The entire course of development of science in the 19th century led irresistibly to the formation of a historical view of nature. However, the emergence of the doctrine of the development of the organic world was due not only to the development of the natural sciences, but also to socio-economic reasons.

In the first half of the 19th century, England was an advanced capitalist country with a high level of development of productive forces. Military, trade and research expeditions were sent there to develop new lands. Charles Darwin took part in one of them. His journey provided the opportunity to conduct extensive geological, zoological and botanical observations, which led to the conclusion that the theory of constancy of species was untenable.

In the mid-19th century, the capitalist mode of production in England extended to agriculture. This contributed to the development of intensive cropping and animal husbandry methods. Old, unproductive animal breeds and plant varieties no longer satisfied market demands. In agriculture, various methods of improving old ones and introducing new, more productive breeds of animals and high-yielding varieties of animals began to be increasingly used, which undermined the belief in the immutability of living nature. These advances strengthened Charles Darwin's evolutionary views and helped him establish the principles of selection that underlie his theory.

By this time, the natural sciences had accumulated a huge amount of facts that could not be combined with metaphysical ideas about the immutability of nature. One of the scientific prerequisites for the emergence of Darwin's teachings was the evolutionary teachings of Lamarck.

Charles Darwin was also greatly influenced by the work of Charles Lyell, who showed that geological changes occur under the influence of continuous weathering, erosion, volcanic activity and other natural forces. The idea of ​​a gradual transformation of the Earth and living conditions on it led to the doctrine of the gradual transformation of organisms, their adaptation to a changing environment. The doctrine of variability of species.

The development of various fields of biology also suggested the idea of ​​variability in nature. This was evidenced by numerous facts from the field of comparative anatomy, systematics, paleontology, embryology and cell theory.

Evolutionary ideas were expressed by many scientists of that period. Their supporter was also the Russian scientist K.F. Roulier (1814-1858). In his lectures and in the course “General Zoology,” he defended the idea of ​​the eternity of nature, the need to study all its phenomena in interconnection. Roulier believed that nature was not always the way we see it now. There is no stagnation or peace in nature. According to the general law of nature, everything is formed through slow, constant changes. These changes lead to the development of a more complex one from a simpler one. Based on paleontological material, Roulier identified three periods in the development of the organic world.

The first period is characterized by the emergence and development of life in the sea. Single-celled algae originated in the primordial ocean. Then, when the sea retreated, lichens appeared on the areas of the freed land, and later - mushrooms and mosses. Further complexity of primary plants led to the emergence of more complex vascular plants.

The second period was marked by the flourishing of monocots and the appearance of dicotyledonous plants, as well as the first land animals.

The third period is characterized by the appearance of modern plants and animals on the globe.

Roulier's teaching was not a repetition of the teaching of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The scientist developed the theory of evolution of the organic world on the basis of a generalization of the achievements of the biological sciences in the time that had passed since the publication of Lamarck’s “Philosophy of Zoology”. At its core, it is deeply materialistic and explains the organic world as a result of its historical development.

The emergence of evolutionary theory in the middle of the 19th century, K. Baer, ​​having analyzed the structure of embryos in representatives of various classes of vertebrates, made the following conclusions:

In the early stages of development, the embryos of different animals converge with each other.

As the embryos develop, their similarity decreases, and they acquire features characteristic of a given systematic group.

Influenced by Baer's work, zoologists of the 19th century pointed out that in order to determine the systematic position of an organism, it is important to know the early stages of its embryonic development, when the first characteristic signs of a given group of organisms appear. Thus, in vertebrate embryos, the early formation of the neural tube and notochord occurs (characteristics characteristic of this entire group, from fish to mammals inclusive). Consequently, the notochord and neural tube are the most important characters of vertebrates.

In the second quarter of the 19th century, major discoveries were made regarding the structure of the cell. The English botanist R. Brown discovered the nucleus in plant cells, and M. Schleiden and T. Schwann created the cell theory, which gave a solid scientific basis for the doctrine of the unity of the organic world.

The formation of Darwin's evolutionary views was also greatly influenced by ideas that were widespread in England, generated by socio-economic conditions - the idea of ​​freedom of competition and the universal struggle for existence in human society. Freedom of competition and the struggle for existence were proclaimed as a universal law of nature. From A. Smith's work “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” Darwin extracted the idea of ​​the natural “death of the unfortunate,” which allowed him to approach the idea of ​​natural selection.

His own discoveries made during his voyage on the Beagle played a great role in the formation of Darwin's evolutionary views. Having studied the geology of South America, Darwin became convinced of the inconsistency of the catastrophe theory and emphasized the importance of natural factors in the history of the earth's crust and its animal and plant populations. Thanks to paleontological finds, he notes the similarities between extinct and modern animals of South America.

He finds so-called transitional forms that combine the characteristics of several orders. Thus. The fact of continuity between modern and extinct forms was established.

Darwin also names a number of connecting forms. In particular, the South American Macrauchenia unites two large divisions of artiodactyl and odd-toed ungulate tetrapods; Hipparion represents an intermediate form between the modern horse and some ancient ungulates. The South American hypotherium is that amazing connecting link that cannot be placed separately in any of the existing orders. Zeuglodon and Squalodon are the links between water-dwelling mammals and all other mammals. Next, Darwin drew attention to the peculiarities of the geographical distribution of animals. The fauna of South America includes forms that are not found in North America (monkeys, llamas, sloths, anteaters, armadillos). However, in his opinion, the similarity of the faunas of both continents took place in past geological eras. Subsequently, the faunas of South and North America became isolated due to the appearance of a barrier (plateau) in the southern part of Mexico.

Darwin collected especially interesting data on the Galapagos Islands, which lie 950 km from the West Coast of South America in the Pacific Ocean. These islands are of volcanic origin, young geologically, that is, they arose later than the American continent. Studying the endemic forms of turtles, finches, etc. living there, he noted that the fauna of this archipelago is similar to the fauna of South America, but at the same time different from it.

Darwin shows the American origin of the Galapagos fauna. He noted that each island in this archipelago has its own form of finches. But they all form one natural group and descended from one original species that lived on the nearby American continent.

At the beginning of the 19th century, based on extensive factual material, some important generalizations were made. About the variability of species, about natural groups of organisms, the unity of the structural plan of organisms, the change of forms and the increase in successive geological horizons of the similarity in the structure of extinct forms with modern ones, about the historical development of the earth's crust, as well as about the similarity of the embryos of systematically distant groups of animals. Thus, the doctrine of the evolution of the organic world - the largest generalization of natural science of the 19th century - was prepared both by the previous development of scientific thought and by socio-economic conditions.

However, if Darwinism was prepared by the entire course of development of science and socio-economic conditions, if many scientists before Darwin expressed ideas close to his views, then what is the merit of Darwin himself? Did he really revolutionize biological science? Despite the fact that natural science moved forward and accumulated facts that were extremely contrary to the metaphysical worldview, views on the immutability of nature continued to dominate. Three main problems remained unresolved in the teachings of Darwin's predecessors. The first of these is the problem of transforming one organic form into another. No one has proven that a new species form can arise from one species. The second is the problem of the expediency of organic beings. It is as follows: why, if there is a process of historical development in nature, does each new organic form turn out to be adapted to environmental conditions? Before Darwin, this problem was solved from a metaphysical position, due to which expediency was recognized as absolute and primordial, given once and for all. The third problem concerned the driving forces and factors of evolution. All these problems first found their solution in Darwin's evolutionary theory, which revolutionized biological science.

