Scientists about the theory of evolution. Origin of Species: Why You Shouldn't Question the Theory of Evolution Why the Theory of Evolution

Some people, when they hear terms like “the theory of evolution” or “Darwinism,” may assume that these concepts relate only to the field of biology and have no meaning in their lives. In fact, this assumption is wrong. Because in reality, the theory of evolution is not so much a biological concept as the basis of a distorted philosophy that has become widespread on earth. This philosophy, which hides how and why we actually came into being, is called “materialism.” Materialism, or in other words “materiality,” asserts that the basis of everything is matter and, thus, denies the existence of the Creator of everything, i.e. Allah.

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

Another harm of materialism is that it is the basis for the development of anarchy and the ideology of “divide and conquer.” At the head of these ideologies is communism - a natural political consequence of materialist philosophy. Communism, which destroys such sacred concepts as religion, state, family, embodies a fundamental ideology directed against the unitary structure of the state.

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

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

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

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

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

Changes in social and economic life

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

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

Participation in expeditions

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

This assumption was confirmed by the scientist’s paleontological finds that he made in South America. They clearly indicated that the species that existed on the planet millions of years ago had both similar features and differences with living animals. For example, extinct edentates could well have been the ancestors of modern anteaters, sloths and armadillos.

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

The scientist was also surprised by the fact that each of the rocky islands of the Galapagos archipelago became home to one species of giant tortoises and finches. And this also contradicted creationist views. It is unlikely that the Creator had such a vast imagination to create on small islands such a great variety of animals that differed little from each other.

Theories of T. Malthus and A. Smith

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

Ideas of Charles Lyell

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

Experiments conducted by Berzelius

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

Other scientific background

Darwin's theory of evolution was also inspired by some discoveries, as a result of which it became obvious that:

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

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

Of course, the ideas that everything in life necessarily develops, due to which the descendants of one species can have differences from their parent forms, were not new and unusual. However, the merit of Darwin's theory is that it suggested exactly what path evolution took.

Publication of works

The result of acquaintance with all of the above theories was the creation of a work that was written by Charles Darwin in 1838. This work was published only in 1859. The reason for this was certain circumstances. In 1858, a young British naturalist, traveler and biologist, Alfred Wallers, sent Darwin a manuscript of an article that examined the tendency of varieties of living beings to deviate from their original type. This work contained a statement of the theory that asserted the origin of species through natural selection. After this, Darwin decided not to submit his work for publication. However, his comrades Joseph Dalton Hooker and Charles Lyell managed to convince the scientist otherwise. That is why in 1859 the theory of Charles Darwin came to light. The work was called “On the Origin of Species.” The success of the publication was stunning. Charles Darwin's theory was well accepted and supported by some scientists and harshly criticized by others. Moreover, all of Darwin's works that were published after that were published in many languages, instantly acquiring the status of bestsellers. The scientist immediately gained worldwide fame.

Darwin's main theories concerned changes in plants and animals during their domestication, the origins of man and his sexual selection, as well as the expression of emotions in living organisms.

The essence of the scientist's ideas

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

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

Darwin's theory of origins also states that gradually life forms became so different from their ancestors that biologists began to consider them as independent, distinct groups. This theory of Darwin's species still underlies modern ideas about evolution.

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

Principles of Darwin's theory

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

What provisions of Darwin's theory are considered fundamental? Let's take a closer look at them.

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

All provisions of Darwin's theory are considered impeccable in logical terms. Moreover, each of them is supported by a large amount of factual material. The described assumptions are the basis of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which we begin to become familiar with during our school years.

Principles of life development

Darwin's theory underlies modern biology. Nevertheless, the attitude of scientists towards this discovery is still far from clear. Even those who have embraced the idea admit there are still many questions about it. Why is Darwin's theory not fully explained? The fact is that some of its provisions have not been unambiguously confirmed. This, for example, concerns the question of the origin of animal species. How this happens is still not completely clear to scientists.

Darwin planned to make his book “On the Origin of Species” one of the parts of a more fundamental and voluminous work that could shed light on this and many other questions. However, he never managed to do this. But at the same time, the scientist noted that natural selection is far from the only factor that determines the formation and further development of various forms of life. In order to reproduce and produce offspring, living organisms need cooperation. In other words, individuals strive to become part of a particular community. As a result of evolution, stable social groups are created that have a clear hierarchical structure. Life on Earth without cooperation, according to Darwin, could not have advanced beyond its simplest forms.

Human Origins

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

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

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

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

Such creatures were the first “intermediate forms” discovered by anthropologists. Thanks to such finds, Darwin's theory of human evolution received a significant evidence base. But how did this process happen? In order to understand this, you need to turn back time and see what was on Earth millions of years ago.

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

Over time, living creatures began to gradually move onto land, developing other habitats for themselves. It is quite possible that some of the fish species began to emerge to the surface by chance, or perhaps this was influenced by strong competition. Be that as it may, amphibians appeared on the planet. This is a new class of living organisms that could exist and develop in both environments. More than one million years passed, and thanks to natural selection, only the fittest representatives of the Amphibian class remained on land. They gave rise to an increasing number of offspring, which became more and more adapted to life on land. At the same time, such animal species as mammals, reptiles and birds arose. Natural selection that took place over millions of years led to the fact that only those populations remained on Earth that were able to best adapt to the changed environmental conditions. Many of these species have not survived to this day. But they left behind more resilient descendants.

One of these species is dinosaurs. At one time they were the real masters of the planet. However, natural disasters that occurred on Earth changed living conditions. Dinosaurs were never able to adapt to them. Among their descendants, only reptiles and birds live today.

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

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

More than one million years have passed. Natural selection led to the survival of only the fittest groups. Our ancestors evolved, successively passing through certain stages.

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

Proof of the theory

Despite the fact that Darwin's idea is more than one hundred and forty years old, many people are still not ready to accept the fact of their kinship with primates. Scientists have constantly pursued these questions, trying to prove or disprove evolutionary theory.

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

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

Darwin's theory of evolution is the work of a man who at one time abandoned the profession of a doctor because he was afraid of blood. After this he began to study theology. There are several more very interesting facts. Thus, it is known that Darwin dined on the exotic species of animals that he studied. And the phrase “survival of the fittest” was not said by the author of the theory of evolution. It belongs to his like-minded friend and contemporary Herbert Spencer.

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

It is also interesting that fame came not only to Darwin. Together with him, finches also gained fame. Although these birds were found to be called tanagers, they are still called "Darwin's finches".

In 2009, Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University in New Jersey described how a new species of finch appeared on one of the Galapagos Islands; Darwin visited these same islands.

In 1981, a finch flew to an island called Daphne Major. It was unusually large and sang a different song compared to the local birds. He managed to leave offspring who inherited his unusual features. After several generations, they were reproductively isolated: they were different from other birds and sang different songs, so they could only reproduce among themselves. This small group of birds formed a new species, “speciation” occurred. The new species was quite a bit different from its predecessors: they had different beaks and sang an unusual song. But sometimes more serious changes occur.

Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is conducting the world's longest-running evolutionary experiment. Since 1998, Lenski has monitored 12 populations of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in his laboratory. The bacteria were given their own homes in containers, a growing medium, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples.

This E. coli is not the same as it was in 1988. “In all 12 populations, the bacteria evolved and grew faster than their ancestors,” Lenski says. They adapted to a specific nutrient mixture of chemicals. - This is the most direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of ​​adaptation through the process of natural selection. After 20 years of experimentation, typical linear bacterial growth occurs 80% faster."

In 2008, Lenski's group reported that bacteria had made huge leaps forward. The mixture in which they live includes a chemical called citrate, which E. coli cannot digest. But after 31,500 generations, one in twelve populations began to feed on citrate. It's as if people suddenly started successfully eating tree bark.

Citrate was always there, Lenski says, “so all populations had the opportunity to evolve the ability to use it. But only one out of 12 populations was able to learn this.”

At this point, Lenski's habit of regularly freezing bacterial samples proved crucial. He was able to go back to older samples and track the changes that led to E. coli starting to eat citrate. To do this I had to look under the hood. He used a tool that did not exist in Darwin's time, but which revolutionized the understanding of evolution: genetics.


All living creatures carry genes in the form of DNA.

Genes control how an organism grows and develops and is passed on from parents to offspring. When a mother hen lays a lot of eggs and passes that trait on to her offspring, it happens through genes. Over the past century, scientists have compiled a catalog of genes from a wide variety of species. It turned out that all living beings store information in DNA in the same way: they all use the same “genetic code.”

Moreover, organisms have many identical genes. Thousands of genes found in human DNA can also be found in the DNA of other creatures, including plants and even bacteria. These two facts mean that all modern life descended from one common ancestor, the “last universal ancestor,” who lived billions of years ago.

By comparing how many genes organisms have in common, we can figure out how they are related to each other. For example, humans share genes with monkeys more than with other animals by up to 96%. This suggests that they are our closest relatives.

"Try to explain in another way that this connection was not formed through a chain of changes over time," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. “We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and we and they have diverged from that common ancestor.”

We can also use genetics to track the details of evolutionary change.

"You can compare different types of bacteria and find common genes," says Nancy Moran of the University of Texas at Austin. “Once you identify these genes, you can look at how they evolved in different populations.”

