Until the end of the 17th century. Most Europeans believed that everything in nature has remained unchanged since the day of creation, that all types of plants and animals today are the same as God created them. However, in the 18th century. New scientific data has cast doubt on this. People began to find evidence that plant and animal species change over long periods of time. This process is called evolution.

First theories of evolution

Jean-Baptiste de Monnet (1744-1829), Chevalier de Lamarck, was born in France. He was the eleventh child in an impoverished aristocratic family. Lamarck lived a difficult life, died a poor blind man, and his works were forgotten. At age 16, he joined the army, but soon resigned due to poor health. Need forced him to work in a bank instead of doing what he loved - medicine.

Royal Botanist

In his free time, Lamarck studied plants and acquired such extensive knowledge that in 1781 he was appointed chief botanist to the French king. Ten years later, after Lamarck was elected professor of zoology at the Natural History Museum in Paris. Here he gave lectures and organized exhibitions. Noticing the differences between fossils and modern animal species, Lamarck came to the conclusion that the types and characteristics of animals and plants are not constant, but, on the contrary, change from generation to generation. This conclusion was suggested to him not only by fossils, but also by geological evidence of changes in the landscape over many millions of years.

Lamarck came to the conclusion that throughout the life of an animal, the characteristics of an animal can change depending on external conditions. He proved that these changes are inherited. Thus, the giraffe's neck may have lengthened during its life due to the fact that it had to reach for tree leaves, and this change was passed on to its offspring. Nowadays, this theory is recognized as erroneous, although it was used in the theory of evolution of Darwin and Wallace that appeared 50 years later.

Expedition to South America

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born in Shrewsbury in England. He was the son of a doctor. After leaving school, Darwin went to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh, but soon became disillusioned with the subject and, at the insistence of his father, went to Cambridge University to prepare for the priesthood. And although the preparations were successful, Darwin was again disappointed in the career ahead of him. At the same time, he became interested in botany and entomology (the study of insects). In 1831, botany professor John Henslowe noticed Darwin's abilities and offered him a position as a naturalist on an expedition to South America. Before sailing, Darwin read the works of geologist Charles Lyell (see article “”). They amazed the young scientist and influenced his own views.

Darwin's discoveries

The expedition sailed on the Beagle and lasted 5 years. During this time, the researchers visited Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and the Galapagos Islands - ten rocky islands off the coast of Ecuador in the Pacific Ocean, each of which has its own fauna. On this expedition, Darwin collected a huge collection of rock fossils, compiled herbariums and a collection of stuffed animals. He kept a detailed diary of the expedition and subsequently used many materials made on the Galapagos Islands when presenting his theory of evolution.

In October 1836, the Beagle returned to England. Darwin devoted the next 20 years to processing the collected materials. In 1858, he received a manuscript by Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) with ideas very close to him. And although both naturalists were co-authors, Darwin's role in putting forward the new theory was much more significant. In 1859, Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in which he outlined the theory of evolution. The book was a huge success and caused a lot of noise, as it contradicted traditional ideas about the origin of life on Earth. One of the boldest ideas was the assertion that evolution lasted many millions of years. This contradicted the teaching of the Bible that the world was created in 6 days and has not changed since then. Nowadays, most scientists use a modernized version of Darwin's theory to explain changes in living organisms. Some reject his theory for religious reasons.

Natural selection

Darwin discovered that organisms fight each other for food and habitat. He noticed that even within the same species there are individuals with special characteristics that increase their chances of survival. The offspring of such individuals inherits these characteristics, and they gradually become common. Individuals that do not have these characteristics die out. Thus, after many generations, the entire species acquires useful characteristics. This process is called natural selection. Let's look, for example, at how a moth adapted to changes in its environment. At first, all the moths were silver in color and were invisible on tree branches. But the trees darkened from the smoke - and the moths became more noticeable, the birds more actively ate them. The darker-colored moths survived. This dark coloring was passed on to their offspring and subsequently spread throughout the species.

The role of Charles Darwin's works in the creation of scientific evolutionary theory

By the middle of the 19th century. Objective conditions arose for the creation of a scientific evolutionary theory. They boil down to the following.

1. By this time, a lot of factual material had accumulated in biology proving the ability of organisms to change, and the first evolutionary theory was created.

2. All the most important geographical discoveries were made, as a result of which the most important representatives of the organic world were described in more or less detail; A wide variety of animal and plant species were discovered, and some intermediate forms of organisms were identified.

3. The rapid development of capitalism required the study of sources of raw materials (including biological) and sales markets, which intensified the development of biological research.

4. Great strides have been made in the selection of plants and animals, which has helped to identify the causes of variability and the consolidation of emerging traits in organisms.

5. Intensive mining made it possible to discover cemeteries of prehistoric animals, imprints of ancient plants and animals, which confirmed evolutionary ideas.

The founder of the scientific evolutionary theory was Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Its main provisions were published in 1859 in the book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Charles Darwin continued to work on the development of evolutionary theory and published the books “Change in Domestic Animals and Cultivated Plants” (1868) and “The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection” (1871). Evolutionary theory is constantly developing and being supplemented, but its foundations were outlined in the above-mentioned books.

The creation of Darwin's theory was facilitated by the situation that had developed in biology at the time the scientist began his scientific activity, the fact that he lived in the most developed (at that time) capitalist country - England, and the opportunity to travel (Charles Darwin traveled around the world on the Beagle ship) , as well as the personal qualities of the scientist.

When developing the scientific evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin created his own definition of “species” and put forward new principles for systematizing the organic world, which consisted in finding related (genetic) connections that arose due to the same origin of the entire organic world; gave a definition of evolution as the ability of species to slowly, gradually develop in the process of their historical existence. He correctly revealed the cause of evolution, which consists in the manifestation of hereditary variability, and also correctly revealed the factors (driving forces) of evolution, including natural selection and the struggle for existence, through which natural selection is realized.

The theory of evolution of the organic world, developed in the works of Charles Darwin, was the foundation for the creation of a modern synthetic evolutionary theory.

The synthetic theory of evolution of the organic world is a set of scientifically based provisions and principles that explain the emergence of the modern organic world of the Earth. When developing this theory, the results of research in the field of genetics, breeding, molecular biology and other biological sciences obtained in the second half of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century were used.

Carl Linnaeus and the role of his work in the development of evolutionary theory

Man has always been interested in where such a wonderful world of animals and plants came from, whether it has always been the same as it is now, whether organisms existing in nature change. Through the eyes of one generation, it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to detect significant changes in the surrounding world, so a person initially formed the idea of ​​​​the immutability of the surrounding world, especially the world of animals (fauna) and plants (flora).

Ideas about the immutability of the organic world are called metaphysical, and people (including scientists) who share these views are called metaphysicians.

The most ardent metaphysicians who believe that all living things were created by God and do not change from the day of creation are called creationists, and the pseudo-teaching about the divine creation of living things and its immutability is called creationism. This is an extremely reactionary doctrine, it slows down the development of science, interferes with normal human activity both in the development of civilization and in ordinary life.

Creationism was widespread in the Middle Ages, but even today believers and church leaders adhere to this teaching, however, even now the church recognizes the changeability of living things and believes that only the soul was created by God.

As knowledge about nature accumulated and knowledge was systematized, it was revealed that the world is changeable, and this subsequently led to the creation and development of evolutionary theory.

An outstanding biologist, who was a metaphysician and creationist, but whose work paved the way for the development of evolutionary theory, was the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778).

C. Linnaeus created the most perfect artificial system of the organic world. It was artificial because Linnaeus based it on characteristics that often did not reflect the relationship between organisms (which was impossible at that time due to incomplete knowledge about organisms). Thus, he classified lilac and fragrant spikelet (plants of completely different classes and families) into one group because both of these plants have two stamens (fragrant spikelet belongs to the class of monocotyledons, the family of cereals, and lilac - to the class of dicotyledons, the family of Olives) .

The system proposed by K. Linnaeus was practical and convenient. It used binary nomenclature, which was introduced by Linnaeus and which is still used today because of its rationality. In this system, the highest taxon was a class. Plants were divided into 24 classes, and animals into six. The scientific feat of C. Linnaeus was the inclusion of man in the kingdom of Animals, which during the undivided dominance of religion was far from safe for the scientist. The significance of K. Linnaeus’ system for the further development of biology is as follows:

1) it created the basis for scientific systematization, since it was clearly visible that there is an interconnection and family relationships between organizations;

2) this system set the task of clarifying the reasons for the similarity between organisms, which was an incentive to study the underlying features of similarity and explain the reasons for such similarity.

Towards the end of his life, C. Linnaeus abandoned the idea of ​​​​the immutability of species, since the system of the organic world he proposed did not fit into the framework of metaphysical and creation concepts.

General characteristics of the evolutionary theory developed by J. B. Lamarck

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. The idea of ​​the variability of the organic world is increasingly conquering the minds of scientists. The first evolutionary theories appear.

Evolution is the gradual long-term development of the organic world, accompanied by its change and the emergence of new forms of organisms.

The first, more or less substantiated evolutionary theory was created by the French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). He was a prominent representative of transformism. Transformists were also J. Buffon (France), Erasmus Darwin - the grandfather of Charles Darwin (England), J. V. Goethe (Germany), C. F. Roulier (Russia).

Transformism is the doctrine of the variability of species of various organisms, including animals, plants and humans.

J. B. Lamarck outlined the foundations of his theory of evolution in the book “Philosophy of Zoology”. The essence of this theory is that organisms change in the process of historical existence. Changes in plants occur under the direct influence of environmental conditions; animals are affected indirectly by these conditions.

The reason for the appearance of new forms of organisms (especially animals) is the body’s internal desire for perfection, and the resulting changes are consolidated due to the exercise or lack of exercise of the organs. The changes that occur are inherited by the body when exposed to successive conditions that caused these changes, if these conditions last for several generations.

The central tenet of Lamarck's evolutionary theory is the idea of ​​the types of organisms, their gradation and the desire of the species to move from a lower level (gradation) to a higher one (hence the desire for perfection).

An example illustrating the exercise of organs is the stretching of the neck of a giraffe to get food, which leads to its lengthening. If a giraffe does not stretch its neck, it will become shorter.

The factors of evolution (according to Lamarck) are:

1) adaptation to environmental conditions, due to which various changes occur in organisms;

2) inheritance of acquired characteristics.

