Olga Orlova: About 10 years ago, paleontologist Alexander Markov, visiting various forums on the Internet, was surprised to find that the theory of evolution is not as obvious to modern people as the multiplication table. In spite of school curriculum and all the discoveries of biologists, many people do not accept the provisions formulated by Charles Darwin, and then Markov decided to engage in education. Today he is one of the most famous scientific popularizers in Russia, and his books have become bestsellers.
With the winner of the Enlightener Prize, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Alexander Markov, we are talking on the Hamburg account.
Alexander Markov- Doctor of Biological Sciences, paleontologist. In 1987 he graduated from the Biological Faculty of Moscow State University and was immediately accepted as a researcher at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2014, he headed the Department of Biological Evolution at the Biological Faculty of Moscow State University. Actively promotes science in the media. Created the site "Problems of evolution". Prepares scientific news on the Elementy.ru portal. Author of several science fiction novels, as well as books popularizing the evolutionary doctrine - "The Birth of Complexity", "Evolution. Classical Ideas in the Light of New Discoveries", "Human Evolution". Author of Russia's main award in the field of popular science literature "Enlightener".
O.O. : Alexander, thank you very much for coming to our program. I wanted to talk to you today about the modern theory of evolution. The fact is that quite a lot of time has passed since the time of Darwin and there have been quite a few discoveries that scientists have made. Even such new types of sciences, not previously known to Darwin, as genetics, molecular biology, appeared. Please tell us what the modern theory of evolution is. What is the "evolutionary view of the world" today?
Alexander Markov: If you need to give an answer in one sentence, then I would say this: despite the tremendous progress of science, biology, in particular, over the past 150 years, surprisingly, the main idea that Darwin introduced into science still lies at the heart of all modern biology. It has become stronger, its effectiveness has been proven many times from various sides. This idea is often called simply the mechanism of natural selection, but in fact there is a very simple logic: if you have an object that has the ability to reproduce, variability (that is, its descendants are not absolutely identical copies, but slightly different), heredity (then have, these individual differences, at least some of them are hereditary, are inherited), and if at least some of these hereditary differences affect the efficiency of reproduction, then where did we start - if these 4 conditions are met, then such an object cannot but evolve . It will certainly evolve, according to Darwin, on the basis of the mechanism that he introduced into science. Indeed, today we are absolutely sure that it is this mechanism that underlies the development of life on Earth.
O.O. : And what then explains the number of myths and strange interpretations of Darwin's teachings that we encounter today. There is a pretty strong saying that many philosophers or modern theologians wrestle with that Darwin claimed that we are descended from apes, and then there is a long rebuttal: well, are we like apes? Why then did the ape not turn into a man? Here monkeys walk and so on ...
We are not even descended from monkeys, but we are one of the species of monkeys that once lived on Earth.
A.M. : It's all about what we mean by the word "monkey". Here it is also necessary to take into account that in Russian the word "monkey" means both monkey-like monkeys and anthropoids together. We all of them call one word "monkeys". AT English language, on which Darwin wrote, these are 2 different words: monkeys is a monkey-shaped monkey, apes is apes. So there is still some confusion here. But Russian word"monkeys" corresponds quite definitely to a group of organisms, a natural group, that is, descended from a common ancestor, to which the monkeys of the New World, the monkeys of the Old World belong. Monkeys of the Old World are divided into monkey-shaped and anthropoid. Man, our species, is a twig on a bush of great apes, that is, formally speaking, we belong to monkeys. We are not even descended from monkeys, but we are a species of monkeys, if we strictly follow the rules of biological classification. We are descended from extinct apes that once lived on Earth. We even know what kind of monkeys humans evolved from. The bones of these monkeys are found in Africa, they are called "Australopithecines". The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably lived 6-7 million years ago. He was also the ancestor of Australopithecus. But it was, of course, a great ape. Darwin, in fact, not in such words, but in terms of meaning, this is exactly how he writes in plain text.
O.O. : Why is it so hard for people to realize their relationship with monkeys?
A.M. : Ignorance, ignorance, prejudices, what naturally infects the consciousness of any person who does not work on the development of his brains, just stupidity, ignorance, lack of education on the one hand. On the other hand, for certain reasons, many do not want Darwin to be right, that is, they want it to be wrong. Usually all sorts of religious fundamentalists oppose Darwin.
O.O. : If we are still talking not about the worldview and not about the religious factor, but rather about the psychological one. There are people who are unbelievers, and they do not accept the creationist picture of the world, but, nevertheless, it is difficult for them to accept it purely psychologically ...
A person who can bear being related to apes is almost certainly a believer
A.M. : Honestly, I don't know such people. For such a combination, for a person to be an atheist, and at the same time it would be difficult for him to recognize the relationship of a person with a monkey - I have never met such people - either one or the other. That is, a person who says that he cannot bear to be a relative of monkeys, he is almost certainly a believer - I don’t know such atheists, with such views on monkeys.
O.O. : That is, you think that the fundamental contradiction here lies in the theological picture of the world?
A.M. A: Yes, it is not necessarily a believer. It will be a person who believes that everything has a purpose, that everything has some higher meaning, that evolution, if it exists, is movement towards some goal. This person definitely needs some kind of predetermined meaning for everything to be.
O.O. : And from the point of view of biology, evolution has no purpose?
A.M. : From the point of view of the natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all. This is called teleology - an attempt to explain natural processes by the desire for some goal. In fact, this means that we place the cause of events in the future. The scientific picture of the world proceeds from the fact that, firstly, there is a reason - the principle of causality. Secondly, the causes of events are in the past. Something happened, after some time the impact got to this place - it can affect. The reason must be in the past - the reason cannot be in the future - says modern science. Accordingly, it follows from this that nothing can have any goals. There is no purpose for the rotation of the Earth around the Sun - it is spinning due to the natural laws of gravity in some kind of orbit, but this rotation has no purpose.
O.O. : And how would you comment on the attempts that, it seems to me, have been made since the first works of Darwin, to reconcile the natural-scientific worldview that you described with the religious one. It seems to me that one of the most touching attempts was made by Darwin's wife, when it was very difficult for her to understand and accept what her husband was doing, his discoveries, she was a deeply religious person, and then she told him: “As long as you honestly seek the truth, you will not you can be an opponent of God.” This may be such a naive attempt, but understandable. Is such a reconciliation of the two approaches possible at all?
From the point of view of the natural sciences, nothing has a purpose at all.
A.M. : A very subtle remark by Emma, Darwin's wife. The essence of the problem of this psychological conflict of incompatibility is as follows: Darwin's book actually changed the general vector of development of the natural sciences, let's talk about biology. Before Darwin, the study of nature was a very charitable affair. There was such a philosophical direction, which was called natural theology natural theology. The essence of the idea is as follows, and Lomonosov, by the way, wrote about this: God, as it were, gave us two books - “Holy Scripture”, in which he outlined his will, and the natural world around us, in which he showed us his greatness. Accordingly, scientists who study nature comprehend God's plan, come closer to understanding this plan, in general, they come closer to God, in fact, they read some kind of "Holy Scripture" - this was a very charitable deed.
Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living beings can be explained without resorting to divine intervention.
In the same book “Natural Theology” by William Paley, a famous metaphor is given about the clock: they say, if we found a clock on the road in the field, of course, we cannot admit that this clock was born by chance here, arose there from the dust, particles. It is clear that if there is a watch, then there is a watchmaker who made this watch. Look around us: any insect is more complex, more harmonious than these unfortunate hours. So how can we assume that there is no watchmaker who created this? Of course, the Lord created all this. What did Darwin do? Darwin actually showed that this amazing harmony, complexity, adaptability of living beings can be explained without resorting to divine intervention. That it, on the basis of the mechanism of natural selection shown by Darwin, should develop by itself. That is, God was no longer needed. He is like Laplace, in a conversation with Napoleon, said his famous phrase: "Sir, I do not need this hypothesis," when Napoleon asked him: "Where is God in your theory?" Biologists before Darwin could not say so - they needed this hypothesis. Only after Darwin could they mentally, so to speak, join Laplace. After that natural Sciences ceased to be the study of the Holy Scriptures, and it has already turned out to be a movement away from God, because the further biology develops now, the better we understand that, yes, indeed, it all develops in this way, not under the control of any reasonable principle.
O.O. : And how to interpret agnosticism from this point of view? You were the science editor of Richard Dawkins' famous book The God Delusion. There, Dawkins, considering agnostics, perceives them as some kind of intellectual cowards, people who show intellectual weakness, who do not have the courage to get rid of the divine principle, like Laplace or like Darwin. What is agnosticism?
A.M. : Look, Laplace did not say: “Sir, I proved that there is no God!” - he said: “Sir, I do not need this hypothesis”, that is, I can explain these natural phenomena without resorting to the hypothesis of divine intervention. This is not yet atheism - he does not consider this issue yet. Darwin himself began as a believer, and even studied for a priest for a while, but gave up. Then, as he developed his evolutionary theory, he realized that God on each island of the Galapagos archipelago could not specially create for each island separate types of finches with such a beak, even with some kind of beak. God would not engage in such nonsense - it is much more like the result of a natural natural process, which it is. It was a severe shock. He had a believing wife whom he didn't want to upset. Everything then was very difficult: to take and abandon religion. But Darwin himself, towards the end of his life, assessed himself precisely as an agnostic. I know for sure that God did not create Galapagos finches like this: each island has its own species, but I don’t know about the rest. If Darwin himself was an agnostic, then why should we condemn agnostics.