When Lensky went back to the early E. coli samples, he found that the citrate-eating bacteria had several DNA changes that were different from other bacteria. These changes are called mutations.

Some of them happened long before the bacteria developed their new ability. “These mutations themselves did not enable the ability to grow in citrate, but they set the stage for subsequent mutations that enabled this ability,” Lenski says.

This complex chain of events helps explain why only one population evolved this ability. It also illustrates an important point in evolution. A single evolutionary step may seem extremely unlikely, but if too many organisms are striving for it, one of them will probably be willing and able to take it.

Lenski's E. coli shows us that evolution can give organisms entirely new abilities. But evolution doesn't always make things better. Its consequences often seem random to our eyes.

Mutations that lead to changes in the body are very rarely for the better, Moran says. Most mutations have no effect, positive or negative, on how the body functions. When bacteria find themselves in an isolated environment, they resort to unwanted genetic mutations that spread through each generation. Over time, this gradually kills the species.

“It's really an evolutionary process,” Moran says. “This is not just adaptation and the road to the better, everything can go horribly wrong.”

Sometimes organisms lose their abilities. For example, animals that prefer dark caves often lose their eyes. This may seem strange. We are accustomed to consider evolution a process of biological improvement of the species, a desire to escape from primitiveness. But this is not true at all.


The scientist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who promoted the idea of ​​the evolution of organisms even before Darwin, spoke about the desire for improvement. Lamarck's contribution turned out to be very valuable. But, unlike Darwin, Lamarck believed that organisms become increasingly accustomed to their environment and the improvement of their properties is a deliberate reaction to these environments, as if they want to become better.

Lamarck's theory would say that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors wanted to reach high branches and then passed on these newfound long necks to their offspring.

“Darwin wrote about Lamarck privately and called his theory completely meaningless and untestable,” Jones says. - What exactly did they want to improve? How can I check this?

Darwin had an alternative theory: natural selection. He offered a completely different explanation for giraffes' long necks. Imagine the ancestor of the modern giraffe, some deer or antelope. If there were many tall trees in the habitats of these animals, animals with long necks would receive more food and feel better than short-necked animals.

After a few generations, all animals would have longer necks than their ancestors. Again, the animals with the longest necks would win, so over many years the giraffes' necks would gradually lengthen as longer-necked animals would produce more offspring. The mutations that underlie all of this occurred by chance and were equally likely to produce short and long necks. But the short neck mutations didn't last long.

Animals like giraffes surprise us because they seem to have adapted perfectly. They live in places where trees are tall and their leaves are high above the ground, so giraffes must have long necks in order to eat.

“This kind of idea actually confuses people. Because it looks perfect, it feels like everything was carefully planned and conceived, says Moran. But if you look closely, everything turns out to be the result of a long chain of small changes. “You understand, damn it, nothing was planned, it was just one random event that led to another random event.”

Now we have all the pieces of evidence, and when put together, they show that life has evolved.

The descent with modification that was caused by random mutations in genes eventually led to gradual changes and the formation of new species - much of it driven by natural selection, which weeds out those organisms that are least suited to the environment.

Now let's try it all on ourselves.

Human evolution has always been a difficult concept to digest, but it's hard to turn a blind eye to it now, Stringer says. Homo sapiens is believed to have evolved in Africa and then spread throughout the world.

The fossil record shows a gradual change from ape-like animals walking on all fours to bipedal creatures that gradually acquired large brains. These first humans left Africa and interbred with other hominids like Neanderthals. As a result, people of European and Asian descent carry Neanderthal genes in their DNA, but people in Africa do not.

All this happened thousands of years ago, but the story is not over yet. We are still evolving.

For example, in the 50s, British doctor Anthony Ellison studied a genetic disease - sickle cell anemia - common among some populations in Africa. People with this disorder have misshapen red blood cells that do not transport oxygen throughout the body as well as they could without being sickled. Ellison found that eastern African populations were divided into groups of people living in lowland areas, more prone to the disease, and people living in highlands, less prone.


It turns out that people who carry the sickle cell trait have an unexpected advantage. It protects them from malaria, which only threatens people living in the lowlands. These people were better off surviving the sickle cell mutation, even though their children might be anemic. On the other hand, people living in the mountains were not exposed to the danger of malaria. They did not need to carry the sickle cell trait, since it did not provide any significant advantages in itself.

Of course, there are still many questions about evolution to which we do not yet know the answers.

Stringer asks a simpler question: what genetic change allowed humans to walk upright, and why was this mutation so successful? We don't know yet, but the fossil record may one day shed light on this mystery.

So far we know that evolution is a fact of nature. This is the basis of life on Earth as we know it. So next time you are in a garden or on a farm, just walk around and look at the animals and the plants and think about how they got that way. Every organism you see, be it an insect or a giant elephant, is the last member of its ancient family. Their ancestors lined up in an unbroken chain for 3 billion years, passing on the word of life until this elephant or cockroach appeared. However, so do we.

(41 votes: 4.5 out of 5)

The overwhelming majority of sayings included in this collection belong to the most ardent defenders of the theory of evolution. But this is the strength of the book. The foundations of evolutionist strongholds are unlikely to be shaken by statements from the lips of creation scientists. But even in court, exculpatory evidence given by a hostile witness is considered the most important. Therefore, the comments of an evolutionary paleontologist who admits the absence of intermediate forms, or an evolutionary biologist who doubts the mutation/selection mechanism, are very significant (especially if these statements are given accurately and without distortion), even if the author otherwise sings the hymns of evolution. We look forward to the widest possible use of this publication.
Editor.

Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990.

Today, many believe that the debate about the origin of life is between the scientific views of evolution and the religious views of creation. Is it really?

Before publishing his book, Darwin stated:

1. The future book will puzzle you greatly; Unfortunately, it will be too hypothetical. Most likely, it will only serve to organize the facts, although I myself think that I have found an approximate explanation of the origin of species. But, alas, how often - almost always - the author convinces himself of the truth of his own dogmas.

Charles Darwin, 1858, from a letter to a colleague about the final chapters of The Origin of Species. Quoted in John Lofton's Journal, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

Is the theory of evolution scientific?

2. Essentially, the theory of evolution has become a kind of scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are ready to “squeeze” their observations into its framework.

H.S. H.S. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. A physicist looks at evolution. Physics Bulletin, vol.31, 1980, p.138.

Evolution - fact or faith?

3. The theory of evolution is the core of biology; Thus biology is in the strange position of a science based on an unproven theory. So is it science or religion? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus akin to belief in purposeful creation - each concept is considered true by those who believe in it, but neither one nor the other has been proven to this day.

L.Harrison Matthews, Royal Physical Society. Preface to Darwin's Origin of Species. J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. We have to admit that, contrary to popular belief, the theory of the random emergence of life under the influence of natural conditions, based on facts and not on faith, has simply not yet been written.

Hubert P. Yockey, Army Radiation Station, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396.

Is it possible to observe evolution?

5. Evolution - at least in the sense in which Darwin spoke of it - cannot be traced during the life of one observer.

Dr. David B. Kitts, Zoology, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Evolution, vol.28, September 1974, p.466.

Is it possible to test evolution?

6. It is easy to create stories about how one life form evolved into another, and to find reasons why one or another stage won out in natural selection. But these stories are not science, since there is no way to test them.

Personal letter (dated 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, to Luther D. Sunderland. Quoted from: Luther D.Sunderland. Darwin's Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p119.

7. Our theory of evolution cannot be refuted by any observations - any observations can be “squeezed” into its framework. The theory of evolution is thus “beyond empirical science,” although this does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect. No one can figure out a way to test it. Conclusions - unfounded or made on the basis of a few laboratory experiments carried out under the most simplified conditions - have become widespread, far from corresponding to their value. They have become part of the evolutionary dogma we have absorbed through our education.
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University and L. Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, University of Sydney. Evolutionary history and biology population. Nature, vol.214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

8. Evolutionary events are unique, inimitable and irreversible. It is just as impossible to transform a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to carry out the reverse transformation. The application of experimental testing methods to such unique historical processes is strictly limited - primarily because the duration of these processes is much longer than the life of the experimenter. It is from this impossibility of verification that anti-evolutionists proceed when they demand evidence that they can generously accept as satisfactory.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, former professor of zoology and biology, Rockefeller University. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1, biology. American Scientist, vol.45(5), December 1957, p.388.

Is evolution supported by facts?

Darwin wrote:

9. I am sure that there is hardly a single point in this book for which it is impossible to select facts that would lead to directly opposite conclusions than the facts I found. The true result can only be obtained by carefully calculating and comparing facts and arguments, both for and against. But this is not yet possible.

Charles Darwin, 1859. Preface to The Origin of Species, p.2. Quote also in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

What do the facts prove?

10. Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not verifiable. Scientists will continually stumble upon facts that contradict their predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored, and their discoverers will undoubtedly be denied further research subsidies.

Professor Whitten, Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia. 1980 Assembly Week address.

What do the facts say?

11. Facts do not “speak for themselves” at all; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in both art and science, guides change of opinion. Science is the quintessence of human activity, and not a mechanical, robot-like accumulation of objective information, guided by the laws of logic to irrefutable conclusions.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The validation of continental drift. In: Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978, pp.161-162.

12. From time to time, scientists stumble upon facts that seem to be about to reveal one of the greatest secrets of science. Such discoveries are very rare. When they happen, the entire fraternity of scientists is extremely delighted.