Darwin's evolutionary theory was one of the first successful examples of solving important problems in the development of living nature from the standpoint of natural historical materialism. She had a huge influence on all biological sciences, establishing an understanding of living nature and providing a materialistic explanation for the phenomena of expediency.

The positive side of Darwin's theory is its close connection with selection practice, which served as the basis for the construction of evolutionary theory. To analyze the process of evolution of the organic world, Darwin did not simply use these practices, but critically revised his conclusions taking into account the achievements of biology and agriculture. This corresponded to the generally accepted principle that practice is the main criterion of truth, and led to a radical restructuring of the biological sciences and the resolution of many general biological problems.

The starting point of Darwin's teaching is his assertion of the presence of variability in nature.

Variability is the general property of organisms to acquire new characteristics - differences between individuals within a species. Variability is clearly visible when comparing many animal breeds and plant varieties bred by humans in different places on the globe. Thus, in North Africa there are 38 varieties of date palms. On one island of Polynesia alone, 24 forms of breadfruit and the same number of forms of bananas are cultivated. There are 63 varieties of bamboo grown in China. Within any species of animals and plants, and in culture, within any variety or breed, there are no identical individuals. K. Linnaeus also pointed out that reindeer herders recognize every deer in their herd, and shepherds recognize every sheep. This ability is much more developed among gardeners. Many gardeners recognize hyacinth and tulip varieties by their bulbs. This means that all animals and plants are different from their own kind, although to the untrained eye they seem the same. Based on these facts, Darwin concludes that animals and plants are inherent in variability.

Analyzing the material on the variability of animals, the scientist noticed that any change in living conditions is enough to cause variability. He distinguished two main forms of variability: group, or definite, and individual, or indefinite. With group, definite, but not hereditary variability, many individuals of a given breed or variety, under the influence of a specific cause, change in the same way. For example, the growth of organisms depends on the quantity of food, color - on its quality.

Individual, indeterminate, hereditary variability should be understood as those small differences by which individuals of the same species differ from each other. These are changes that arise as a result of the uncertain influence of living conditions on each individual; such changes appear in animals of the same litter, in plants grown from the seeds of the same capsule. The uncertainty of these changes lies in the fact that under the influence of the same conditions, individuals change differently. Darwin compares uncertain changes to a cold, which affects different people differently, causing either a cough, rheumatism, or pneumonia, depending on the state of the person’s body and his physique.

Darwin further noted the fact that an organism that has changed in any direction transmits to its offspring the tendency to change further in the same direction under the conditions that caused this change. This is the so-called ongoing variability, which plays an important role in evolutionary transformations. While studying the manifestation of variability in plants and animals, Darwin noted a number of important patterns in the changes in various organs and their systems in the body. One of these patterns is correlative, or correlative, variability. Correlative variability is when a change in one organ causes a change in others. An example of such variability is the relationship between the development of a functioning muscle and the formation of the ridge on the bone to which it is attached. Many wading birds have a correlation between neck length and limb length: birds with long necks also have long limbs.

All organisms in nature have heredity. This property is expressed in the preservation and transmission of characteristics to offspring. Darwin attached great importance to the presence of variability and heredity in nature. Variability and heredity combined with selection are a natural factor in evolution.

In his books On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life (1859) and Variations in Domestic Animals and Cultivated Plants (1868), Darwin described in detail the variety of breeds of domestic animals and analyzed their origins. He noted the diversity of cattle breeds, of which there are about 400.

They differ from each other in a number of characteristics: color, body shape, degree of development of the skeleton and muscles, the presence and shape of horns. The scientist examined in detail the question of the origin of these breeds and came to the conclusion that all European breeds of cattle, despite the great differences between them, descended from two ancestors domesticated by humans.

The breeds of domestic sheep are also extremely diverse, there are more than two hundred of them, but they come from a limited number of ancestors - mouflon and argali. Different breeds of domestic pigs were also bred from two ancestors, who, in the process of domestication, changed many of their structural features. The breeds of dogs, rabbits, chickens and other domestic animals are unusually diverse.

Darwin paid much attention to the study of various varieties of cultivated plants. Thus, comparing various varieties of cabbage, he concluded that they were all bred by humans from one wild species. Thus, it has been shown that through the process of domestication, humans can bring about great changes in plants and animals. However, breeds and varieties created by man are characterized by one feature: despite the fact that variability affects all organs of animals and plants, domestic breeds are distinguished by those characteristics that are especially valued by man. For example, cabbage varieties bred by a breeder rarely differ in leaf shape, but their flowers and seeds remain similar. Ornamental plants, for example, different varieties of pansies, produce a variety of flowers, and their leaves are almost the same. Gooseberry varieties have a variety of fruits, but the leaves are almost the same. New varieties and breeds have been improved, improved, but their perfection lies only in the fact that they meet human needs. For example, quickly fattening pigs are quite satisfying for humans, but in the wild they could not protect themselves from enemies and find enough food. These examples show that man himself creates the breeds and varieties he needs.

How is this achieved? Darwin noticed that in all cases the breeders used the same technique. When breeding animals or plants, they left for reproduction only the specimens that best suited their needs, and from generation to generation they accumulated changes beneficial to humans. This method of obtaining breeds and varieties is called artificial selection.

Darwin distinguishes two types of artificial selection - methodical, or conscious, and unconscious selection. The essence of methodical selection is as follows: when starting work, the breeder sets himself a certain task in relation to the characteristics that he wants to develop in a given breed. First of all, these characteristics must be economically valuable, and some of them must satisfy the aesthetic needs of humans.

The traits that breeders work with can be both morphological and functional. These may also include the nature of animal behavior, for example, pugnacity in fighting cocks. When solving the task set for himself, the breeder selects from the already available material all the best, in which the characteristics of interest to him are manifested, at least to a small extent. Selected individuals are kept in isolation to avoid unwanted crossbreeding. The breeder then selects pairs to cross. After this, starting from the first generation, he strictly selects the best material and rejects those that do not meet the requirements.

Thus, methodical selection is a creative process leading to the formation of new breeds and varieties. Using this method, the breeder, like a sculptor, sculpts new organic forms according to a pre-thought-out plan.

The success of artificial selection depends on the degree of variability of the original form: the more the characteristics change, the easier it is to find the desired changes. The size of the original batch is also of considerable importance: in a large batch there are greater opportunities for choice. the preservation of selected material is facilitated by the elimination of crossing with other forms, that is, isolation and the cumulative effect of selection, in other words, the strengthening of the desired characteristics in generations due to selection in the same direction. Darwin noted that this strengthening of new characteristics is achieved through the process of divergence, that is, evasion from the original form.