O.O. : How do you yourself regard agnosticism? In your experience, are there agnostic natural scientists in your environment?
A.M. : Say, Kirill Yeskov always says about himself: "I'm an agnostic."
O.O. : How do you perceive it?
A.M. : Of those who openly declare it, so it's not a secret. I can understand, imagine, build a model of the psyche of a person who considers himself an agnostic.
O.O. : One of the most important things that we get as a result of the religious picture of the world is morality and the idea of good and evil. Somehow it so happened that in a person's culture these things are directly related to his worldview and religious pictures, and from there, in fact, they take their religious origin. Now, if we are talking about an evolutionary attitude to reality from the point of view of evolution, how then is morality and the idea of good, evil, what is permissible and what is unacceptable born?
A.M. A: This is a very interesting topic. It deals with such an area of biology, which is called evolutionary ethics - just the problems of the evolution of altruism, kindness, the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps the most developed model or mechanism for the development of altruistic behavior, cooperative behavior in the course of evolution is the so-called theory of kin selection. Which is based on the fact that evolution, very roughly speaking metaphorically, is in the interests of genes, and not in the interests of individuals. That is, those genetic variants that have the ability to spread more efficiently for any reason are distributed in the gene pool. Variants of genes or alleles compete with each other. For example, there is an allele A and an allele B. In some cases, it happens that the “interest” of a gene or genetic variant may not coincide with the interests of the individual in which this gene sits. Because an individual is a single entity, one organism, and an allele is a multiple entity, many identical copies of the same gene in different individuals.
O.O. : So you mean that the genes require one decision, and the biological animal itself makes a different decision, not the one that needs to be made in terms of genetic improvement.
A.M. : Yes. Selection favors mutations that make more copies of our allele. If in order for these copies to become more one or two carriers of a given allele must be sacrificed so that the rest of the carriers receive a gain, this happens.
O.O. : Give an example of experiments where it is shown that animals behave irrationally and altruistically and, say, somehow sacrifice themselves, and in general, how appropriate it is to talk about morality in this case.
A.M. A: You probably want to immediately mammals.
O.O. : Want.
If natural selection supports altruistic behavior, then the result of this selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience.
A.M. : There is such a thing as emotions - this is what we experience - a feeling of joy, grief, fear, love, some strong desires, shame, etc. Accordingly, if we say that in the course of evolution, behavior changed so and so - this means that in the course of evolution, the emotions that regulate behavior have changed. This means that the mammal begins to behave not like this, but like this, because it becomes unpleasant for him like this, but like this it’s pleasant, she feels that this is bad, but this is good. This means that this center of discrimination between what is good and what is bad sits very deep in the midbrain, not even in the cerebral hemispheres. It integrates a lot of signals that come there from different senses and, as it were, weighs them and gives out decisions about what is good and what is bad - such a center for distinguishing between good and evil. These signals in the form of processes of neurons that secrete such a substance dopamine already go to the cortex of our hemispheres in the frontal lobes, the orbitofrontal cortex, and there we are aware of the work of this center of discrimination between good and evil, and we feel good or bad when we make a choice, when we make a decision. So if natural selection supports altruistic behavior in mammals, such as our ancestors, then the result of this natural selection will be exactly what we perceive as conscience - an internal moral law. It will simply be unpleasant to act in a certain way, and if we did so, our self-esteem will suffer. Conscience, that moral law that Kant was so surprised about, is a natural predictable result of the evolution of altruistic behavior in animals like mammals, and it should be so.
O.O. : Do scientists understand at what stage of evolution did a person have a conscience? Some didn't show up?
A.M. : For some, it is not very well developed, that is, not a self-sufficient instinct. Not like some other instincts, this inner moral law - it must be brought up by education, and it is very easily lost. Social life is impossible without a certain self-restraint. Monkeys are very social animals, it is impossible to live in a team if you do not consider the interests of others, if you at least sometimes do not sacrifice your interests for the sake of others. If you cannot do it, and others cannot do it, social life is simply impossible.
O.O. : It turns out that conscience is a kind of product of society.
A.M. : Definitely.
O.O. : You have been active in popularization for more than 10 years and there are your news on the Internet at elementy.ru, there are also several books that have become bestsellers and are widely sold. Why are you doing this?
A.M. : I discovered that there is such garbage in the world as creationists - people who these days manage to take in all seriousness that the theory of evolution is not proven, that evolution is actually not a fact, but only a theory.
O.O. : That there are no transitional forms?
A.M. : So much completely wild crazy nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. People believe in it, prove it to themselves, to others, and that such people really exist and they have websites on the Internet. When I came across, I thought, Lord have mercy, what is it, what ignorance is this! We need to quickly explain to people what's what - they just don't know, they didn't go through biology at school, they don't know some banal facts - we need to make a website and quickly explain everything to us in a popular way.
O.O. : This "quick" lasts more than 10 years. There are many scientists, but there are really very few popularizers.
A.M. : And on the other hand, if I really do not discover something in science, I will not discover some fact that I would discover.
O.O. : Someone else will do it.
A.M. : Yes, someone else will do it, let's say two days later. Actually, there will be no loss for humanity, but there are really few popularizers. If people like my books, they read them, they buy them, it means that I have found my calling, and this is what I need to do.
O.O. : I think Darwin will not forget you. What would you say to Darwin if you had the opportunity to talk to him?
A.M. : I would tell him, the first thing you should not believe Lord Kelvin - the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, everything is OK, there is enough time for evolution. Because Darwin was very worried that the largest specialist on the age of the Earth of that time, Lord Kelvin, claimed that the Earth was only 10 million years old. He calculated this, as it turned out later, on the basis of incorrect assumptions. 10 million - this was not enough for the evolution of life according to Darwin, and 4.5 billion - this is just enough. And secondly, if I could, I would tell him that, as you expected, the Pre-Kebrian paleontological record has been found. That is, for Darwin it was a very big headache that fossil organisms from the most ancient Precambrian layers were not known, and it turned out that life seemed to suddenly arise from nothing at the beginning of the Cambrian period, and now they have found it. I think that Darwin would be very pleased with these two pieces of news.
O.O. : And if Darwin, on the contrary, went to us in a time machine, what discoveries would shock him the most, in your opinion?
A.M. : DNA. Because DNA is cool. As the molecule of heredity, DNA is one of the brightest and most brilliant pieces of evidence that Darwin was right.
O.O. : Thank you very much. Our guest was Alexander Markov, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution.
- (from Bio ... and ... Logia is the totality of the sciences of living nature. The subject of study is B. all manifestations of life: the structure and functions of living beings and their natural communities, their distribution, origin and development, connections with each other and with the inanimate … …
Darwinism named after the English naturalist Charles Darwin in the narrow sense is a direction of evolutionary thought, whose adherents agree with Darwin's basic ideas on the issue of evolution (their modern form, sometimes with a significant ... ... Wikipedia
materialistic theory of evolution ( historical development) organic world Earth, based on the views of Charles Darwin. the foundation for creating the theory of evolution for Ch. Darwin was observations during a round-the-world trip on ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
A concept in biology that considers evolution as a spasmodic process occurring as a result of large single hereditary changes. According to M., such changes are called macromutations, or saltations, occurring in ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Correspondence of a phenomenon or process to a certain (relatively completed) state, material or ideal model which is presented as a target (See Target). C. is considered, on the one hand, as immanent (internal) ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- (Late Latin adaptatio adaptation, adaptation, from Latin adapto I adapt) the process of adapting the structure and functions of organisms (individuals, populations, species) and their organs to environmental conditions. At the same time, any A. is also a result, i.e. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Allogenesis (from the Greek állos another, morphē view, form, génesis formation), the transformation of organisms associated with a change in the environment, in which one relationship with the environment is replaced by others, more or less equivalent. At the same time, there is no…… Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- (from the Greek áiro I raise and murphsis pattern, form) arogenesis, morpho-physiological progress, one of the main directions of the biological progress of living beings, in which their organization becomes more complicated in the course of evolutionary development. The term... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
A group of organisms that are part of a local population (See Population) that have the same genotype and are similar in almost all respects. The Danish biologist V. Johansen considered homozygous B. in self-pollinating plants to be the most elementary ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Son of N. A. Severtsov, professor of zoology at Yuryev University. Genus. in Moscow in 1866. At the end of the course of the gymnasium, he entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the Moscow University, where he studied under the guidance of prof. Menzbier. From 1893 to 1898 ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia
Charles Robert Darwin Charles Robert Darwin Photo 1880 Date of birth: February 12, 1809 Place of birth: Shrewsbury, England Date of death: April 19, 1882 ... Wikipedia
XX III Lyubishchev's Readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2009. C. 113 – 124.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES IN THE LIFE AND CREATION OF LAMARCK AND DARWIN)
Nizhny Novgorod State University, Nizhny Novgorod
Great ancestors and modern assessments of their theories
In 2009, progressive mankind celebrates several significant dates in the development of evolutionism, which are interconnected. Firstly, it is 200 years since the publication of the book of the outstanding naturalist-encyclopedist Zh.B. Lamarck (1744-1829) "Philosophy of Zoology" (1809), containing provisions first evolutionary theory , the essence of which was "to recognize the natural origin and progressive development of the organic world along the path of complication, improvement (the law of gradations)" and "to prove the adaptive nature of the evolutionary process (Lamarck's first and second laws)" (Khokhryakov, 1984, p. 31) . Secondly, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great evolutionary biologist Ch.R. Darwin (1809-1882) and 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favorable Races in the Struggle for Life (1859).
