Evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin

On November 24, 1859, one of the most fundamental works in the history of science was published - Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. This is one of the most fundamental works in the history of science, explaining how life works on the planet and how the diversity of plants and animals arose. The theory of evolution appeared, which later became known as Darwinism. But the theory of evolution still has critics who ignore the fact that scientists are now finding the notorious “transitional forms”, observing the formation of new species in nature and conducting evolutionary experiments in the laboratory.

The fate of this theory turned out to be very difficult.

Not only did it, like any other theory, gain recognition gradually, after it became generally accepted in the scientific world and was included in all biology textbooks, but they strive to declare it false, far-fetched, outdated, etc. Perhaps no one today will try to refute Copernicus’s heliocentric system of the world or Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, but Darwin was unlucky. Creationists cannot forgive him not even for the idea of ​​evolution, but for the fact that he swung at the sacred - the divine origin of man.

What's the point?

Let us recall the essence of the theory set forth in “The Origin of Species.” Darwin postulated that the main factors in evolution are hereditary variation and natural selection. Organisms are not the same, variability is the source material for evolution. But under different environmental conditions, some traits, such as tall growth or cold resistance, turn out to be useful.

Organisms with these characteristics receive an advantage in reproduction; the characteristics are passed on to the next generation, which turns out to be more adapted.

This is how natural selection operates - the driving force of evolution. Thus, new species arise that do not interbreed. Darwin's theory explained the mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Jean Baptiste Lamarck's other evolutionary concept of "exercising the organs" under the direct influence of the environment.

But Darwin was unaware of the laws of heredity that Gregor Mendel discovered in 1865. Therefore, he could not explain some things, in particular why a useful trait does not dissolve in the population over several generations. This inexplicable paradox called “Jenkin’s nightmare” haunted the scientist until the end of his days. Darwin did not know that heredity is discrete, he did not know about genes, although he assumed that there must be some particles through which heredity is transmitted, but he thought that these particles were contained in the blood.

Material mutation

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, biologists learned a lot more about the nature of life. Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries introduced the concept of “mutation” to designate a unit of variability and developed the mutation theory. In 1909, the concept of “gene” appeared, although it was still completely abstract and denoted a certain particle responsible for individual hereditary properties. Population genetics developed through the works of John Haldane, Sergei Chetverikov, and Nikolai Timofeev-Resovsky. As a result, in the 20–30s of the twentieth century, a synthetic theory of evolution was formed based on Darwin’s theory with the involvement of genetics. And after Watson and Crick discovered the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, even more became clear, and most importantly, the material basis of heredity appeared.

It is interesting that all the new knowledge that appeared over time not only did not refute Darwin’s theory, but completely fit into it, complemented it and explained what Darwin could not explain. One can only be amazed at how much he was able to predict.

Creator vs Darwin

Creationism, the concept of the creation of the world, has always been in opposition to the theory of evolution. Moreover, from a purely religious worldview, the so-called scientific creationism stands out, which tries to refute Darwin supposedly from a scientific position.

So, what are the claims made against Darwin? They claim that “the theory of evolution is only a theory,” that is, an assumption, an opinion, and not a proven fact. But firstly, those who say this do not understand that in scientific language, a “theory” means a comprehensive explanation of some phenomenon that has been proven and has not been disproved. The evolutionary theory explains the diversity of species and their origin; it has not been refuted by anyone at the scientific level. And most importantly, today there is a lot of evidence in science.

One of the arguments of anti-Darwinists for a long time was the question of “transitional forms”.

If some organisms transform into others by gradual changes, then these intermediate organisms should be found in abundance in the fossil record. But they don’t seem to exist. Although this statement is completely incorrect, now the number of paleontological finds is incomparable to what it was under Darwin, and among them there are a lot of transitional forms. For example, paleontologists have found the remains of an ancient fish that was an intermediate between “normal” fish with eyes on the sides of their heads and flounder, which has both eyes on the same side. So, this ancient fish’s eye has already moved to the other side, but has not reached it and is located on the forehead.