The driving forces of evolution (according to Lamarck) consist in the desire of organisms to improve.

The main achievement of Lamarck's theory was that for the first time an attempt was made to prove the presence of evolution in the organic world in the process of historical existence, but the scientist was unable to correctly reveal the causes and driving forces of evolution (at that stage of the development of scientific thought this was impossible due to the lack of scientific ).

Similar views on the development of the organic world were expressed by Moscow University professor K. F. Roulier. In his theoretical positions, he went further than J.B. Lamarck, since he denied the idea of ​​organisms striving for improvement. But he published his theory later than Lamarck and was unable to create an evolutionary theory in the form in which Charles Darwin developed it.

General characteristics of evidence for the evolution of the organic world

The study of organisms over a long historical period of human development has shown that organisms underwent changes and were in a state of constant development, that is, they evolved. There are four groups of evidence for the evolutionary theory: cytological, paleontological, comparative anatomical and embryological. In this subsection we will consider this evidence in general form.

General characteristics of cytological evidence of the evolution of organisms

The essence of cytological evidence is that almost all organisms (except viruses) have a cellular structure. Animal and plant cells are characterized by a general structural plan and organelles that are common in form and function (cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, cell center, etc.). However, plant cells differ from animal cells in different ways of nutrition and different adaptability to the environment compared to animals.

Cells have the same chemical and elemental composition, regardless of their belonging to any organism, having specificity associated with the characteristics of the organism.

The existence in nature of an intermediate type of unicellular organisms - flagellates, which combine the characteristics of plant and animal organisms (they, like plants, are capable of photosynthesis, and like animals, they are capable of a heterotrophic mode of nutrition), indicates the unity of origin of animals and plants.

Review of embryological evidence for evolution

It is known that in individual development (ontogenesis) all organisms go through the stage of embryonic (intrauterine - for viviparous organisms) development. The study of the embryonic period of different organisms shows the common origin of all multicellular organisms and their ability to evolve.

The first embryological evidence is that the development of all (both animal and plant) organisms begins with one cell - the zygote.

The second most important evidence is the biogenetic law discovered by F. Muller and E. Haeckel, supplemented by A. N. Severtsov, A. O. Kovalevsky and I. I. Shmalhausen. This law states: “In the embryonic development of ontogenesis, organisms go through the main embryonic stages of the phylogenetic (historical) development of the species.” Thus, individual individuals of a species, regardless of the level of its organization, go through the stage of zygote, morula, blastula, gastrula, three germ layers, and organogenesis; Moreover, both fish and humans have a larval fish-like stage and the human embryo has gills and gill slits (this applies to animals).

The clarification of the biogenetic law by Russian scientists refers to the fact that organisms go through the main stages of phylogenetic development, repeating the stages characteristic of the embryonic period of development, and not for the adult states of organisms.

Comparative anatomical evidence of evolution

This evidence relates to the evolution of animals and is based on information obtained from comparative anatomy.

Comparative anatomy is a science that studies the internal structure of various organisms in comparison with each other (this science is of greatest importance for animals and humans).

As a result of studying the structural features of chordates, it was discovered that these organisms have bilateral (bilateral) symmetry. They have a musculoskeletal system that has a single structural plan, common to all (compare the human skeleton and the skeleton of a lizard or frog). This indicates the common origin of humans, reptiles and amphibians.

Different organisms have homologous and similar organs.

Homologous are organs that are characterized by a general structural plan and unity of origin, but they may have a different structure due to the performance of different functions.

Examples of homologous organs are the pectoral fin of a fish, the forelimb of a frog, the wing of a bird, and the human hand.

Analogous are those organs that have approximately the same structure (external shape) due to the performance of similar functions, but have a different structural plan and different origin.

Similar organs include the burrowing limb of a mole and mole cricket (an insect that leads an underground lifestyle), the wing of a bird and the wing of a butterfly, etc.

Comparative anatomical evidence also includes the presence of rudiments and atavisms in organisms.

Rudiments are residual organs that are not used by these organisms. Examples of rudiments are the appendix (the blind process of the intestine), coccygeal vertebrae, etc. Rudiments are the remains of those organs that were once necessary, but at this stage of phylogenesis have lost their importance.

Atavisms are signs that were previously inherent and characteristic of a given organism, but at this stage of evolution have lost their meaning for most individuals, but manifested themselves in this particular individual in its ontogenesis. Atavisms include tailedness in some people, human polymastia (multi-nipple), and excessive development of hair. Superstitious people attach some religious meaning to tails and increased hair development; they consider such people to be close to the devil, and in the Middle Ages they were even burned at the stake.

Paleontological evidence of evolution

Paleontology is the science of the organic world of past geological eras, that is, of organisms that once lived on Earth and are now extinct. Paleontology includes paleozoology and paleobotany.

Paleozoology studies the remains of fossil animals, and paleobotany studies the remains of fossil plants.

Paleontology directly proves that the organic world of the Earth was different in different geological eras, it changed and developed from primitive forms of organisms to more highly organized forms.

Paleontological research makes it possible to establish the history of the development of different forms of organisms on Earth, to identify related (genetic) connections between individual organisms, which contributes to the creation of a natural system of the organic world of the Earth.

In conclusion, we can conclude that the briefly discussed phenomena prove that the organic world of the Earth is in a state of constant slow gradual development, i.e. evolution, while development has proceeded and continues to progress from simple to complex.

The role of heredity and variability in the evolution of the organic world

The most important factors in evolution are variability and heredity. The role of heredity in evolution is the transmission of traits, including those that arose in ontogenesis, from parents to descendants.

The variability of organisms leads to the emergence of individuals that have different levels of differences from each other. Is every change that occurs during ontogenesis inherited? Probably not. Modification changes that do not affect the genome are not inherited. Their role in evolution is that such changes allow the organism to survive in complex, sometimes extreme environmental conditions. Thus, small leaves help reduce transpiration (evaporation), which allows the plant to survive in conditions of lack of moisture.

A major role in the processes of evolution is played by hereditary (mutational) variability affecting the genome of gametes. In this case, the resulting changes are passed on from parents to descendants, and the new trait is either fixed in the offspring (if it is useful to the organism), or the organism dies if this trait worsens its adaptability to the environment.

Thus, hereditary variability “creates” material for natural selection, and heredity consolidates the changes that have arisen and leads to their accumulation.

The idea of ​​evolution, that is, the gradual change and development of the living world, is perhaps one of the most powerful and great ideas in the history of mankind. It gave the key to understanding the origin of the endless diversity of living beings and, ultimately, the emergence and formation of man himself as a biological species.

Today, any schoolchild, when asked who created the theory of evolution, will name Charles Darwin. Without detracting from the merits of the great English scientist, we note that the origins of the evolutionary idea can already be traced in the works of outstanding thinkers of antiquity. The baton was picked up by French encyclopedists of the 18th century. and, above all, Jean Baptiste Lamarck.

Lamarck's system of views was undoubtedly a huge step forward compared to the views that existed in his time. He was the first to turn the evolutionary idea into a coherent doctrine, which had a huge influence on the further development of biology.

However, at one time Lamarck was “silenced”. He died at the age of 85, blind. There was no one to look after the grave, and it was not preserved. In 1909, 100 years after the publication of Lamarck’s main work, Philosophy of Zoology, a monument to the creator of the first evolutionary theory was unveiled in Paris. The daughter’s words were engraved on the pedestal: “Posterity will admire you...”.

The first “evolutionary essay” published in the journal from the future book of the famous scientist and historian of science V. N. Soifer is dedicated to the great Lamarck and his concept of the evolution of living beings

“To observe nature, study its works, study general and particular relationships expressed in their properties, and finally, try to understand the order imposed in everything by nature, as well as its course, its laws, its infinitely varied means aimed at maintaining this order - in this, in my opinion, lies the opportunity for us to acquire at our disposal the only positive knowledge, the only one in addition to its undoubted usefulness; this is also the guarantee of the highest pleasures, most capable of rewarding us for the inevitable sorrows of life.”

Lamarck. Philosophy of Zoology, T. 1. M.;L., 1935, p. 12

The idea of ​​evolution, that is, the gradual change and development of the living world, is perhaps one of the most powerful and great ideas in the history of mankind. It gave the key to understanding the origin of the endless diversity of living beings and, ultimately, to the emergence and formation of man himself as a biological species. Today, any schoolchild, when asked about the creator of evolutionary theory, will name Charles Darwin. Without detracting from the merits of the great English scientist, it should be noted that the origins of the evolutionary idea can already be traced in the works of outstanding thinkers of antiquity. The baton was picked up by French scientists and encyclopedists of the 18th century, first of all, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, who was the first to translate the idea into a coherent evolutionary doctrine, which had a huge impact on the further development of biology. The first of a series of “evolutionary essays” published in our journal from the future book of the famous scientist and historian of science V.N. Soifer “Lamarckism, Darwinism, genetics and biological discussions in the first third of the twentieth century” is dedicated to the Lamarckian concept of the evolution of living beings.

In the works of ancient Greek thinkers, the idea of ​​self-development of the living world was of a natural philosophical nature. For example, Xenophanes of Colophon (6th–5th centuries BC) and Democritus (c. 460–c. 370 BC) did not talk about changes in species and not about their sequential transformation into each other over a long period, but about spontaneous generation.

In the same way, Aristotle (384-322 BC), who believed that living organisms arose by the will of the Higher Powers, does not have a complete evolutionary idea of ​​​​the transition from simpler forms to more complex ones. In his opinion, the Supreme God maintains the established order, monitors the emergence of species and their timely death, but does not create them, like God in the Jewish religion. However, a step forward was his assumption about the gradual complication of the forms of living beings in nature. According to Aristotle, God is the mover, although not the creator. In this understanding of God, he disagreed with Plato, who viewed God precisely as a creator.

The treatises of medieval philosophers, often simply retelling the ideas of Greek thinkers, did not even contain the rudiments of evolutionary teaching in the sense of indicating the possibility of the origin of some animal or plant species from other species.

Only at the end of the 17th century. English scientists Ray and Willoughby formulated the definition of “species” and described the species of animals known to them, omitting any mention of fantastic creatures that invariably appeared in the tomes of the Middle Ages.

