L. The principle of natural selection in the works of some English biologists 10 – 30s of the nineteenth century. // History of biological sciences. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. S. 17.
Steele E., Lindley R., Blunden R. What if Lamarck is right? Immunology and evolution. M.: Mir, 2002. 235 p.
Furman A.E. The dialectical concept of development in modern biology. M.: Higher. school, 1974. 272 p.
Khokhryakov A.P. Adaptation genesis as the main content of the evolutionary process and its possible driving forces // Evolutionary research. Macroevolution. Vladivostok: DVNTs AN SSSR, 1984, pp. 24–32.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF LIFE AND CREATIVITY
Lamarck and Darwin)
The ideas of Lamarck and Darwin laid the foundations of evolutionary doctrine. Taking these ideas into account, the author develops an integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution, which makes it possible to combine rational elements of conflicting evolutionary concepts.
DEVELOPMENT THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF THE LIFE AND CREATIVITY
LAMARK AND DARWIN)
Ideas Lamark and Darwin have put in pawn bases of the theory of evolution. In view of these ideas the author develops integrative (symbiotic) theory of the evolution, allowing to unite rational elements of clashing evolutionary concepts.
Olga Orlova: About 10 years ago, paleontologist Alexander Markov, visiting various forums on the Internet, was surprised to find that the theory of evolution is not as obvious to modern people as the multiplication table. Despite the school curriculum and all the discoveries of biologists, many people do not accept the provisions formulated by Charles Darwin, and then Markov decided to engage in education. Today he is one of the most famous scientific popularizers in Russia, and his books have become bestsellers.
With the winner of the Enlightener Prize, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Alexander Markov, we are talking on the Hamburg account.
Alexander Markov- Doctor of Biological Sciences, paleontologist. In 1987 he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University and was immediately accepted as a researcher at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2014, he headed the Department of Biological Evolution at the Biological Faculty of Moscow State University. Actively promotes science in the media. Created the site "Problems of evolution". Prepares scientific news on the Elementy.ru portal. Author of several science fiction novels, as well as books popularizing the evolutionary doctrine - "The Birth of Complexity", "Evolution. Classical Ideas in the Light of New Discoveries", "Human Evolution". Author of Russia's main award in the field of popular science literature "Enlightener".
O.O. : Alexander, thank you very much for coming to our program. I wanted to talk to you today about the modern theory of evolution. The fact is that quite a lot of time has passed since the time of Darwin and there have been quite a few discoveries that scientists have made. Even such new types of sciences, not previously known to Darwin, as genetics, molecular biology, appeared. Please tell us what the modern theory of evolution is. What is the "evolutionary view of the world" today?
Alexander Markov: If you need to give an answer in one sentence, then I would say this: despite the tremendous progress of science, biology, in particular, over the past 150 years, surprisingly, the main idea that Darwin introduced into science still lies at the heart of all modern biology. It has become stronger, its effectiveness has been proven many times from various sides. This idea is often called simply the mechanism of natural selection, but in fact there is a very simple logic: if you have an object that has the ability to reproduce, variability (that is, its descendants are not absolutely identical copies, but slightly different), heredity (then yes, these individual differences, at least some of them, are hereditary, are inherited), and if at least some of these hereditary differences affect the efficiency of reproduction, then where did we start - if these 4 conditions are met, then such the object cannot but evolve. It will certainly evolve, according to Darwin, on the basis of the mechanism that he introduced into science. Indeed, today we are absolutely sure that it is this mechanism that underlies the development of life on Earth.
O.O. : And what then explains the number of myths and strange interpretations of Darwin's teachings that we encounter today. There is a pretty strong saying that many philosophers or modern theologians wrestle with that Darwin claimed that we are descended from apes, and then there is a long rebuttal: well, are we like apes? Why then did the ape not turn into a man? Here monkeys walk and so on ...
We are not even descended from monkeys, but we are one of the species of monkeys that once lived on Earth.
A.M. : It's all about what we mean by the word "monkey". Here it is also necessary to take into account that in Russian the word "monkey" means both monkey-like monkeys and anthropoids together. We all of them call one word "monkeys". In the English language in which Darwin wrote, these are 2 different words: monkeys is a monkey-shaped monkey, apes is apes. So there is still some confusion here. But the Russian word "monkeys" quite definitely corresponds to a group of organisms, a natural group, that is, derived from a common ancestor, to which the monkeys of the New World, the monkeys of the Old World belong. Monkeys of the Old World are divided into monkey-shaped and anthropoid. Man, our species, is a twig on a bush of great apes, that is, formally speaking, we belong to monkeys. We are not even descended from monkeys, but we are a species of monkeys, if we strictly follow the rules of biological classification. We are descended from extinct apes that once lived on Earth. We even know what kind of monkeys humans evolved from. The bones of these monkeys are found in Africa, they are called "Australopithecines". The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably lived 6-7 million years ago. He was also the ancestor of Australopithecus. But it was, of course, a great ape. Darwin, in fact, not in such words, but in terms of meaning, this is exactly how he writes in plain text.
O.O. : Why is it so hard for people to realize their relationship with monkeys?
A.M. : Ignorance, ignorance, prejudices, what naturally infects the consciousness of any person who does not work on the development of his brains, just stupidity, ignorance, lack of education on the one hand. On the other hand, for certain reasons, many do not want Darwin to be right, that is, they want it to be wrong. Usually all sorts of religious fundamentalists oppose Darwin.