If Lamarck's "Philosophy of Zoology" was not appreciated by his contemporaries for objective and subjective reasons (Puzanov, 1947), and his ideas are fairly objectively considered only recently (see Khokhryakov, 1984; Steele et al., 2002), then the book Darwin immediately stirred up the evolutionary and social thoughts of the world community, caused still ongoing discussions between representatives of various sectors of society, scientists, educators, politicians, and religions.
What are the reasons for such a long and active attention to the famous book?
Firstly, apparently, primarily in the fact that, like any classical work, it affected universal problems, and their analysis was so deep and clearly stated (in contrast to Lamarck's "scientific romanticism") that the reader finds in it "initiating" thoughts, in some ways consonant with his own, in some ways contradicting his worldview. The range of opinions about Darwin's concepts, as well as a century and a half ago, is extremely wide.
Secondly, it seems to me that the eternal debatability of Darwin's book is due to its methodological features. At first, being a believer, Darwin subsequently, under the influence of the facts revealed to him, began to consciously express materialistic views. However, at the same time, unfortunately, he was very far from dialectical views on nature, which was reflected in the inconsistency of his ideas about the factors of evolution. He was captured by the idea of the struggle of organisms for their existence (albeit in the most metaphorical sense). The consequence of this struggle, Darwin saw basically one thing - natural selection, which divergently gives rise to the most diverse adaptations of organisms, and hence their numerous species. Such an exaggeration of the role of struggle and selection led to oblivion of the obligatory dialectical opposites - the phenomena of cooperation of organisms and convergence, polyphilia and leaps in the process of historical development, etc.
The factors exaggerated by Darwin were further absolutized by many evolutionists of the past and present, while other researchers, on the contrary, considered them either secondary or non-existent (see Savinov, 2007a, 2008). When politicians also intervene in this process of evaluating Darwinian ideas and their practical use, then worldview and social conflicts acquire a tragic coloring (see, for example, Kolchinsky, 2006). All this created and maintains collisions both in the field of evolutionism and in other areas of the activity of the society of the 19th-21st centuries.
Darwin, as a talented logician, far-sighted and painstaking researcher, is rightly assigned priority in justifying principles struggle for existence and natural selection in nature. Although it is important to note that several biologists, primarily English (W.C. Wells, P. Matthew, A. Wallace, etc.), were very close to this independently of each other, and some - much earlier than Darwin (see Sobol , 1962). Undoubtedly, the single vector of their conclusions was due to the reality of the phenomenon of selection. Obviously, two interrelated reasons contributed to this: 1) the peculiarities of the English mentality (the desire to think and act independently and actively, to be closer to nature and practical life) and 2) the high level of social and economic development of England, which required an adequate state of theoretical and applied science, and provided with a proper community of scientists (see Le Bon, 1995).
When writing the book On the Origin of Species, Darwin relied on the achievements in theory and practice of many natural scientists. But his hesitations and doubts in the assessments of evolutionary positions, including his own, are known; there are discrepancies with his officially expressed opinions and the views that he expressed in personal letters (see Blyakher, 1971).
So, on the one hand, the provisions of the evolutionary theory of Lamarck, whom he called "the famous naturalist" in his book, undoubtedly had a significant influence on him. In particular, Darwin took into account Lamarck's concept of evolutionary role behavior living organisms, manifested in exercise–non-exercise" organs. At least in On the Origin of Species, this phenomenon was considered by Darwin to be important in evolutionary "fate" species, since, in his opinion, along with natural selection, it determines speciation.
On the other hand, in some personal letters, Darwin called Lamarck's Philosophy of Zoology "an absurd, albeit talented work", "a miserable book ... from which ... he could not take anything" (cited in: Mednikov, 1975, p. 12). Now it is difficult to judge what was behind such statements. I believe that officially stated views are more important for science. And the inconsistency, inconsistency of scientists' statements, obviously, reflects the main attribute of Science - Eternal Doubt.
Recognizing Lamarck's concept of the evolutionary role of the adaptation process, Darwin later tried to formulate a hypothesis about the mechanism of inheritance by descendants of somatic changes acquired by parents as a result of "exercise-non-exercise" of the relevant organs. It is believed that in solving this most complex issue, Darwin used the idea of the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates and his associates (“hippocraticists”) that the seed (sex cells) are formed from substances collected from the entire human body (Blyakher, 1971). Darwin put forward a similar hypothesis of pangenesis, according to which, under the influence of external influences, submicroscopic embryos-gemmules arise in various organs, which migrate through the distribution systems of the body into its germ cells. They are gemmules and transmit changes that have arisen in different parts of the body. As a result, offspring that have developed from altered germ cells are able to inherit the properties acquired by their parents during their lifetime. But Darwin still considered natural selection to be an evolutionary factor controlling the adequacy of inherited properties to the environment (and therefore being the main one).
Thus, despite the exaggeration of the role of the struggle for existence and selection, Darwin, thanks to Lamarck, tried to take into account the impact on the evolution of organisms of their needs. Unfortunately, in the following decades, these beginnings of a comprehensive approach to solving evolutionary problems were not accepted, forgotten, or distorted. As a result, evolutionary science is in the grip of a permanent crisis. Since A. Weisman “declared war” on the Lamarckian principle of “exercise-non-exercise”, and Darwin was attacked by clerics and anti-selectionists, the argumentation of radical opponents has not fundamentally changed. Once again, one can read about the "impregnability" of the "Weismann barrier", about the "evidence" of the inefficiency of natural selection or its absence in nature, and even in a scientific (!) mastermind(!?) of Marxism, Nietzscheanism and Freudianism, should begin “with Satan” (Rhodes, 2008, p. 89).
However, the growing understanding that the revival of such views only exacerbates the situation and prevents a rational change in the evolutionist paradigm is encouraging (see Grinchenko, 2004; Mamkaev, 2004; Zusmanovsky, 2007; Savinov, 2007a, 2008).
Considering the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin.
An Integrative Approach to Solving the Problems of Modern Evolutionism
Thanks to a number of fair comments by critics of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, many researchers have now realized that the dominant (in various versions) since the 30s of the last century synthetic theory of evolution(STE) is not a system of evolutionary knowledge adequate to the realities of the world. This is primarily due to the fact that the evolutionary factors (mutational variability, struggle for existence, natural selection, isolation, and population waves) absolutized by STE are insufficient to describe the real mechanisms of phylogenesis (see Savinov, 2008). For this reason, STE initially did not justify its name: it was not "aimed" at the "perception" of the new data obtained (in classical and modern areas biology) and their "synthesis", integration.
The difficult situation in modern evolutionism is caused by objective and subjective reasons. The most important of them is the reluctance of many evolutionists to rely on the corresponding philosophical laws or use them consistently, the preference for idealism over materialism (Ignatiev, 2004). Meanwhile, many evolutionary concepts contain rational provisions that must be separated from obviously unacceptable ones and combined into a rational theory.
In the current situation of “methodological uncertainty”, it will be possible to integrate the rational elements of alternative concepts consistent use materialist dialectic(MD). This will serve to resolve the current conflict and prevent new confrontations that hinder the development of science. After all, true dialectics is "thinking in polarities", i.e. inextricably linked, interacting opposites(Zelenov, 2007). MD Laws ( the transition from quantity to quality, unity and opposition of opposites, negation of negation, the spiral course of the historical development of the material world) are not the fruit of ideological tricks, they are objective (see Brief ..., 2004).
Dialectical logic and the system-cybernetic approach generated by it make it possible to naturally combine the rational elements of alternative evolutionary concepts. Thanks to this methodology, provisions can be formulated that take into account the presence of such, for example, dialectical pairs: "tychogenesis - nomogenesis", "antagonism - cooperation of organisms (symbiogenesis)", "endogenous mutation process - exogenous ecosystem factors", "genotype - phenotype" (Savinov , 2007a, 2008). Based on these methodological guidelines and in accordance with the proposed the principle of integration of rational elements of the developed evolutionary theories , the author started the development of philosophical, methodological and general biological foundations integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution (ITE) (Savinov, 2008). The criteria for the rationality of the elements combined in the ITE are determined by compliance with: 1) the laws of MD, the principles of the system-cybernetic approach and biosystemology (Savinov, 2006); 2) practical achievements of the natural sciences.