But strong feelings are not the best barometer of scientific credibility. Science, as Adam Smith observed, should be “the greatest antidote to enthusiasm.” Explanations for the extinction of dinosaurs are a remarkable indication that science is not just based on facts. There is a much more important aspect - the interpretation of these facts.

Dr. Robert Jastrow, physicist, director of the Space Research Institute, USA. The dinosaur massacre. Omega Science Digest, March/April 1984, p.23.

Evolution: fact or faith?

13. After many futile attempts, science found itself in a very delicate situation: having postulated a theory of the origin of species, it could not prove it. By reproaching theologians for relying on myths and miracles, science itself found itself in the unenviable position of creating its own mythology, namely: if, as a result of prolonged effort, it cannot be proven that something is happening now, then it happened in the primitive past.

Dr. Loren Eisley, anthropology. The secret of life. In: The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, P.199.

What did Darwin achieve?

14. Essentially, Darwin's theory anticipated his knowledge - he put forward a new promising theory, but his limited knowledge did not allow him to convince himself and others of its correctness. He could neither accept his theory himself nor prove it to others. Darwin simply was not knowledgeable enough in those areas of natural history on which his theory could be based.

Dr. Barry Gale, History of Science, Darwin College, UK. In: Evolution Without Evidence. Quoted from: John Lofton’s Journal, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

Has anything changed?

15. I know that the data - at least in paleoanthropology - remain so sparse and dispersed that their interpretation is very heavily influenced by theory. In the past, theories clearly reflected ideological trends rather than real data.

Dr. David Pilbeam, physical anthropology, Yale University, USA, Rearranging our family tree. Human Nature, June 1978, p.45.

Hence…

16. Here's one of the reasons I've begun to lean toward the anti-evolutionary, or better yet, non-evolutionary point of view: Last year I suddenly realized that for twenty years I had only thought I was working on the theory of evolution. . One fine morning I woke up and it felt like I was on fire: I’ve been working on this for twenty years, and I still don’t know anything about it! It's terrible when you realize that you've been led by the nose for so long. One of two things - either there is something wrong with me or with the theory of evolution. But I know that I'm fine! So over the past few weeks, I've been asking all sorts of people and groups a very simple question: Can you say anything about evolution - anything, as long as it's actually true?

I asked this question in the Geology Department of the Natural History Museum. Silence was my answer. I tried it out on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very representative body of evolutionists, and again the response was only a long silence until finally someone said, “I know one thing: they should stop teaching this in school.”

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.

Did the theory of evolution help?

...scientists?

17. I find Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species” extremely unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very superficially, and contains a special chapter “Difficulties of Theory”; it includes a lot of speculation about why there is no evidence of natural selection in the fossil record...
...As a scientist, I am not enthusiastic about these ideas. But it seems to me unworthy of a scientist to reject a theory simply because of his own bias.

H. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. Origin of species. "Letters", New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p. 452.

18. Without a doubt, the opening of the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Salford, was Dr. John Durand, a young teacher at University College in Swansea. Giving a lecture on Darwin to the largest audience of the entire week of the convention, Durand put forward a stunning theory - Darwin's explanation of the origin of man through evolution has turned into a modern myth, a brake on science and social progress...

Durant concluded that the secular myth of evolution has had a "devastating effect on scientific research" and led to "distortions, fruitless debates, and enormous abuses in science."

Dr. John Durant, University College Sournsea, Wales. Quoted from: “How evolution became a scientific myth.” New Scientist, September 1980, p.765.

19. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. This theory contributed nothing to the progress of science. She's useless.

Professor Louis Bounoure, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, former Director of the French National Center for Scientific Research. Quoted from: Advocate, 8 March 1984, p.17.

20. Scientists who claim that evolution is a fact of life are great frauds, and their stories are perhaps the greatest hoax of all time. We don't have an iota of facts to explain evolution.

Dr. T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA, in The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. Quoted in N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983.

...philosophers?

21. Personally, I am confident that the theory of evolution, and especially the widespread dissemination that it has received, will be presented in future history textbooks as the greatest joke. Our descendants will be amazed by the incredible credulity with which such a dubious and unproven hypothesis was accepted.

Malcolm Muggeridge, world-renowned journalist and philosopher. Pascal Readings, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Is the theory of creation really unscientific?

22. The view of species as “natural kinds” fits perfectly with the views of pre-Darwinian creationists. Louis Agassiz even argued that childbirth is the thoughts of God, embodied in such a way as to make us understand His greatness and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, “are created by the Divine Mind as categories of His way of thinking.” But could the division of the organic world into discrete things be justified by the theory of evolution, which proclaimed meaningless change as a fundamental fact of nature?

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "A quahog is a quahog." Natural History, vol. LXXXVIII (7), August-September, 1979, p. 18.

23. If living matter did not arise due to the interaction of atoms, natural forces and radiation, then how then? There is another theory - rather unpopular these days - based on the ideas of Lamarck: if an organism needs improvement, it will develop it and then pass it on to its descendants. I think, however, that we should go further and agree that the only plausible explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, myself included, but we should not reject a theory supported by experimental evidence, even if we don't like it.

H.S. H.S. Lipson, Royal Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. A physicist looks at evolution. Physics Bulletin, vol.31, 1980, p. 138.

Creation ex nihilo?

24. In 1973, I came to the conclusion that our Universe was indeed suddenly created out of nothing (ex nihilo), and this is a consequence of known physical laws. This assumption struck people: some as ridiculous, others as charming, and others as both at the same time.

The novelty of the scientific theory of creation ex nihilo is quite obvious, because for many years science has taught us that someone cannot create something out of nothing.

Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics, New York University, USA. What happened to the world? New Scientist, 8 March 1984, p.14.

Blind chance or intelligent design?

25. The more incredible it is statistically, the less we believe that everything happened by chance. An obvious alternative to chance is a thinking Designer.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK. The necessity of Darwinism, New Scientist, vol.94, 15 April 1982, p. 130.

But is it really that complicated...?

26. But let's cast aside illusions. If today we turn to situations in which analogies with the natural sciences are especially impressive, even if we discover processes in biological systems that are far from equilibrium, our research will still remain far beyond the ability to explain such incredible complexity of the simplest organisms.

Ilya Prigogine, Professor, Director of the Department of Physics, University of Brussels. Can thermodynamics explain biological order? Impact of Science on Society, vol.23(3), 1973, p. 178.

27. And three pounds of brain in a Man is, as far as we know, the most complex and highly organized device in the Universe.

Dr. Isaac Asimov, biochemist, former professor at Boston University School of Medicine, world-renowned writer. In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can’t even break even. Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10.

So?

28. Since we see, however, that the probability of life arising by chance is so insignificant as to reduce the whole concept of chance to absurdity, it is reasonable to think that the favorable physical properties on which life depends arose deliberately...

Thus, it becomes almost inevitable that the level of our mind only essentially reflects the higher mind that gave birth to us - right down to the idea of ​​​​God.

Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge, and Chandra Wick-ramasinghe, Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College Cardiff. Convergence to God. In: Evolution from Space, J.M. Dent & Sons, London, 1981 pp. 141, 144.

29. I have always said that speculation about the origin of life leads to a dead end, since even the simplest living organism is too complex to be understood within the framework of the extremely primitive chemistry that scientists use in trying to explain the inexplicable that happened billions of years ago. God is incomprehensible to such naive thinking.

Ernst Chain, world famous biochemist. Quoted in: R.W.Clark in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Wiedenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.

Do fossils support evolution?

In 1850 Darwin wrote:

30. Why then do we not find all these intermediate links in every geological formation and every stratum? Geology by no means presents us with such a complete, sequential chain of organisms. And this is probably the most obvious and serious objection that can be raised against our theory. The explanation for this, I believe, lies in the extreme imperfection of geological data.

Charles Darwin. Origin of species. Chapter X, On the imperfection of geological data. J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp.292-293.

Ho 120 years later!

31. It has been 120 years since Darwin's time that our knowledge of the fossil record has increased significantly. But despite the fact that we now know a quarter of a million fossil species, the situation has not changed significantly. Information about evolution is still surprisingly scarce, and... ironically, we now have even fewer examples of evolutionary transformations than we had under Darwin. I mean, some classic Darwinian examples of changes in fossil sequences. like, in particular, the evolution of the horse in North America, now, with more accurate information, needs to be discarded or revised - what looked like a nice simple progression with little data, now turned out to be much more complex and much less consistent. So, Darwin's problem has not ceased to be such over the past 120 years. And, although chronology shows changes, natural selection is far from the most logical explanation for them. Also, the great extinctions of, say, dinosaurs and trilobites are still a mystery.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.25.

32. Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely associated with the study of fossils, and it is probably assumed by many that fossils constitute a very important part of the overall evidence for Darwin's interpretation of the origin of life. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.22.

33. It is important that almost all the legends about evolution that I heard as a student - from Truman's Ostrea / Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei - have now been refuted. In the same way, their complete inconsistency is proven by my own experience of more than twenty years of unsuccessful search for the evolutionary connections of the Mesozoic Brachiopod.

Dr. Derek V.Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, Swansea University College, UK. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists" Association, vol.87(2), 1976, p.132.

34. Lack of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major changes in organismal design; the fact that we are often unable - even in imagination - to reproduce these functional gaps is the most pressing problem with the idea of ​​progressive evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980, p.127.