From Linnaeus to Mirabeau

The great taxonomist Swede Carl Linnaeus introduced an essentially precise method into the classification of living beings when he substantiated the need to use for these purposes “numeros et nomina” - “numbers and names” (for plants - the number of stamens and pistils of a flower, monoecy and dioecy etc.; for all living beings, the so-called binary nomenclature - a combination of generic and species names). Linnaeus divided all living things into classes, orders, genera, species and varieties in his seminal work Systema Naturae, first published in 1735; reprinted 12 times during the author’s lifetime. He processed all the material available at that time, which included all known species of animals and plants. Linnaeus himself gave the first descriptions of one and a half thousand plant species.

Essentially, Linnaeus created a scientific classification of living things that remains unchanged in its main parts to this day. However, he did not pose the problem of the evolution of creatures, but completely agreed with the Bible that “we number as many species as were originally created” (“tot numeramus species, quat abinitio sunt creatae”). Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus somewhat modified his point of view, and admitted that God may have created such a number of forms that corresponds to the current number of genera, and then, by crossing with each other, modern species appeared, but this cautious recognition did not at all reject the role of the Creator.

From the middle of the 18th century. Many scientists tried to improve Linnaeus' classification, including the French Buffon, Bernard de Jussier and his son, Michel Adanson and others. Aristotle's idea of ​​the gradual replacement of some forms by others, now called the “ladder of beings,” became popular again. The widespread recognition of the idea of ​​gradualism was facilitated by the works of G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716), his “law of continuity.”

The idea of ​​the “ladder of beings” was presented in the most detail by the Swiss scientist Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) in his book “Contemplation of Nature.” He was an excellent naturalist, the first to give detailed descriptions of arthropods, polyps and worms. He discovered the phenomenon of parthenogenesis in aphids (the development of individuals from unfertilized female reproductive cells without the participation of males). He also studied the movement of juices along plant stems and tried to explain the functions of leaves.

In addition, Bonnet had the gift of an excellent storyteller; he mastered the word like a real writer. “Contemplation of Nature” was not his first book, and he tried to write it in such a fascinating language that it was an unprecedented success. In places the presentation turned into a hymn to the Creator, who created all kinds of matter so intelligently. At the base of the “ladder” - on the first step - he placed what he called “Finer Matters”. Then came fire, air, water, earth, sulfur, semi-metals, metals, salts, crystals, stones, slates, gypsum, talc, asbestos, and only then began a new flight of stairs - “Living Creatures” - from the simplest to the most complex, up to person. It is characteristic that Bonnet did not limit the staircase to man, but continued it, placing the “Ladder of the Worlds” above man, even higher – “Supernatural Beings” - members of the heavenly hierarchy, the ranks of angels (angels, archangels, etc.), completing the entire construction of the highest step - God. The book was translated into Italian, German, and English. In 1789, the already elderly Bonnet was visited by the Russian writer N.M. Karamzin, who promised to translate the book into Russian, which was done later, however, without Karamzin’s participation. Bonnet's ideas found not only enthusiastic admirers, but also harsh critics, for example, Voltaire and Kant. Others found it necessary to transform the “ladder” into a tree (Pallas) or into a kind of network (C. Linnaeus, I. Hermann).

In the middle of the 18th century. treatises appeared in which the role of the Creator was denied and the belief was expressed that the development of nature could proceed through the internal interactions of “parts of the world” - atoms, molecules, leading to the gradual emergence of increasingly complex formations. At the end of the 18th century. Diderot, in “Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature,” carefully attacked the authority of Holy Scripture.

P. Holbach was completely categorical, who in 1770, under the pseudonym Mirabeau, published the book “System of Nature,” in which the role of the Creator was rejected completely and without any doubts inherent in Diderot. Holbach's book was immediately banned. Many of the then rulers of minds rebelled against her, especially as it related to the atheistic views of the author, and Voltaire was the loudest of all. But the idea of ​​​​the variability of the living had already taken root and was fueled by the words (especially forbidden) of Holbach. And yet it was still not the idea of ​​the evolutionary development of living beings, as we understand it now.

Philosopher from Nature

For the first time, the idea of ​​the kinship of all organisms, their emergence due to gradual change and transformation into each other, was expressed in the introductory lecture to a zoology course in 1800 by Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier (or knight) de La Marck (1744-1829), whose name is enshrined in history as Jean Baptiste Lamarck. It took him 9 years to write and publish the huge two-volume work “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809). In it he systematically presented his views.

Unlike his predecessors, Lamarck did not simply distribute all organisms along the “ladder of creatures”, but considered that higher-ranking species descended from lower ones. Thus, he introduced the principle of historical continuity, or the principle of evolution, into the description of species. The staircase appeared in his work as a “movable” structure.

In the Philosophy of Zoology, Lamarck did not limit himself to presenting this idea as a bare diagram. He was an outstanding specialist, possessed a lot of information, not only about the species of animals and plants contemporary to him, but was also the recognized founder of invertebrate paleontology. By the time he formulated the idea of ​​​​the evolution of living beings, he was 56 years old. And therefore, his book was not the fruit of the immature thoughts of an excited young man, but contained “all the scientific material of its time,” as the outstanding Russian researcher of evolutionary theory Yu. A. Filipchenko emphasized.

Is it a coincidence that at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. Was Lamarck the creator of this doctrine? It was in the 18th century. After the works of Carl Linnaeus, the study of species diversity became systematic and popular. In about half a century (1748-1805), the number of described species increased 15 times, and by the middle of the 19th century. – another 6.5 times, exceeding one hundred thousand!

A characteristic feature of the 18th century. It was also the case that during this century, not only information about different species was accumulated, but intensive theoretical work was underway to create systems for classifying living beings. At the beginning of the century, in quite respectable works, one could still find Aristotle’s system, dividing animals into those who have blood (in his opinion, viviparous and oviparous quadrupeds, fish and birds), and those who do not have blood (molluscs, crustaceans, craniodermals, insects). After Linnaeus, no one would have taken this seriously.

The main work on the classification of living beings was carried out in the second half of the 18th century. And at this time, Lamarck’s contribution to the division of animals into different systematic categories was enormous, although still not sufficiently recognized. In the spring of 1794, none other than Lamarck introduced the division of animals into vertebrates and invertebrates. This fact alone would be enough to write his name in golden letters in the annals of natural science.

In 1795, he was the first to divide invertebrates into mollusks, insects, worms, echinoderms and polyps, later expanding the class of echinoderms to include jellyfish and a number of other species (at that moment he renamed echinoderms to radiata). Lamarck in 1799 isolated crustaceans, which at the same time Cuvier placed among insects. Then, in 1800, Lamarck identified arachnids as a special class, and in 1802, ringlets. In 1807, he gave a completely modern system of invertebrates, supplementing it with another innovation - separating ciliates into a special group, etc.

Of course, one must realize that all these additions and selections were not made with just the stroke of a pen and not on the basis of random insight. Behind each such proposal was a lot of work comparing the characteristics of different species, analyzing their external and internal structure, distribution, characteristics of reproduction, development, behavior, etc. Lamarck’s pen included several dozen volumes of works, starting from “Flora of France” in 3- volume edition of 1778 (4-volume edition of 1805 and 5-volume edition of 1815), “Encyclopedia of Botanical Methods” (1783-1789) - also in several volumes, books describing new plant species (editions of 1784, 1785, 1788, 1789, 1790. 1791), “Illustrated description of plant characteristics” (2 volumes of descriptions, 3 volumes of illustrations), etc., books on physics, chemistry, meteorology.

“Posterity will admire you!”

Surely, a significant role was also played by the fact that he was never the darling of fate, but rather, on the contrary - all his life he had to endure blows that would have knocked down a less powerful nature. The eleventh child in the family of a poor nobleman, he was sent to a Jesuit theological school to prepare for the priesthood, but as a sixteen-year-old youth, left without a father by this time, he decided to serve in the army, distinguished himself in battles against the British (the Seven Years' War was ending) and was promoted to to officers. After the war, he was in the army for another 5 years, but already during these years he became addicted to collecting plants. He had to say goodbye to military service against his own will: suddenly Lamarck fell seriously ill (inflammation of the lymphatic system began), and it took a year for treatment.

After recovery, Lamarck faced a new complication: his pension as a military man was meager, and he was not trained in anything else. I had to go work for pennies in a banker's office. He found solace in music, the pursuit of which was so serious that at one time he thought about the possibility of earning his living by playing music.

However, Lamarck did not become a musician. Once again he accepted the challenge of fate and entered the medical faculty. In 4 years he completed it, receiving a medical degree. But even then he did not abandon his passion for collecting and identifying plants. He met Jean-Jacques Rousseau, also a passionate herbarium collector, and on his advice began preparing a huge book, “Flora of France.” In 1778, the book was published at the expense of the state, it made Lamarck widely known, and the 35-year-old botanist, until then unknown to anyone, was elected academician. This did not bring money, but the honor was great, and Lamarck decides to prefer the career of a doctor (and the wealth it brings) to the career of a scientist (naturally, which promises nothing but poverty).

He is quickly rising to the ranks of outstanding botanists. Diderot and D'Alembert invite him to collaborate as editor of the botanical section of the Encyclopedia. Lamarck devotes all his time to this enormous work, which took almost 10 years of his life. He took his first more or less tolerable position only 10 years after his election to academicianship: in 1789 he received a modest salary as the keeper of the herbarium in the Royal Garden.

He did not confine himself only to the framework of a narrow specialty, which was well written about later by Georges Cuvier, who did not like him and spoiled his nerves a lot (Cuvier did not recognize the correctness of Lamarck’s idea of ​​evolution and developed his own hypothesis of the simultaneous changes of all living beings at once as a result of worldwide “catastrophes” and creation by God, instead of destroyed forms, of new creatures with a structure different from previously existing organisms). Despite his open antipathy towards Lamarck both during his life and after his death, Cuvier was forced to admit:

“During the 30 years that elapsed since the peace of 1763, not all of his time was spent on botany: during the long solitude to which his cramped situation condemned him, all the great questions that for centuries had captivated the attention of mankind took possession of his mind . He reflected on general questions of physics and chemistry, on atmospheric phenomena, on phenomena in living bodies, on the origin of the globe and its changes. Psychology, even high metaphysics, did not remain completely alien to him, and about all these subjects he formed certain, original ideas, formed by the power of his own mind...”