In general, any theory is system generalized knowledge about a certain set of material objects and phenomena, including, first of all, philosophical foundations(corresponding logic) and methodology formation of concepts and operating with them (Kratkiy…, 2004). Thus, in order to create and further improve the rational theory of evolution, first of all, it is necessary to consistently use the corresponding philosophical laws, philosophical categories and, on this basis, form a system of categories of evolutionary biology. After all, each scientific field, including biology, has its own categories - general, basic (especially important) concepts (see Levin, 2007), which are also used to identify the laws of this scientific field (see Furman, 1974).
As already mentioned, for the formation of ITE it is proposed to consider dialectical pairs alternative biological phenomena and objects previously artificially separated in conflicting evolutionary concepts. The interconnection of the dialectical pairs themselves, which together make up a single system, was not always taken into account. I will try to start such a dialectical study, taking into account the experience in creating a dialectical concept of development in biology (see Furman, 1974), based on the fundamental ideas of Lamarck and Darwin. At the same time, due to the novelty and complexity of the questions posed, which require a large amount of theoretical development and their large-scale presentation, the author can only touch on some aspects of the developed theory in this article.
The dialectical pair "nomogenesis – quietogenesis" . In this case, it is necessary to use the philosophical categories "accident" and "necessity" (regularity). Regularity (necessity) is what, firstly, is determined by the very essence of a phenomenon or object (material system) (Kratkiy…, 2004; Ivlev, 1997). Secondly, the natural (law) is “the continuously reproducing necessity of certain phenomena” (Furman, 1974, p. 75), which necessarily occur in the main one way and not otherwise (Kratkiy…, 2004). On the contrary, randomness is something that “has a basis and a reason predominantly not in itself ... that follows not from the main connections and relationships, but from side ones ...” (Kratkiy ..., 2004, p. 250; see also - Ivlev, 1997).
Genetic conditioning of the organism's phenotype in the main- this is the regularity (see Ivlev, 1997), i.e. nomogenetic component of evolution. “Randomness is the ambiguous conditionality of a trait by the specifics of the genetic material” (Ivlev, 1997, p. 119). In this understanding, the mutation process is a quiet genetic component of evolution, basically a stochastic process, mainly due to external factors.
Living beings belonging to a certain biological species have common (species) features that arise in the process of phylogenesis and are inherited. But from a dialectical point of view, these necessary (specific) features always exist in an individual form, which is random in relation to the necessary basis (see Brief ..., 1979). “Some of these initially random for a given (biological - A.S.) the type of signs in the course (historical - A.S.) development are fixed, inherited and become necessary, and those of the necessary features that turn out to be inappropriate in another (new - A.S.) environment, disappear, appearing in subsequent generations only in the form of ... (atavism - A.S.), i.e. random feature” (Kratkiy…, 1979, p. 201). This is how the transition of chance into necessity and the transformation of necessity into chance takes place.
It was noted above that the mutation process is stochastic only in the main. Indeed, various types of mutations (gene, chromosomal, genomic, extranuclear) occur primarily under the influence of external (environmental) mutagenic factors. However, there are reasons to believe that the phenomenon is dialectical here as well. Evidence is accumulating that mutations can be not only random, but also necessary to a certain extent. This is evidenced, for example, by the phenomenon of "adaptive mutagenesis" in microorganisms. In a certain sense, this is also indicated by the epigenetic phenomena caused by external factors (methylation, DNA acetylation), which led to the introduction and use of the concept of "epimutation".
Dialectical pair "genotype - phenotype" . Each system of the organism level in the general view there is a dialectical unity of the genotype (control subsystem - PM) and phenotype (executive subsystem - IP), interacting on the basis of direct(from UE to IP) and reverse(from IP to UP) informationconnections(Savinov, 2006). This eliminates the conflict between supporters of endogenesis and ectogenesis, since the cybernetic model integrates the rational elements of both approaches. According to this cybermodel, the evolution of systems at the organismal level occurs through coordinated transformations of genotypes and phenotypes, on the one hand, under the influence of environmental changes. This is the result of regular, evolutionarily long-term effects of environmental factors on the phenotype, which gradually translates them to the genotype, where various kinds of mutations of “ectogenetic origin” occur, giving qualitatively and quantitatively different geno- and phenotypic effects. In this case, ectogenetic information through a number of intraorganismal mediator molecules circulating in the system of substance transport, after evolutionary long "exercises" of the corresponding structures, enters the genome of the germ cells of the organism (where it is fixed) and is transmitted to descendants. On the other hand, the dominant alternative process of counteraction is continuous. genetic changes(reparation), including environmentally conditioned. After all, such changes to a certain extent violate the species-specific genetic program of "life preservation", i.e. the nature of condensation and dispersion of matter, absorption and release of energy during the interaction of a given biological species with an ecosystem. The contradictory interaction of the genotype and phenotype (with the leading role of the genotype) in a series of ontogenies is the phylogeny of a given biological species. The genotype mainly determines heredity, the phenotype - variability.
Within the new categories, I propose to highlight specific systems: autogene (syngen) – systemgenotypes demogene– system of autogenomes in democenosis; specialogene – demogenome system in a special cenosis; auto dryer(sinphenom) – phenotype system the host and its symbionts in autocenosis; demophenome – system of autophenomes in democenosis; speciophenome - demophenome system in a special community.
In the STE, due to ignoring symbiogenesis, individuals (organisms) are recognized as elements of the system of the population level, and the population is represented by an elementary evolutionary unit (EEE). Obviously, democenosis should be considered as EEE in ITE. Of course, this does not preclude the use of the classical categories of "organism" and "population" if such a reduction degree in relation to biosystems is correct when solving certain issues.
Thus, already now (and in the future) the ITE is based on consideration of a number of dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors and systems: “genotype – phenotype”, “nomogenesis – tychogenesis”; "endogenesis - ectogenesis"; "monophilia - polyphilia"; "divergence - convergence"; “gradualism – saltationism”, “antagonism – cooperation (symbiogenesis)”, etc. Proceeding from this, evolution seems to be a process of development of contradictions in the system of these dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors. In accordance with this understanding of the nature of phylogeny, ITE can be continuously developed and improved, since it is always “open” to consider new (and in-depth analysis of known) dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors that are identified as various areas of biology develop.
LITERATURE
Blyakher L.Ya. The problem of inheritance of acquired traits. Moscow: Nauka, 1971.
Grinchenko S.N. The system memory of the living. M.: IPI RAN, Mir, 2004. 512 p.
Zelenov L.A. Dialectical Method // Philosophy and Society. 2007. No. 1. S. 5–13.
Zusmanovsky A.G. Evolution from the point of view of a physiologist. Ulyanovsk: UlGSHA, 2007.
Ignatiev V.A. On the lines of Plato and Democritus in the development of culture // Philosophy and Society. 2004. No. 2. S. 99–124.
Kolchinsky E.I. Biology of Germany and Russia-USSR in the conditions of socio-political crises of the first half of the 20th century (between liberalism, communism and national socialism). St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Nestor-History", 2006. 638 p.
Brief Dictionary of Philosophy. M.: Politizdat, 1979. 414 p.
Brief philosophical dictionary. M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2004. 496 p.
Lebon G. Psychology of socialism. St. Petersburg: Maket, 1995. 544 p.
Mamkaev Yu.V. Darwinism and nomogenesis // Fundamental Zoological Research. Theory and methods. M.–SPb.: T-vo nauchn. editions of KMK, 2004, pp. 114–143.
Mednikov B.M. Darwinism in the 20th century. M.: Sov. Russia, 1975. 224 p.
Puzanov I.I. Jean Baptiste Lamarck. M.: Izd-vo MOIP, 1947. 40 p.
Rhodes V.B. Darwinism // Vestn. Tomsk. state university Philosophy. 2008. No. 1(2). pp. 89–119.
Savinov A.B. New population paradigm: population as a symbiotic self-governing system // Vestn. Nizhny Novgorod. un-ta im. N.I. Lobachevsky. Ser. Biology. 2005. Issue. nineteen). pp. 181–196. (/savinov.htm)
Savinov A.B. Biosystemology (system foundations of the theory of evolution and ecology). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house of UNN, 2006. 205 p. (/Macroevolution/savinov.doc)
Savinov A.B. The problem of a new evolutionary paradigm (philosophical, systemic and general biological aspects) // XXI Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2007a. pp. 60–72. (/savinov2007.htm)
Savinov A.B. Integrative theory of evolution (to the 35th anniversary of the publication of the article by A.A. Lyubishchev “On the postulates of modern selectogenesis”) // XXII Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. T. 1. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2008. S. 107–116. (/Macroevolution/savinov2008.doc)
Sobol S.L. The principle of natural selection in the works of some English biologists 10 – 30s of the nineteenth century. // History of biological sciences. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. S. 17.
Steele E., Lindley R., Blunden R. What if Lamarck is right? Immunology and evolution. M.: Mir, 2002. 235 p.
Furman A.E. The dialectical concept of development in modern biology. M.: Higher. school, 1974. 272 p.