Unconscious selection is made by a person without a specific, pre-set task. Darwin showed that such selection does occur. So, for example, a peasant who has two cows, wanting to use one of them for meat, will slaughter the one that gives less milk; Of the chickens, he uses the worst laying hens for meat. In both cases, the peasant, preserving the most productive animals, makes a directed selection, although he does not set himself the goal of breeding new breeds. It is precisely this primitive form of selection that Darwin calls unconscious selection.

During his travels, studying the life of the peoples of South Africa and Australia, Darwin became convinced that these peoples also use unconscious selection. Obviously, unconscious selection has long been carried out by humans during the domestication of wild animals. All this made it possible to draw an important conclusion that in agricultural practice, new forms of animals and plants are always obtained only through selection. Consequently, in the doctrine of artificial selection, Charles Darwin discovered the law that governs the process of breeding new breeds of animals and plant varieties.

Despite the fact that methodical selection is a more progressive form, in his teaching Darwin attaches special importance to unconscious selection. In his opinion, unconscious selection is a bridge between artificial and natural selection. With unconscious selection, a person does not set himself the goal of breeding a new breed and acts in relation to the result obtained only as a blind selecting factor, like any other environmental factor.

Darwin indicated the conditions favorable to artificial selection: a high degree of variability of organisms, a large number of individuals subjected to selection, the skill of the breeder, the elimination of random individuals, a fairly high value of these animals or plants for humans.

According to Darwin, the evolution of species in nature is determined by factors similar to those that determine the evolution of cultural forms. A prerequisite for the evolution of species is hereditary variability. Here too, Darwin distinguishes between the types of variability that he identified in relation to cultural forms, noting the special significance of indefinite (individual) variability. He believed that minor individual changes in organisms lead to the formation of their varieties. That is why he begins his proof of the variability of species with an analysis of the individual variability that exists in nature. Then Darwin proves the presence in nature of other factors that determine the possibility of evolution: in addition to hereditary variability, the presence of a selection factor is necessary. The role of the selecting factor is played by natural selection, which is based on the struggle for existence that arises as a result of the enormous intensity of reproduction of organisms, leading to overpopulation. A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is not associated with the survival of a given individual, but only with its reproductive function, that is, with reproduction. Sexual selection acts on characters associated with various aspects of this essential function.

Sexual selection manifests itself most clearly during intense competition between individuals of the same sex, which arises as a result of specific forms of organization of the life of the species (polygamy or polyandry). The consequence of sexual selection is the development of external characteristics that distinguish males and females.

The most important place in the theory of natural selection is occupied by the concept of the struggle for existence. According to Darwin, the struggle for existence is the result of the tendency of organisms of any species to multiply without limits. What forces carry out the elimination of part of the offspring in nature? Darwin draws attention to the broad interrelationships between organisms and their relationship to their environment.

A predator, in order to live, must eat, and herbivores serve as food for it. A herbivore eats many thousands of meadow plants to live. Plants are destroyed by insects. Insects are food for insectivorous birds, which in turn are exterminated by birds of prey. Darwin called these complex relationships the struggle for existence. The term “struggle for existence” does not quite accurately correspond to the meaning that Darwin himself put into it, proposing to understand this term “in a broad and metaphorical sense.” Firstly, Darwin included in the concept of “existence” not only the life of a given individual, but also its success in leaving offspring. Secondly, the word “struggle” meant not so much struggle as such, but competition, often occurring in a passive form. Darwin understood the struggle for existence as the totality of all the complex relationships between an organism and the external environment that determine the success or failure of a given individual in its survival and leaving offspring. The struggle for existence takes many different forms. This is, firstly, the direct destruction of one individual by another, and secondly, widespread competition in the struggle for light, moisture, food and place on earth. A plant that is stunted in growth is crowded out by other plants, the lack of light depresses it even more, and finally it dies. Darwin reduced the various manifestations of the struggle for existence to three types: interspecific, intraspecific, and struggle with the conditions of the inorganic external environment.

Examples of interspecies struggle are numerous. These are the relationships between predator and prey, herbivores and plants, insects and insectivorous birds; This is a competitive struggle between cultivated plants and weeds, between trees of different species in the forest and between grasses in the meadow. This also includes the phenomenon of antagonism between different types of microorganisms. Since by the struggle for existence Darwin understood the dependence of the organism on the physical factors of the external environment and other living beings, as well as the success of the individual “in providing itself with offspring,” then in his book “The Origin of Species” he also considers intraspecific relations as one of the main types of struggle for existence.

Emphasizing the role of overpopulation as a factor determining the struggle for existence, Darwin concluded that the most fierce should be intraspecific struggle, as competition between individuals of the same species that have similar vital needs. In addition, he analyzed the relationships between individuals of close and distant species. Individuals of distant species tend to have different needs. Sometimes their needs overlap, and then competition arises between them for certain living conditions. On the contrary, in individuals of closely related species, and especially in the same species, almost all the needs coincide, so the competitive struggle between them becomes especially intense. The conditions of the inorganic external environment play a huge role in the process of elimination of individuals in the plant and animal world. Darwin gives an example when, during a severe winter in the area where he lived, 80% of the birds died. Many plants are destroyed almost every year by late frosts, drought, and sharp climatic fluctuations. With a lack of oxygen dissolved in water, fish die in water bodies. A significant mass of seeds is lost, blown by the wind in unfavorable conditions.

The struggle for existence leads to the death of organisms or a decrease in fertility, which in evolutionary terms is the same thing. Which individuals survive the struggle for existence, and which die? Is survival pure chance?

To resolve this issue, let us again turn to agricultural practice. In artificial selection, the breeder leaves for reproduction individuals that have at least small useful changes. The presence of beneficial changes must play a certain role in natural selection, only in the first case we are talking about changes that are useful for humans, and in the second - about changes that are useful for the organisms themselves. Any change, even a small one, that is beneficial to the body will increase the likelihood of its survival. In other words, the individuals most adapted to environmental conditions survive.

Consequently, natural selection is a process occurring in nature in which, as a result of the influence of environmental conditions on developing organisms, individuals with useful traits are preserved that increase survival in given environmental conditions and determine their higher fertility.

Consequently, as a result of natural selection, the species that are most adapted to the specific environmental conditions in which their lives take place survive. Adaptive changes occur gradually. Natural selection allows beneficial changes to accumulate from generation to generation, and after many generations, individuals of a given species differ significantly from their ancestors. Thus, Darwin established that selection also takes place in natural conditions without human participation. It is thanks to natural selection that a continuous process of adaptation, improvement of adaptations, divergence and speciation occurs, that is, the process of evolution.

In its most general form, the scheme of action of natural selection according to Darwin comes down to the following. Due to the inherent indefinite variability of all organisms, individuals with new characteristics appear within a species. They differ from ordinary individuals of a given group (species) in their needs. Due to the different adaptability of old and new forms, the struggle for existence leads certain forms to elimination. As a rule, less evaded organisms that became intermediate in the process of divergence are eliminated. Intermediate forms find themselves in conditions of intense competition. This means that monotony, which increases competition, is harmful, and evading forms find themselves in a more advantageous position and their numbers increase. The process of divergence occurs in nature constantly. As a result, new varieties are formed, and such separation of varieties ultimately leads to the emergence of new species.