O.O. : If we are still talking not about the worldview and not about the religious factor, but rather about the psychological one. There are people who are unbelievers, and they do not accept the creationist picture of the world, but, nevertheless, it is difficult for them to accept it purely psychologically ...
A person who can bear being related to apes is almost certainly a believer
A.M. : Honestly, I don't know such people. For such a combination, for a person to be an atheist, and at the same time it would be difficult for him to recognize the relationship of a person with a monkey - I have never met such people - either one or the other. That is, a person who says that he cannot bear to be a relative of monkeys, he is almost certainly a believer - I don’t know such atheists, with such views on monkeys.
O.O. : That is, you think that the fundamental contradiction here lies in the theological picture of the world?
A.M. A: Yes, it is not necessarily a believer. It will be a person who believes that everything has a purpose, that everything has some higher meaning, that evolution, if it exists, is movement towards some goal. This person definitely needs some kind of predetermined meaning for everything to be.
O.O. : And from the point of view of biology, evolution has no purpose?
A.M. : From the point of view of the natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all. This is called teleology - an attempt to explain natural processes by the desire for some goal. In fact, this means that we place the cause of events in the future. The scientific picture of the world proceeds from the fact that, firstly, there is a reason - the principle of causality. Secondly, the causes of events are in the past. Something happened, after some time the impact got to this place - it can affect. The reason must be in the past - the reason cannot be in the future - says modern science. Accordingly, it follows from this that nothing can have any goals. There is no purpose for the rotation of the Earth around the Sun - it is spinning due to the natural laws of gravity in some kind of orbit, but this rotation has no purpose.
O.O. : And how would you comment on the attempts, which, it seems to me, have been made since the first works of Darwin, to reconcile the natural-scientific worldview that you described with the religious one. It seems to me that one of the most touching attempts was made by Darwin's wife, when it was very difficult for her to understand and accept what her husband was doing, his discoveries, she was a deeply religious person, and then she told him: “As long as you honestly seek the truth, you will not you can be an opponent of God.” This may be such a naive attempt, but understandable. Is such a reconciliation of the two approaches possible at all?
From the point of view of the natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all.
A.M. : A very subtle remark by Emma, Darwin's wife. The essence of the problem of this psychological conflict of incompatibility is as follows: Darwin's book actually changed the general vector of development of the natural sciences, let's talk about biology. Before Darwin, the study of nature was a very charitable affair. There was such a philosophical direction, which was called natural theology natural theology. The essence of the idea is as follows, and Lomonosov, by the way, wrote about this: God, as it were, gave us two books - “Holy Scripture”, in which he outlined his will, and the natural world around us, in which he showed us his greatness. Accordingly, scientists who study nature comprehend God's plan, come closer to understanding this plan, in general, they come closer to God, in fact, they read some kind of "Holy Scripture" - this was a very charitable deed.
Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living beings can be explained without resorting to divine intervention.
In the same book “Natural Theology” by William Paley, a famous metaphor is given about the clock: they say, if we found a clock on the road in the field, of course, we cannot admit that this clock was born by chance here, arose there from the dust, particles. It is clear that if there is a watch, then there is a watchmaker who made this watch. Look around us: any insect is more complex, more harmonious than these unfortunate hours. So how can we assume that there is no watchmaker who created this? Of course, the Lord created all this. What did Darwin do? Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living beings can be explained without resorting to divine intervention. That it, on the basis of the mechanism of natural selection shown by Darwin, should develop by itself. That is, God was no longer needed. He is just like Laplace, in a conversation with Napoleon, said his famous phrase: "Sir, I do not need this hypothesis," when Napoleon asked him: "Where is God in your theory?" Biologists before Darwin could not say so - they needed this hypothesis. Only after Darwin could they mentally, so to speak, join Laplace. After that, the natural sciences ceased to be the study of Holy Scripture, and it already turned out to be a movement away from God, because the further biology develops now, the better we understand that, yes, indeed, it all develops in this way, not under the control of any then a reasonable start.
O.O. : And how to interpret agnosticism from this point of view? You were the science editor of Richard Dawkins' famous book The God Delusion. There, Dawkins, considering agnostics, perceives them as some kind of intellectual cowards, people who show intellectual weakness, who do not have the courage to get rid of the divine principle, like Laplace or like Darwin. What is agnosticism?
A.M. : Look, Laplace did not say: “Sir, I proved that there is no God!” - he said: “Sir, I do not need this hypothesis”, that is, I can explain these natural phenomena without resorting to the hypothesis of divine intervention. This is not yet atheism - he does not consider this issue yet. Darwin himself began as a believer, and even studied for a priest for a while, but gave up. Then, as he developed his evolutionary theory, he realized that God on each island of the Galapagos archipelago could not specially create for each island separate types of finches with such a beak, even with some kind of beak. God would not engage in such nonsense - it is much more like the result of a natural natural process, which it is. It was a severe shock. He had a believing wife whom he didn't want to upset. Everything then was very difficult: to take and abandon religion. But Darwin himself, towards the end of his life, assessed himself precisely as an agnostic. I know for sure that God did not create Galapagos finches like this: each island has its own species, but I don’t know about the rest. If Darwin himself was an agnostic, then why should we condemn agnostics.
O.O. : How do you yourself regard agnosticism? In your experience, are there agnostic natural scientists in your environment?
A.M. : Say, Kirill Yeskov always says about himself: "I'm an agnostic."
O.O. : How do you perceive it?
A.M. : Of those who openly declare it, so it's not a secret. I can understand, imagine, build a model of the psyche of a person who considers himself an agnostic.