So what links of evolution are “lost”?

Are there transitional forms?

35. ...I completely agree with your comment regarding the lack of illustrations of evolutionary intermediate forms in my book. If I knew at least one of them (living or fossilized), I would certainly include it in the book. You believe that an artist can depict these forms, but where does he get the information? I don’t have it, but if we trust the artist’s intuition, then where will we take the reader?

I wrote this book four years ago. If I wrote it now, it would be completely different. I believe in the concept of gradualism, not so much because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics requires it. But it is still difficult to argue with Gould and the staff of the American Museum when they talk about the absence of fossils of transitional forms. As a paleontologist, I am very concerned with the philosophical problem of identifying antecedent forms in fossils. You are asking me to at least “show a photograph of the fossil from which all kinds of organisms evolved.” I'll tell you frankly: there is not a single fossil about which this could be said with certainty.

Personal letter (dated 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, Chief Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, to Luther D. Sunderland. Quoted from: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p.89.

36. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains extremely few intermediate forms; transitions between the main groups are typically abrupt.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History, vol.LXXXVJ(6), p.24.

37. Since 1859, the most irritating characteristic of the fossil record has been its apparent imperfection. For evolutionists, this imperfection is most unfortunate, since it prevents the construction of a clear diagram of the evolution of organisms, requiring an infinite number of “lost links.” Coherent groups of species with overlapping morphologies can be found among the fossil record, arranged in descending order through time. The same can be said about many groups of genera, and even families. However, above the family level, in most cases it is impossible to find conclusive paleontological evidence for the existence of morphological intermediate links between different taxa. Typically, this lack of evidence is considered by opponents of the theory of organic evolution to be the theory's main flaw. In other words, the failure of the fossil record to provide the "missing links" is taken as conclusive evidence of the theory's failure.

Dr. Arthur J. Boucot, Professor of Geology, Oregon State University, USA, In: Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, p. 196.

38. The extreme rarity of intermediates in fossils remains a trade secret among paleontologists. The evolutionary trees that grow in our textbooks have data only at the tips of the branches and at the branches; the rest is speculation, although plausible, but not supported by fossil evidence. However, Darwin was so in love with gradualism that, denying the indisputable facts, he completely opposed his entire theory to them:

“Geological data is extremely imperfect. This largely explains the fact that we cannot find intermediate links that would connect extinct and existing forms of life together by completed successive steps. Anyone who rejects this view of the essence of geological data will, accordingly, reject my entire theory.”

Darwinian reasoning is still a favorite ploy of paleontologists in the face of the disconcerting fact that the data show us so little evolution. By exposing the cultural and methodological roots of gradualism (which are similar in all general theories), I am in no way trying to cast doubt on its potential value. I just want to emphasize that he was never “observed in stone.”

Paleontologists have paid excessively for their adherence to Darwin's argument. We imagine ourselves to be the only true students of natural history, although, wishing to preserve our favorite idea of ​​evolution by natural selection, we admit that our own data are so poor, and that we have never seen the very process that we are supposedly studying.”

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology. Harvard University. Evolution's erratic race. Natural History, vol.LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p.14.

39. Despite all the assurances that paleontology allows you to “see” evolution, it presents evolutionists with very annoying problems, the main one being “gaps” in the fossil record. Proving evolution requires interspecific intermediate links, and paleontology does not provide these. Thus, it appears that gaps are normal in the record.

Dr. David B. Kitts, Zoology, School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Evolution, vol.28, September 1974, p.467.

40. Despite these examples, it remains true what every paleontologist knows: most new species, genera and families, as well as almost all categories above the family level, appear suddenly in the fossil record, and do not form a gradual, complete sequence with all intermediate stages.

Dr. George Gay Lord Simpson, vertebrate paleontologist, former Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Professor of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson. In: The Major Feattires of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1953, p.360.

41. The known fossil record shows the sudden emergence of most taxa. They almost never appear as a result of a chain of almost imperceptible changes in previous taxa, which, as Darwin believed, is characteristic of evolution. Chains of two or more temporally related species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known intermediate ancestors; the appearance of truly long, completely complete sequences of numerous species is extremely rare. At the genus level, more or less successful sequences (not necessarily represented by the populations directly involved in the transition from one genus to another) are more common, and may be longer than the known sequences of species. The emergence of a new genus in the chronicle, as a rule, is even more sudden than the emergence of a new species: the “gaps” increase, so that the newly appearing genus is usually morphologically clearly separated from the majority of known genera similar to it. The higher the level in the hierarchy of categories, the more universal and more significant this pattern becomes. Gaps between known species are random and often minor. The gaps between known orders, classes, phyla are systematic and almost always significant.

Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, vertebrate paleontologist, former Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Professor of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson. The history of life. In: The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax (editor), Vol.1 of Evolution After Darwin, The University of Chicago Centennial, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p. 149.

Are "gaps" in the fossil record real?

42. But how good is the geological data? I have already said that the traditional view of paleontologists on evolution tended to favor gradual incremental changes. The fossil record, paleontologists say, is too incomplete to be taken seriously. And, they continue, it is impossible to prove a gap. However, it can be proven, especially if the gap actually occurred. If there is a gap in the data, it should be possible to trace how it occurred. The trouble with the gaps is that if they were truly random, as Darwin claimed, then after one hundred and fifty years of research they would have been “closed” long ago. However, the white spots did not disappear. They continue to gape. Some scientists explain this by saying that the missing links simply did not survive. What these scientists forget is that even if there was only a one in a million chance that only one individual of the entire population would survive in the fossil record, then given that the species lives for 5-15 million years, we would still have to find between 5 million years in the fossil record. up to 15 representatives of these populations. In fact, the problem is most likely that we cannot detect and describe the necessary material. References to both gaps and poor preservation are nothing more than excuses. We just need to take a closer look at what exactly the data says.

Prof. J.B.Waterhouse, Department of Geology, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Inaugural Lecture, 1980.

What about family trees?

43. The evolutionary trees that grow in our textbooks have data only at the tips of the branches and at the branches; the rest is speculation, although plausible, but not supported by fossil evidence.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Evolution's erratic race. Natural History, vol.LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p 14.

Fossils and evolution - a vicious circle

44. Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not prove Darwin's theory of evolution at all, because it is this theory (of which there are several) that we, in fact, use to interpret the fossil record. Thus, by claiming that this data supports this theory, we create a vicious circle of evidence.

Dr. Ronald R. West, paleontology and geology, professor of paleobiology, Kansas State University. Paleoecology and uniformitarianism. Compass, vol.45, May 1968, p.216.

Is there evidence of an evolutionary origin...

...plants?

45. The facts obtained from the study of fossilized plants are extremely important because they have greatly influenced ideas about phylogeny and evolution. Scientists have long hoped that extinct plants would likely reveal some of the stages that existing plant groups went through during development. However, we can now safely say that these hopes were not justified, although paleobotanical research has been carried out for more than a hundred years. We are still not able to trace the phylogenetic history of at least one group of modern plants from beginning to end.

Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Botany, Head of the Department of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan. An Introduction to Paleobotany, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1947, p.7.

46. ​​The theory of evolution is not just a theory of the origin of species, but also the only explanation for the fact that it is possible to classify organisms according to the hierarchy of natural kinship. A lot of data from biology, biogeography and paleontology can be cited in favor of the theory of evolution; but I still believe that, bias aside, the evidence from the study of fossil plants argues in favor of the theory of creation. If another explanation for the hierarchical classification system is found, it will sound the death knell for the theory of evolution. Can you imagine that an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree descended from a single ancestor, and where is the basis for such an assumption? The evolutionist must have an answer ready, but I fear that most of them will remain silent...

Textbook authors are leading us by the nose. They show increasingly complex plants - algae, mosses, fungi and so on (examples are randomly selected in favor of one theory or another), supposedly showing us evolution. If the plant world consisted only of these “textbook” species of standard botany, the star of evolution might not have risen. These textbooks are based on countries with temperate climates.

The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of plants, mostly tropical, that are not considered at all by general botany, but they are the bricks from which the taxonomist built his temple of evolution, so what else should we worship?

E. J. G. Corner, Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University. Evolution. In: Contemporary Botanical Thought, Anna M.Macleod and L.S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, UK, 1961, p.97.

...fish?

47. Geological data by no means provide evidence of the origin of fish, and as soon as the first fish-like fossils appear in sedimentary rocks, cyclotomes (or agnata), elasmobranchiomorphs and teleost fishes are not only clearly distinguished from each other, but are also represented by so many different ones, often of special types, which suggests itself the conclusion: each of these groups has already reached old age.

J. R. Norman, Keeper of the Department of Zoology. British Museum of Natural History. Classification and pedigrees: fossils. In: History of Fishes, Dr. P. H. Greenwood (editor), third edition, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1975, p.343.

...amphibians?

48. ...no known fish is considered to be the direct ancestor of the first land vertebrates. Most of them existed after the first amphibians, and those that appeared earlier showed no progress in the development of rigid limbs and ribs characteristic of primitive tetrapods...

Since fossil material does not provide evidence for other aspects of the transition from fish to tetrapods, paleontologists have been forced to speculate about how limbs and respiratory apparatus developed for breathing on land...

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Anselm's College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp.148, 195.

...birds?