Khokhryakov A.P. Adaptation genesis as the main content of the evolutionary process and its possible driving forces // Evolutionary research. Macroevolution. Vladivostok: DVNTs AN SSSR, 1984, pp. 24–32.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF LIFE AND CREATIVITY
Lamarck and Darwin)
The ideas of Lamarck and Darwin laid the foundations of evolutionary doctrine. Taking these ideas into account, the author develops an integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution, which makes it possible to combine rational elements of conflicting evolutionary concepts.
DEVELOPMENT THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF THE LIFE AND CREATIVITY
LAMARK AND DARWIN)
Ideas Lamark and Darwin have put in pawn bases of the theory of evolution. In view of these ideas the author develops integrative (symbiotic) theory of the evolution, allowing to unite rational elements of clashing evolutionary concepts.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
ESSAY
Problems of evolution
Doing
evolution lamarck darwin
Evolution is a gradual change in complex systems over time. Biological evolution is a hereditary change in the properties and characteristics of living organisms over a number of generations. In the course of biological evolution, an agreement is achieved and constantly maintained between the properties of living organisms and the conditions of the environment in which they live. Since conditions are constantly changing, including as a result of the vital activity of the organisms themselves, and only those individuals that are best adapted to life in changed environmental conditions survive and reproduce, the properties and signs of living beings are constantly changing. The conditions of life on Earth are infinitely diverse, so the adaptation of organisms to life in these different conditions has given rise in the course of evolution to a fantastic variety of life forms.
The theory of evolution occupies a central position in modern natural science and biology, uniting all its areas and being their common
theoretical basis. An indicator of the scientific maturity of specific biological sciences is: 1) contribution to the theory of evolution; 2) the degree to which the conclusions of the latter are used in their scientific practice (for setting problems, analyzing the data obtained and constructing particular theories). Also, the theory of evolution has the most important general philosophical significance: a certain attitude to the problems of the evolution of the organic world characterizes various general philosophical concepts (both materialistic and idealistic).
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin are considered the founders of evolutionary biology as a separate independent science, who were the first to address the issues of the theory of evolution.
1 . Etcaboutproblems of the evolution of living organisms
The problems of the evolution of living organisms lie in the theories of evolution themselves, that is, in the errors of reasoning.
According to Lamarck's theory, plants and lower animals are directly exposed to the environment and are transformed. The environment acts indirectly on higher animals: a change in external conditions - a change in opportunities - a change in habit - the active functioning of some organs and their development - the loss of activity of other organs and their death.
But Lamarck's reasoning contained an error, which consisted in a simple fact: acquired characteristics are not inherited. AT late XIX in. German biologist August Weismann set up a famous experiment - for 22 generations he cut off the tails of experimental mice. And still, newborn mice had tails no shorter than their ancestors.
In general, Lamarck's theory was ahead of its time and was rejected by the scientific community. But then he got a lot of followers. Neo-Lamarckists of various directions were the shock fist of the opponents of the developments of Charles Darwin111111
The following issues can also be identified:
1) How did life begin on earth? By the way of the natural evolution of the inorganic world or it was brought from the Cosmos - the theory of Panspermia.
In the theory of molecular evolution, a significant amount of knowledge has been accumulated, pointing to the possibility of self-origination of life (in the form of the simplest self-reproducing systems) from inorganic matter under the conditions of the primitive Earth.
At the same time, there are facts that testify in favor of the theory of panspermia: a) the oldest sedimentary rocks with an age of 3.8 billion years have preserved traces of the mass development of primitive life forms, and the isotopic composition of carbon C12 / C13 practically does not differ from that in modern living substance; b) features were found in meteorites that can be interpreted as traces of the vital activity of primitive life forms, although there are objections to this point of view.
2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive unicellular life forms on Earth. Was it the main trend to complicate the internal organization of the cell in order to maximize the consumption of any resources of the undifferentiated environment of the primitive Earth, or even then some organisms embarked on the path of adaptation to the predominant use of any one resource (specialization).
At present, it is considered established that the simplest non-nuclear bacterial organisms gave rise to eukaryotes with a developed nucleus, compartmentalized cytoplasm, organelles, and a sexual form of reproduction. Eukaryotes at the turn of about 1.2-1.4 billion years ago significantly increased their biodiversity, which resulted in the intensive development of new ecological niches and the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms. This explains, in particular, the mass formation of the most ancient biogenic oils 1.2-1.4 billion years ago, perhaps the largest-scale process of transformation of the Earth's biomass that existed at that time (10 times greater than the modern biomass) into inert matter.
3. Whether there were conditions on the primitive Earth that favored the evolutionary complication of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell. What is their nature, when did they arise and whether they continue to operate to this day.
The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization (on the molecular, gene, cellular, multicellular, organismal, population) and the conditions for its implementation. In general terms, one can consider an obvious increase in the evolutionary potential at each new level of biological organization (i.e., the possibilities of morpho-functional differentiation of life at the organismal and ecosystem levels), however, the trigger mechanisms and limiting factors of autogenetic (intrinsic) and external (living environment) remain unclear. ) origin. In particular, the nature of aromorphoses (cardinal changes in the plans of the structure of organisms) and saltations (outbreaks of biodiversification accompanied by the appearance of high-ranking taxa) remains mysterious.
Has there been a global change in evolutionary strategies in the history of the Earth within the framework of stabilizing selection (the constancy of conditions external environment), driving selection (pronounced unidirectional changes in critical parameters of the environment) and destabilizing selection (catastrophic changes in environmental parameters affecting hierarchically high levels of organization of biosystems from molecular genetic to biospheric). There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the physicochemical conditions of the environment (incoherent evolution). And as the abiotic environment stabilizes, evolution acquires a coherent character, and the development of trophic specializations under the pressure of competition for food resources becomes the leading factor in the evolutionary strategy in ecologically saturated ecosystems.
4. What is the nature of trigger mechanisms that provide a radical change in the modes of evolution of life forms. What is the immanent essence, conditioned internal features organization and evolution of biosystems, or due to external causes.
According to geological data, the mass development of highly organized Metazoa life forms (with muscle tissues, alimentary tract, etc.) occurred in the Vendian about 600 million years ago, although they may have appeared earlier, as evidenced by paleontological finds of recent years. But these were non-skeletal soft-bodied Metazoa. They did not have a protective skeleton and, in the absence of an ozone layer, apparently had a limited ecological niche. At the turn of 540-550 Ma, there was a taxonomic explosion (massive, almost simultaneous appearance) of all the main types and classes of marine invertebrates, represented mainly by skeletal forms. The full development of life forms that occupied all the main biotopes on Earth occurred later, when the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere and hydrosphere increased significantly and the ozone screen began to stabilize.
5. To what extent photosynthesis and oxygen exchange are obligatory and necessary conditions for the development of life on Earth. The transition from predominant chemosynthesis to chlorophyll-based photosynthesis probably occurred about 2 billion years ago, which may have served as the "energetic" prerequisite for the subsequent explosive increase in biodiversity on the planet. But in the last third of the 20th century, the phenomenon of the rapid development of life near hydrogen sulfide smokers on the ocean floor in total darkness was discovered and studied on the basis of chemosynthesis.
6. The regular and directed nature of macroevolution allows us to raise the question of the possibility of predicting evolution. The solution of this question is connected with the analysis of the ratios of necessary and random phenomena in the evolution of organisms.
7. Among the central problems of the modern theory of evolution, one should name the co-evolution of different species in natural communities and the evolution of biological macrosystems themselves - biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole.
2 . Evevolutionary theory of life on earth
The history of evolutionary theory is extremely interesting in itself, because it concentrated the struggle of ideas in all areas of biology.
Evolutionary biology, like any other science, has come a long and winding path of development. Various hypotheses have been developed and tested. Most hypotheses did not stand up to the test of facts, and only a few of them became theories, inevitably changing in the process.
The problem of the origin of life began to interest man in antiquity. The development of ideas about the origin of living beings was carried out by such scientists as Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Aristotle.
Among them, Heraclitus of Ephesus (late 6th - early 5th century BC) is known as the creator of the concept of perpetual motion and changeability of everything that exists. According to the ideas of Empedocles (c. 490 - c. 430 BC), organisms were formed from the initial chaos in the process of random connection of individual structures, with unsuccessful options dying, and harmonious combinations being preserved (a kind of naive idea of selection as the guiding force of development ). The author of the atomistic concept of the structure of the world, Democritus (c. 460 - c. 370 BC), believed that organisms can adapt to changes in the external environment. Finally, Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 95-55 BC) in his famous poem "On the Nature of Things" expressed thoughts about the changeability of the world and the spontaneous generation of life.
Of the philosophers of antiquity, Aristotle (384-322 BC) enjoyed the greatest fame and authority among naturalists in subsequent eras (in particular, during the Middle Ages). Aristotle did not support, at least in a sufficiently clear form, the idea of the variability of the surrounding world. However, many of his generalizations, which by themselves fit into the overall picture of the world's immutability, later played an important role in the development of evolutionary ideas. Such are Aristotle’s thoughts about the unity of the structural plan of higher animals (the similarity in the structure of the corresponding organs in different species was called “analogy” by Aristotle), about the gradual complication (“gradation”) of the structure in a number of organisms, about the variety of forms of causality (Aristotle singled out 4 series of reasons: material , formal, producing, or driving, and target).