During the Great French Revolution, not only the old order was destroyed, not only was royal power overthrown, but almost all previously existing scientific institutions were closed. Lamarck was left without work. Soon, however, the “Museum of Natural History” was formed, where he was invited to work as a professor. But a new trouble awaited him: all three botanical departments were distributed among friends of the museum organizers, and the unemployed Lamarck had to go to the department of “Insects and Worms” for a piece of bread, that is, to radically change his specialization. However, this time he proved how strong his spirit is. He became not just a zoologist, but a brilliant specialist, the best zoologist of his time. It has already been said about the great contribution that the creator of invertebrate zoology left behind.

Since 1799, simultaneously with his work on the taxonomy of living beings, Lamarck agreed to take on another job: the French government decided to organize a network of meteorological stations throughout the country in order to predict the weather by collecting the necessary data. Even today, in the age of space and giant computers, with their memory and speed of calculations, this problem remains insufficiently successfully solved. What could one expect from forecasts at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries?! And yet, the eternal hard worker and enthusiast, Academician Lamarck, agreed to head the forecast service.

He had several weather stations around the country at his disposal. They were equipped with barometers, devices for measuring wind speed, precipitation, temperature and humidity. Thanks to the works of B. Franklin (1706-1790), the principles of meteorology had already been formulated, and nevertheless, the creation of the world's first effective weather service was a very risky business. But even from his time in the army, Lamarck was interested in physics and meteorology. Even his first scientific work was “A Treatise on the Fundamental Phenomena of the Atmosphere,” written and read publicly in 1776, but which remained unpublished. And although Lamarck began this work with ardor, the weather, as one would expect, did not want to obey the scientists’ calculations, and all the blame for the discrepancy between forecasts and realities fell on the head of poor Lamarck, the main enthusiast and organizer of a network of weather stations.

Ridicule and even accusations of charlatanism were heard not only from among the hot and noisy Parisian common people, but also from the lips of luminaries: Laplace's reviews were imbued with sarcasm, numerous forecast errors were methodically discussed in the Journal of Physics (of course, the botanist took away their bread, so and the result!). Finally, in 1810, Napoleon created a real obstruction for Lamarck at a reception of scientists, declaring that studying meteorology “will dishonor your old age” (Buonaparte himself, probably, at that moment considered himself almost a saint: the bitter losses of the battles and the fiasco of 1812 were still ahead ).

Napoleon, who imagined himself the ruler of the world, shouted at the great scientist, and old Lamarck was unable to even insert words in his defense and, standing with a book outstretched in his hand, burst into tears. The emperor did not want to take the book, and only the adjutant accepted it. And this book in Lamarck’s hand was a work that brought great glory to France - “Philosophy of Zoology”!

At the end of his life, the scientist went blind. But even as a blind man, he found the strength to continue his scientific work. He dictated new works to his daughters and published books. He made a huge contribution to the formation of comparative psychology, and in 1823 he published the results of studies of fossil shells.

He died on December 18, 1829, 85 years old. The heirs quickly sold his library, manuscripts, and collections. They did not have time to look after the grave, and it was not preserved. In 1909, 100 years after the publication of his main work, a monument to Lamarck was unveiled in Paris. The words of Lamarck’s daughter were engraved on the pedestal: “Posterity will admire you, they will avenge you, my father.”

First evolutionary

What are the ideas that Lamarck put forward in the Philosophy of Zoology?

The main one, as already mentioned, was the rejection of the principle of constancy of species - the preservation of unchanged characteristics in all creatures on earth: “I intend to challenge this assumption alone,” wrote Lamarck, “because the evidence drawn from observations clearly indicates that it is unfounded." In contrast, he proclaimed the evolution of living beings - the gradual complication of the structure of organisms, the specialization of their organs, the emergence of feelings in animals and, finally, the emergence of intelligence. This process, the scientist believed, was long: “In relation to living bodies, nature produced everything little by little and consistently: there is no longer any doubt about this.” The reason for the need for evolution is a change in the environment: “...breeds change in their parts as significant changes occur in the circumstances affecting them. Very many facts convince us that as the individuals of one of our species have to change location, climate, mode of life or habits, they are exposed to influences that little by little change the condition and proportion of their parts, their form, their abilities, even their organization... How many examples could I give from the animal and plant kingdoms to confirm this position.” True, it must be admitted that Lamarck’s idea of ​​the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as later studies showed, turned out to be exaggerated.

He structured his book in such a way that in the first part he outlined the basic principles of the new teaching, and in the second and third parts there were examples that supported these principles. Perhaps this was the reason for the rooting of one misconception - the opinion about the relatively weak evidence of his arguments. They say that Lamarck did nothing but proclaim the principles and did not support his assumptions with anything serious.

This opinion about the work is incorrect; it arises mainly due to the fact that critics did not take the trouble to read the author’s voluminous book to the end, but limited themselves mainly to its first part. But there were also examples given there. He talked about the gradual change in wheat cultivated by man, cabbage, and domestic animals. “And how many very different breeds have we obtained among your domestic chickens and pigeons by raising them in different conditions and in different countries,” he wrote. He also pointed out the changes in ducks and geese domesticated by humans, the rapid changes occurring in the bodies of birds caught in the wild and imprisoned in cages, and the huge variety of dog breeds: “Where can you find these Great Danes, greyhounds, poodles, bulldogs, lapdogs, etc. . d. – breeds that represent sharper differences among themselves than those that we accept as species...?” He also pointed to another powerful factor contributing to changes in characteristics - the crossing of organisms that differ in properties with each other: “... through crossing... all currently known breeds could consistently arise.”

Of course, when proposing a hypothesis about the evolution of living beings, Lamarck understood that it would be difficult to convince readers just by pointing out numerous cases, which is why he wrote about this at the beginning of the book: “... the power of old ideas over new ones, arising for the first time, favors... prejudice... As a result it turns out: no matter how much effort it takes to discover new truths in the study of nature, even greater difficulties lie in achieving their recognition.” Therefore, it was necessary to explain why organisms change and how changes are consolidated in generations. He believed that the whole point was the repetition of similar actions necessary for the exercise of organs (“Multiple repetition... strengthens, enlarges, develops and even creates the necessary organs”) and examines this assumption in detail using many examples (in the sections “Degradation and simplification of organization” and "The influence of external circumstances"). His conclusion is that “frequent use of an organ... increases the powers of that organ, develops the organ itself, and causes it to acquire a size and strength not found in animals that exercise it less.”

He also thinks about the question that has become central to biology a century later: how can changes take hold in subsequent generations? One cannot help but be amazed that at the beginning of the 19th century, when the problem of heredity had not yet been posed, Lamarck understood its importance and wrote down:

“Any change in any organ, a change caused by a fairly habitual use of this organ, is inherited by the younger generation, if only this change is inherent in both individuals who mutually contributed to the reproduction of their species during fertilization. This change is transmitted further and thus passes on to all descendants placed in the same conditions, but the latter already have to acquire it in the same way as it was acquired by their ancestors.”

Thus, Lamarck showed that he clearly understood the role of both partners taking part in the formation of the zygote. His belief in the role of repeated exercise in changing heredity turned out to be incorrect, however, he realized the importance of the process of introducing changes into the hereditary apparatus of organisms. Amazingly, Lamarck even gave the changed individuals a name - mutations, anticipating the introduction of the same term by de Vries a century later.

And yet, being ahead of his time in understanding the main thing - the recognition of the evolutionary process, he remained a man of the 18th century, which prevented him from giving a correct idea of ​​the laws governing the progress of the progressive development of living beings. However, he was far ahead of his contemporaries when he speculated about what the mechanism underlying the change in heredity could be (“After all... whatever the circumstances, they do not directly produce any change in the form and organization of animals”).

Lamarck states that irritation caused by long-term changes in the external environment affects parts of the cells in lower forms that do not have a nervous system, forces them to grow more or less, and if similar environmental changes persist long enough, the structure of the cells gradually changes. In animals with a nervous system, such long-term changes in the environment affect primarily the nervous system, which in turn affects the behavior of the animal, its habits and, as a result, “breeds change in their parts as significant changes occur in the circumstances affecting them "

He describes the process of changes in the nature of plants as follows: “In plants, where there are no actions at all (hence, no habits in the proper sense of the word), major changes in external circumstances lead to no less significant differences in the development of their parts... But here everything happens by changing the nutrition of plants, in its processes of absorption and excretion, in the amount of heat, light, air and moisture they usually receive...”

Consistently pursuing this idea about changes in species under the influence of changes in the environment, Lamarck comes to the generalization that everything in nature arose through gradual complication (gradation, as he wrote) from the simplest to the most complex forms, believing that “... deep-rooted prejudices prevent us from recognizing that nature itself has the ability and by all means to give existence to so many different creatures, to continuously, albeit slowly, change their breeds and everywhere maintain the general order that we observe.”

He noted the process of increasing complexity not only in the external signs of organisms, but also in their behavior and even their ability to think. In the initial section of the book in “Preliminary Remarks,” he wrote that “in their source, the physical and the moral are undoubtedly the same,” and further developed this idea: “...nature has all the necessary means and abilities to independently produce everything that we are surprised at her. ...To form judgments..., to think - all this is not only the greatest miracle that the power of nature could achieve, but also a direct indication that nature, which does not create anything at once, spent a lot of time on it.”

Of all these statements, later materialists made in the 20th century. the conclusion is that Lamarck was at heart a materialist. Indeed, his admiration for the power of the forces of nature was sincere. But still, there is no reason to speak unequivocally about his atheistic thinking, since in other places in the same “Philosophy of Zoology” he demonstrated his commitment to the thesis that nature cannot be excluded from God’s creations.

Therefore, it is more correct, in our opinion, to talk about Lamarck’s desire to consistently pursue the idea that the creation of the world was God’s providence, but by creating living things, God provided him with the opportunity to develop, improve and prosper. “Of course, everything has existence only by the will of the Supreme Creator,” he writes at the beginning of the book and continues in the middle of it: “...for both animals and plants there is one single order, planted by the Supreme Creator of all things.

Nature itself is nothing more than a general and immutable order established by the Supreme Creator - a set of general and particular laws governing this order. Constantly using the means received from the Creator, nature gave and continues to constantly give being to its works; it continuously changes and renews them, and as a result, the natural order of living bodies is completely preserved.”