O.O. : One of the most important things that we get as a result of the religious picture of the world is morality and the idea of good and evil. Somehow it so happened that in a person's culture these things are directly related to his worldview and religious pictures, and from there, in fact, they take their religious origin. Now, if we are talking about an evolutionary attitude to reality from the point of view of evolution, how then is morality and the idea of good, evil, what is permissible and what is unacceptable born?
A.M. A: This is a very interesting topic. It deals with such an area of biology, which is called evolutionary ethics - just the problems of the evolution of altruism, kindness, the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps the most developed model or mechanism for the development of altruistic behavior, cooperative behavior in the course of evolution is the so-called theory of kin selection. Which is based on the fact that evolution, very roughly speaking metaphorically, is in the interests of genes, and not in the interests of individuals. That is, those genetic variants that have the ability to spread more efficiently for any reason are distributed in the gene pool. Variants of genes or alleles compete with each other. For example, there is an allele A and an allele B. In some cases, it happens that the “interest” of a gene or genetic variant may not coincide with the interests of the individual in which this gene sits. Because an individual is a single entity, one organism, and an allele is a multiple entity, many identical copies of the same gene in different individuals.
O.O. : So you mean that the genes require one decision, and the biological animal itself makes a different decision, not the one that needs to be made in terms of genetic improvement.
A.M. : Yes. Selection favors mutations that make more copies of our allele. If in order for these copies to become more one or two carriers of a given allele must be sacrificed so that the rest of the carriers receive a gain, this happens.
O.O. : Give an example of experiments where it is shown that animals behave irrationally and altruistically and, say, somehow sacrifice themselves, and in general, how appropriate it is to talk about morality in this case.
A.M. A: You probably want to immediately mammals.
O.O. : Want.
If natural selection supports altruistic behavior, then the result of this selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience.
A.M. : There is such a thing as emotions - this is what we experience - a feeling of joy, grief, fear, love, some strong desires, shame, etc.. Accordingly, if we say that in the course of evolution, behavior changed so and so - this means that in the course of evolution, the emotions that regulate behavior have changed. This means that the mammal begins to behave not like this, but like this, because it becomes unpleasant for him like this, but like this it’s pleasant, she feels that this is bad, but this is good. This means that this center of discrimination between what is good and what is bad sits very deep in the midbrain, not even in the cerebral hemispheres. It integrates a lot of signals that come there from different senses and, as it were, weighs them and gives out decisions about what is good and what is bad - such a center for distinguishing between good and evil. These signals in the form of neuron processes that release such a substance dopamine already go to the cortex of our cerebral hemispheres in the frontal lobes, the orbitofrontal cortex, and there we are aware of the work of this center for distinguishing between good and evil, and we feel good or bad when we do choice when making a decision. So if natural selection supports altruistic behavior in mammals, such as our ancestors, then the result of this natural selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience - an internal moral law. It will simply be unpleasant to act in a certain way, and if we did so, our self-esteem will suffer. Conscience, that moral law that Kant was so surprised about, is a natural predictable result of the evolution of altruistic behavior in animals like mammals, and it should be so.
O.O. : Do scientists understand at what stage of evolution did a person have a conscience? Some didn't show up?
A.M. : For some, it is not very well developed, that is, not a self-sufficient instinct. Not like some other instincts, this inner moral law - it must be brought up by education, and it is very easily lost. Social life is impossible without a certain self-restraint. Monkeys are very social animals, it is impossible to live in a team if you do not consider the interests of others, if you at least sometimes do not sacrifice your interests for the sake of others. If you cannot do it, and others cannot do it, social life is simply impossible.
O.O. : It turns out that conscience is a kind of product of society.
A.M. : Definitely.
O.O. : You have been active in popularization for more than 10 years and there are your news on the Internet at elementy.ru, there are also several books that have become bestsellers and are widely sold. Why are you doing this?
A.M. : I discovered that there is such garbage in the world as creationists - people who these days manage to take in all seriousness that the theory of evolution is not proven, that evolution is actually not a fact, but only a theory.
O.O. : That there are no transitional forms?
A.M. : So much completely wild crazy nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. People believe in it, prove it to themselves, to others, and that such people really exist and they have websites on the Internet. When I stumbled upon it, I thought, Lord have mercy, what is it, what ignorance is this! We need to quickly explain to people what's what - they just don't know, they didn't study biology at school, they don't know some banal facts - we need to make a website and quickly explain everything to us in a popular way.
O.O. : This "quick" lasts more than 10 years. There are many scientists, but there are really very few popularizers.
A.M. : And on the other hand, if I really do not discover something in science, I will not discover some fact that I would discover.
O.O. : Someone else will do it.
A.M. : Yes, someone else will do it, let's say two days later. Actually, there will be no loss for humanity, but there are really few popularizers. If people like my books, they read them, they buy them, it means that I have found my vocation, and this is what I need to do.
O.O. : I think Darwin will not forget you. What would you say to Darwin if you had the opportunity to talk to him?
A.M. : I would tell him, the first thing you should not believe Lord Kelvin - the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, everything is OK, there is enough time for evolution. Because Darwin was very worried that the largest specialist on the age of the Earth of that time, Lord Kelvin, claimed that the Earth was only 10 million years old. He calculated this, as it turned out later, on the basis of incorrect assumptions. 10 million - this was not enough for the evolution of life according to Darwin, and 4.5 billion - this is just enough. And secondly, if I could, I would tell him that, as you expected, the Pre-Kebrian paleontological record has been found. That is, for Darwin it was a very big headache that fossil organisms from the most ancient Precambrian layers were not known, and it turned out that life seemed to suddenly arise from nothing at the beginning of the Cambrian period, and now they have found it. I think that Darwin would be very pleased with these two pieces of news.