In another work, paleontologists managed to find a transitional form between fish and land tetrapods. The animal, called Tiktaalik, could move along the bottom using its fins the way land vertebrates use their limbs. The anatomy of the pelvic and shoulder girdle told scientists about this. And based on the structure of the skull, other scientists determined that Tiktaalik could raise its head while in shallow water and examine its surroundings.

Another example is the discovery of a missing link in the evolution of whales and dolphins. The terrestrial ancestors of these vertebrates, which re-developed the ocean, were ungulates. Paleontologists have found the fossilized remains of an ancestor of whales called Indochyus, which, on the other hand, showed kinship with hippopotamuses. It is interesting that molecular biologists were the first to say about the relationship between whales and hippos using DNA analysis.

Well, anyone who doubts that anthropologists have found a lot of intermediate links in the transformation of an ape (Australopithecus) into a human can study this family tree, published on the website “Anthropogenesis.ru.”

Evolution online

Critics say that the emergence of species is a theory, a dog does not turn into a cat, or a chimpanzee into a human, and no one has observed the emergence of new species at all. But today biologists already have plenty of examples of observing speciation in nature. For example, cichlid fish live in African lakes, in which new species are formed very quickly, literally before the eyes of scientists. Reproductive isolation occurs - cichlids living at different depths have different colors and color sensitivity, which, when mating, prevents them from noticing fish of the wrong color. As a result, separate species are formed.

And among North American moths, specialization arises in methods of protection from predators. Scientists traced the defense strategy of different moth species and concluded that this behavior served as the basis for the formation of different species.

Another criticism of Darwinism is that Darwin believed that the evolutionary process was extremely smooth, but the number of fossil remains in different eras creates the idea that evolution moved in leaps. Paleontologist Kirill Eskov spoke about this. This paradox is explained by the concept of “punctuated equilibrium”; it speaks of the alternation of long periods of stasis, when virtually no changes occur, and short periods when living organisms are actively changing. For example, scientists have now proposed a solution to the “Darwin's dilemma” - the incredibly rapid evolution of organisms in the Cambrian period. The impetus for accelerating development was a sharp change in environmental conditions.

Although there is a common belief that evolution cannot be observed with your own eyes, in fact it is even possible to perform an evolution experiment in the laboratory.

Doctor of Biological Sciences Alexander Markov talks about one such experiment in the book “Evolution. Classic ideas in the light of new discoveries." Scientists from Imperial College London grew five species of bacteria in beech leaf extract (beech tea) and observed dramatic changes over 70 generations. One species was unable to adapt to the “tea” and died out, two survived successfully, and two more began to reproduce faster than at the beginning. Even more changes occurred in mixed culture, when different types of bacteria were cultivated together. Under such conditions, bacteria changed their metabolism, began to produce more of some substances and less of others, and even began to use each other’s substances, as a result of which they forgot how to live alone. Community productivity has increased.

And a few years earlier, scientists conducted a 21-year experiment with the evolution of the E. coli bacterium in a test tube. During this time, the bacterium went through 40,000 generations. Scientists recorded all the mutations that arose in bacteria and learned to separate beneficial and harmful mutations. And, in the end, they isolated those mutations that allowed the bacteria to adapt to the environment.

For those who are not impressed by bacteria, we can tell you that scientists have seen evolution with their own eyes in “online” mode in higher organisms.

In this regard, we can recall the study of Russian biologists on stickleback fish. They tracked how stickleback, living in seawater, acquired genetic changes over 30 years that allowed it to live in freshwater. This was the result of an experiment to introduce stickleback into freshwater bodies, which began 30 years ago. And now biologists have been able to clearly show how natural selection operates in changed environmental conditions.