Lamarck's system of views was undoubtedly a step forward compared to the views that existed in his time. He himself understood this well. More than once in the book, he repeated that those who know the nature and types of organisms first-hand, and who are themselves involved in the classification of plants and animals, will understand his arguments and agree with his conclusions: “The facts I present are very numerous and reliable; the consequences drawn from them, in my opinion, are correct and inevitable; Thus, I am convinced that replacing them with better ones will not be easy.”

But something else happened. Lamarck fell silent. Many of those who worked in science simultaneously with him (like J. Cuvier) or after him read Lamarck’s work, but could not rise to the level of his thinking, or casually, without arguments and scientific polemics, tried to get rid of his outstanding idea about evolution of living things with absurd objections or even ridicule.

His theory of evolution as a whole was ahead of its time and, as one of the founders of Russian genetics Yu. A. Filipchenko noted: “Each fruit must ripen before it falls from the branch and becomes edible for humans - and this is just as true for each new ideas..., and at the time of the appearance of “Philosophy of Zoology” most minds were not yet prepared to perceive the evolutionary idea.”

An important role in the silence of Lamarck’s ideas was played by the position of those who, like Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), who was very prominent in scientific circles at that time, propagated their own hypotheses, opposite to Lamarck’s. Cuvier unshakably believed in the correctness of his hypothesis of worldwide catastrophes, according to which the Higher Power periodically changed the general structure of living beings on Earth, removing old forms and planting new ones.

The perception of the idea of ​​evolution could not but be influenced by a completely understandable transformation of public views. After the triumph of the encyclopedists, although they publicly held views on the inviolability of faith in God, but by their deeds propagated atheism, after the collapse of the French Revolution, which reflected the general disappointment with the behavior of the leaders of the revolution in 1789-1794, to power (naturally, not without the sympathy of the bulk of the people ) other forces have returned. In 1795, the Paris Commune was dissolved, the Jacobin Club was closed, brutal executions “in the name of the Revolution” stopped, in 1799 the Directory took power, and in 1814 the Empire was established again.

Conservative views again acquired an attractive force, and under these conditions, Lamarck’s work lost the support from the rulers of public policy, which he needed and thanks to which he would probably have found recognition more easily. Had his work appeared a quarter of a century earlier or a quarter of a century later, it would have been easier for him to become the focus of society's interests.

Literature

Karpov Vl. Lamarck, historical essay // Lamarck J. B. Philosophy of Zoology. M., 1911

Lamarck J. B. Philosophy of Zoology / Transl. from French S. V. Sapozhnikova. T. 1. M.; L., Biomedgiz., 1935. 330 pp.; T. 2. M.; L., Biomedgiz., 1937. 483 p.

Filipchenko Yu. A. Evolutionary idea in biology: Historical review of evolutionary teachings of the 19th century. Lomonosov Library. Ed. M. and S. Sabashnikov. 1928. 288 p.

The editors thank K.I. n. N. A. Kopaneva (Russian National Library, St. Petersburg), Ph.D. n. N. P. Kopanev (St. Petersburg branch of the RAS Archive), Ph.D. n. A. G. Kireychuk (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow), O. Lantyukhov (L’Université Paris-Dauphine), B. S. Elepov (State Public Library for Science and Technology SB RAS, Novosibirsk) for help in preparing the illustrative material

More about this

the doctrine of the development of living nature, developed by Ch. arr. Darren. The E. volume summarized the results of centuries-old selection practice, the achievements of biology, geology, and paleontology, and the observations of Darwin himself during his trip around the world. Ch. Factors in the evolution of living beings, according to Darwin, are variability, heredity and selection (at home - artificial, in nature - natural). During the struggle for existence, which occurs under changing environmental conditions, only the most adapted of living beings survive and produce offspring. Natural selection constantly improves the structure and functions of organisms and develops the adaptability of organisms to the environment. E. t. was the first to provide a scientific explanation for the diversity of biological species and their origin, and formed the basis of modern science. biology. Together with the natural science theories of Kant, J. Lamarck, and C. Lyell, economic theory contributed to the substantiation of the inconsistency of the metaphysical way of thinking. It also dealt a blow to idealistic views of living nature and was the natural historical basis of the dialectical-materialist worldview. The further development of genetic theory is associated with discoveries in genetics and molecular biology of the mechanism of hereditary variability, with the study of species populations, the development of the biosphere, etc.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

in biology) - a set of ideas about the mechanisms and patterns of historical. changes in organic nature. Basic The aspects of life are structure, functioning and genesis. In turn, genesis can be considered in two aspects – historical (evolution) and individual (ontogenesis). Evolution is a very slow process, so for early naturalists it was discovered only indirectly, according to its results - as a known sequence of organic processes. forms, so-called "staircase of creatures" The explanation of this sequence initially did not go beyond the ideas of creationism, although Dep. aspects of evolution. approach can be detected already at the early stages of the development of biology. As a scientist theory of evolution The doctrine emerged only in the 19th century with the establishment of Darwinism. The formation and development of E. t. is inseparable from the development of biology itself, primarily from the development of its basic system. concepts, as well as from the accumulation and systematization of empirical. material. Duration unity time An organism was considered an element of living nature, to which only evolution spread. representation. The accumulation of data on organisms contributed to the rapid development of taxonomy, which in turn led to the formation of the concept of species as the main one. systematic units. The study of the diversity of species culminated in the idea of ​​a single pedigree, or phyletic, organic tree. peace. Filetich. the picture of life was one of the first successes of evolution. ideas in biology. If the general contours of the phyletic The evolution of organisms emerged more and more clearly, but its mechanism and driving forces were completely unexplored. This gave rise to speculative concepts of evolution, of which Lamarck's theory was the most complete. According to Lamarck, the evolution of organisms is a two-pronged process: one type of evolution. changes are due to the action of internal (divine) forces, the other is the result of direct adaptation to the environment, a consequence of exercise and lack of exercise of organs. Both of these ideas had virtually no basis in fact, and Lamarck's theory did not receive support. But the understanding of evolution itself as a change in species has become quite defined. outlines, paving the way for Darwinism. In creating his E. t., Darwin relied on a generalization of vast factual facts. describe the material. biology, geology, paleontology, selection, etc. x-va and studied primarily the process of variability. This allowed him to abandon the Lamarckian idea of ​​direct adaptation and characterize the driving force of evolution as the interaction of heredity, variation and selection. Since the environment is the main controlling factor in the selection process, the evolution of organisms was described by Darwin as the result of the interaction of the organism and the environment. This t.zr. became the core of materialism. understanding of evolution as a simultaneous manifestations of internal and external forces of development. It was considered by the founders of Marxism as one of the decisive evidence in the substantiation of dialectical principles. nature of development in living nature. Darwin accepted the concept of species, which was already firmly established in biology, and spoke of evolution as the origin of species: adaptation itself, changes in organisms and divergence of species. However, the theory of the origin of species, as formulated by Darwin, only indicated ch. factors of evolution and therefore gave only a general description of the process of evolution. The intimate aspects of this process, primarily the problems of heredity and variability, remained undisclosed. Therefore, in the subsequent development of biology, successes and failures in the study of heredity were directly reflected in E. t. (for example, the discovery by De Vries of macromutations in certain plants led to the belief in the absence of creatures, the role of selection; later it was found that macromutations represent an extremely rare the phenomenon that variability is built on the basis of small mutations). The further development of E. t. is associated primarily with the successes of genetics, mainly. Steps have been taken since the rediscovery of Mendel's famous laws on the splitting of characters during crossing. Analysis of heredity and variability in modern times. genetics significantly expanded the basis of E. t. The next step in the development of ideas about the mechanisms of evolution is associated with the transition to research (along with the organism) of species populations and those processes that occur within the species. Thanks to intraspecific crossing, mutations that arise in some organisms spread throughout the population, recombine and form new combinations of traits; selection fixes the most successful combinations in a given environment, and the proportion of the corresponding genes in the general gene pool of the species increases; when environmental conditions change, other genomes (combinations of inheritances, factors) may turn out to be favorable. These kinds of processes are directly involved in evolution. species transformations. Thus, genetics has shown that adaptive evolution. changes are formed from uncertainty. changes only within the species. Accordingly, the idea of ​​“species-centrism” arose, according to which the species is the main thing. unit of organic world and unit of evolution. Further development of evolution. ideas led to the creation of the so-called. synthetic E. t. Inheriting the ideas of the classic. Darwinism, it continues to occupy the place of the central theoretical. designs in classic biology. Along with Ch. along the evolutionary path. ideas in organismal biology, in which the interaction of the organism and the environment is recognized as the leading factor, other directions existed and exist. One of these concepts is vitalism, in the present day. time rejected by the vast majority of biologists. Dr. concepts that retain a certain distribution can be divided into two opposing groups: those, according to which, evolution is basically. features is carried out on the basis of internal patterns (autogenesis, orthogenesis, nomogenesis, etc.), and such, according to the Crimea, evolution as a whole or mainly. features is accomplished on the basis of the direct influence of the environment on the body (exogenesis, the so-called theory of “assimilation of external conditions,” etc.). Both of these approaches lead to errors: autogeneticists are usually forced to admit the possibility of pre-adaptation, i.e. will adapt. changes that occur before the body enters the environment in which these changes are beneficial to it; exogeneticists are forced to attribute to the organism a certain initial ability to change adequately to the environment. A special place is occupied by the group of evolutionaries. ideas originating from Lamarck and Spencer. Here, evolution is viewed as a two-pronged process: its basis is considered to be non-adaptive changes (occurring regardless of the environment); on this basis type of changes are superimposed by adaptations caused by the environment. It is believed that adaptive variability may be based on a selection mechanism, and non-adaptive changes, moving towards complexity, are caused by unexplored, but quite material forces, for example. associated with the transition of an organism from a less probable to a more probable state (increase in entropy). This t.zr. has been increasingly put forward lately, but the idea of ​​spontaneous non-adaptive changes leading to more complex organizations is still poorly substantiated. To some extent this direction is close to finalistic. structures, but free from their fundamentals. extremes – ideas of the “final” of evolution. Classic biology can be considered as biology mainly at the organismal level, studying only the species among supraorganismal systems. Modern Biology has added to its objects both communities of organisms and other ecology. systems – biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole. This led to the approval of the idea of ​​a multi-level structure of living nature. Thus, the problem of the origin and evolution of not only organisms and species, but also communities was posed. ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. Thus, evolutionary the approach, while fully retaining its significance in biology, requires new scales and conceptual forms of evolution for its development. thinking. This is not to disparage Darwinism as a theory of the evolution of organisms and species. We are talking about searching for something specific. patterns inherent in each of the environmental levels and not reducible to the selection process. Searches in this area turn out to be closely related to the development of the study of objects as systems. Lit.: Berg L.S., Nomogenesis or evolution based on patterns, P., 1922; Bauer E. S., Theoretic. biology, M.–L., 1935; Lamarck J.B., Philosophy of Zoology, trans. from French, vol. 1–2, M.–L., 1935–37; Severtsov A.N., Morphological. patterns of evolution, M.–L., 1939; Shmalgauzen I.I., Paths and patterns of evolution. process, M.–L., 1939; his, The Problem of Adaptation in Darwin and the Anti-Darwinists, in the book: Philosophy. problems of modern times biology, M.–L., 1966; Sukachev V.N., The idea of ​​development in phytocenology, "Soviet Botany", 1942, No. 1–3; Simpson J.G., Pace and Form of Evolution, trans. from English, M., 1948; Darwin Ch., Origin of Species, trans. from English, M., 1952; Livanov?. ?., Paths of evolution of the animal world, M., 1955; Zavadsky K. M., The doctrine of species, L., 1961; Cuenot L., Invention et finalit? en biologie, P., 1941; Vandel?., L'homme et l'?volution, P., 1949; Huxley J., Evolution in action, N. Y., 1953; Vertalanffy L. von, Problems of life, N. Y., ; Lerner I. M., The genetic basis of selection, N. Y.–L., 1961; Grant V., The origin of adaptations, N. Y.–L., 1963; Stebbins G. L., Variation and evolution in plants, N. Y.–L., 1963; Dobzhansky Th., Genetics and the origin of species, 3 ?d., N. Y.–L.–; Mayr E., Animal species and evolution, Camb. (Mass.), 1965. K. Khailov. Sevastopol.