O.O. : And if Darwin, on the contrary, went to us in a time machine, what discoveries would shock him the most, in your opinion?
A.M. : DNA. Because DNA is cool. As the molecule of heredity, DNA is one of the brightest and most brilliant pieces of evidence that Darwin was right.
O.O. : Thanks a lot. Our guest was Alexander Markov, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution.
Geological and biological sciences in recent decades have accumulated huge new information about the evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds of the Earth, as well as about the physical-geographical, geological and biogeochemical prerequisites for the possible existence of any life forms in the past or present on other planets of the solar group. Evolution in many cases can now be represented by measure and number. Extensive information has been collected on numerous biological catastrophes (crises), primarily during the last billion years; about their correlation with abiotic crises, about the possible common causes of these phenomena.
At the same time, huge amounts of information have been accumulated on the structural organization and molecular genetic mechanisms of cell functioning - the basis of life, factors of genome variability, and the patterns of molecular evolution of cells and organisms. At the same time, despite extensive data on the molecular genetic mechanisms that determine the responses of genomes, cells, and organisms to environmental changes, we know little about the relationships between these mechanisms and the processes of biota evolution that took place on Earth at the moments of global geological changes. Despite the abundance of information on the regularities of the evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds obtained by the Earth sciences and biology, it still remains fragmented and requires systematic generalization.
Among the major achievements of recent decades is the deciphering by paleontologists and geologists of the Precambrian chronicle of the development of the organic world of the Earth, which expanded the geochronological range of our knowledge of the evolution of life from 550 million to almost 4 billion years. The classical concepts of the evolution of the organic world, based on the experience of studying its Phanerozoic history, when the taxonomic and ecosystem hierarchy of biological systems had already developed in basic terms, starting with Charles Darwin, developed within the framework of a gradualistic understanding of the phylogenetic process, the central link of which is the species. The study of the Precambrian forms of life and the conditions of its existence has put new problems on the agenda.
Thanks to the achievements of molecular biology (including molecular phylogeny), since the early 1980s, it has become clear that the paths of the biological evolution of life in the conditions of the initial anoxic (reducing) atmosphere and its gradual transition to an oxidizing one (an increase in the concentration of oxygen in the habitat) are associated with the life of three kingdoms (domains of organisms) of nuclear-free prokaryotes: 1) true eubacteria; 2) archeobacteria, the genome of which has some similarities with the genome of eukaryotes; 3) eukaryotes with a well-formed nucleus and a carpathological cytoplasm with various types of organelles.
The most important link in the development of the biodiversity of the living shell of the Earth is the Vendian skeletal Metazoa (vendobionts) discovered in recent decades with mysterious metabolic features, the immediate predecessors of the main types of modern invertebrates, the main phylogenetic trunks (at the level of types and families) of which arose about 540 million years ago in beginning of the Cambrian period.
The study of microbial communities in modern extreme conditions and their experimental modeling made it possible to reveal the features of the interaction of autotrophic and heterotrophic forms of prokaryotic life as a special type of adaptation in a spatially inseparable two-in-one organism-ecosystem system. The development of microbial paleontology methods and the detection by these methods in meteorites, presumably brought to Earth from Mars, of structures resembling traces of bacterial life, gave a new impetus to the problem of "eternity of life".
In recent years, paleontology and geology have accumulated a lot of data on the correlation of global geological and biotic events in the history of the biosphere. Of particular interest recently was the “phenomenon” of the explosive biodiversification of the organic world in the Ordovician period (450 million years ago), when a huge number of new ecological specializations arose, as a result of which for the first time a global closed biogeochemical cycle was formed in marine ecosystems. This "environmental revolution" is well correlated with the appearance of an ozone screen in the atmosphere at that time, which radically changed the spatial parameters of the life zone on Earth.
The accumulated data on the interrelations of the main trends and the periodicity of global processes in the evolution of the outer and inner shells of the Earth and the biosphere as an integral system have put on the agenda the problem of the control link in the co-evolution of the Earth and its biosphere. In accordance with new ideas, consistent with the theory of the development of large systems, the evolution of the biosphere is determined by the higher hierarchical levels of the global ecosystem, and at lower levels (population, species) its more “fine” tuning is provided (“the system hierarchy paradox”). From these positions, the problem arises of combining the concept of speciation by Ch. Darwin and the biospheric concept of V.I. Vernadsky.
In connection with the discovery in the 1970s of the 20th century in the modern oceans of unique ecosystems (“black smokers”), traces of which are now found in sediments of an ancient age (at least 400 million years) that exist due to the endogenous energy of hydrothermal one problem: are solar energy and an oxygen atmosphere necessary for the evolution of life on planets, and what is the evolutionary potential of ecosystems of this type?
Thus, we can formulate the following modern problems of the theory of evolution:
1. Did life arise on Earth during the natural evolution of the inorganic world (the theory of spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter)? Or was it introduced from the Cosmos (panspermia theory) and, thus, is much older than the Earth and is not directly connected in its genesis with the conditions of the primitive Earth at the time of fixing the first traces of life in the geological record?
In the theory of molecular evolution, a significant amount of knowledge has been accumulated, pointing to the possibility of self-origination of life (in the form of the simplest self-reproducing systems) from inorganic matter under the conditions of the primitive Earth.