49. The conclusion about the [evolutionary] origin of birds is highly speculative. There is no fossil evidence demonstrating the stages of this remarkable transition from reptiles to birds.

W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London. The Origin of Birds, Chapter 1. In: Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, A. J. Marshall (editor), vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, 1960, p.l.

50. It is easy to imagine how feathers, once they appeared, began to acquire additional functions. But how they developed initially, especially from reptile scales, is beyond understanding...

This problem was postponed not because interest in it waned, but because of a lack of evidence. No structure has been found in fossils that would be an intermediate form between a scale and a feather, and modern researchers refuse to build a theory on mere speculation...

Based on the complex structure of the feather, it can be assumed that its development from reptile scales would have required an incredibly long time and a number of transitional forms. However, the fossil record does not support these assumptions.

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Anselm College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp.349, 350.

...mammals?

51. Every discovered mammal-like reptile species appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no immediate ancestor species. After some time, they just as suddenly disappear, leaving behind no direct descendant species, although we usually find somewhat similar species replacing them.

Tom Kemp, Zoological Collections Consultant, Oxford University Museum, England. The reptiles that became mammals. New Scientist, vol.92, 4 March 1982, p.583.

52. The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammals, which probably occurred in only one, or at most two, lineages, still remains a mystery.

Roger Lewin. Bones of mammals» ancestors fleshed out. Science, vol.212, 26 June 1981, p.1492.

53. Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have had to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammal history based largely on dental morphology.

Barbara J. Stahl, St. Anselm College, USA. In: Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, p.401.

…in particular – horses?

54. Moreover, even in very slowly developing sequences, for example in the famous equine series, decisive changes occur in sharp jumps, without transitional stages: for example, the appearance and further changes of one middle finger as opposed to two middle fingers in the development of artiodactyl, or a sudden change in the four-toed legs on three-toed with dominance of the third ray.

Richard B. Goldschmidt, Professor of Genetics and Cytology, University of California. Evolution, as viewed by one genetist. American Scientist, vol.40, January 1952, p.97.

55. The family tree of a horse is beautiful and consistent only in textbooks. In reality, according to research, it consists of three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms that make up the first part are as little similar to horses as modern hyraxes. Reconstructing the entire Cenozoic tree of the horse is thus very artificial, since it consists of unequal parts and, therefore, cannot be considered as a complete chain of changes.

Prof. Heribert Nitsson. Synthetische Artbildung. Verlag C WE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552

56. It would be dishonest to omit the evolution of the horse when talking about the significance of the theory of evolution. The evolution of the horse is one of the cornerstones in teaching the doctrine of evolution, although in reality the story depends largely on who tells it and when it was told. Therefore, it is quite possible to discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse itself...

Prof. G.A.Kerkut, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton. In: Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, pp.144-145.

So, in 1979...

57. What I mean is that some of the classic Darwinian examples of changes in fossil sequence, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, now, with better information, need to be discarded or revised - what, with little data, seemed a nice simple progression, now turned out to be much more complex and much less consistent.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulltin, vot.50(l), January 1979, p.25.

Where did primates come from?

58. Despite new discoveries, the time and place of the origin of primates is still shrouded in mystery.

Elwin L. Simons, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA; editor of Nuclear Physics. The origin and radiation of the primates. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, voL167, 1969, p.319.

59. ...the transition from insectivores to primates is not supported by fossil evidence. Information about this transition is based only on the observation of currently existing forms.

A.J. Kelso, Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado. Origin and evolution of the primates. In: Physical Anthropology, J.B. Lippincott, New York, second edition, 1974, p.142.

And the man?

Do people evolve?

60. We are not evolving even slowly. Not in any practical area. It makes no sense to assume that our brain size is growing or our toes are getting shorter. We are what we are.

Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Speech in October 1983, Quoted. from: "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

61. Without any prior explanation, he stated that evolution stopped, not because we achieved perfection, but because we abandoned this process two million years ago.

Ronald Strahan, former senior scientist and director of Tarong Zoological Park, Sydney; Honorary Secretary of ANZAAS; now an employee of the Australian Museum, Sydney. Quote from: Northern Territory News, 14 September 1983, p.2.

Has humanity evolved before?

62. Among the staggering number of early hominoid fossils, are there any whose morphology clearly points to them as human ancestors? If we take into account the factor of genetic variability, the answer is clear - no.

Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, human genetics and anthropology, professor of anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, USA. Population genetics and human origins. Scientific American, vol.226(l), January 1872, p.94.

63. In recent years, several authors have published popular books about the origin of man, based more on subjective speculation than on real facts. At the moment, science cannot provide us with a complete answer to the question of human origins, but scientific methods are leading us ever closer to the truth...

As recent geological evidence emerges - for example, the discovery of clear Homo remains in East Africa in the same early fossil beds as Australopithecines (both massive and graceful types) - the question of the latter's direct relationship to human evolution is again being raised. So, we are forced to admit that we do not have a clear picture of human evolution...

Dr. Robert Martin, Senior Research Fellow, Society of Zoologists, London. Preface and article Man is not an onion. New Scientist, 4 August 1977, pp.283, 285.

64. For example, no scientist can logically justify the assumption that man, without being involved in any act of supernatural creation, evolved from some kind of ape-like creature in a very short period of time - by geological standards - without leaving any there were no fossil traces of this transformation.

As I have already mentioned, those scientists who studied the fossil remains of primates were not famous for the restraint of conclusions in their logical constructions. Their conclusions are so amazing that the question naturally arises: did science actually spend the night here?

Lord Solly Zuckerman, MD, PhD (Anatomy). In: Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970, p.64.

65. Modern apes seem to have appeared out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil history. And the origin of modern man - erect, hairless, producing tools, having a large brain volume - frankly speaking, the same mystery.

Dr. Lyall Watson, anthropologist. The water people. Science Digest, vol.90, May 1982, p.44.

What about the fossil ape man?

66. Joining a critical analysis of the structure of the habilis skulls, he added that the skull of "Lucy" is so fragmentary that most of it is a "fantasy of plaster"; therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty what species it belonged to.

Comments by Richard Leakey, Director of the National Museum of Kenya. The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p.3.

Are Australopithecines (like "Lucy") an intermediate between apes and humans?

67. In any case, even if preliminary studies indicate that these fossils are human-like or at least a cross between human bones and the bones of African apes, further study of the remains convinces us that such a view is very far from the truth. These bones clearly differ from both human and monkey bones much more than the first and second from each other. Australopithecines are unique...

...In many respects, various australopithecines differ from both humans and African apes much more than humans and apes differ from each other. The basis for this statement was the fact that even those researchers who were suspicious of this have now discovered these differences - after applying the latest technology and research methods, independent of the generally accepted approach to the problem...

...In this case, the latest information also comes from scientific laboratories, and not from those who discovered the remains of Australopithecus.

Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, former professor of anatomy and biology, University of Southern California; currently Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia. In: Fossils, Teeth and Sex - New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p.227.

[Ed.: Oxnard's conclusions regarding Australopithecines are confirmed by the research of Professor Lord Zuckerman, an anatomist (see, cit. 64). Creationists have been criticized for citing Zuckerman's findings because his work predates the 1974 discovery of Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy"). The above quote from Oxnard (1987) is a fitting response to the critics].

68. The entire collection of hominid remains available today could easily fit on a billiard table. However, it gave birth to an entire science due to two factors that inflate its real significance to unprecedented proportions. First, these fossils hint at the origins of the animal most important to man - himself. And secondly, the number of these bones is so negligible, and the samples themselves are so fragmentary, that it is easier to talk about what is missing than about what is available. Hence the incredible amount of literature on this issue. Very few fossils provide a single, compelling conclusion about their evolutionary significance. Most suggest several interpretations. Various scientific authorities are free to highlight different features and assign importance to them, often highlighting the shape of the supposed missing links. The differences between these interpretations can be so vague and humane that they depend more on the concepts of opponents than on fossil evidence. Moreover, since this meager collection was replenished very slowly, the long periods of time between finds allowed researchers to form a clear opinion about what should be found next. Zinjanthropus boisei is a worthy example of this phenomenon. Ever since the time of Darwin, when it was believed that fossils representing intermediate links between modern man and his extinct ancestors were the most convincing evidence of evolution, prejudice has stole the evidence in the study of human fossils.

John Reader, photojournalist, author of Missing Links, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p.802.

Where does the evidence for evolution come from?

69. ...not being a paleontologist, I do not at all want to cast a shadow of contempt on them; but if you had to spend your whole life collecting bones, finding now a tiny part of a skull, now a small piece of a jaw, how great is the temptation to exaggerate the significance of these fragments...

Dr. Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology, Flinders University, Adelaide. From a speech on evolution given at a meeting of the Association of Biology Teachers (South Australia) in 1976.

70. A 5-million-year-old piece of bone that everyone thought was the collarbone of a humanoid creature is actually nothing more than part of a dolphin rib. This conclusion was reached by an anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Tim White believes that the discovery of this blunder could provide impetus for revising the theory of exactly when human ancestors diverged from the line of apes. He compares this case to two other egregious frauds perpetrated by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, a fossilized pig tooth that was presented as evidence of early man in North America; and Eoanthropus, or "Piltdown Man" - an orangutan jaw and a modern human skull, declared "the oldest Englishman"... The problem for many anthropologists is that they are so eager to find a hominid bone. that any piece of bone becomes it.

Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley. Quoted from: Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199.

71. I mean the legends about how things have changed over time. How dinosaurs became extinct, how mammals evolved, where man came from. But for me these are more than just fairy tales. This is all the result of an orientation towards cladistics. Because, as it turns out (or at least it seems to me), everything we can learn about the history of life on Earth comes from taxonomy, from the systems and groups that can be found in nature. Everything else is fairy tales and legends of various kinds. We have access to the top of the tree, but the tree itself is theoretical; and people who pretend to know everything about this tree, about what happened to it, how its branches and shoots grew, it seems to me, are telling fairy tales.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum, London. BBC Interview 4 March 1982 Patterson is a leading proponent of the new science of cladistics.

Is evolution possible?

What do mutations (genetic changes) do?

72. Some modern biologists talk about evolution whenever they encounter a mutation. They clearly support the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary changes; all living beings are subject to mutations; therefore, all living things evolve.

This logical scheme, however, is unacceptable: firstly, its main premise is not obvious and not universal; secondly, its conclusions do not correspond to the facts. No matter how numerous mutations are, they do not lead to evolution.

Let us add: it is easy to argue that mutations have no evolutionary significance because they are limited by natural selection. Lethal mutations (changes for the worse) lead to complete disappearance, while others remain as alleles. The appearance of a person gives many examples of this: eye color, ear shape, dermatoglyphics, hair color and texture, skin pigmentation. Mutants exist in all populations, from bacteria to humans. And there can be no doubt about this. But for evolutionists, the point is different: that mutations are not associated with evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.88.

73. Despite these conceptual problems with natural selection as an evaluative principle, the most serious shortcomings in neo-Darwinism relate to its productive aspect. Random changes, which provide the raw material for natural selection, cannot be considered as a productive factor, either from the theoretical or from the point of view of comparison. They do not provide an understanding of the creative, transformative nature of evolution and the related problem of origin.

Jeffrey S. Wicken, Department of Biochemistry, Behrend College, Pennsylvania State University, USA. The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.77, April 1979, ppMl-352.

74. It is difficult to believe in the timely appearance of mutations, which allowed animals and plants to obtain the necessary properties. However, Darwin's theory goes even further: every plant, every animal will require thousands and thousands of successful, favorable changes. So, miracles are elevated to the rank of law: events of an infinitesimal degree of probability cannot but occur.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.103.

Philosophy of evolution

75. We all know that many evolutionary discoveries are nothing more than the mental research of individual paleontologists. One bookworm can do much more than millions of years of genetic changes.

Dr. Derek V.Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists" Association, vol.87(2), 1976, p. 132.

Meanwhile...

76. I have quoted several opinions of biologists holding prominent academic positions. There are many other criticisms of orthodox doctrine, both spoken and unspoken, and the number is constantly growing. But although this criticism has already made more than one breach in the wall, the citadel still stands - mainly, as stated above, because no one is able to offer a satisfactory alternative theory. The history of science shows that a well-developed theory can survive many attacks, turning into a knot of contradictions, which corresponds to the fourth phase of the historical cycle - Crisis and doubt, and yet it will be supported by scientific and public circles until it completely collapses and a new one begins cycle.

But this is not expected yet. Meanwhile, the enlightened public continues to believe that Darwin provided the answers to all questions with his magic formula: random mutations plus natural selection. They do not know that random mutations are completely inappropriate as an argument, and natural selection is a tautology.

Arthur Koestler. In: Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185).

On the issue of natural selection

("Survival of the Fittest")

77. There is no doubt that natural selection is a working system. This has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. There is no doubt - natural selection works. The whole question is whether new species are formed as a result. No one has ever created a new species through natural selection, no one has even come close, and most of the recent debate in neo-Darwinism is just about this: how a new species arises. This is where natural selection is forgotten, and certain random mechanisms are introduced.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Natural History Museum, London. Interview on cladistics for the BBC, March 4, 1982.

Darwin suspected...

78. Suppose that the eye, with its most complex systems, changes focus to different distances; capturing different amounts of light; correction of spherical and chromatic aberrations - such a complex mechanism was formed as a result of natural selection. Frankly, this idea seems completely absurd to me.

Charles Darwin. Origin of species. J.M.Dent and Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.176.

And time has confirmed

79. Gradual evolutionary changes through natural selection occur within existing species so slowly that they cannot be considered as the main manifestations of evolution.

Steven M. Stanley, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, vol.72(2), February 1975, p.646.

80. In other words, natural selection throughout its entire course does not improve the species’ chances of survival, but only keeps it “in a rut,” or gives it the opportunity to adapt to a constantly changing external environment.

Richard C. Lewontin, professor of zoology, University of Chicago, editor of the American Naturalist. Adaptation Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978 p. 159.

81. The role attributed to natural selection in the emergence of adaptability is not supported by a single solid proof. Paleontology (as in the case of the transformation of the jaw bones of the reptile theriodont) does not provide evidence; There are no direct observations of inherited adaptations (except for the aforementioned bacteria and insects adapting to viruses and drugs). Formation of the eye, inner ear, whales and cetaceans, etc. by adaptation seems completely impossible.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris; former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press New York 1977, p.770.

82. The whole essence of Darwinism is in one single phrase: natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary changes. No one denies that natural selection plays a major role in eliminating less fit individuals. But Darwin's theory requires that he also produce fitter ones.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History, vol. LXXXV1 (6), June-July 1977, p.28.

Even for spotted moth...

83. Experiments have demonstrated the effect of predators on the survival of dark and normal spotted moths in clean and smoke-polluted environments. These experiments perfectly demonstrated natural selection - survival of the fittest - in action, but they did not show evolutionary development, since, no matter how different the populations were in their light, intermediate or dark coloration, they were all Bistort betularia from beginning to end.

L. Harrison Matthews, Royal Physical Society. Preface to the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

So…

84. Instead of evidence of the gradual development of life, geologists - both Darwinian and modern - find highly irregular or fragmentary evidence, namely: species appear in the fossil record suddenly, change little or nothing during their existence, and then just as suddenly disappear. And it is not always obvious (in fact, it is not at all obvious) that ancestors are worse adapted than descendants. In other words, biological improvement is very difficult to find.

David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.50(l), January 1979, p.23.

85. Francisco Ayala, a central figure in the discussion of the Modern Synthesis in the United States, generously admitted: “We did not set out to predict the stability of population genetics, but now, thanks to the evidence of paleontology, I am confident that small changes do not accumulate at all.”

Dr. Francisco Ayala, Professor of Genetics, University of California. Commentary on Darwin's evolutionary theory. Quoted by: Roger Lewin. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science, vol.210(4472), 21 November 1980, p.884.

What if there was “enough” time?

In 1954 they believed so:

86. The important thing is that if the emergence of life belongs to the category of phenomena that occur at least once, then time is on its side. No matter how incredible we may consider this event itself or any stage of it, over a sufficient period of time it could have happened at least once. And for life as we know it, with its ability to grow and reproduce, once is enough.

Time is the true hero of this scenario. The time we are dealing with is on the order of two billion years. What is considered impossible based on human experience becomes meaningless in this case. Over such a huge period, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable mdash; almost natural. Time itself works wonders, you just need to wait.

George Wald, former professor of biology, Harvard University. The origin of life. Scientific American, vol.191(2), August 1954, p.48.

In 1978 they already said:

87. There is no reliable information based solely on observations of the Sun, said Dr. Eddy, that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. Personally, I guess the Sun is really 4.5 billion years old. However, I also suspect that with the emergence of new, unexpected results that suggest the opposite, and certainly a time of intensive recalculation and theoretical justification, we may come to the value of the age of the Earth and the Sun that Bishop Ussher gives. I don’t think we have enough astronomically observed facts to contradict this.

Dr. John A. Eddy (astrogeophysics), astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory, Boulder, Colorado. Quoted from: R.G. Kazman, It’s about time: 4.5 billion years (Report at a symposium at Louisiana State University). Geotimes, vol.23, September 1978, p. 18.

Can the small changes we observe, even over a fairly long period of time, lead to real evolutionary progress?

88. The main question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms that ensure microevolution can be extrapolated to the phenomenon of macroevolution. Not without the risk of offending some meeting participants, the answer can be formulated clearly and clearly - no.

Roger Lewin. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science, vol.210(4472), 21 November 1980, p.883.

Where did life come from?

89. Prebiotic broth is easy to make. But how can we explain how this mixture of organic molecules, including amino acids and organic nucleotide components, developed into a self-replicating organism? Although the evidence obtained allows us to draw certain conclusions, I have to note that all attempts to recreate this evolutionary process are too speculative.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, biochemist, Salk Institute, California. Darwinism at the very beginning of life. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150.

90. One way or another, the transition from a macromolecule to a cell is a leap of fantastic proportions that lies beyond the limits of a testable hypothesis. In this area, everything will be just a guess. The available evidence does not provide grounds for asserting that cells originated on this planet.*
We do not want to say that some paraphysical forces come into play. We are simply emphasizing the fact that there is no scientific evidence for this. Physicists have learned to avoid the question of when time began and when matter was created, leaving it within the framework of outright demagoguery. The origin of the particles that precede the cell probably belongs to the same category of the unknowable.