The idea of ​​gradual and continuous change in all species of plants and animals was expressed by many scientists long before Darwin. Therefore the very concept evolution - the process of long-term, gradual, slow changes, which ultimately lead to fundamental, qualitative changes - the emergence of new organisms, structures, forms and species, penetrated into science at the end of the 18th century.

However, it was Darwin who put forward a completely new hypothesis regarding living nature, generalizing individual evolutionary ideas into one, the so-called theory of evolution, which has become widespread in the world.

During his trip around the world, Charles Darwin collected a wealth of material indicating the variability of plant and animal species. A particularly striking find was a huge fossil sloth skeleton discovered in South America. Comparison with modern, small sloths prompted Darwin to think about the evolution of species.

The richest empirical material accumulated by that time in geography, archeology, paleontology, physiology, taxonomy, etc., allowed Darwin to draw a conclusion about the long-term evolution of living nature. Darwin outlined his concept in his work "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection""(1859). Charles Darwin's book was a phenomenal success; its first edition (1250 copies) was sold on the first day. The book was about explaining the emergence of living beings without appealing to the idea of ​​God.

It should be noted that, despite its enormous popularity among the reading public, the idea of ​​the gradual appearance of new species in wildlife turned out to be so unusual for the scientific community of that time that it was not immediately accepted.

Darwin suggested that there is competition in animal populations, due to which only those individuals survive that have properties that are advantageous in given specific conditions, allowing them to leave offspring. The basis of Darwin's evolutionary theory is made up of three principles: a) heredity and variability; b) the struggle for existence; c) natural selection. Variability is an integral property of all living things. Despite the similarity of living organisms of the same species, it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals within a population. This variation in characteristics and properties creates an advantage for some organisms over others.

Under normal conditions, the difference in properties remains unnoticeable and does not have a significant impact on the development of organisms, but when conditions change, especially in an unfavorable direction, even the slightest difference can give some organisms a significant advantage over others. Only individuals with properties appropriate to the conditions are able to survive and leave offspring. Darwin distinguishes between indefinite and definite variability.

Certain variability, or adaptive modification,- the ability of individuals of the same species to respond in the same way to changes in the environment. Such group changes are not inherited, and therefore cannot supply material for evolution.

Uncertain variability, or mutation, - individual changes in the body that are inherited. Mutations are not directly related to changes in environmental conditions, but it is uncertain variability that plays a crucial role in the evolutionary process. Positive changes that occur by chance are inherited. As a result, only a small part of the offspring, possessing useful hereditary properties, survives and reaches maturity.

Between living beings, according to Darwin, a struggle for existence unfolds. Concretizing this concept, Darwin pointed out that within a species more individuals are born than survive to adulthood.

Natural selection- a leading factor in evolution that explains the mechanism of formation of new species. It is this selection that acts as the driving force of evolution. The selection mechanism leads to the selective destruction of those individuals that are less adapted to environmental conditions.

Criticism of the concept of Darwinian evolution

Neo-Lamarckism was the first major anti-Darwinian doctrine that appeared at the end of the 19th century. Neo-Lamarckism was based on the recognition of adequate variability that arises under the direct or indirect influence of environmental factors, forcing organisms to directly adapt to them. Neo-Lamarckists also spoke about the impossibility of inheriting traits acquired in this way and denied the creative role of natural selection. The basis of this doctrine was the old ideas of Lamarck.

Among other anti-Darwinian teachings, we note theory of nomogenesisL. C. Berg, created in 1922. This theory is based on the idea that evolution is a programmed process of implementing internal laws inherent in all living things. He believed that organisms are endowed with an internal force of an unknown nature that acts purposefully, regardless of the external environment, in the direction of increasing the complexity of the organization. To prove this, Berg cited a lot of data on the convergent and parallel evolution of different groups of plants and animals.

Charles Darwin believed that natural selection ensures progress in the development of living organisms. In addition, he emphasized that the elementary unit of evolution is not the individual, but the species. However, it was later established that the elementary unit of evolution is not kind, A population.

The weak link of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory was the lack of an accurate and convincing mechanism of heredity. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis did not explain how the accumulation and preservation of beneficial hereditary changes occurs as a result of further crossing of living organisms. Contrary to the popular belief that when crossing organisms with useful properties and organisms that do not have these properties, there should be an averaging of useful characteristics, their dissolution in a series of generations. The evolutionary concept assumed that these traits accumulated.

C. Darwin was aware of the weakness of his concept, but was unable to satisfactorily explain the mechanism of inheritance.

The answer to this question was given by the theory of the Austrian biologist and geneticist Mendel, which substantiated the discrete nature of heredity.

Created in the 20th century. synthetic theory of evolution(STE) completed the integration of evolutionary theory with genetics. STE is a synthesis of Darwin's basic evolutionary ideas, and above all natural selection, with new research results in the field of heredity and variability. An important component of STE are the concepts of micro- and macroevolution. Under microevolution understand the totality of evolutionary processes occurring in populations, leading to changes in the gene pool of these populations and the formation of new species.

It is believed that microevolution occurs on the basis of mutational variability under the control of natural selection. Mutations are the only source of the emergence of qualitatively new characteristics, and natural selection is the only creative factor in microevolution.

The nature of microevolutionary processes is influenced by fluctuations in population numbers (“waves of life”), the exchange of genetic information between them, their isolation and genetic drift. Microevolution leads either to a change in the entire gene pool of a biological species as a whole, or to their separation from the parent species as new forms.

Macroevolution is understood as evolutionary transformations leading to the formation of taxa of a higher rank than the species (genera, orders, classes).

It is believed that macroevolution does not have specific mechanisms and is carried out only through the processes of microevolution, being their integrated expression. As they accumulate, microevolutionary processes are expressed externally in macroevolutionary phenomena, i.e. macroevolution is a generalized picture of evolutionary change. Therefore, at the level of macroevolution, general trends, directions and patterns of evolution of living nature are discovered that cannot be observed at the level of microevolution.

Some events that are usually cited as evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis can be reproduced in the laboratory, but this does not mean that they actually occurred in the past. They only indicate that these events could have happened.

Many objections to the evolutionary hypothesis are still unanswered.

In connection with criticism of Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection, it is advisable to note the following. Currently, having marked a civilizational crisis - a crisis of the basic ideological principles of humanity - it is becoming increasingly clear that Darwinism is just a particular model of competitive interaction that unjustifiably claims to be universal.

Let us take a closer look at the central link of Darwinism - the property of adaptability or adaptability of the evolutionary process. What does it mean - a more adapted individual or individuals? Strictly speaking, there is no answer to this question in Darwinism, and if there is an indirect answer, it is erroneous.

The indirect answer is as follows: the fittest individual will be the one that wins the competition and survives. The latter inevitably leads to the idea of ​​a gangster individual and an aggressor species. Populations and ecosystems with such an aggressor species would be clearly unstable: they would not be able to exist for a long time. This contradicts the facts and ideas established in biology that sustainable ecosystems are generally in equilibrium, and replacement processes do not occur in them.

The way for sustainable existence of populations, communities and ecosystems is cooperation and mutual complementarity 115].

Competition is of a private nature: it is fully involved in a non-equilibrium population moving towards equilibrium, and plays the role of a kind of catalyst, accelerating the movement of the ecosystem towards equilibrium. However, directly related to evolution, i.e. progress, this kind of competition does not exist. Example: the introduction of a species into a new area - the importation of a rabbit to Australia. There was competition for food, but no new species, much less a progressive one, arose. Another example: a litter of rabbits was also released on the island of Porto Sonto in the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike their European counterparts, these rabbits have become smaller and have different colors. When crossed with a European species, they did not produce fertile offspring - a new species of rabbits emerged. It is clear that competition was also involved in the establishment of an equilibrium population. However, speciation occurred not at its expense, but due to new environmental conditions. At the same time, there is no evidence that the emerging species of rabbits is more progressive than the European one.

Thus, the purpose of competition is completely different from that in Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection. Competition eliminates abnormal, “decay” individuals (with disturbances in the genetic apparatus). Thus, competitive interaction eliminates regression. But the mechanism of progress is not competitive interaction, but the discovery and development of a new resource: as evolution proceeds, the smarter one gets an advantage.