In nature, there are often signs that may seem inappropriate at first glance, such as bright colors and loud voices in birds, which give away their presence. This apparent contradiction with the "expected" results of natural selection is explained by Darwin's theory of sexual selection. This form of selection, according to Darwin, is determined by the struggle between individuals of one sex, usually males, for the possession of individuals of the other sex. Consequently, sexual selection is a special case of intraspecific natural selection during the reproductive period. Darwin distinguishes two types of sexual selection. In the first case, there is a struggle between the males, in the second, the females are active, and the males only compete with each other in order to excite the females, who choose the most attractive males. The results of both types of sexual selection differ. With the first form of selection, strong and healthy offspring appear, well-armed males (the appearance of spurs, horns). In the second, such secondary sexual characteristics as the brightness of plumage, the characteristics of mating songs, and the smell emitted by the male, which serves to attract a female, are enhanced. Despite the seeming inappropriateness of the traits, since they attract predators, such a male has an increased chance of leaving offspring, which turns out to be beneficial for the species as a whole. The most important result of sexual selection is the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics and associated sexual dimorphism. Under different circumstances, natural selection can proceed at different rates. Darwin notes circumstances favoring natural selection:

• - Quite a high frequency of manifestation of uncertain hereditary changes.
• -The large number of individuals of a species, increasing the likelihood of beneficial changes occurring.
• -Unrelated crossing, increasing the range of variability in the offspring. Darwin notes that cross-pollination occurs occasionally even among self-pollinating plants.
• -Isolation of a group of individuals, preventing them from interbreeding with the rest of the organisms of a given population. Wide distribution of a species, since at the boundaries of the range individuals encounter different conditions, and natural selection will go in different directions and increase intraspecific diversity.

Along with these circumstances, the main condition for the success of natural selection is its accumulating action, which is the basis of its creative species-forming activity.

In his work "The Origin of Species..." Darwin noted the most important feature of the evolutionary process - its adaptive nature. Species continually adapt to the conditions of existence, and the organization of any species is constantly improving. The merit of evolutionary teaching is the explanation of this perfection of organisms as a result of the historical accumulation of adaptations.

The process of the emergence of a purposeful organization can be traced using the example of any group of organisms that has been sufficiently studied in evolutionary terms. A good example is the evolution of the horse. The study of the horse's ancestors made it possible to show that its evolution was associated with the transition from life in forests on marshy soil to life in open, dry steppes.

Changes in the known ancestors of the horse occurred in the following directions: an increase in growth in connection with the transition to life in open spaces (high growth is an adaptation to the expansion of the horizon in the steppes); an increase in running speed was achieved by lightening the leg skeleton and gradually reducing the number of toes (the ability to run quickly has a protective value and allows you to more effectively find water bodies and feeding grounds).

Intensification of the grinding function of the dental apparatus as a result of the development of ridges on the molars, which was especially important with the transition to feeding on tough cereal vegetation.

Along with these changes, correlative ones also occurred, for example, elongation of the skull, changes in the shape of the jaws, the physiology of digestion, etc. Along with the development of adaptations, the so-called adaptive diversity appears in the evolution of any group. It lies in the fact that, against the background of unity of organization and the presence of common systematic characteristics, representatives of any natural group of organisms always differ in specific characteristics that determine their adaptability to specific living conditions.

Due to living in similar living conditions, unrelated forms of organisms can acquire similar adaptations. For example, such systematically distant forms as a shark and a dolphin have a similar appearance, which is an adaptation to the same living conditions in a certain physical environment, in this case in water. The similarity between systematically distant organisms is called convergence. The widespread convergence between unrelated forms is a direct consequence of the divergent development of most natural groups within similar habitats. In sessile protozoa, sponges, coelenterates, annelids, echinoderm crustaceans, and ascidians, the development of root-like rhizoids is observed, with the help of which they become stronger in the ground. Many of these organisms are characterized by a stalked body shape, which allows, during a sessile lifestyle, to soften the blows of waves, the push of fish fins, etc. All sessile forms are characterized by a tendency to form clusters of individuals and even coloniality, where the individual is subordinated to a new whole - a colony, which reduces the likelihood death as a result of mechanical damage.

Convergent similarity is always built on a different genetic basis. Both cases of divergence and cases of convergence are nothing more than a manifestation of evolutionary transformations, a manifestation of the adaptive nature of evolution.

Charles Darwin believed that any adaptation is relative and temporary. Adaptation is not some special property of an organism, but only a manifestation of the interactions of specific characteristics under specific conditions. If organisms had the ability to always change only adaptively, then no signs of inexpediency could be found in their organization. However, such examples of inappropriateness in the organization and behavior of organisms occur quite often. There are no organisms in nature that are ideally adapted to environmental conditions. This is especially clearly seen when the behavior of organisms is not determined by their way of life. Thus, the webbed feet of geese serve as an adaptation for swimming and their presence is advisable. However, mountain geese also have webbed feet, which is clearly impractical given their lifestyle.

The frigate bird does not usually land on the surface of the ocean, although, like bar-headed geese, it has webbed feet. It is safe to say that membranes were necessary and useful for the ancestors of these birds, just like modern aquatic birds. Over time, the descendants adapted to new living conditions and lost the habit of swimming, but they retained their swimming organs. It is known that many plants are sensitive to temperature fluctuations and this is an appropriate response to the seasonal periodicity of vegetation and reproduction. However, such sensitivity to temperature fluctuations can lead to mass plant mortality if temperatures rise in the fall, stimulating the transition to repeated flowering and fruiting. This prevents the normal preparation of perennial plants for winter, and they die when cold weather sets in.

Many animals have so-called vestigial organs, that is, organs that have lost their adaptive significance, in particular rudimentary fingers in ungulates, rudiments of the hind limb of a whale, the third eyelid in humans and their appendix. These organs have lost their former adaptive significance, testify to the evolutionary process and serve as an example of relative expediency. The relativity of expediency manifests itself when there is a significant change in the conditions of existence of organisms, since in this case the loss of the adaptive nature of one or another characteristic is especially obvious. In particular, the rational design of burrows with exits at the water level of the muskrat is destructive during winter floods. Erroneous reactions are often observed in migratory birds.

Sometimes waterfowl fly to our latitudes before the water bodies open, and the lack of food at this time leads to their mass death. Purposefulness is a historically arose phenomenon under the constant action of natural selection, and therefore it manifests itself differently at different stages of evolution. In addition, the relativity of fitness provides the possibility of further restructuring and improvement of the adaptations available to a given species, that is, the infinity of the evolutionary process. As an analogy with artificial selection, we can cite the results of human breeding activities, which constantly improve the traits and properties of plant varieties and animal breeds that are useful to him.