* The claim that life originated somewhere in the universe and was then somehow transferred to Earth only brings us back to square one, since it then raises the question of how exactly life originated where it managed to originate in the first place.

David E. Green, Enzyme Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA and Robert F. Goldberger, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp.406-407.

So…

91. For some biologists, biogenesis is a matter of faith. Having believed in biogenesis, the scientist chooses exactly the system that suits him personally; real evidence of what exactly happened is not taken into account.

Professor G.A. Kerkut, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton. In: Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p.150.

What is the probability of evolution?

92. The probability that higher forms of life arose in this way is comparable to the probability that a tornado, sweeping away a garbage dump, could simultaneously assemble a Boeing 747 from the picked up materials.

Sir Fred Hoyle, English astronomer, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University. Quoted from: Hoyle on Evolution. Nature, vol.294, 12 November 1981, p.105.

About the origin of genes...

93. The origin of the genetic code is the bottleneck in the question of the origin of life. And to achieve significant progress here, grandiose theoretical or experimental discoveries may be needed.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, biochemist, Salk Institute, California. Darwinism at the very beginning of life. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151. 94. There are no laboratory models for the evolution of the genetic mechanism: here you can rant endlessly, brushing aside inconvenient facts...

We can only imagine what really happened, and imagination is not the best helper here.

Dr. Richard E. Dickerson, physical chemistry, professor at the California Institute of Technology. Chemical evolution and the origin of life. Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978, pp.77, 78.

Hence…

95. To insist, especially with Olympian confidence, that life arose absolutely by chance and developed in the same way is an unfounded assumption, which I personally consider incorrect and inconsistent with the facts.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 107.

But the world is old, isn't it?

96. The estimated age of the globe, judging by the degree of radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, is about 4.5 billion years. But the lifespan of this “statement” may be short, since revealing the secrets of nature is not so easy. In recent years, an amazing discovery has been made - it turns out that the rate of radioactive decay is not as constant as previously thought, and is also subject to environmental influences.

This may mean that the atomic clock was rearranged as a result of some kind of worldwide catastrophe, and the events that ended the Mesozoic era could have occurred not 65 million years ago, but within the age and memory of mankind.

Frederick B. Jueneman. Secular catastrophism. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

97. The reliability of all of the above methods for measuring the age of the Earth, its various layers and fossils, is controversial, since throughout Earth's history the rates of the measured processes could differ greatly from each other. The method that was supposed to be the most reliable way to determine the absolute age of rocks was the radiometric method...

Obviously, radiometric technology may not be the absolute dating method that has been proclaimed. The age of the same geological layer, measured by different radiometric methods, often varies within hundreds of millions of years. There is no absolutely accurate long-term radiological “clock”. The inherent imprecision of radiometric dating methods worries geologists and evolutionists.

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (Animal Science), Lecturer in Biology, California Polytechnic State University. In: The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, pp.82, 84.

But aren’t potassium-argon (K/Ar) and uranium-lead (U/Pb) methods complementary?

98. Traditional interpretation of age data obtained by the K/Ar method usually rejects values ​​that are too high or too low in comparison with the rest of the group, or with other existing data, such as the geochronological scale. The gap between rejected and accepted data is arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon,

E. Hayatsu, Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada. K/Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol.16, 1979, p.974.

99. Thus, if one believes that the age obtained in a particular example contradicts the established facts of geology, one should consider geological processes that can cause anomalies, or changes in the argon content of minerals.

Professor J.F. Evernden, Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA and John R. Richards, School of Geosciences, Australian National University, Canberra. Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol.9(l), 1962, p.3.

And isn't the rubidium-strontium method (Rb/Sr) the most reliable?

100. These results show that even entire rock systems can be exposed during metamorphism, and their isotopic systems can change in ways that make it impossible to determine their geological age.

Prof. Gunter Faure, Department of Geology, Ohio University, Columbus, USA and Prof. James L. Powell, Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA. In: Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.

101. One of the important conclusions of the isochronic mantle model is that the crystallization age determined from volcanic rocks using the Rb/Sr method may be many hundreds of millions of years older than the actual age. This problem is more serious in younger rocks, and there are well-founded examples in the literature of discrepancies between stratigraphic ages and Rb/Sr ages.

Dr. C. Brooks, Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Dr. D. E. James, Member of the Council on Geophysics and Geochemistry, Carnegie Institution, Washington, USA; Dr. S.R. Hart, Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA. Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism. Science, vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.

What data is published in scientific journals?

102. In most cases, the data in the “suitable data set” is considered correct and published. The same data that does not coincide with them is rarely published, and the discrepancies are not explained.

Dr. Richard L. Mauger, Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA. K/Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uni-ta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15(1), 1977, p.37. 103. Much remains unclear in determining isotopic ages; and the understanding that in many cases the isotopic age does not coincide with the geological age has unfortunately contributed to the development of skepticism among a number of geologists.

Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller. Interpretation of isotopic ages in orogenic belts. In: Time and Place in Orogeny, Geological Society of London Special Publication, No.3, 1969, p. 137.

And carbon-14...?

104. A striking feature of the research is that modern mollusk shells from river sediments are not only deficient in C compared to marine mollusks, as Keith noted, but they are also extremely low in C14 compared to modern wood, which gives incorrect values ​​for their radiocarbon ages in ranging from 1010 to 2300 years.

M.L.Keith and G.M.Anderson, Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, vol.141, 16 August 1963, pp.634-635.

105. Radiocarbon dating of mummified seal samples from southern Victoria Land showed ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, in Antarctic sea waters, the activity of carbon-14 is much lower than generally accepted global standards. Thus, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms shows ages higher than true, but the difference between these values ​​is unknown and variable. Consequently, the data obtained by the radiocarbon method of studying the mummified remains of seals cannot be considered true. For example, the radiocarbon age of a Lake Bonney seal that died a few weeks ago was determined to be 615 ± 100 years, and the age of a newly killed seal in McMurdo was determined to be 1300 years.

Wakefield Dort, Jr., Department of Geology, University of Kansas. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol.6, September-October 1971, p.211.

106. The low (only 3.3 ± 0.2%) carbon-14 content (corresponding to an age of 27,000 years) measured in the shells of modern snails Melanoides tuberculatis living in underground springs of southern Nevada can be explained by the precipitation of dissolved CO3, with which the shells were in carbon equilibrium. [Ed.: In other words, these living snails “died” 27,000 years ago.]

Dr. Alan C. Riggs, former member of the US Geological Survey, now at the University of Washington, Seattle. Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science, vol.224, 6 April 1984, p.58.

107. In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the method of its application, it is very striking that many authors manage to cite results convenient for themselves as “proof” of their own views ...

Radiocarbon dating miraculously avoided collapsing on its own shaky foundation and is now struggling to maintain its balance. The possibility of anomalous contamination and ancient changes in carbon-14 levels are constantly ignored by those who base their evidence on the results obtained by this method.

In the past, experts said they were “not sure if there was a single significant discrepancy” in the data obtained by different laboratories studying the same sample. These enthusiasts continue to claim, incredibly, that they “see no significant discrepancies.” However, a discrepancy of 15,000 years for one soil sample is just that: a significant discrepancy! And how can huge discrepancies between different laboratories be called “minor” if they are the basis for overestimating the standard margin of error associated with any and every date?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their meager funds on expensive radiocarbon studies? They do this because random dates have proven useful. While this method cannot be counted on to produce definitively accurate results, numbers impress people and save them from the worrying need to think too much. Looking just like exact calendar years, the numbers somehow appeal more to both amateurs and professionals than complex stratigraphic correlations; besides, they are also easier to remember. "Absolute" dates determined in laboratories carry a lot of weight and are very useful in supporting weak arguments...

No matter how “useful” the radiocarbon dating method is considered, it is still not capable of providing accurate and reliable results. Its inconsistencies are great, the chronology is unreliable and relative, and the “generally accepted” dates are in fact adjusted. "This much-blessed endeavor is nothing more than 13th-century alchemy, and the result depends only on the kind of comic book entertainment you prefer."

Robert E. Lee. Radiocarbon: ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Republished in Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp.117-127.

108. Method C14 was discussed at a symposium on the ancient history of the Nile Valley. Our well-known American colleague Professor Brew briefly formulated the general attitude of archaeologists to this method: “If the data obtained by the C14 method. support our theory, we introduce them into the text: if they don’t really contradict it, in the commentary; and if they don’t fit at all, we simply omit them.” Few archaeologists dealing with precise chronology have avoided such application of this method; many still doubt whether it is worth using it without restrictions.

T.Save-Soderbergh, Institute of Egyptology and I.U.Olsson, Institute of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden. S-14 dating and Egyptian chronology. In: Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist and Wikselt, Stockholm, and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970, p.35).

How to determine the age of rocks?

From the dogmas of 1949...

109. Because life evolved gradually, changing from era to era, the rocks of each geological period reflect characteristic types of fossils that distinguish them from any other period. Conversely, each type of fossil is an index, or leading fossil, for its corresponding geological era...

Over the past hundred years, paleontologists around the world have accumulated so much information on this subject that it is now as easy for a skilled practitioner to determine the relative geological age of fossils as it is to determine the location of a page in a manuscript by numbering. Fossils thus make it possible to recognize rocks of the same age in different parts of the Earth and, accordingly, to correlate events in the history of the Earth as a whole. They provide us with a chronology on which events are strung like pearls on a string.