Darwin's concept is constructed as a negative process in which not the strongest survive, but the weakest perish.

Darwinism denies trends—patterns that are quite obvious (for example, Georgians and Ukrainians sing well), arguing that all essential properties are determined by their usefulness for survival.

Darwinism is generally pointless, since natural selection simply does not exist in nature.

As is known, Darwin did not give examples of natural selection in nature, limiting himself to an analogy with artificial selection. But this analogy is unsuccessful. Artificial selection requires the forced crossing of desired individuals while completely excluding the reproduction of all others. There is no such selective procedure in nature. Darwin himself recognized this.

Natural selection does not represent selective crossing, but selective reproduction. In nature, only a few examples have been found of how, thanks to selective reproduction, the frequency of carriers of a certain trait changes, but that’s all. It was not possible to find a single example where something new appeared as a result of this procedure (except for that boring case when turning on or off already existing gene).

The only justification for Darwinism is still the analogy with artificial selection, but also it has not yet led to the emergence of at least one new genus, not to mention the family, detachment and above. Thus, Darwinism is not a description of evolution, but a way of interpreting a small part of it (changes within a species) using a hypothetical cause called natural selection.

Evolution not according to Darwin

The direction of evolution is determined by whose set of genes is introduced into the next generation, not by whose set of genes disappeared in the previous one.

The “modern” theory of evolution - the synthetic theory of evolution (STE), based on the synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics, proves that the cause of variability is mutations - sudden changes in the hereditary structure of an organism that occur randomly, also doesn't solve the problem.

IN evolution is based not Darwinian selection, not mutations (as in STE), but individual intraspecific variability, which exists constantly in all populations. It is individual variability that provides the basis for the preservation of certain functions in the population. It’s as if aliens arrived and started beating us with a huge colander, into the holes of which the smartest (smartest) would slip. Then those who think worse would simply disappear.

Horizontal gene transfer has been known for many years, i.e. acquisition of hereditary information in addition to the process of reproduction. It turned out that in the chromosomes and cytoplasm of the cell there are a number of biochemical compounds that are in a chaotic state and are capable of interacting with the nucleic acid structures of another organism. These biochemical compounds were called plasmids. Plasmids are capable of being incorporated into a recipient cell and activated under the influence of certain external factors. The transition from a latent state to an active state means the combination of the donor's genetic material with the recipient's genetic material. If the resulting construct is functional, protein synthesis begins.

Based on this technology, insulin was synthesized - a protein that helps fight diabetes.

In unicellular microorganisms, horizontal gene transfer is decisive in evolution.

Migrating genetic elements show significant similarity to viruses. Discovery of the phenomenon of gene transduction, i.e. transfer of genetic information into plant and animal cells using viruses that include part of the genes of the original host cell, suggests that viruses and similar biochemical formations occupy a special place in evolution.

Some scientists express the opinion that migrating biochemical compounds can cause even more serious changes in cell genomes than mutations. If this assumption turns out to be correct, then it will be necessary to significantly revise current ideas about the mechanisms of evolution.

Hypotheses are now being put forward about the significant role of viruses in the mixing of genetic information of different populations, the occurrence of leaps in the evolutionary process, in a word, we are talking about the most important role of viruses in the evolutionary process.

Viruses are among the most dangerous mutagens. Viruses- the smallest of living creatures. They do not have a cellular structure and are not capable of synthesizing protein themselves, so they obtain the substances necessary for their life activity by penetrating a living cell and using foreign organic substances and energy.

In humans, as in plants and animals, viruses cause many diseases. Although mutations are the main suppliers of evolutionary material, they are random changes that obey probabilistic laws. Therefore, they cannot serve as a determining factor in the evolutionary process.

Nevertheless, the idea of ​​the leading role of mutations in the evolutionary process formed the basis theories of neutral mutations, created in the 1970s and 1980s by Japanese scientists M. Kimura and T. Ota. According to this theory, changes in the functions of the protein-synthesizing apparatus are the result of random mutations that are neutral in their evolutionary consequences. Their true role is to provoke genetic drift - a change in the purity of genes in a population under the influence of completely random factors.

On this basis, the neutralist concept of non-Darwinian evolution was proclaimed, the essence of which lies in the idea that natural selection does not work at the molecular genetic level. And although these ideas are not generally accepted among biologists, it is obvious that the direct arena of natural selection is the phenotype, i.e. living organism, ontogenetic level of life organization.

Recently, another concept of non-Darwinian evolution has emerged - punctualism. Its supporters believe that the process of evolution proceeds through rare and rapid leaps, and 99% of its time the species remains in a stable state - stasis. In extreme cases, the leap to a new species can occur in a population of only a dozen individuals within one or several generations.

This hypothesis rests on a broad genetic basis laid by a number of fundamental discoveries in molecular genetics and biochemistry. Punctualism rejected the genetic-population model of speciation, Darwin's idea of ​​varieties and subspecies as emerging species, and focused its attention on the molecular genetics of the individual as the bearer of all the properties of the species.

The value of this concept lies in the idea of ​​the disunity of micro- and macroevolution (as opposed to STE) and the independence of the factors controlled by them.

Thus, Darwin's concept is not the only one trying to explain the evolutionary process. However, Darwin was made into an icon, and Darwinism into a religion (the word “selection” is used colloquially, like bread and water). If a religion can only be superseded by another religion, then what religion can replace Darwinism today with benefit to people? Classical religions cannot do this because they profess creationism, and it contradicts science and therefore alienates precisely those on whom one should rely.

The religion of veneration of nature as a whole can supplant Darwinism, to the common benefit(where man is only a part of nature, a product of it). This is the only way to replace the ideology of “fight against nature” that the dominance of Darwinism asserts on planet Earth.

The seeds of reverence for nature as a whole are already visible in the emerging environmental movements.

The temporary establishment in the world of the Darwinian worldview, supplemented by economic market mechanisms, was one of the main ideological causes of the modern civilizational crisis.

You should also pay attention to the review of Darwinism made back in the 19th century. the leading pathologist R. von Virchow, at the congress of naturalists in Munich. He demanded that the study and dissemination of the ideas of Darwinism be prohibited, since its spread could lead to a repetition of the Paris Commune.

Perhaps in the future, STE and non-Darwinian concepts of evolution, complementing each other, will unite into a new single theory of life and development of living nature.

Molecular biology and others.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Synthetic theory of evolution

✪ Evolution - 3. Synthetic theory of evolution - part 1.

✪ Basic provisions of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Biology video lesson 9th grade

✪ Discovery - Understanding: Evolution / Understanding: Evolution (2004)

✪ Factors of evolution | Unified State Exam Biology | Daniel Darwin

Subtitles

Prerequisites for the emergence of the theory

Problems in the original Darwinian theory that led to its loss of popularity

Soon after its emergence, the theory of natural selection was subjected to constructive criticism from its principled opponents, and some of its elements - from its supporters. Most of the counterarguments against Darwinism during the first quarter of a century of its existence were collected in a two-volume monograph “Darwinism: A Critical Study” by the Russian philosopher and publicist N. Ya. Danilevsky. Nobel laureate 1908 I. I. Mechnikov, while agreeing with Darwin on the leading role of natural selection, did not share Darwin’s assessment of the importance of overpopulation for evolution. The founder of the theory himself attached the greatest importance to the counterargument of the English engineer F. Jenkin, which, with the light hand of Darwin, was called “Jenkin’s nightmare.”

As a result, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, most biologists accepted the concept of evolution, but few believed that natural selection was its main driving force. Neo-Lamarckism, the theory of orthogenesis and the combination of Mendelian genetics with the mutation theory of Korzhinsky - De Vries became dominant. The English biologist Julian Huxley dubbed this situation “ eclipse of Darwinism ru en".

Controversies between genetics and Darwinism

Although Mendel's discovery of discrete heredity eliminated significant difficulties associated with Jenkin's nightmare, many geneticists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution.

The emergence and development of STE

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

It is believed that an evolutionary act took place when selection preserved a gene combination that was atypical for the previous history of the species. As a result, evolution requires the presence of three processes:

1. mutational, generating new gene variants with low phenotypic expression;
2. recombination, creating new phenotypes of individuals;
3. selection, determining the correspondence of these phenotypes to given living or growing conditions.

All supporters of the synthetic theory recognize the participation of the three listed factors in the evolution.

An important prerequisite for the emergence of a new theory of evolution was the book of the English geneticist, mathematician and biochemist J. B. S. Haldane Jr., who published it in 1932 under the title “ The causes of evolution" Haldane, creating the genetics of individual development, immediately included the new science in solving the problems of macroevolution.

Major evolutionary innovations very often arise on the basis of neoteny (preservation of juvenile characteristics in an adult organism). Neoteny Haldane explained the origin of man (“naked ape”), the evolution of such large taxa as graptolites and foraminifera. In 1933, Chetverikov’s teacher N.K. Koltsov showed that neoteny is widespread in the animal kingdom and plays an important role in progressive evolution. It leads to morphological simplification, but at the same time the richness of the genotype is preserved.

In almost all historical and scientific models, 1937 was named the year of the emergence of STE - this year the book of the Russian-American geneticist and entomologist-systematist F. G. Dobzhansky appeared “ Genetics and the Origin of Species" The success of Dobzhansky's book was determined by the fact that he was both a naturalist and an experimental geneticist. “Dobzhansky’s double specialization allowed him to be the first to build a solid bridge from the camp of experimental biologists to the camp of naturalists” (E. Mayr). For the first time, the most important concept of “isolating mechanisms of evolution” was formulated - those reproductive barriers that separate the gene pool of one species from the gene pools of other species. Dobzhansky introduced the half-forgotten Hardy-Weinberg equation into wide scientific circulation. He also introduced the “S. Wright effect” into naturalistic material, believing that microgeographic races arise under the influence of random changes in gene frequencies in small isolates, that is, in an adaptively neutral way.

In the English-language literature, among the creators of STE, the names of F. Dobzhansky, J. Huxley, E. Mayr, B. Rensch, and J. Stebbins are most often mentioned. This is, of course, not a complete list. Only among Russian scientists, at least, one should name I. I. Shmalhausen, N. V. Timofeev-Resovsky, G. F. Gause, N. P. Dubinin, A. L. Takhtadzhyan. Of the British scientists, the great role played by J. B. S. Haldane Jr., D. Lack, K. Waddington, and G. de Beer. German historians name among the active creators of STE the names of E. Baur, W. Zimmermann, W. Ludwig, G. Heberer and others.