They compared the genomes of marine and freshwater sticklebacks and found genetic markers of adaptation to freshwater. Selection caused these rare genetic variations to become common because they gave their carriers a survival advantage. And since biologists knew the time during which this happened, they were able to calculate a coefficient characterizing the selection pressure. Here you have evolution, seen with your own eyes, and not even in the laboratory, but in nature.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the main theories of the development of the organic world. According to Darwin, evolution is natural selection, variability, heredity. New characteristics arise in the functions and structure of organisms due to variability. The latter can be definite or indefinite. Specific (directional) variability occurs when environmental conditions have the same effect on all or most individuals of a particular species. It is not fixed hereditarily in subsequent generations. Individuals may experience indeterminate (non-directional) changes that are random and hereditary. There are two types - combinative and mutational. In the first case, during meiosis, during the formation of offspring, new combinations of paternal and maternal chromosomes appear, which sometimes exchange parts, and with each generation the combination of genes increases. In the second case, the genetic structure of the organism changes: the number of chromosomes, their structure or the structure of genes.

Darwin's theory of evolution and its representatives believe that changes in organisms occur under the influence of the environment. As a result of natural selection, the offspring of carriers of useful traits that arise as a result of recombination or mutation of genes survive. Selection is the main factor determining the speciation of organisms. It can be expressed in three forms: driving, stabilizing and disruptive. The first leads to the emergence of new adaptations. The greatest probability of leaving offspring is found in individuals who have changed in some characteristic compared to the average value. In the second form, formed adaptations are preserved under unchanged environmental conditions. In this case, individuals with characteristics are preserved in the population. In the third form, under the influence of multidirectional changes in the environment, polymorphism occurs. That is, selection occurs according to two or more types of deviation.

Darwin's theory of evolution proved that the main driving force of evolution is natural selection. Now, as a result of interspecific crossing, new types of populations are being produced. The theory was used in various branches of knowledge, including history (Karl Marx) and psychology (Sigmund Freud).

The modern theory of evolution has undergone significant changes. Unlike the original Darwinian theory, it clearly identifies the elementary structure (population) from which evolution began. The modern theory is more reasoned; it reasonably and clearly interprets the driving forces and factors, highlighting the main and non-main ones. An elementary manifestation of the process is a sustainable change in the genotype of populations. The main task of modern teaching is to study the mechanism of evolutionary processes and the possibility of predicting transformations.

Darwin's theory of evolution is closely related to the theory of biochemical evolution, which is that the first organic substances in the formation of the planet were hydrocarbons formed from simple compounds in the ocean. As a result of further combinations of hydrocarbons with a number of chemical elements, complex organic substances were formed. These processes developed under the influence of intense and thunderstorm electrical discharges, which released the required amount of ultraviolet radiation. Accumulating in the ocean, they have created strong molecular bonds that are resistant to the destructive effects of ultraviolet radiation. After a long evolution of carbon compounds, life arose. Biochemical theory by Alexey Oparin, Stanley Miller, John Haldane and others.

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
“Science at first hand” No. 4(34), 2010

about the author Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Honored Professor of the University. George Mason (USA), foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, academician of the New York Academy of Sciences, honorary professor of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University. Lomonosov and Jerusalem University. In 1961–1970 worked at the institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Academy of Medical Sciences, from 1970 to 1978 at the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. In 1974 he created the All-Union Research Institute of Applied Molecular Biology and Genetics of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Moscow. Areas of scientific interest: the effect of radiation and chemicals on genes, the study of the physicochemical structure of DNA, repair in plants, the effect of radioactive contamination on the human genome. Awarded the International Gregor Mendel Medal and the N. I. Vavilov Silver Medal. Author of more than 20 books, including on the history of science, published in Russia, the USA, England, Germany, Vietnam and the Czech Republic, editor-in-chief of the 10-volume encyclopedia "Modern Natural Science", member of the editorial board of the magazine "SCIENCE First Hand"

In 1859, the book of the English scientist Charles Darwin “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favorable Breeds in the Struggle for Existence” was published. It immediately became a bestseller, topping the list of world-famous books and bringing its author the laurels of being the only discoverer of evolutionary theory. However, the latter is not only inaccurate, but also historically unfair in relation to other scientists, Darwin’s predecessors and contemporaries, as is proven in the next “evolutionary essay” published in our journal from the forthcoming book of the famous scientist and historian of science V.N. Soifer “ Evolutionary idea and Marxists".