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (geology), professor emeritus of paleontology and stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1949, p.52.

110. Fossils provide us with the only chronometric scale acceptable in geological history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for the precise dating of geological events. Due to the irreversibility of evolution, they are an accurate measure for determining the relative age of rocks and correlating them on a global scale.

O.H. Schinderwolf. Comments on some stra-tigraphic terms. American Journal of Science, vol.255, June 1957 p.395.

...and by the 1970s...

111. Some fossils are limited to a specific geological period. They are called fossils - indices. Whenever a rock containing this type of fossil is found, its approximate age is automatically determined...

This method is not entirely reliable. It happens that an organism that was considered extinct long ago turns out to exist. Such "living fossils" naturally cannot act as indices, except within the broader time frame of their known existence.

Dr. William D. Stansfield, Animal Husbandry, Lecturer in Biology, California Polytechnic University. In: The Science of Evolution, Macmillan Mew York, 1977, p.80.

... it became obvious...

112. Smart lay people have long suspected a vicious circle in dating fossils by the age of rocks, and rocks by the age of fossils. Geologists have never bothered to look for a worthy answer - why explain if the work brings results? This is called stubborn pragmatism.

J.E.O'Rourke. Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy. American Journal of Science, vol.276, January 1976 p.47.

Dating does not go beyond the circle

113. It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical point of view, geological argumentation is a vicious circle. The succession of organisms is determined by studying their remains in rocks, and the relative age of rocks is determined by the deposits of the organisms they contain.

R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, University of Cambridge. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol. 10, p. 168.

114. The spread of life cannot be witnessed; one can only guess about it. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent this process because the rocks included in it are interpreted to represent the process. Rocks do date fossils, but the sediments themselves date rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot escape this type of argument if it insists on using the concept of time, because in the production of time scales a vicious circle is inevitable.

J.E.O'Rourke. Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy. American Journal of Science, vol.276, January 1976, p.53.

115. The view that the creation of a geological scale leads to a vicious circle has some basis.

Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago. Geology and creationism. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.54(3), March 1983, p.21.

116. The problem arises: if we determine the age of rocks from fossils, then how can we immediately talk about examples of evolutionary changes over time in the fossil record?

Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. In: Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1985 (and William Heinemann Ltd, London, 1986), p.52.

Talk to the earth, and he will instruct you... ()

117. I have been working with recent graduate geologists for almost thirty years, and I constantly tell them: forget all the theories you were taught, just observe what is happening in reality and record it.

A.C.M.Laing, Melbourne. "Letters to the Editor", The Australian Geologist, Newsletter no.48, 19 March 1984, p.7.

Examining fossils: can we recognize
that the theory of evolution is wrong?

118. Paleontologists argue about the speed of evolution, about its various examples. But none of them - at least publicly - doubt the very fact of evolution. Their evidence for evolution does not depend on the fossil record at all.

Some paleontologists believe that animals evolved gradually, through an infinite number of intermediate states, from one form to another. Others believe that the study of fossils does not provide evidence for such gradual changes. In fact, they believe, this is what happened: some species of animals survived, practically unchanged over time, while others became extinct or changed very dramatically, moving into another form(s). Thus, instead of the theory of gradual change, they put forward the idea of ​​“punctuated equilibrium.” There is debate about specific historical examples of evolution; however, outsiders listening to this debate conclude that the subject of discussion is the truth of evolution: did it happen at all?. This is a terrible mistake; it is based, in my opinion, on the false idea that fossils contain a significant part of the evidence for evolution. In fact, evolution is proven by an entirely separate set of arguments, and the current paleontological debate is not at all aimed at debunking the evidence for evolution evidence.

Mark Ridley, zoologist, University of Oxford. Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, voL90, 25 June 1981, p.830.

How important is fossil research to an evolutionist?

In 1960...

119. Although the comparative study of living animals and plants can provide very convincing evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to increasingly complex forms.

Dr. Carl O. Dunbar, geology, professor emeritus of paleontology and stratigraphy, Yale University; former editor of the American Journal of Science. In: Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, I960, p.47.

And more than 20 years later...

120. In any case, no true evolutionist, be he a gradualist or a "punctuated equilibrium" theorist, uses the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution as opposed to the theory of deliberate creation.

Mark Ridley, zoologist, University of Oxford. Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.831.

How did this affect the theory of evolution? A new evolutionary theory has emerged - “punctuated equilibrium”!

121. The Eldridge-Gould concept of “punctuated equilibrium” has gained widespread acceptance among paleontologists. She attempts to explain the following paradox: within genera it is very difficult to find the gradual morphological changes predicted by Darwin; change occurs through the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldridge and Gould equate such occurrences with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. They suggest that change occurs rapidly (by geological standards), in small peripheral populations. They believe that evolution is accelerated in such populations because they contain small, random samples of the gene pool of the parent population (the founder effect) and thus can diverge quickly - both by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressures , which may differ from the parent population. Gradually, some of these divergent, peripheral populations respond to changed environmental conditions (species selection), and then grow and spread rapidly in the fossil record.

The punctuated equilibrium model became widespread, not because it had a sound theoretical basis, but because it was supposed to resolve the dilemma. Aside from the obvious research problems inherent in the observations that prompted the model, and aside from its inherent vicious cycle (it could be argued that speciation only occurs following rapid phylum changes, rather than the other way around), the model is currently more of a mixture of explanations than a theory. , and stands on unsteady ground.

Robert E. Ricklefs, Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Paleontologists confronting macroevolution. Science, vol.199, 6 January 1978, p.59.

122. Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are known for their ability to construct believable stories; but they often forget that plausible stories and the truth are by no means the same thing.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, Dr. David M. Raup, Geological Consultant, Natural History Museum, Chicago, J. John Sepkoski, Jr. ( J. John Sepkoski, Jr., Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, New York, Thomas J. M. Schopf, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Chicago and Daniel S. Bimherloff , Department of Biology, University of Florida, Tallah Hassey. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology, vol.3(l), 1977, pp.34-35.

Think about it!

123. About Pasteur’s refutation of the idea of ​​spontaneous generation of life. - We present this story to beginning biology students as a triumph of common sense over mysticism. In reality, it seems that everything is different. The reasonable approach was to believe in spontaneous emergence; the only alternative is belief in a single, original act of supernatural creation. There is no third. Therefore, a century ago, many scientists began to view belief in the spontaneous origin of life as a “philosophical necessity.” The fact that this necessity is no longer valued is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time. Most modern biologists, watching with satisfaction the decline of the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, still do not want to accept an alternative point of view, to believe in Purposeful Creation, and are left with nothing.

George Wald, former professor of biology, Harvard University. The origin of life. Scientific American, vol. 191 (2), August 1954, p.46

124. The inevitable conclusion is that many scientists and technologists worship Darwin’s theory only because it supposedly excludes the Creator from yet another sphere of material phenomena, and not at all because it builds a coherent paradigm of research canons in the life and Earth sciences.

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Sydney. Do they have evolved or to have not? That is the question. Quadrant, October 1981, p.45.

125. I know what question arose in the minds of many of those who read to this point: “Doesn’t science prove that there is no Creator?” Science doesn’t prove this!

Dr. Paul A. Moody, Zoology, Professor Emeritus of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont. In: Introduction to Evolution, Harper and Row, New York, 2nd ed, 1962, p.513.

126. The code of honor that a natural scientist who wants to delve into the problem of evolution must learn is: be true to the facts and reject all dogmas and a priori ideas. First the facts, then the theories. The only verdict that comes into force is the one that the court found to be proven by the facts. Indeed, the best evolutionary research has been carried out by those biologists whose eyes were not blinded by doctrines, who looked at the facts calmly, without trying to fit them into one theory or another. Today our task is to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understandable, easily explained phenomenon that clearly reveals itself to us. Biologists should be encouraged by the thought that the interpretations and extrapolations presented by theorists as established truths are untenable. This deception is sometimes accidental, but only sometimes, because some people, due to their sectarianism, deliberately turn away from reality and refuse to admit the inconsistency and falsity of their ideas.

Pierre-Paul Grasset, University of Paris, former President of the French Academy of Sciences. In: Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8.

127. High-level scientists today recognize much of Wilberforce's criticism of Darwin's theory, as well as that of the geologist Adam Sedgwick, whose article was published in The Spectator in April 1860...

Darwin was concerned about missing links in the fossil record. He had a presentiment that they were about to appear, but these links are missing to this day and, it seems, will never be found. What we should think about this remains an open question; but even today conservative neo-Darwinian fanatics and heterodox neo-Sedgwickians, who consider themselves enlightened rationalists, contemptuously reject evidence that is obvious to all.

Prof. Sir Edmund R. Leach. From an address to the annual meeting (1981) of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Men, bishops and apes. Nature, vol.293, 3 September 1981, pp.19, 20.

128. The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some creative design, a manifestation of the finest aesthetic and mathematical developments, is irresistible. I, like most physicists, believe that there is something behind this.

Paul Davies. The Christian perspective of a scientist. New Scientist, 2 June 1983, p.638.

129. ...For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has shown it to them; For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures, so that they are irresponsible. But how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their unthinking hearts were darkened: calling themselves wise, they became fools...

Bible. Romans chapter 1, verses 18-22.

130. ...For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Bible. Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16.

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 Haeckel, an ardent supporter of Darwin, 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.