Basic provisions of STE, their historical formation and development

The 1930s and 1940s saw a rapid, broad synthesis of genetics and Darwinism. Genetic ideas penetrated taxonomy, paleontology, embryology, and biogeography. The term "modern" or "evolutionary synthesis" comes from the title of J. Huxley's book " "(1942). The expression “synthetic theory of evolution”, strictly applied to this theory, was first used by J. Simpson in 1949.

• The elementary unit of evolution is considered to be a local population;
• the material for evolution is mutation and recombination variability;
• natural selection is considered as the main reason for the development of adaptations, speciation and the origin of supraspecific taxa;
• genetic drift and the founder principle are the reasons for the formation of neutral traits;
• a species is a system of populations reproductively isolated from populations of other species, and each species is ecologically distinct;
• Speciation consists of the emergence of genetic isolating mechanisms and occurs primarily under conditions of geographic isolation.

Thus, the synthetic theory of evolution can be characterized as a theory of organic evolution through natural selection of genetically determined traits.

The activity of the American creators of STE was so high that they quickly created the International Society for the Study of Evolution, which in 1946 became the founder of the journal " Evolution" Magazine " American Naturalist» again returned to publishing works on evolutionary topics, focusing on the synthesis of genetics, experimental and field biology. As a result of numerous and varied studies, the main provisions of STE were not only successfully tested, but also modified and supplemented with new ideas.

In 1942, the German-American ornithologist and zoogeographer E. Mayr published the book “Systematics and the Origin of Species,” in which the concept of a polytypic species and a genetic-geographical model of speciation were consistently developed. Mayr proposed the founder's principle, which was formulated in its final form in 1954. If genetic drift, as a rule, provides a causal explanation for the formation of neutral traits in the temporal dimension, then the founder's principle in the spatial dimension.

After the publication of the works of Dobzhansky and Mayr, taxonomists received a genetic explanation for what they had long been sure of: subspecies and closely related species differ to a large extent in adaptive-neutral characters.

None of the works on STE can compare with the mentioned book by the English experimental biologist and naturalist J. Huxley “ Evolution: The Modern synthesis"(1942). Huxley's work, in terms of the volume of analyzed material and breadth of problems, surpasses even Darwin's own book. Huxley kept all directions in the development of evolutionary thought in mind for many years, closely followed the development of related sciences, and had personal experience as an experimental geneticist. Prominent historian of biology Provin assessed Huxley’s work as follows: “Evolution. A Modern Synthesis was the most comprehensive on the topic and documents than other works on the subject. The books of Haldane and Dobzhansky were written primarily for geneticists, Mayr for taxonomists, and Simpson for paleontologists. Huxley's book became the dominant force in the evolutionary synthesis."

In terms of volume, Huxley's book had no equal (645 pages). But the most interesting thing is that all the main ideas presented in the book were very clearly written out by Huxley on 20 pages back in 1936, when he sent an article to the British Association for the Advancement of Science entitled “ Natural selection and evolutionary progress" In this aspect, none of the publications on evolutionary theory published in the 1930s and 40s can compare with Huxley's article. Well aware of the spirit of the times, Huxley wrote: “Biology is currently in a phase of synthesis. Until this time, the new disciplines had worked in isolation. There has now been a tendency towards unification, which is more fruitful than the old one-sided views of evolution" (1936). Even in the works of the 1920s, Huxley showed that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible; natural selection acts as a factor of evolution and as a factor of stabilization of populations and species (evolutionary stasis); natural selection acts on small and large mutations; Geographic isolation is the most important condition for speciation. The apparent purpose in evolution is explained by mutations and natural selection.

The main points of Huxley's 1936 article can be summarized very briefly in this form:

1. Mutations and natural selection are complementary processes that, individually, are not capable of creating directed evolutionary changes.
2. Selection in natural populations most often acts not on individual genes, but on gene complexes. Mutations may not be beneficial or harmful, but their selective value varies in different environments. The mechanism of action of selection depends on the external and genotypic environment, and the vector of its action depends on the phenotypic manifestation of mutations.
3. Reproductive isolation is the main criterion indicating the completion of speciation. Speciation can be continuous and linear, continuous and divergent, abrupt and convergent.
4. Gradualism and pan-adaptationism are not universal characteristics of the evolutionary process. Most land plants are characterized by discontinuity and sudden formation of new species. Widespread species evolve gradually, while small isolates evolve discontinuously and not always adaptively. Discontinuous speciation is based on specific genetic mechanisms (hybridization, polyploidy, chromosomal aberrations). Species and supraspecific taxa, as a rule, differ in adaptive-neutral characters. The main directions of the evolutionary process (progress, specialization) are a compromise between adaptability and neutrality.
5. Potentially preadaptive mutations are widespread in natural populations. This type of mutation plays a critical role in macroevolution, especially during periods of sudden environmental changes.
6. The concept of gene action rates explains the evolutionary role of heterochrony and allometry. Synthesizing the problems of genetics with the concept of recapitulation leads to an explanation of the rapid evolution of species at dead ends of specialization. Through neoteny, a “rejuvenation” of the taxon occurs, and it acquires new rates of evolution. Analysis of the relationship between onto- and phylogeny makes it possible to detect epigenetic mechanisms of the direction of evolution.
7. In the process of progressive evolution, selection acts in the direction of improving organization. The main result of evolution was the emergence of man. With the emergence of man, the great biological evolution develops into a psychosocial one. Evolutionary theory is one of the sciences that studies the formation and development of human society. It creates the foundation for understanding human nature and his future.

A broad synthesis of data from comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, paleontology with the principles of genetics was carried out in the works of I. I. Shmalhausen (1939), A. L. Takhtadzhyan (1943), J. Simpson (1944), B. Rensch (1947). From these studies grew the theory of macroevolution. Only Simpson's book was published in English and during the period of widespread expansion of American biology, it is most often mentioned among the seminal works.

The last statement, reflecting the essence of neutralism, is in no way consistent with the ideology of the synthetic theory of evolution, which goes back to the concept of germ plasm by A. Weisman, with which the development of the corpuscular theory of heredity began. According to Weisman's views, all factors of development and growth are found in germ cells; Accordingly, in order to change the organism, it is necessary and sufficient to change the germ plasm, that is, the genes. As a result, the theory of neutrality inherits the concept of genetic drift, generated by neo-Darwinism, but subsequently abandoned by it.

New theoretical developments have appeared that have made it possible to bring STE even closer to real-life facts and phenomena that its original version could not explain. The milestones achieved by evolutionary biology to date differ from the previously presented postulates of STE:

The postulate about the population as the smallest evolving unit remains valid. However, a huge number of organisms without the sexual process remain outside the scope of this definition of population, and this is seen as a significant incompleteness of the synthetic theory of evolution.

Natural selection is not the only driver of evolution.

Evolution is not always divergent in nature.

Evolution is not necessarily gradual. It is possible that in some cases individual macroevolutionary events may also have a sudden nature.

Macroevolution can go both through microevolution and on its own paths.

Recognizing the insufficiency of the reproductive criterion of a species, biologists still cannot offer a universal definition of species both for forms with sexual process and for agamic forms.

The random nature of mutational variability does not contradict the possibility of the existence of a certain canalization of evolutionary paths that arises as a result of the past history of the species. The theory of nomogenesis or evolution based on patterns, put forward in 1922-1923, should also become widely known. L.S. 

Berg. His daughter R.L. Berg examined the problem of randomness and regularity in evolution and came to the conclusion that “evolution occurs along permitted paths” of evolution as a whole is satisfactorily explained by this theory.

According to neo-Darwinism, all characteristics of living beings are completely determined by genotype and the nature of selection. Therefore, parallelism (secondary similarity of related creatures) is explained by the fact that organisms inherited a large number of identical genes from their recent ancestor, and the origin of convergent characters is entirely attributed to the action of selection. At the same time, it is well known that similarities that develop in fairly distant lines are often non-adaptive and therefore cannot be plausibly explained either by natural selection or by common inheritance. The independent occurrence of identical genes and their combinations is obviously excluded, since mutations and recombination are random processes.

In response to such criticism, supporters of the synthetic theory may argue that the ideas of S. S. Chetverikov and R. Fisher about the complete randomness of mutations have now been significantly revised. Mutations are random only in relation to the environment, but not to the existing organization of the genome. Now it seems quite natural that different sections of DNA have different stability; Accordingly, some mutations will occur more often, others less frequently. In addition, the set of nucleotides is very limited. Consequently, there is a possibility of independent (and, moreover, completely random, causeless) appearance of identical mutations (up to the synthesis of one and similar proteins by species that are distant from each other, which could not have been inherited from a common ancestor). These and other factors determine significant secondary repeatability in the structure of DNA and can explain the origin of non-adaptive similarity from the standpoint of neo-Darwinism as a random choice from a limited number of possibilities.

Another example - criticism of STE by proponents of mutational evolution - is associated with the concept of punctualism or “punctuated equilibrium”. Punctualism is based on a simple paleontological observation: the duration of stasis is several orders of magnitude longer than the duration of the transition from one phenotypic state to another. Judging by the available data, this rule is generally true for the entire fossil history of multicellular animals and has a sufficient amount of evidence.

The authors of punctualism contrast their view with gradualism - Darwin's idea of ​​gradual evolution through small changes - and consider punctuated equilibrium a sufficient reason to reject the entire synthetic theory. Such a radical approach sparked a debate around the concept of punctuated equilibrium that has been going on for 30 years. Most authors agree that there is only a quantitative difference between the concepts of “gradual” and “intermittent”: a long process appears as an instantaneous event, being depicted on a compressed time scale. Therefore, punctualism and gradualism should be considered as additional concepts. In addition, supporters of the synthetic theory rightly note that punctuated equilibrium does not create additional difficulties for them: long-term stasis can be explained by the action of stabilizing selection (under the influence of stable, relatively unchanged conditions of existence), and rapid change - by S. Wright’s theory of shifting equilibrium for small populations , in case of sudden changes in living conditions and/or in the event of passage of a species or any of its isolated parts, populations, through a bottleneck ISBN 5-03-001432-2