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 - the year the Philosophy of Zoology by Jean Baptiste Lamarck was published, in which the first evolutionary theory was presented in detail and in detail.

Darwin did not excel at school. Things were also not going well at college, and in the end his father sent him away - to Scotland, where in October 1825 the 16-year-old boy began studying at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Edinburgh (this choice of his son’s future specialty was not accidental - his father was a successful doctor ). After two years, it became clear that Charles would not be able to become a doctor. A new transfer followed - this time to another famous university, Cambridge, but to the Faculty of Theology. Charles himself recalled about studying there: “... the time I spent in Cambridge was seriously lost, and even worse than lost. My passion for rifle shooting and hunting... led me into a circle... of young people of not very high morality... We often drank to excess, and then funny songs and cards followed. ... I know that I should be ashamed of the days and evenings spent in this way, but some of my friends were such nice guys, and we all had so much fun that I still remember this time with pleasure.”

Finally, in May 1831, Darwin passed his baccalaureate examination. He was supposed to study at the faculty for two more semesters, but events turned out differently. Taking advantage of a rare opportunity, he hired, against the wishes of his father, on the Beagle, which was setting off on a voyage around the world under the command of Captain Robert Fitz Roy. Darwin's duties as a naturalist included collecting animals, plants, and geological specimens. Over five years, Darwin visited South America, the Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia and other parts of the globe.

The five-year trip around the world came to an end on October 2, 1836. Now Darwin had to begin describing the collections he had collected and publishing data about the trip. Three years later, his first book was published - “Voyage on the Beagle Ship” (or “Diary of Research”), which immediately brought enormous popularity to the young author. Darwin had a rare gift as a storyteller, able to highlight details and events, even those that were not very interesting at first glance.

Did it all start with Malthus?

When did Darwin first think about the problems of evolution? He himself mentioned many times that he came to his evolutionary hypothesis in 1842 and that he was inspired by this idea from the book of the great English economist Thomas Robert Malthus, “An Essay on the Law of Population” (1798). Malthus argued that the population on Earth is growing over time in geometric progression, but means of subsistence - only in arithmetic progression. Darwin claimed that this thesis struck him, and he translated this pattern to the whole of nature, suggesting that there is always a struggle for existence in it, since there are not enough sources of food and habitat for all those born.

The thesis about the existence of such a struggle between representatives of the same species ( intraspecific struggle), as well as between individuals of different species ( interspecies struggle), was Darwin's major innovation. He stated that evolution occurs due to the selection of individuals better adapted to the external environment ( natural selection). If there really is not enough space under the sun for all those born and the weak die in competition with the strong, then if some organism accidentally turns out to be more adapted to the environment, it will be easier for it to survive and produce more offspring. If the improved trait is retained by the descendants of the lucky one, then they will begin to crowd out their relatives less adapted to such an environment and reproduce faster. Nature will take a small step forward, and then, lo and behold, an even more fortunate person with an even more perfect structure will appear. And so - for millions of years, as long as life exists on Earth.

Darwin, according to him, began to think about the problems of species variability already during the voyage on the Beagle: “I came to the idea that species probably change from data on geographical distribution, etc., but over the course of several years I was helpless before the complete inability to propose a mechanism by which every part of every creature would be adapted to the conditions of their life.” Lamarck's idea of ​​gradual improvement of species had become quite popular by this time. Just as a drop chisels a stone, statements about natural development and the emergence of new species that have been repeated for decades have done their job and accustomed people to the idea that evolution is permissible. It is appropriate to recall Benjamin Franklin with his thesis about man turning into one from an animal thanks to the production of tools, and Charles’s famous grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a doctor and publicist, who set out in his essay “Zoonomy, or the Laws of Organic Life” (1795) the idea of ​​organic progress.