The 20th century passed under the sign of the denial of external influences on the hereditary system of organisms, under the sign of the Weisman hypothesis. As noted by L.A. Zhivotovsky, “Lamarck’s views were declared false and since then all doubts about the universality of the principle of evolution through the selection of only random changes in generative cells have been harshly suppressed. This principle became a dogma that captured the world biological science of the 20th century.” Let us refrain from thinking whether this is the norm or pathology - the existence of dogma for 100 years. Let us only note that such a situation in science cannot be called normal and that Darwin had nothing to do with it. Moreover, if we compare the “age of dogma” in science with the development of any religious movement, we will see clear differences between them. In any religion there are, have been and will be different directions, currents and similar forms of manifestation of diversity. In biological science of the 20th century. this actually did not happen. All resistance to dogma was suppressed. Fortunately, there are always researchers who are disgusted by the spirit of dogmatism. They are the ones who move the development of knowledge forward.

In the 20th century The theory of evolution, based on random changes and natural selection, prevailed. As a matter of fact, in the first decade of the 21st century. the dominance of neo-Darwinism has not been undermined too much: books and textbooks on the theory of evolution are still being published, in which the Darwinian theory is “seasoned” with the data of modern genetics with a very arbitrary interpretation. The best of these publications contain a variety of material devoted to the development of the organic world. But the authors do not notice its inconsistency with the original evolutionist positions, the incompatibility of different approaches. For example, in the textbook by A.S. Severtsev’s “Theory of Evolution” (2005) thoroughly describes all possible forms of selection, micro- and macroevolution, and even the evolution of ecosystems. But there is no place here for the influence of natural factors and other external influences on the evolution of the organic world.

At the same time, there is a distorted idea of ​​Darwin’s relationship to Lamarck, as well as the absurd position that “ecology...<...>... arose from Darwin's concept of the struggle for existence." (Ecology arose not out of, but in spite of, the “struggle for existence.”)

This very eclectic version of evolution aims to defend Darwin's teaching, which does not need it. Therefore, it is quite possible to agree with the assessment of this approach by Yu. Tchaikovsky, who considers the result of this “development of theory” to be “the complete uselessness of the evolutionary doctrine (it can only explain simple examples, cannot help in understanding real problems), and it gradually left science, remaining only as a subject of teaching. And even he is gradually leaving Western sciences...” The fading interest in evolutionary theory increases the popularity of creationist concepts, especially if they are presented in a modernized form, using data from modern sciences for external design.

Since the beginning of the 20th century. in science it is considered proven that the organic world is the result of long-term changes that occurred under the influence of various factors. The idea of ​​evolution has become an unconditionally proven proposition. Another thing is how to describe this process in the most consistent way possible, using both all the empirical data accumulated by science and various theoretical approaches and interpretations of the processes occurring in living nature.

In the 60-80s of the XX century. in neo-Darwinism, attempts were made to modernize the theory using genetic data in order to explain a number of behavioral characteristics (in particular, altruism) of living beings. In 1964, W. Hamilton proposed the theory of kin selection, which explained mutual assistance (altruistic behavior) by the interaction of related genes. The existence of cooperation, cooperation, altruism (selflessness) was justified by its profitability and the presence of hypothetical altruism genes. Hamilton's theory was developed by R. Trivers, who proposed a more general theory - reciprocal altruism, according to which for the “individual, the carrier of the “altruism gene”, it does not matter whether the recipient is a relative or not. If the recipient is a member of its community, then actions by the donor that increase the fitness of the recipient may subsequently lead to the donor receiving a response from the recipient.”5 Something similar is found in J. M. Smith’s formal model of conventional behavior, which considers the interaction of egoistic and altruistic individuals using the concepts of “pay,” “gain,” “cost,” etc.

The “peak” of the modernization of neo-evolutionism is R. Dawkins’ concept of the “selfish gene.” In his book of the same name, Dawkins writes very clearly: “The main thesis of this book is that man and all other animals are machines created by genes. Like the lucky Chicago gangsters, our genes have managed to survive in a world where fierce competition reigns. This gives us the right to expect our genes to have certain qualities. I maintain that the predominant quality of a successful gene must be ruthless selfishness. Genetic egoism usually gives rise to selfishness in the behavior of an individual. However, as we will see later, under some special circumstances the gene is best able to achieve its own selfish goals by promoting a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.<...>As much as we would like to believe that things are different, universal love and the well-being of the species as a whole are meaningless concepts in evolutionary terms.”

According to Dawkins, genes are in a constant state of fierce competition, “struggle for existence,” “war of all against all.” Any hint of cooperation, altruistic behavior is only an exception, explained by the possibility of a profitable transaction (you - to me, I - to you), cost compensation. At the same time, genes have their own conscious goals, desires, intentions and other manifestations of the subjective Self and consciousness. Naturally, among genes there are successful and lucky ones, as well as poor and unsuccessful ones. Apparently, there is also a middle class. Since each gene pursues its own egoistic goal, there can be no talk of the human genome (as well as of other living beings), or of its heredity as a systemic integral phenomenon. The idea of ​​heredity as a set of unrelated genes leads to the image of a person as a totality, a set of behavioral reactions determined by individual genes. Dawkins's concept is often qualified as one of the versions of genetic determinism. In form this is indeed true, but in content it is vulgar economic and political determinism, which embodies the principles of maximum utility and individualism. The latter forms the basis of the political systems of a number of foreign countries, primarily the United States.

Strictly speaking, there is nothing new here compared to the ideas of A. Smith, G. Hobbes and B. Mandeville. True, the place of man is taken by the gene, which is the subject of evolution. The direction of the latter is determined by the selfish interest of the gene - the desire to survive in the struggle for existence through maximum reproduction, copying itself; the main motivation for behavior is reproductive success. This concept, which has its origins in Darwin’s “sexual selection,” has become one of the core concepts in modern neo-Darwinism, playing a significant role in “sociobiology” and “evolutionary psychology.” The central concept remains “adaptation”, with the help of which it is impossible to describe either the origin of a person or the characteristics of his activity. With the help of this concept it is impossible to explain the increasingly complex process of development of all living things.

Modern neo-Darwinists still ignore the presence in nature of a large number of non-adaptive changes, the non-adaptive side of evolution. According to the famous Russian geneticist S.S. Chetverikov, taxonomy “knows thousands of examples where species differ not by adaptive, but by indifferent (in the biological sense) characters, and trying to find adaptive significance for all of them is as unproductive as it is thankless work.” According to the views of a number of scientists, including Chetverikov, the development process is diverse, in it there is also a place for non-adaptive evolution “of a strictly statistical nature and leading to intraspecific differentiation, to the diversity of living forms and their species characteristics that do not have adaptive significance.”

R. Dawkins, R. Trivers, M. Smith and other neo-Darwinists and evolutionary psychologists believe that selfish behavior, pronounced conflict, even open clashes, are natural, this is the norm, an everyday phenomenon that does not need explanation. At the same time, cooperation, “altruism” (mutual assistance, cooperation in the broad sense of the word) is deviant (from the norm) behavior, a kind of exotic, in a certain sense pathology or temporarily forced pathology, which requires a special explanation and subsequently receives profitable compensation. The exact opposite position is more justified. The absence of clashes and wars, cooperation and co-operation of people, which does not exclude, however, conflicts, is a natural phenomenon; the “war of all against all” is a pathology, but, unfortunately, of a chronic type.