At the same time, there are facts that testify in favor of the theory of panspermia: a) the oldest sedimentary rocks with an age of 3.8 billion years have preserved traces of the mass development of primitive life forms, and the isotopic composition of carbon C12 / C13 practically does not differ from that in modern living substance; b) features were found in meteorites that can be interpreted as traces of vital activity of primitive life forms, although there are objections to this point of view.
At the same time, it should be noted that the question of the eternity of life in the Universe ultimately rests on the question of the eternity of the Universe itself. If life is brought to Earth from the Cosmos (the theory of panspermia), this does not remove the problem of the origin of life, but only transfers the moment of the origin of life to the depths of time and space. In particular, within the framework of the "big bang" theory, the time of the emergence and spread of life in the Universe cannot be more than 10 billion years. However, it should be borne in mind that this date applies only to our Universe, and not to the entire Cosmos.
2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive unicellular life forms on Earth during the first 3.5 billion years (or more) of the development of life? Was the main trend the complication of the internal organization of the cell in order to maximize the consumption of any resources of the poorly differentiated environment of the primitive Earth, or even then some organisms embarked on the path of adaptation to the predominant use of any one resource (specialization), which should have contributed to the differentiation of the global primitive biosphere into system of local biocenoses? In this regard, the question also arises about the ratio of exogenous (sun) and endogenous (hydrothermal) energy sources for the development of life at early and later stages.
At present, it is considered established that the simplest non-nuclear bacterial organisms gave rise to eukaryotes with a developed nucleus, compartmentalized cytoplasm, organelles, and a sexual form of reproduction. Eukaryotes at the turn of about 1.2-1.4 billion years ago significantly increased their biodiversity, which resulted in the intensive development of new ecological niches and the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms. This explains, in particular, the mass formation of the most ancient biogenic oils 1.2-1.4 billion years ago, perhaps the largest-scale process of transformation of the Earth's biomass that existed at that time (10 times greater than modern biomass) into inert matter. It should be noted here that the existing methods for calculating the mass of living matter for past geological epochs by the amount of fossilized organic matter do not take into account the balance ratios of the autotrophic and heterotrophic tiers of the biosphere, which should also be attributed to one of the important problems in studying the global patterns of biosphere evolution. It is possible that the first noticeable increase in the biomass and biodiversity of eukaryotes occurred about 2 billion years ago. The question arises about the connection of this global evolutionary event with the appearance of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.
3. What factors ensured the progressive complication of eukaryotic genomes and the peculiarities of the genomes of modern prokaryotes?
Were there conditions on the primitive Earth that favored the evolutionary complication of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell? If so, what is their nature, when did they originate, and do they continue to operate to this day?
What mechanisms ensured the coordination of the self-assembly of ecosystems “from below” (at the population and species levels) and “from above” (that is, at the level of interaction of the global ecosystem with global endogenous and exogenous geological processes)?
The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization (on the molecular, gene, cellular, multicellular, organismal, population) and the conditions for its implementation. In general terms, one can consider an obvious increase in the evolutionary potential at each new level of biological organization (i.e., the possibilities of morpho-functional differentiation of life at the organismal and ecosystem levels), however, the trigger mechanisms and limiting factors of autogenetic (intrinsic) and external (living environment) remain unclear. ) origin. In particular, the nature of aromorphoses (cardinal changes in the structure plans of organisms) and saltations (outbursts of biodiversification accompanied by the appearance of high-ranking taxa) remains mysterious. Aromorphoses and saltations coincide well with the epochs of global biotic rearrangements and fundamental geological changes in the environment (the balance of free oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the state of the ozone screen, the consolidation and breakup of supercontinents, and large-scale climate fluctuations). The emergence of new aromorphoses (for example, the appearance of skeletal, then skeletal marine Metazoa, vascular plants, terrestrial vertebrates, etc.) radically changed the functional and spatial characteristics of the biosphere, as well as evolutionary trends in specific taxonomic groups. This is in good agreement with the theoretical position of cybernetics about the guiding role in the evolutionary process of the higher links of hierarchical systems.
Has there been a global change in evolutionary strategies in the history of the Earth within the framework of stabilizing selection (constancy of environmental conditions), driving selection (pronounced unidirectional changes in critical environmental parameters) and destabilizing selection (catastrophic changes in environmental parameters affecting hierarchically high levels of organization of biosystems from molecular- genetic to biospheric)? There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the physical and chemical conditions of the environment (incoherent evolution). And as the abiotic environment stabilizes, evolution acquires a coherent character, and the development of trophic specializations under the pressure of competition for food resources becomes the leading factor in the evolutionary strategy in ecologically saturated ecosystems.
How frequent were such changes, and what role did global geological changes play in them? To what extent is this related to the appearance of eukaryotes in the geological record, as well as the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms at the turn of 1.2-1.4 billion years ago?
What is the ratio of gradual and explosive modes of evolution at the species and ecosystem levels, and how did they change at different stages of the history of the biosphere?
Is it possible to reliably restore the picture of the evolution of life on Earth, taking into account the fundamental incompleteness of the geological record and the complexity of real evolutionary processes?
What restrictions are imposed by the features of the structural and functional organization of ecosystems on the evolution of life forms prevailing in them?
4. What is the nature of trigger mechanisms that provide a radical change in the modes of evolution of life forms? Does it have an immanent essence, due to the internal features of the organization and evolution of biosystems, or due to external causes, for example, geological restructuring? How do these factors compare?