The era of late antiquity and especially the era of the Middle Ages that followed it became a time of stagnation in the development of natural-historical ideas that dragged on for almost one and a half thousand years. The prevailing dogmatic forms of the religious worldview did not allow the idea of the change of the world.
As science developed, data began to accumulate that contradicted these ideas of antiquity. Fossil remains of ancient animals and plants were found, similar to modern ones, but at the same time differing from them in many structural features. This could indicate that modern species are modified descendants of long-extinct species. An amazing similarity in structure and features was found individual development different types of animals. This similarity indicated that different species had common ancestors in the distant past.
One of the significant steps towards the emergence of evolutionary biology was the work of Carl Linnaeus. The well-known Swedish botanist and naturalist Carl-Linnaeus analyzed the existing classifications of plants and animals, carefully studied their species composition himself, and as a result developed his own system, the foundations of which were set forth in the works “The System of Nature”, “Plant Genera”, “Plant Species”. The classic work The System of Nature (1735) was reprinted 12 times during the author's lifetime, it was widely known and had a great influence on the development of science in the 18th century. As a basis for classification, Linnaeus adopted the form, which he considered as a real and elementary unit of living nature. He described about 10,000 plant species (including 1,500 species discovered by himself) and 4,200 animal species. The scientist combined closely related species into genera, similar genera into orders, and orders into classes.
The system of living nature developed by the great Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus was built on the principle of similarity, but it had a hierarchical structure and suggested a relationship between closely related species of living organisms. Analyzing these facts, scientists came to the conclusion about the variability of species. Such views were expressed in the 18th century. and at the beginning of the 19th century. J. Buffon, V. Goethe, K. Baer, Erasmus Darwin - the grandfather of Charles Darwin, etc. In particular, Georges Buffon expressed progressive ideas about the variability of species under the influence of environmental conditions (climate, nutrition, etc.), and the Russian naturalist Karl Maksimovich Baer, studying the embryonic development of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, found that the embryos of higher animals do not resemble the adult forms of the lower ones, but are similar only to their embryos; in the process of embryonic development, signs of a type, class, order, family, genus, and species (Beer's laws) consistently appear. However, none of these scientists offered a satisfactory explanation for why and how species changed.
Thus, the theory of evolution occupies a special place in the study of the history of life. It has become the unifying theory that serves as the foundation for all of biology.
3. Lamarck's theory of evolution
The first attempt to build a holistic concept of the development of the organic world was made by the French naturalist J.B. Lamarck. In his Philosophy of Zoology, Lamarck summed up all the biological knowledge of the early 19th century. He developed the foundations of the natural taxonomy of animals and for the first time substantiated a holistic theory of the evolution of the organic world, the progressive historical development of plants and animals.
Lamarck's evolutionary theory was based on the concept of development, gradual and slow, from simple to complex, taking into account the role of the external environment in the transformation of organisms. Lamarck believed that the first spontaneously generated organisms gave rise to the whole variety of organic forms that currently exist. By that time, the notion of the “ladder of living beings” as a successive series of independent, unchanging forms created by the Creator had already firmly established itself in science. He saw in the gradation of these forms a reflection of the history of life, the real process of development of some forms from others. Development from the simplest to the most perfect organisms is the main content of the history of the organic world. Man is also part of this story, he developed from monkeys.
Lamarck considered the main reason for evolution to be the inherent desire for the complication and self-improvement of its organization inherent in living nature. It manifests itself in the innate ability of each individual to complicate the organism. He called the influence of the external environment the second factor in evolution: as long as it does not change, the species are constant, as soon as it becomes different, the species also begin to change. At the same time, Lamarck, at a higher level than his predecessors, developed the problem of unlimited variability of living forms under the influence of living conditions: nutrition, climate, soil characteristics, moisture, temperature, etc.
Based on the level of organization of living beings, Lamarck identified two forms of variability:
1) direct - direct variability of plants and lower animals under the influence of environmental conditions;
2) indirect - the variability of higher animals that have a developed nervous system which perceives the impact of the conditions of existence and develops habits, means of self-preservation and protection.
Having shown the origin of variability, Lamarck analyzed the second factor of evolution - heredity. He noted that individual changes, if they are repeated in a number of generations, are transmitted by inheritance to descendants during reproduction and become signs of the species. At the same time, if some organs of animals develop, then others, not involved in the process of changes, atrophy. So, for example, as a result of exercises, the giraffe got a long neck, because the ancestors of the giraffe, eating the leaves of trees, reached for them, and in each generation the neck and legs grew. Thus, Lamarck suggested that the changes that plants and animals acquire during life are hereditarily fixed and transmitted by inheritance to descendants. At the same time, the offspring continues to develop in the same direction, and one species turns into another.
Lamarck believed that the historical development of organisms is not accidental, but natural in nature and takes place in the direction of gradual and steady improvement, raising the general level of organization. In addition, he analyzed in detail the prerequisites for evolution and formulated the main directions of the evolutionary process and the causes of evolution. He also developed the problem of the variability of species under the influence of natural causes, showed the importance of time and environmental conditions in evolution, which he considered as a manifestation of the general law of the development of nature. The merit of Lamarck is also the fact that he was the first to propose a genealogical classification of animals, built on the principles of relatedness of organisms, and not just their similarity.
The essence of Lamarck's theory is that animals and plants were not always the way we see them now. He proved that they developed by virtue of the natural laws of nature, following the evolution of the entire organic world. There are two main methodological features of Lamarckism:
1) teleologism as the desire for improvement inherent in organisms;
2) organismocentrism - the recognition of an organism as an elementary unit of evolution, directly adapting to changes in external conditions and transmitting these changes by inheritance.
From point of view modern science these provisions are fundamentally wrong, they are refuted by the facts and laws of genetics. In addition, Lamarck's evidence for the causes of species variability was not convincing enough. Therefore, Lamarck's theory did not receive recognition from his contemporaries. But it was not refuted either, it was only forgotten for a while in order to return to its ideas again in the second half of the 19th century, placing them at the basis of all anti-Darwinist concepts.
4. Darwin's theory of evolution
The idea of gradual and continuous change in all kinds of plants and animals was expressed by many scientists long before Darwin. Therefore, the very concept of evolution - the process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, ultimately leading to radical, qualitative changes- the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and types, penetrated into science at the end of the 18th century. However, it was Darwin who created a completely new doctrine of living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one coherent theory of evolution. Based on vast factual material and the practice of selection work on the development of new varieties of plants and animal breeds, he formulated the main provisions of his theory, which he outlined in the book "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" in 1859 under the name of the theory of natural selection. This theory is one of the pinnacles of scientific thought in the 19th century. However, its significance goes far beyond its age and beyond the scope of biology: Darwin's theory has become the natural-historical basis of the materialistic worldview.
Darwin's theory is opposed to Lamarck's not only in its consistently materialistic conclusions, but also in its entire structure. She is a wonderful example scientific research, based on a huge number of reliable scientific facts, the analysis of which leads Darwin to a coherent system of commensurate conclusions.
Darwin came to the conclusion that in nature any kind of animals and plants tends to reproduce in geometric progression. At the same time, the number of adults of each species remains relatively constant. Thus, a female cod lays seven million eggs, of which only 2% survive. Consequently, in nature there is a struggle for existence, as a result of which signs are accumulated that are useful for the organism and the species as a whole, and new species and varieties are formed. The remaining organisms die in adverse environmental conditions. Thus, the struggle for existence is a set of diverse, complex relationships that exist between organisms and environmental conditions.
In the struggle for existence, only those individuals survive and leave offspring that have a set of features and properties that allow them to compete most successfully with other individuals. Thus, in nature there is a process of selective destruction of some individuals and preferential reproduction of others, i.e. natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
When environmental conditions change, some other signs than before may turn out to be useful for survival. As a result, the direction of selection changes, the structure of the species is rebuilt, thanks to reproduction, new characters are widely distributed - the new kind. Useful traits are preserved and passed on to subsequent generations, since the factor of heredity operates in wildlife, which ensures the stability of species.
However, in nature it is impossible to find two identical, completely identical organisms. All the diversity of living nature is the result of a process of variability, i.e. transformations of organisms under the influence of the external environment.
So, Darwin's concept is built on the recognition of objectively existing processes as factors and causes of the development of living things. The main driving factors of evolution are variability, heredity and natural selection.
Variability is the first link in evolution.
It is understood as a variety of signs and properties in individuals and groups of individuals of any degree of kinship. Present in all living organisms. The phenomena of heredity and variability underlie evolution
Variability is an essential property of living things. Due to the variability of characters and properties, even in the offspring of one pair of parents, identical individuals are almost never found. The more thoroughly and deeply nature is studied, the more the conviction is formed in the general universal character of variability. In nature, it is impossible to find two completely identical, identical organisms. Under favorable conditions, these differences may not have a noticeable effect on the development of organisms, but under unfavorable conditions, every minute difference can become decisive in whether this organism will survive and give offspring or die.