This position was shared by Kropotkin and Espinas, as well as the vast majority of researchers in various scientific disciplines. Espinas drew attention to the enormous role of “forces of attraction.” He believed that sympathy was “the first essential cause of tribal community.” Solidarity is the basis of E. Durkheim's concept of society. This position is confirmed by modern science, which has proven that it was the establishment of affective connections by living beings in a community that gave them the opportunity for more successful survival and reproduction.

Most supporters of neo-Darwinism are convinced of the “uniqueness” of their theory and, when making critical comments about themselves, accuse opponents of their dogma of creationism. It turns out (according to neo-Darwinists) that only their concept and creationism exist. This demonstrates the doctrinal nature of this concept, the practical closeness to facts that do not fit into neo-Darwinism, and ignorance of the history of biological science, the development of which has given a huge variety of points of view on evolution and ways of explaining it. These are symgenesis and symbiogenesis, nomogenesis, the theory of neutrality, saltationism and macromutationism, finalism, neo-Lamarckism, hypotheses of conjugate evolution and change of biotas, the theory of discontinuity of evolution, the theory of evolution with the participation of foreign genes. To this list we can also add the most interesting theory of “chemical Lamarckism” by P. Ventreber, subsequently confirmed by data from molecular biology, as well as exotic cosmic hypotheses and theories.

At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. Views on evolution also developed in Russia. Let us briefly characterize three concepts or approaches - the theory of combinatorial evolution by E. Galimov, the genetic theory of vertical evolution by V.V. Sukhodolts, consisting in a significant modernization of neo-Darwinism, and the concept of V.A. Krasilov, who laid the foundations of the ecosystem theory of evolution (ETE).

E. Galimov in the book “The Phenomenon of Life: Between Balance and Nonlinearity. The Origin and Principles of Evolution" (2001) qualifies the Darwinian approach as a theory of adaptation rather than evolution. Soon after the publication of the book, an interview appeared in Nezavisimaya Gazeta in which Galimov, in a concise form, once again addressed the key problems of evolution. He emphasizes that with the help of Darwin's theory it is impossible to deduce the mechanism of the origin of life, and also to move on to the anthropogenic world. According to Galimov, “evolution is simply a consistent limitation of degrees of freedom. The restrictions themselves are random. But any limitation is an ordering.” In his opinion, the evolution of life on Earth has an anti-entropic orientation, that is, it has an ordered organization. The starting point in the emergence of life was the synthesis of ATP (adenasine triphosphoric acid), which subsequently led to the establishment of “a correspondence between the elements of polypeptides (amino acids) and polynucleotides (a set of nucleic bases). This match is known as the genetic code.” Galimov called his approach the combinatorial theory of evolution, believing that the theory of ordering does not require natural selection. “A selective advantage acquired as a result of a random change must necessarily be phenotypically expressed. Ordering is an objective process. It does not require the test of natural selection. This resolves one of the main difficulties of evolution: the presence of such intermediate changes that in themselves do not provide an advantage (are not phenotypically useful),” Galimov believes. He considers the cell, not the gene, which is unreasonably endowed with feelings and aspirations, to be the unit of evolution. Denying that life is a pathology of matter, Galimov writes that “life is the path of creation in the world of degrading matter, or, if you like, the healthy beginning of the disease of the world.”

An interesting attempt to explain vertical (macro) evolution (i.e., the complication of organisms) is presented in the study of V.V. Sukhodolts “Genetic theory of vertical evolution” (2004). The author introduces the concept of “ecological sustainability”, separating its adaptability. The main positive feature of V.V.’s work Sukhodolts - the desire to solve the problem of vertical evolution in combination with Darwinian horizontal evolution. A significant role in the development model proposed by the author is played by “ecological crises” associated with both overpopulation and changes in living conditions: “A species overcomes an environmental crisis by changing its original organization, that is, the genome of organisms. Indeed, at the stage of specialization initiated under conditions of resource scarcity, new genes are born that prolong the existence of the population in crisis conditions. These new genes create the prerequisites for the appearance at the next stage of the cycle of a recombinant form with increased environmental stability. This is how the level of biological organization increases.” In these rearrangements of organisms, the author gives preference to the “pressure” of the external environment. He also does not deny the possibility of “the formation of a form with increased ecological stability as a result of genetic exchange between specialized races.” A distinctive feature of this approach to evolution is the inclusion of the environmental factor in the concept and the consideration of development as an uneven, step-by-step process.

In a more general and diverse form, the role of the external environment is presented in the ecosystem theory of evolution by V.A. Krasilova. Moreover, it speaks not only about the “ecological press” and the subsequent recombination of genes, but also about the rather targeted impact of external conditions on the biological characteristics of organisms. The author focuses on the interaction of the biosphere with geochemical and even cosmic factors: “The evolutionary process embraces complex systems with a hierarchical structure and occurs at various organizational levels, each of which has a certain autonomy, but at the same time is connected with both lower and higher levels. highest. Directionality arises from the influence of a system on the evolution of its components.” The biosphere regularly receives evolutionary impulses from the interaction of the Earth with other celestial bodies. This interaction often causes a change in rotation parameters. This, in turn, results in a geological crisis, which is resolved by the activation of the movement of blocks of the earth's crust and the activation of magmatism. All this is expressed in sharp climatic fluctuations, as well as in changes in the relationship between land and sea, and in the system of ocean currents. Thus, Krasilov distinguishes two types of changes in the biosphere - “normal” and “crisis”.

Selection according to Krasilov is multi-level in nature (selection of selection or even selection of selection of selection). In this case, it is not single mutations or gene combinations that are selected that are tested during the autonomous development of the genome, but most likely the directions of evolution of the genetic system, the results of selection at lower levels. It is very important that Krasilov described a possible mechanism of influence of external factors on the genetic basis of the organism. “Substances that enter a cell during the life of an organism can suppress or stimulate gene activity. A change in behavior, an increase or decrease in the activity of a particular organ (“exercise - non-exercise”) changes the demand for the products of certain genes.”

To be fair, it should be noted that the idea of ​​using the principles of ecology to explain the mechanisms of evolution has been expressed before. Let us take as an example the opinion of V.I. Vernadsky about the origin of life and its further development. The scientist was convinced that life on Earth appeared in the form of complex complexes - biocenoses. J. Bernal took the same position. M.D. is developing his concept in the same direction. Golubovsky.

It is precisely this theory of evolution, which takes into account the influence of natural conditions and takes into account the intermittent, spasmodic nature of the development of living things, that can be taken as the basis for describing and explaining the origin of man. It should pay sufficient attention to the influence of “exercise/non-exercise” on the modification of the individual’s body, as well as the impact of behavioral characteristics (activity) and their changes on the evolution of individuals.