Darwin repeatedly repeated (including in his declining years in his Autobiography) that the idea of ​​natural selection dawned on him in October 1838, when he came across Malthus’s book. However, he allegedly did not make the first draft of his hypothesis at the same time, but only 4 years later, in 1842. This manuscript, often mentioned by Darwin in letters to friends, was not published during his lifetime.

After Darwin’s death, his son Francis published the book “Fundamentals of the Origin of Species,” in which he included two previously unknown manuscripts of his father - the above-mentioned first draft of the hypothesis on 35 pages (allegedly written by his father in 1842) and a more extensive one (230 pages). .) text marked 1844. Why these works were not published during the author’s lifetime, although, as we will see later, there was an urgent need for this, it is now hardly possible to find out.

Unpublished manuscripts

By 1842–1844, during the decades that had passed since Lamarck published his work on evolution, many facts had accumulated in biology that were quite consistent with evolutionary ideas. The idea has strengthened, and society has matured to accept it.

This is evidenced by another, curious, example. In 1843 and 1845 In England, a 2-volume work by an anonymous author, “Traces of Natural History,” was published. It outlined the idea of ​​the evolution of the living world, pointed out the connection between related species, and cited the role of electricity and magnetism in this process as the reason for the change in species.

The author made the following analogy: metal filings form a characteristic pattern of a branched plant stem around one end of an electrical conductor or magnet pole and a pattern more similar to a plant root around the other. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that plants arose this way, because electrical forces took part in their formation. Despite such superficial judgments, the author created a work that was read with unflagging interest.

One of Darwin's friends, writer and publicist Robert Chambers, sent him a copy of the sensational book, and Darwin read it with interest. Six years after the book was published, it became clear that Chambers was its author.

One letter from Darwin dates back to 1844, shedding light on the fact that it was in this year that he himself began to attach great importance to his thoughts about evolution, which was not the case before. He wrote a long letter to his wife Emma on June 5, 1844, in which he set out in lofty terms his will: in the event of his sudden death, to spend 400 pounds on finishing the just completed manuscript on evolution (the task was detailed - to select appropriate examples from books marked by Darwin, edit the text, etc.). On the other hand, it was in January of the same year, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker, the son of the director of the Royal Botanic Garden and son-in-law of the then patriarch of geology, Charles Lyell, that Darwin said that he was thinking about the problem of variability of species.

Why did Darwin suddenly decide to address his wife with a special message? He actually complained about his health during these years (no diagnosis was made, and he remained sick for another 40 (!) years). It would seem that if he valued his idea of ​​evolution so much that he was ready to spend money on paying fees from the inheritance he left, then he would have to spend all available energy and time on bringing the main work to the final stage. But nothing of the kind happened. One after another, he published thick books about anything, but not about evolution. In 1845, the second, revised edition of the “Diary of Travel on the Beagle” was published, in 1846 - a volume on geological observations in South America, in 1851 - a monograph on barnacles, then a book on barnacles, etc. the essay on evolution lay motionless. What was Darwin waiting for? Why were you afraid to expose your work to criticism from your colleagues? Perhaps he was afraid that someone would see in his work borrowing from other people's works without reference to the true authors?

What Darwin did do, however, was often remind his high-ranking friends in letters that he spent all his free time thinking about the problem of evolution. Some of Darwin's recipients knew his main thesis in very general terms: there are not enough supplies of food, water and other means of subsistence for all those born, only those who have the potential to survive are kept alive. They are the ones who ensure progress in the living world.

Edward Blyth and his idea of ​​natural selection

Darwin's supporters later explained his strange slowness in publishing a work on evolution by the fact that he was allegedly absolutely convinced that this idea could not have occurred to anyone, which is why there was no reason to rush to publish the hypothesis, although his friends hurried Darwin with printing this work. This became clear from the surviving correspondence published after Darwin’s death (his son Francis reported that his father more than once carefully reviewed all his correspondence and selectively burned some of the letters).