Darwin distinguished two types of variability: 1) hereditary (indefinite) and 2) non-hereditary (definite).
A certain (group) variability is understood as a similar change in all individuals of the offspring in one direction due to the influence of certain conditions (changes in growth depending on the quantity and quality of food, changes in skin thickness and coat density with climate change, etc.).
Indefinite (individual) variability is understood as the appearance of various minor differences in individuals of the same species, by which one individual differs from others. In the future, "indefinite" changes began to be called mutations, and "definite" - modifications.
The next factor in evolution is heredity - the property of organisms to ensure the continuity of signs and properties between generations, as well as to determine the nature of the development of an organism in specific environmental conditions. This property is not absolute: children are never exact copies of their parents, but only wheat always grows from seeds of wheat, etc. In the process of reproduction from generation to generation, not traits are transmitted, but a code of hereditary information that determines only the possibility of developing future traits in a certain range. It is not a trait that is inherited, but the norm of the reaction of a developing individual to the action of the external environment.
Darwin analyzed in detail the significance of heredity in the evolutionary process and showed that variability and heredity by themselves do not yet explain the emergence of new breeds of animals, plant varieties, their fitness, since the variability of different features of organisms is carried out in the most diverse directions. Each organism is the result of the interaction between the genetic program of its development and the conditions for its implementation.
Considering the issues of variability and heredity, Darwin drew attention to the complex relationship between the organism and the environment, to the various forms of dependence of plants and animals on living conditions, to their adaptation to adverse conditions. Such diverse forms of dependence of organisms on environmental conditions and other living beings he called the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence, according to Darwin, is a set of relationships between organisms of a given species with each other, with other types of living organisms and inanimate environmental factors.
The struggle for existence means all forms of manifestation of the activity of a given species of organisms, aimed at maintaining the life of their offspring. Darwin singled out three main forms of struggle for existence: 1) interspecific, 2) intraspecific and 3) struggle with adverse environmental conditions.
Examples of interspecific struggle in nature are common and well known to everyone. It is most clearly manifested in the struggle between predators and herbivores. Herbivores can only survive and reproduce if they can avoid predators and are provided with food. But various types of mammals also feed on vegetation, and in addition - insects and mollusks. And here a situation arises: what went to one, did not go to another. Therefore, in interspecific struggle, the success of one species means the failure of the other.
Intraspecific struggle means competition between individuals of the same species, in which the need for food, territory and other conditions of existence is the same. Darwin considered intraspecific struggle the most intense. Therefore, in the process of evolution, populations have developed various adaptations that reduce the severity of competition: marking boundaries, threatening postures, etc.
The fight against unfavorable environmental conditions is expressed in the desire of living organisms to survive in drastic changes in weather conditions. In this case, only the individuals most adapted to the changed conditions survive. They form a new population, which generally contributes to the survival of the species. In the struggle for existence, individuals and individuals with such a complex of features and properties that allow them to successfully withstand adverse environmental conditions survive and leave offspring.
However, Darwin's main merit in creating the theory of evolution lies in the fact that he developed the doctrine of natural selection as the leading and guiding factor in evolution. Natural selection, according to Darwin, is a set of changes occurring in nature that ensure the survival of the fittest individuals and their predominant offspring, as well as the selective destruction of organisms that are unadapted to existing or changing environmental conditions.
In the process of natural selection, organisms adapt, i.e. they develop the necessary adaptations to the conditions of existence. As a result of the competition of different species with similar vital needs, less adapted species die out. Improving the mechanism of adaptation of organisms leads to the fact that the level of their organization is gradually becoming more complicated and thus the evolutionary process is carried out. At the same time, Darwin drew attention to such characteristic features of natural selection as the gradual and slow process of change and the ability to summarize these changes into large, decisive causes leading to the formation of new species.
Based on the fact that natural selection acts among diverse and unequal individuals, it is considered as the total interaction of hereditary variability, preferential survival and reproduction of individuals and groups of individuals better adapted than others to given conditions of existence. Therefore, the doctrine of natural selection as the driving and guiding factor in the historical development of the organic world is the main one in Darwin's theory of evolution.
Natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for existence and the hereditary variability of organisms. According to Darwin, natural selection is the most important creative force that directs the evolutionary process and naturally determines the emergence of adaptations of organisms, progressive evolution and an increase in the diversity of species.
The emergence of adaptations (adaptation) organisms to the conditions of their existence, which gives the structure of living beings the features of "expediency", is the direct result of natural selection, since its very essence is differentiated survival and the predominant leaving of offspring precisely by those individuals who, by virtue of their individual features best adapted to the environment. The accumulation by selection from generation to generation of those traits that give an advantage in the struggle for existence, and gradually leads to the formation of specific adaptations.
The second (after the advent of adaptation) most important consequence of the struggle for existence and natural selection is, according to Darwin, a natural increase in the diversity of forms of organisms, which has the character of divergent evolution. Since the most intense competition is expected between the most similarly structured individuals of a given species due to the similarity of their vital needs, the individuals most deviating from the average state will be in more favorable conditions. These latter get an advantageous chance of surviving and leaving offspring to which the characteristics of the parents are passed on and the tendency to change further in the same direction (continued variability).
Finally, the third most important consequence of natural selection is the gradual complication and improvement of organization, i.e. evolutionary progress. According to Charles Darwin, this direction of evolution is the result of the adaptation of organisms to life in an ever more complex external environment. The complexity of the environment occurs, in particular, due to divergent evolution, which increases the number of species.
A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is not associated with the survival of a given individual, but only with its reproductive function. According to Darwin, sexual selection occurs when individuals of the same sex compete for reproduction. The importance of the reproductive function is self-evident; therefore, in some cases, even the very preservation of a given organism may recede into the background in relation to the leaving of offspring by it. For the preservation of the species, the life of a given individual is important only insofar as it participates (directly or indirectly) in the process of reproduction of generations. Sexual selection just acts on the traits associated with various aspects of this most important function (mutual detection of individuals of the opposite sex, sexual stimulation of a partner, competition between individuals of the same sex when choosing a sexual partner, etc.)
5 . Sotemporary evolutionary teachings
Evolutionary doctrine is a broad interdisciplinary area of biology, including several large and currently developed sections to varying degrees. The first such section is the history of the emergence and development of evolutionary ideas. concepts and hypotheses. This section has an important general educational and methodological significance, since modernity cannot be understood without history.
Another branch of evolutionary teaching is private phylogenetics. Its content consists in recreating the paths of the historical development of each group of living organisms. Together, these paths of development of groups constitute the phylogenetic tree of life. Despite the great achievements in this area, many important details remain unclear, ranging from the problems of the origin of life to the extremely private, from the point of view of the phylogeny of all living things, but important for the development of matter in general, the emergence of a thinking being - homo sapiens.
The basis of the modern theory of evolution is the problems of micro- and macroevolution. These are two sides of a single and continuous process of evolution, which, however, are quite naturally separated along the line of speciation and the difference already noted above in the methodological approaches to their study. Theoretical developments in these areas form the foundation of modern evolutionary theory.
The modern theory of evolution is a synthetic science based on all the sciences of the biological complex. The modern theory of evolution is based on Darwin's teachings on the origin of life, the emergence of a variety of wildlife, adaptation and expediency in living organisms, the emergence of man, the emergence of breeds and varieties. Modern Darwinism is often called neo-Darwinism, a synthetic theory of evolution. It would be more correct to call the science that studies the process of evolution of the organic world evolutionary theory.
Since the 60s of the 20th century, it has become increasingly clear. That the theory of evolution of the organic world remains incomplete without knowledge of a large section concerning the laws of evolution of biogeocenoses. However, not according to the actual material. Neither by theoretical developments can this direction be named among the studied sections of modern evolutionary doctrine. This is an important task for the future.
In modern evolutionism, three main directions of research into the evolutionary process have been formed:
1) molecular biological (analysis of molecular evolution, i.e. the processes of evolutionary transformations of biological macromolecules, primarily nucleic acids and proteins, using molecular biology methods);
2) genetic and ecological (studies of microevolution, i.e. transformations of the gene pools of populations, and the processes of speciation, as well as the evolution of biological macrosystems - biocenoses and the biosphere as a whole - by methods of population genetics, ecology, systematics, phenetics);
3) evolutionary-morphological (the study of macroevolution - evolutionary rearrangements of integral organisms and their ontogenies by the methods of paleontology, comparative anatomy and embryology).
The modern evolutionary doctrine is based on the foundation of the achievements of genetics, which revealed the material nature of heredity. From such positions, the evolving unit is not an individual or a species, but a population, i.e. a group of individuals of the same species that inhabit a certain territory for a long time and freely interbreed with each other. The basis of hereditary changes in the population is mutational variability as a result of sudden mutations - hereditary changes in the genetic apparatus. Mutations can occur in any cell, at any stage of development, both in normal conditions existence (spontaneous mutations), and under the influence of any physical or chemical factors (induced mutations). Therefore, from modern positions, the driving factors of evolution are mutagenesis (ie, the process of formation of mutations) and natural selection. The latter makes it possible to survive for organisms whose mutational changes provide the greatest adaptability to specific environmental conditions. In clarifying the role of mutations in the evolutionary process, the work of Soviet scientists S.S. Chetverikova, N.I. Vavilova, I.I. Schmalhausen.