E. Mayr assigned an important role to behavior in evolution. In his work “Development of Biological Thinking” (1982), he noted that “the key factor in the acquisition by animals of most evolutionary innovations is a change in behavior.” In this case, the greatest attention is paid to transformations in the body that can occur as a result of external influences as a consequence of lifestyle changes. In general, in modern neo-Darwinism the importance of the organism as a whole is almost not taken into account. Very little attention is paid to the complex problem of the interaction of genotype and phenotype (the structure of the organism). The relationship between genotype and phenotype can be different and cannot be described using an unambiguous relationship. Moreover, according to the provisions of a number of researchers, the leading role in this pair is often played by the phenotype, the entire organism.

So, according to the Russian scientist I.I. Schmalhausen, “it is not changes in the genotype that determine evolution and its direction. On the contrary, the evolution of an organism determines the change in its genotype.” The system of hereditary succession, consisting of “cytoplasm, the structure of the egg and the maternal genome,” also seems more complex to him. These and other facts (the role of regulatory or “organizational genes”, the influence of ontogenesis on the relationship between genotype and phenotype) deny the possibility of a direct and unambiguous gene-trait relationship. The gene-trait relationship is the basic position of neo-Darwinism. The genotype in neo-Darwinism is considered not as a systemic integrity, but as an ensemble of individual components, each of which predetermines a particular trait. Genes as independent units have become the object of mathematical modeling within populations. However, the data obtained using a mathematical model serve well to illustrate some possible processes in a population, but do not reflect real processes: neither the interaction of genes, nor the integral effect of the genome, and much more are taken into account. In neo-Darwinism, a reduction of the organism (and even the cell) occurred. Its place was taken by the gene, which Dawkins showed quite comprehensively. The abstract mathematical basis of neo-Darwinism was criticized for simplifying the real situation by R. Lewontin in the book “Genetic Basis of Evolution” (1978). V.A. Krasilov also believed that laws like the Hardy-Weinberg law are pure mathematics and have nothing in common with biology. E. Mayr assessed these methods most critically: “It makes no sense to reduce the problem of macroevolution to changes in gene frequencies...”

From the data of modern genetics it follows “that the morphological evolution of eukaryotic organisms does not depend on mutations of structural genes and that an exclusive role in this process belongs to... regulatory genes that do not encode proteins, but control the functioning of structural genes. This is in good agreement with the fact that in eukaryotes most of the genome consists of regulatory genes.”

Thus, mathematical gene frequency analysis can provide limited problematic, probabilistic information that should be supplemented with data from other disciplines. In addition, the set of structural genes is not related to the diversity of organisms, their structure, etc. Therefore, it is natural that the richest diversity of human organization is expressed by only 0.1% of “differences in genes.” The diversity of human bodily organization is determined by many factors, including the fact that evolutionary changes are “directed not so much bottom-up (from mutations to populations and species), but rather top-down (from biocenosis to species and populations).” Therefore, “the fate of species as components and functional units of an ecosystem is determined by its state. Species respond to signals from the system to which they belong.”

This chapter pays attention to the consideration of the mathematical principles of neo-Darwinism and its basic postulates (one gene - one trait, gene - a unit of analysis), since they are the basis of the “new anthropology” and “ethnogenomics”. These principles are actively used in the study of human origins and evidence of the “smooth monotony of humanity,” whose representatives are “slightly different from each other.” But you can take an even “lower” level of chemical primary elements, and here the well-known fact becomes clear that the organic and inorganic world consists of the same chemical elements. And only their special organization leads to a new systemic whole - life.

Let us summarize the consideration of factual data and their generalizations about the development and functioning of the organic world on Earth. The most productive should be recognized as the ecosystem theory of evolution, the foundations of which were developed by V.A. Krasilov and within the framework of which M.D. carried out his research projects. Golubovsky. Significant heuristic potential is contained in the “combinatorial theory of evolution” by E. Galimov. First of all, this concerns the explanation of the direction of development of living things and the choice of the object of evolution (a cell, not a gene). Currently, biological science, including molecular biology, has accumulated numerous data that need to be combined into a theory. This can be done on the basis of interdisciplinary synthesis. I would like to believe that this problem will be solved in the coming decades.

In conclusion, considering the concepts of evolution starting from Darwin and Lamarck, we can highlight the most important ideas, or principles, which should be generalized by a future theory and which can be used as interpretative in the study of human origins. So:

1. Evolution must be viewed as a multilinear and diverse process.
2. In evolution, periods of slow, smooth changes (or lack thereof at all) were replaced by periods of rapid, spasmodic growth. Thus, the development process was discontinuous.
3. Natural conditions (more precisely, their changes) had a significant influence on evolution. Stressful situations resulting from sharp climate fluctuations represent a significant factor in evolution.
4. Evolution was significantly influenced by changes in lifestyle and behavior of organisms. Changing forms of activity led to restructuring of the body.
5. Evolution is a unity of accidents and patterns.
6. The units of evolutionary development are organisms united in populations included in biocenoses.
7. The body (just like a cell) actively reacts to external changes.
8. When analyzing changes, it is necessary to take into account the hierarchical levels of systematicity or integrity (cell-organism-community-biocenosis).
9. The theory of evolution must take into account the possibility of horizontal gene transfer.
10. When analyzing evolution, one must take into account its anti-entropic nature, which consists in the complication of the forms of organization of living things.
11. When studying evolutionary processes, the mechanistic principle of homogeneity (transfer of patterns from one system level to another without correction) is unacceptable. Therefore, it is impossible to apply the principle “what is true for a mouse is true for an elephant”, since “what is true for bacteria is not true even for yeast.”
12. The unit of evolution is the organism (cell), and not the gene, therefore it is necessary to recognize the “gene-trait” principle as unproductive.
13. Consideration of the genetic basis of the evolution of organisms as freely competing relatively independent genes is inadequate to the data of modern science.
14. A quantitative approach when comparing different organisms and humans is unproductive. A difference of 0.1% of genes can give a different quality. In the diversity of organisms (including humans), a more significant role is played not by genes in the “old sense” (coding proteins, structural), but by new ones, “organizing” and “managing”.
15. Evolutionary changes are directed not so much “bottom up” (from mutations to populations and species) as “top down” (from biocenosis to species and populations).
16. The general direction of evolution is determined by its non-entropic nature.

Scientists have always been concerned with the question of not only the origin of existing organisms, but also the mechanisms of these changes.

Accordingly, each scientist put forward his own hypotheses and tried to substantiate them.

We will look at the evolutionary theories of the most famous scientists.

Carl Linnaeus

A Swiss scientist and a very religious man, Linnaeus was a naturalist who studied botany and zoology, and evolutionary theory was not the main goal of his research.

He introduced his taxonomy of organisms (taxonomic categories), a binary nomenclature for describing living things. The species was considered the basic unit of taxonomy.

As for evolution, Linnaeus was a creationist, i.e. believed that all living things were created by God and species do not change.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

The first scientist who tried to build a holistic theory of evolution.

“all living things are characterized by a “striving for perfection”…” J.B. Lamarck

Firstly, he read that living things came from non-living things, and secondly, the division of animals into vertebrates and invertebrates was his merit. He rejected the concept of “species”, believing that the unit of evolutionary change is the organism itself - the individual.