According to geological data, the mass development of highly organized life forms of Metazoa (with muscle tissues, alimentary tract, etc.) occurred in the Vendian about 600 million years ago, although they may have appeared earlier, as evidenced by paleontological finds of recent years. But these were non-skeletal soft-bodied Metazoa. They did not have a protective skeleton and, in the absence of an ozone layer, apparently had a limited ecological niche. At the turn of 540-550 Ma, there was a taxonomic explosion (massive, almost simultaneous appearance) of all the main types and classes of marine invertebrates, represented mainly by skeletal forms. However, the full development of life forms that occupied all the main biotopes on Earth occurred later, when the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere and hydrosphere increased significantly and the ozone screen began to stabilize.
All these events, on the one hand, are correlated with the largest geological events, and on the other hand, the explosive nature of these events requires the formation of new approaches to the construction of evolution scenarios based on the synthesis of classical Darwinian ideas and the theory of the development of large systems, which is in good agreement with the teachings of V.I. .Vernadsky about the biosphere as a global biogeochemical system of the Earth and modern ecological and geochemical models of different types of ecosystems. All major biotic crises correlate with major geological changes, but are prepared by the self-development of biological systems and the accumulation of ecological imbalances.
5. To what extent are photosynthesis and oxygen exchange obligatory and necessary conditions for the development of life on Earth? The transition from predominant chemosynthesis to chlorophyll-based photosynthesis probably took place about 2 billion years ago, which may have served as the "energetic" prerequisite for the subsequent explosive increase in biodiversity on the planet. But in the last third of the 20th century, the phenomenon of the rapid development of life near hydrogen sulfide smokers on the ocean floor in total darkness was discovered and studied on the basis of chemosynthesis.
The local (point) distribution of "black smokers" and their confinement to certain geodynamic settings of the lithosphere (mid-ocean ridges - zones of stretching of the earth's crust) are the most important limiting factors that prevent the formation on this basis of a spatial continuum of life on Earth in the form of a modern biosphere. The evolutionary potential of the endogenous sector of the biosphere is limited not only by spatial, but also by temporal limitations - the short-lived (on the scale of geological time) discrete nature of their existence, which is interrupted by the periodic damping of hydrotherms, and on a global scale by lithospheric rearrangements. Paleontological data show that in the geological past, the composition of the producers of these ecosystems (bacterial communities) remained practically unchanged, and the heterotrophic population was formed by emigrants from "normal" biotopes (facultative biocenoses). The ecosystem of "black smokers" can probably be considered as a good heuristic model for solving problems: 1) the early stages of the development of life on Earth in an oxygen-free atmosphere; 2) the possibilities of life on other planets; 3) the evolutionary potential of ecosystems that exist at the expense of endogenous and exogenous energy sources.
The list of problems of the origin and evolution of life that first arose or received new coverage in the light of the latest data from biology, geology, paleontology, oceanology and other branches of natural science can be continued. However, the above problems convincingly indicate that at the present stage of the development of our knowledge, the problem of interdisciplinary, systemic synthesis of this knowledge within the framework of a new paradigm, which academician N.N. Moiseev called "universal evolutionism", comes to the fore.
6. The regular and directed nature of macroevolution allows us to raise the question of the possibility of predicting evolution. The solution of this question is connected with the analysis of the ratios of necessary and random phenomena in the evolution of organisms. As is known, in philosophy the categories need and chance denote different types of connections between phenomena. The necessary connections are determined by the internal structure of the interacting phenomena, their essence, and fundamental features. On the contrary, random connections are external in relation to this phenomenon, being due to side factors that are not related to the essence of this phenomenon. At the same time, the accidental, of course, is not without cause, but its causes lie outside the cause-and-effect series that determines the essence of this phenomenon. Randomness and necessity are relative: what is random for one causal series is necessary for another, and when conditions change, random connections can turn into necessary ones, and vice versa. Statistical regularity is the identification of necessary, i.e., internal, essential connections among numerous external random interactions.
7. Among the central problems of the modern theory of evolution, one should name the co-evolution of different species in natural communities and the evolution of biological macrosystems themselves - biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole. Lively discussions continue about the role of neutral mutations and genetic drift in evolution, about the ratios of adaptive and non-adaptive evolutionary changes, about the essence and causes of typogenesis and typostasis in macroevolution, its uneven pace, morphophysiological progress, etc. Much remains to be done even in the most developed areas of evolutionary science - such as the theory of selection, the theory of biological species and speciation.
8. An urgent task of evolutionary science is to rethink and integrate the latest data and conclusions obtained in recent years in the field of molecular biology, ontogenetics and macroevolution. Some biologists speak of the need for a "new synthesis", emphasizing the obsoleteness of the classical ideas of the synthetic theory of evolution, which is, in essence, mainly the theory of microevolution, and the need to overcome the narrow reductionist approach characteristic of it.
Lecture #11
Topic. The main stages of chemical and biological evolution.
1. The emergence of life (biogenesis). Modern hypotheses of the origin of life.
2. Formation of cellular organization, development of metabolism and reproduction of protobionts. The problem of the origin of the genetic code.
The manifestations of life on Earth are extremely diverse. Life on Earth is represented by nuclear and pre-nuclear, unicellular and multicellular beings; multicellular, in turn, are represented by fungi, plants and animals. Any of these kingdoms combines various types, classes, orders, families, genera, species, populations and individuals.