However, it is unlikely that Darwin’s behavior is explained solely by unshakable confidence in his originality. In 1959, during the centennial celebration of the publication of On the Origin of Species, University of Pennsylvania anthropology professor Loren Eisley argued that Darwin had other reasons for delaying the publication of the evolutionary hypothesis for almost twenty years. According to Eisley, who carried out enormous research work, Darwin did not independently come to the idea of ​​the struggle for existence, but borrowed it, and not at all from the economist Malthus, but from the then famous biologist Edward Blyth, who was personally close to Darwin.

Blyth was a year younger than Darwin, grew up in a poor family and, due to his difficult financial situation, was only able to complete a regular school. To support himself, he was forced to go to work, and spent all his free time reading and diligently visiting the British Museum in London. In 1841 he received the post of curator of the Museum of the Royal Asiatic Society in Bengal and spent 22 years in India. Here he carried out first-class research into the nature of Southeast Asia. In 1863, due to a sharp deterioration in his health, he was forced to return to England, where he died in 1873.

In 1835 and 1837 Blyth published two articles in the Journal of Natural History in which he introduced the concepts of the struggle for existence and the survival of those more adapted to the environment. However, according to Blyth, selection does not proceed in the direction of increasingly improved creatures acquiring properties that give them advantages over already existing organisms, but in a completely different way.

The task of selection, according to Blyth, is to preserve the invariance of the basic characteristics of the species. He believed that any new changes in organs (now we would call them mutations) cannot bring anything progressive to already existing species that have been well adapted to the external environment over millions of years. Changes will only disrupt the well-established mechanism of interaction between the environment and organisms. Therefore, all newcomers, inevitably spoiled by the disorders that have arisen in them, will be cut off by selection, will not withstand competition with well-adapted typical forms and will die out. Thus Blyth applied the principle of selection to wildlife, although selection was given a conservative rather than a creative role.

Darwin could not help but know Blyth's works: he held in his hands issues of journals with his articles and quoted them. He wrote, more than once, that he carefully and carefully followed all publications concerning the development of life on Earth, and especially those close to him in spirit. He also cited many other works of Blyth, paying tribute to the merits of his colleague, so he could not ignore his works on natural selection. However, he never referred to the article in which Blyth clearly and clearly presented the idea of ​​​​the struggle for existence and natural selection.

Being proud and, as Eisley and a number of other historians believed, obsessed with the mania of shared glory, Darwin could take advantage of Blyth’s fundamental provisions, after which he began to put his notes in order. By 1844, he could actually prepare a rather voluminous manuscript on evolution, but, realizing the lack of originality of his work on the cornerstone issue of natural science, he waited, played for time, hoping that some circumstances would change something in the world and allow him to “save face” " That is why in his “Autobiography” he repeated once again: the only impetus for him to think about the role of natural selection was the book of Malthus. It was safe to refer to an economist, and not a biologist, who spoke about natural selection in the world of living beings several years earlier, because the priority in applying economic analysis to the situation in the biological world remained with the biologist, that is, with himself.

But even in this statement, meticulous historians found a stretch: although Darwin indicated the exact date when he read Malthus’s book (October 1838), neither in the essay of 1842, nor in the more voluminous work of 1844 did he refer to Malthus as he never once referred to the person who pushed him to the idea of ​​evolution, and in the place where he mentioned him, it was not at all about the idea of ​​competition.

Eisley found several more similar cases in which Darwin treated his direct predecessors indelicately and thus partly confirmed the correctness of the opinion expressed back in 1888 by Professor Houghton from Dublin about Darwin’s views regarding the origin of species: “Everything that was new in them was wrong, and what was right was already known.”

Apparently, this explains the mysterious fact of Darwin’s reluctance to publish a work on the origin of species for almost 20 years.

Evolutionary views of Alfred Wallace

Perhaps this work would have continued to remain in Darwin’s chest if one day an event had not occurred that forced him to urgently change his position. In 1858, he received by mail the work of his compatriot Alfred Wallace, who was at that moment far from England. In it, Wallace presented the same idea about the role of natural selection for progressive evolution.