Lamarck spoke about variability as the main mechanism for adaptation, adaptation to changing conditions, that newly acquired characteristics must necessarily be inherited, but he considered the basis of the mechanisms of all this to be “the internal desire for perfection and exercise.”

Charles Darwin

Everyone knows about him. His portraits are in all schools, there are museums named after him all over the world. He is constantly credited with the origin of man from the monkey, although he DIDN’T write about it!

We are interested in the main points of his theory of biological evolution, on which he worked for 20 years!

The basis for the evolution of all living things is variability;

Traits that help an organism survive in changing conditions must be inherited;

The driving force of evolution is the struggle for existence;

Survival and preferential reproduction of the fit - natural selection;

Natural selection leads to divergence of characters and, ultimately, to speciation.”

Modern (synthetic theory of evolution)

The scientist who “synthesized” (hence the name) combined Darwin’s theory and genetics - S.S. Chetveryakov.

The basis of evolution is mutations, and specifically genetic ones, because they must be inherited;

As in the classical theory, in the synthetic theory of evolution the main driving factor is natural selection;

The elementary unit of evolution is a population;

Evolution is a long process - the change of one population after another leads, ultimately, to the formation of a species or several species (divergence);

A species is a closed formation, with gene flow observed - individuals migrate from one population to another;

Macroevolution is the result of microevolution, while all the patterns of microevolution (at the species level) move to a higher level.

Examples of tasks.

A1. Name the scientist who first attempted to classify living beings and proposed a convenient and simple principle of double names for each species.

1) J. B. Lamarck;
2) J. Cuvier;
3) K. Linnaeus;
4) C. Darwin.

AT 12. Establish a correspondence between scientists and views on the historical development of living nature.

A) the driving force of evolution is the internal desire for perfection

B) changes in environmental conditions cause positive, negative and neutral hereditary changes in organisms

B) acquired characteristics are inherited

D) the driving force of evolution is natural selection E) the elementary evolutionary unit is the individual E) the elementary evolutionary unit is the population

1) C. Darwin

2) J. B. Lamarck

B - 2 (note: according to Lamarck - precisely acquired ones, according to Darwin - all)

E - 1 (Darwin has this type, there is a slight inaccuracy here, but in most Unified State Exam questions this is also the case)

People have long wondered about the origin of life on earth. The first evolutionary ideas appeared in antiquity. In 1859, a new stage in the development of the theory of evolution began after Charles Darwin published his theory on the role of natural selection in the origin of species and the development of evolution. In the 20th century, Darwin's theory of evolution underwent significant changes.

The difference between modern theory and Darwin's provisions

The modern theory of organic evolution differs significantly from Darwin’s in a number of important scientific positions:

It clearly identifies the elementary structure from which evolution begins. Currently, such an elementary structure is considered to be a population, and not an individual or a species that includes several populations;

Modern theory considers a stable change in the genotype of a population as an elementary manifestation of the evolutionary process;

She interprets the factors and driving forces of evolution in a more reasoned and reasonable manner, identifying among them the main and non-basic factors.

Darwin and subsequent theorists considered variability, heredity and the struggle for existence to be the main factors in the process of evolution. Currently, many other additional, non-basic factors are added to them, which nevertheless exert their influence on the evolutionary process. In addition, the main factors themselves are now understood in a new way and therefore the leading factors now include mutation processes, population waves and isolation.

Modern evolutionary teaching sees its main task as, on the basis of in-depth knowledge of the mechanism of evolutionary processes, to predict the possibilities of evolutionary transformations, and, in turn, to manage the evolutionary process on this basis. One of the most promising branches of biological science - genetics - plays an increasingly important role in solving this problem.

Development of modern theory of evolution

The modern theory of evolution believes that evolution occurs genetically, as a result of natural selection of qualities and properties that are inherited.

The American scientist Wright developed the theory of random genetic drift in 1931. which talks about the influence of random causes - climatic, natural disasters and others on the formation of the gene pool.

Scientist George Simpson in 1948, based on the hypothesis of random genetic drift, developed the concept of quantum evolution, according to which genetic drift, a random genetic event independent of natural selection, is a prerequisite for the formation of a new species.

The idea of ​​random changes in genes was also reflected in M. Kimura’s theory of neutrality. The theory of neutral evolution, based on the important role of random mutations in evolution, explains processes occurring at the cellular level.

The central concept of genetics is the “gene”. This is an elementary unit of heredity, characterized by a number of characteristics. At its level, a gene is an intracellular molecular structure. In terms of chemical composition, these are nucleic acids, in which the main role is played by nitrogen and phosphorus. Genes are located, as a rule, in the nuclei of cells. They are present in every cell, and therefore their total number in large organisms can reach many billions. According to their role in the body, genes represent a kind of “brain center” of cells.

Genetics studies two fundamental properties of living systems - heredity and variability, that is, the ability of living organisms to transmit their characteristics and properties from generation to generation, as well as to acquire new qualities. Heredity creates an uninterrupted continuity of traits, properties and developmental features over a series of generations. Variation provides material for natural selection, creating both new variants of characteristics and countless combinations of pre-existing and new characteristics of living organisms.

The traits and properties of an organism that are inherited are fixed in genes - sections of the DNA molecule (or chromosome) that determine the possibility of developing one elementary trait or the synthesis of one protein molecule. The totality of all the characteristics of an organism is called a phenotype. The set of all genes of one organism is called a genotype. The phenotype is the result of the interaction between the genotype and the environment. These discoveries, terms and their definitions are associated with the name of one of the founders of genetics, V. Johansen.

The structure of modern evolutionary theory

Structurally, the modern theory of evolution consists of theories about the processes of micro- and macroevolution. The theory of microevolution examines irreversible genetic and environmental changes in a population that can lead to the emergence of a new species.

Species of living beings on Earth exist in the form of populations, which are considered as elementary units of evolution.

The theory of macroevolution studies the patterns of development of life on Earth as a whole, including the origin of humans as a separate biological species. Both theories believe that evolution occurs as a result of changes in the environment.

The modern theory of evolution has laid the foundations for selection to create new breeds and varieties. The modern theory of evolution is also important for organizing environmental protection. It has been proven that any measures to develop nature must be preceded by an ecological justification; it is necessary to conduct an evolutionary analysis of the consequences of human intervention in natural processes.

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

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

Middle Ages and Renaissance

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

Evolutionary ideas of the New Age

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

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

Lamarck's theory

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

Catastrophism and transformism

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

Evolutionists - Darwin's contemporaries

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

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

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

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

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

Darwin's works

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

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

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

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

Development of Darwin's ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern theories of biological evolution

Synthetic theory of evolution

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

Neutral theory of molecular evolution

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

Epigenetic theory of evolution

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

Ecosystem theory of evolution

This term is understood as a system of ideas and approaches to the study of evolution, focusing on the features and patterns of evolution of ecosystems at various levels - biocenoses, biomes and the biosphere as a whole, and not taxa (species, families, classes, etc.). The provisions of the ecosystem theory of evolution are based on two postulates:

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

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

Evolutionary doctrine and religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature

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