In all the seemingly endless variety of living things, several different levels of organization of living things can be distinguished: molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, ontogenetic, population, species, biogeocenotic, biospheric. The listed levels are highlighted for ease of study. If we try to identify the main levels, reflecting not so much the levels of study as the levels of organization of life on Earth, then the main criteria for such a selection should be recognized
the presence of specific elementary, discrete structures and elementary phenomena. With this approach, it turns out to be necessary and sufficient to single out the molecular-genetic, ontogenetic, population-species and biogeocenotic levels (N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky and others).
Molecular genetic level. In the study of this level, apparently, the greatest clarity has been achieved in the definition of the basic concepts, as well as in the identification of elementary structures and phenomena. The development of the chromosomal theory of heredity, the analysis of the mutation process, and the study of the structure of chromosomes, phages, and viruses revealed the main features of the organization of elementary genetic structures and the phenomena associated with them. It is known that the main structures at this level (codes of hereditary information transmitted from generation to generation) are DNA, differentiated in length into code elements - triplets of nitrogenous bases that form genes.
Genes at this level of life organization represent elementary units. The main elementary phenomena associated with genes can be considered their local structural changes (mutations) and the transfer of information stored in them to intracellular control systems.
Covariant reduplication occurs according to the matrix principle by breaking the hydrogen bonds of the DNA double helix with the participation of the DNA polymerase enzyme (Fig. 4.2). Then each of the threads builds a corresponding thread for itself, after which the new threads are complementaryly connected to each other. The pyrimidine and purine bases of the complementary strands are hydrogen-bonded to each other by DNA polymerase. This process is very fast. Thus, only 100 s are required for self-assembly of Escherichia coli (Escherichia coli) DNA, which consists of approximately 40 thousand base pairs. Genetic information is transferred from the nucleus by mRNA molecules to the cytoplasm to the ribosomes and is involved in protein synthesis there. A protein containing thousands of amino acids is synthesized in a living cell in 5-6 minutes, while in bacteria it is faster.
factors.
At the ontogenetic level, the unit of life is an individual from the moment of its occurrence until death. In essence, ontogeny is the process of unfolding, realizing hereditary information encoded in the control structures of the germ cell. At the ontogenetic level, not only the implementation of hereditary information takes place, but also its approbation by checking the consistency in the implementation of hereditary traits and the operation of control systems in time and space within the individual. Through the assessment of the individual in the process of natural selection, the viability of a given genotype is tested.
Ontogeny arose after the addition of convariant reduplication by new stages of development. In the course of evolution, the path from genotype to phenotype, from gene to trait, arises and gradually becomes more complicated. As will be shown below, the emergence of ontogenetic differentiation underlies the emergence of all evolutionary neoplasms in the development of any group of organisms. In a number of experimental embryological studies, significant particular patterns of ontogeny have been established (see Chap. 14). But a general theory of ontogeny has not yet been created. We still do not know why strictly defined processes in ontogeny occur at the right time and in the right place. So far, it can be assumed that cells serve as elementary structures at the ontogenetic level of life organization, and some processes associated with differentiation serve as elementary phenomena. In general terms, it is also clear that ontogeny occurs as a result of the work of a self-regulating hierarchical system that determines the coordinated realization of hereditary properties and the work of control systems within the individual. Individuals in nature are not absolutely isolated from each other, but are united by a higher rank of biological organization at the population-species level.
Population-species level. The combination of individuals into a population, and populations into species according to the degree of genetic and ecological unity, leads to the emergence of new properties and features in living nature, different from the properties of the molecular genetic and ontogenetic levels.
Literature
Pravdin F.N. Darwinism. M., 1973. S. 269-278
Konstantinov A.V. Fundamentals of evolutionary theory M., 1979. p.106
Yablokov A.V., Yusufov A.G. Evolutionary doctrine M., 1998. S.41-50
Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University. K.D. Ushinsky
Test
according to the concept of modern natural science.
Topic:
"Main Problems in the Theory of Evolution".
Students:
correspondence department
Faculty of Education
YaGPU them. Ushinsky
Kruglikova Love
Alexandrovna.
Speciality:
"Pedagogy and methodology
preschool education".
Teacher: Pizov
Alexander Vitalievich.
DO 2960, group 61 "D"
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………3
2. 1 part. EARLYSTAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS.............................................................................................................4
3. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARKA…………………………………………………………………………5
4. CHARACTER DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………………..............6
5. part 2 . main problems of the theory of evolution. CRITICISM OF MODERN THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY CREATIONISTS………………………….10
6. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION……………………………………………...13
7. MODERN PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION…………………………………………………18
8. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………23
9. LITERATURE………………………………………………………………………………..24
Introduction.
The basic fact of historical existence is that everything living and non-living comes and then disappears.
The galactic system itself did not always exist. She was born about ten billion years ago and will die at some point in the future. During the existence of our universe, it gradually gave life to the Sun, the Earth and some environment that can support the life that we know. It gave birth to the human race relatively recently, at most a few million years ago. In the time that billions of human beings have lived and died, we have collectively developed a civilization capable of landing a man on the moon.
Modern scientists usually rely on various theories of evolution. According to modern ideas, life is the result of the evolution of matter. Views on the origin of life, its development and essence have a long history, but the discussion of these issues has until recently been the subject of philosophical reflection. Only in recent decades, the solution of these questions has been placed on an experimental basis, and the answer to many of them has been obtained in the laboratory.