One of the main places in modern evolutionary teaching is the genetic analysis of human populations. The peculiarity of their genetics is that natural selection has lost the role of the leading factor in human evolution. However, the importance of genetics for humans is exceptionally great, since it occupies a key place in the analysis of the spread of hereditary diseases, in assessing the effect of radiation and other physical and chemical effects on the genetic apparatus.
The further development of evolutionary theory is associated primarily with the success of population genetics, which studies the transformation of genetic systems in the process of the historical development of organisms. The latest advances in molecular biology allow us to take a fresh look at the mechanism of evolution. The discovery of the molecular mechanisms underlying mutagenesis, the study of the problem of the development of genetic information in the process of ontogenesis, the laws of phylogenesis paved the way for a new qualitative leap in the development of evolutionary doctrine and biology in general. Thus, the evolutionary doctrine is the main weapon of materialist biologists, who are constantly enriched with new factual and theoretical data, developing as knowledge in living nature deepens.
Conclusion
Modern evolutionary theory has developed on the basis of the theory of Ch. Darwin. The concept of Zh.B. Lamarck is currently considered unscientific. Lamarckism in any of its forms does not explain either progressive evolution or the emergence of adaptation (adaptations) of organisms, since "the desire for progress", "evolution based on laws", "the original ability of organisms to expedient reaction", "assimilation of environmental conditions" and other similar concepts replace scientific analysis with the postulation of certain metaphysical properties allegedly inherent in living matter. However, the importance of Lamarck's theory cannot be denied, since it was precisely the scientific debate with the conclusions and concepts of the French naturalist that was the impetus for the emergence of Charles Darwin's theory.
The conclusions of the English scientist were also subjected to further criticism and detailed revision, which was primarily due to the fact that many factors, mechanisms and patterns of the evolutionary process unknown at the time of Darwin were identified and new ideas were formed that differed significantly from the classical theory of Darwin.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the modern theory of evolution is a development of the main ideas of Darwin, which are still relevant and productive.
Bibliography
1. N.N. Jordanian textbook on the theory of evolution. "The evolution of life". M.: Academy, 2001. - 425 p.
2. Gulyaev S.A., Zhukovsky V.M., Komov S.V. "Fundamentals of Natural Science", Yekaterinburg, 1997
3. Dubnishcheva T.Ya. "Concepts of modern natural science", Novosibirsk, "Izd-vo YuKEA", 1997
4. Petrovsky B.V. "Popular Medical Encyclopedia", M., " Soviet Encyclopedia", 1997
5. Haken G. "Synergetics", M .: Mir, 1980
6. Berdnikov V.A. Evolution and progress. Novosibirsk, "Nauka", 1991.
7. Ratner V.A. and other Problems of the theory of molecular evolution. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1985.
8. Raff R., Kofman T. Embryos, genes and evolution. - M.: Mir, 1986.
9. A.P. Sadokhin. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2006.
10. Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favorable breeds in the struggle for life. - Works, vol. 3 - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1939.
11. Karpenko S.Kh. Concepts of modern natural science: A textbook for universities. - M.: Academic prospectus, 2000. - 639 p.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The mystery of the origin of life on Earth. The evolution of the origin of life on Earth and the essence of the concepts of evolutionary chemistry. Analysis of the biochemical evolution of the theory of Academician Oparin. Stages of the process that led to the emergence of life on Earth. Problems in the theory of evolution.
abstract, added 03/23/2012
The origins of the evolutionary doctrine: M.V. Lomonosov, N.A. Severtsov. Evolutionary studies of Ch. Darwin. The main provisions, prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Darwin. K.F. Ruler and its genetic laws.
abstract, added 01/16/2008
Prerequisites for the creation of Ch.Darwin's evolutionary theory. Evolutionary studies of Ch. Darwin. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Ch. Darwin. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution (according to Ch. Darwin).
abstract, added 03/29/2003
Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Ch. Darwin. The concept of variability and its forms. Definition of the general theory of evolution and the circumstances of its appearance. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Ch. Darwin. The main results of evolution according to Ch. Darwin.
control work, added 02/14/2009
Characterization of general ideas about evolution and the basic properties of living things, which are important for understanding the patterns of evolution of the organic world on Earth. Generalization of hypotheses and theories of the origin of life and stages of evolution of biological forms and species.
term paper, added 01/27/2010
Comparison of the basic definitions of the concept of "life". Analysis of the problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. general characteristics modern theories the emergence of life, as well as the process of evolution of its forms. The essence of the basic laws of biological evolution.
term paper, added 10/04/2010
The main feature of the organization of living matter. The process of evolution of living and non-living systems. The laws underlying the emergence of all forms of life according to Darwin. Molecular genetic level of living organisms. Progression of reproduction, natural selection.
abstract, added 04/24/2015
abstract, added 11/19/2010
The first classification of living organisms proposed by Carl Linnaeus. Three stages of the Great Biological Unifications. The concept of evolution of the organic world by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The main prerequisites for the emergence of Darwin's theory. The concept of natural selection.
abstract, added 09/06/2013
The problem of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. Modeling as a method of natural science research. The discovery of the principle of uniformitarianism by Ch. Lyell. Charles Darwin's doctrine of the factors of evolution by natural selection, modern ideas about her.
The second problem of the evolutionary theory of biological species is related to the limits of applicability of Darwin's theory: what processes can it be extrapolated to (supporters of the evolutionist paradigm categorically extend it to the development of all living nature and even matter in general), whether it can be used to explain the emergence of life itself from inanimate, and also the emergence of new species? And if the emergence of new species proceeded through evolutionary changes, then where are the transitional forms?
Darwin himself understood this problem, noting that the number of intermediate varieties that once existed must be truly enormous. Why, then, is every geological formation and every layer not overflowing with such intermediate links? Indeed, geology does not reveal to us such a completely continuous chain of organization, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be made against his theory.
Today the situation is not much different. Here are the statements of modern scientists: “Paleontological evidence of evolutionary changes within the same line of inheritance is very scarce. If the theory of evolution is correct, then species arise as a result of changes in the precursor species and therefore the presence of fossil remains should be expected. In fact, however, there are very few such remnants. In 1859, Darwin could not give a single such example ”(M. Ridley). “Almost 120 years have passed since Darwin. During this time, our knowledge of fossil remains has expanded significantly. We now have a quarter of a million specimens of species fossils, but the situation has not changed significantly. The evidence for evolution is surprisingly sketchy. The irony of our position today is that we now have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than there were in Darwin's time” (D. Raup). “Forms that are transitional from one species to another can be observed today. It is possible to draw a conclusion about their existence in the past. And yet the end result is far from the perfectly woven tapestry in which the Tree of Life can be seen simply by tracing the intermediate links: both living and extinct creatures that connected all species together. Not at all. Biologists are much more struck by the discreteness of the organic form and the general absence of intermediate links ”(L. Morris).
Thus, one of the main problems of Charles Darwin's theory is the problem of the absence of transitional forms, which in the paradigm of universal evolutionism turns into the problem of qualitative leaps, which will be discussed below.
The third problem is related to the expediency of evolution.
In the teleological approach, expediency was explained by the fact that a certain internal goal of development is inherent in organisms. Either this goal is set by someone external - God.
Within the framework of Darwin's evolutionary theory, expediency is seen as the result of natural selection. As organisms develop, the process of interaction with the environment becomes more complicated, the stability of a population is determined by the ability of its individuals to adapt to external conditions, with the change of which the criteria of expediency also change. In organisms, we call expedient everything that leads to the continuation of the life of an individual or species, inexpedient - everything that shortens life.
The selection criterion in this case will be sustainability in relation to the external environment. Thus, according to Eigen, the randomness of the origin of the code of the DNA molecule is due to the criterion of stability in relation to environmental conditions, and the choice is made of one of the many possible alternatives.
In this interpretation, for expediency, no otherworldly is needed, everything is determined by natural laws.
Thus, expediency depends on the external environment and is determined by its conditions and state.
S.D. Haitong writes that evolution has no goal, but only a direction (vector) that determines the progress of evolution and is associated with changes, including the following:
Intensification of energy exchange and metabolism;
Intensification and expansion of cycles of energy and matter;
Growth of integrity (consistency) of structures;
Growth of connectivity of “everything with everything” and openness of systems;
- “floor-by-floor” increase in the complexity and diversity of forms;
An increase in the degree of non-Gaussianity of stationary and evolutionary time distributions;
Increasing degree of fractality of evolving systems and the Universe as a whole.
Thus, there is an increase in the complexity, hierarchy of evolving structures. This gave rise to scientists in the second half of the 20th century talking about the evolution of evolution itself. Nevertheless, as S.V. Meyen, in general, it can be said that although the problem of evolution deserves attention, it is apparently still very far from its meaningful development, and not just a list of statements.
Evolutionary theories themselves have also undergone evolution, which today has led to the formation of the main methodological concepts of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which are the concepts of self-organization and global evolutionism.