In modern discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, it is considered almost universally recognized that the theory of evolution encounters serious difficulties in explaining the phenomena of living nature and is not able to solve the problems that arise here. These problems include, in particular, the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, the mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the expediency of the structure of living organisms. Stereotypical ideas about these sections of the theory of evolution are widely used by modern creationists to discredit science. Meanwhile, a discussion of the available data allows us to assert that in solving each of the above problems, the theory of evolution provides quite satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. These questions are more of a problem for creationism than for the theory of evolution.
In discussions around the problems of the theory of evolution, the same questions constantly emerge and are discussed, as is commonly believed, not resolved by the modern theory of evolution, such as, for example, the reality of speciation and macroevolution, the possibility of progressive improvement in evolution, the mechanisms of formation and transformation of complex structures in evolution, the expediency of the structure of living organisms. In all these cases, the theory of evolution provides fairly satisfactory explanations for the observed facts. In my opinion, these questions constitute a problem for creationism rather than for the theory of evolution. The relative weakness of modern evolutionism is not surprising. For many reasons, the theory of evolution is more closely connected with philosophy and ideological doctrines than other branches of natural science, and has long served as an arena for the struggle of supporters of the most diverse views.
As a result, ideas and entire systems of ideas that are recognized as true without the necessary justification are often fixed in evolutionary biology. They become a serious brake on the development of evolutionary research.
EARLY STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS.
Ideas about the variability of the surrounding world, including living beings, were first developed by a number of ancient philosophers, among whom Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoys the greatest fame and authority. Aristotle did not explicitly support the idea of the variability of the surrounding world. However, many of his generalizations, which by themselves fit into the overall picture of the world's immutability, later played an important role in the development of evolutionary ideas. Such are Aristotle’s thoughts about the unity of the structural plan of higher animals (the similarity in the structure of the corresponding organs in different species was called by Aristotle “analogy”), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of the structure in a number of organisms, about the variety of forms of causality. Aristotle singled out 4 series of causes: material, formal, producing or driving, and target. The era of late antiquity and, especially the era of the Middle Ages that followed it, became a time of stagnation in the development of natural history concepts that lasted almost one and a half thousand years. The prevailing dogmatic forms of the religious worldview did not allow the idea of the change of the world. The corresponding ideas of ancient philosophers were consigned to oblivion.
Creationism and transformationism.
Gradually, numerous data were accumulated that spoke of an amazing variety of forms of organisms. These data needed to be systematized. An important contribution in this area was made by the famous Swedish naturalist K. Linnaeus (1707-1778), who is rightly called the creator of the scientific systematics of organisms. It should be noted that Linnaeus consistently adhered to the point of view of the immutability of the species created by the Creator.
In the XVII-XVIII centuries. along with the dominant worldview based on religious dogmas about the immutability of the world created by the Creator and called creationism, ideas about the variability of the world and, in particular, the possibility of historical changes in the types of organisms gradually began to re-form. These ideas were called "transformism".
The most prominent representatives of transformism were naturalists and philosophers R. Hooke (1635-1703), J. Lamettry (1709-1751), J. Buffon (1707-1788), D. Diderot (1713-1784), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) , I.V. Goethe (1749-1832), E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844).
The transformists have not yet developed a holistic concept of the evolution of the organic world; their views were largely eclectic and inconsistent, combining materialistic and idealistic ideas. Common to all transformists was the recognition of the variability of species of organisms under the influence of the environment, to which organisms adapt due to their inherent ability to appropriately respond to external influences, and the changes acquired in this way are inherited (the so-called "inheritance of acquired traits"). At the same time, changes in species were not so much proven as postulated by transformists, which made their positions weak in discussions with supporters of creationism. The honor of creating the first evolutionary theories belongs to the great naturalists of the 19th century. J. B. Lamarck (1744-1829) and C. Darwin (1809-1882). These two theories are opposite in almost everything: both in their general construction, and in the nature of the evidence, and in the main conclusions about the causes and mechanisms of evolution, and in their historical fate. These classical theories of the XIX century. continue to be relevant, albeit in different ways.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION J.B. LAMARK.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck outlined the foundations of his concept in his most famous work, The Philosophy of Zoology (1809). The title of this book aptly emphasizes an important feature of Lamarck's generalizations—their speculative nature. This theory is a coherent edifice of logical constructs that provide answers to most of the basic questions of evolutionism, but these answers were found not so much by analyzing scientific (i.e., well-verified, reliable) facts, but were deduced logically from several basic provisions accepted as postulates. Such a philosophical approach is characteristic of the early stages of the development of science, when the accumulated facts already need logical comprehension, but they are still not enough for a rigorous scientific analysis and generalizations.
The variability of organisms.
Among these manifestations of variability, the most obvious were adaptive changes in organisms exposed to new conditions (for example, the development of plants of various shapes from identical seeds when grown under different conditions; strengthening of muscles in humans and animals with their increased exercise and weakening of these muscles in the absence of appropriate physical loads, etc.). Lamarck's general conclusion from these observations was the recognition of historical variability, the transformation of organisms in time, that is, their evolution. However, this conclusion was no longer original: the historical transformation of species of organisms under the influence of changes in the external environment was recognized, as already noted, by all transformists. The doctrine of gradation. The variety of species of living beings, according to Lamarck, is not just a chaos of all kinds of forms - in this diversity one can see a certain order, as if the steps of a consistent and steady increase in the level of organization. From this, Lamarck made the most important conclusion that changes in organisms are not random, but regular, directed: the development of the organic world is in the direction of gradual improvement and complication of organization.