From reading Wallace's work, Darwin realized that his competitor had developed the hypothesis of evolution even more extensively than he had, since he had included in his analysis not only the material on domestic animals, which Darwin had predominantly used, but also gleaned facts from the wild. Darwin was particularly struck by the fact that Wallace's main formulations were stated in the same words as in his "Essay on Evolution", and it was Wallace who referred to Malthus.

How could it be that a competitor described the same thing? Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) spent many years collecting scientific collections on expeditions to the Amazon and Rio Negro rivers, the Malay Archipelago and other places (he amassed a collection containing 125 thousand botanical, zoological and geological specimens; compiled dictionaries 75 adverbs, etc.). Wallace began to think about the problem of the origin of species almost simultaneously with Darwin. In any case, already in 1848, in a letter to his friend, traveler Henry Bates, he wrote: “I would like to collect and thoroughly study representatives of any one family, mainly from the point of view of the origin of the species.”

It is strange that researchers of Darwinism rarely mention the most important fact for understanding the formation of Wallace’s evolutionary views: in September 1855, four years before the first edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, Wallace published in “ Annals and Magazine of Natural History” article entitled “On the Law Regulating the Appearance of New Species.” In it, Wallace not only made a statement about the existence of the process of evolution of species, but also pointed out the role of geographic isolation in the formation of new varieties. He even formulated a law: “The appearance of each species coincides geographically and chronologically with the appearance of a species very close to it and preceding it.” His other thesis was also significant: “Species are formed according to the plan of previous ones.” He based these conclusions not only on data from studying collections of contemporary species, but also on fossil forms.

A. Wallace, who knew wild nature well, drew examples from his expedition observations. In the introduction to his book “Darwinism...” (1889) he writes: “The weak point in Darwin’s works has always been considered that he primarily based his theory on the phenomena of external variability of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. Therefore, I tried to find a solid explanation for his theory in the facts of the variability of organisms in natural conditions."

Wallace, as is usual in the scientific community, sent his article to fellow biologists, including Darwin, whom he highly valued for his description of the voyage on the Beagle. A traveler and naturalist, Wallace was well aware of the difficult task of describing the monotonous journeys from place to place and the repetitive activities of day after day. Two prominent scientists - Lyell and Blyth - also drew Darwin's attention to Wallace's article, as Darwin reported in a letter to Wallace dated December 22, 1857.

Darwin responded positively to Wallace's work, and from that time on, correspondence began between them. But Darwin, intentionally or unwittingly, dampened Wallace's energy in regard to further thinking about the problem of the origin of species when, in one of his letters, he casually informed him that he had been working on the same problem for a long time and was writing a large book on the origin of species. This message had an effect on Wallace, as he wrote in a letter to Bates: “I am very pleased with Darwin’s letter, in which he writes that he agrees with “almost every word” of my work. Now he is preparing his great work on species and varieties, for which he has been collecting material for 20 years. He can save me the trouble of writing further about my hypothesis... in any case, his facts will be placed at my disposal, and I can work on them.”

However, as all Darwin’s biographers unanimously testify, despite his promises, Darwin did not provide his hypotheses and the facts in his hands to Wallace. Thus, the prominent Russian biographer of Darwin A.D. Nekrasov writes: “...Darwin, citing the impossibility of expressing his views in a letter, kept silent about the theory of selection. Wallace came to the idea of ​​natural selection independently of Darwin.... Without a doubt, Darwin in his letters did not say a single word about either the principle of the struggle for existence or the preservation of the fittest. And Wallace came to these principles independently of Darwin.”

So, Wallace himself formulated the hypothesis of natural selection, and this happened on January 25, 1858, when the traveler was on one of the islands of the Moluccas archipelago. Wallace fell ill with a severe fever and, between attacks, suddenly clearly imagined how Malthus's reasoning about overpopulation and its role in evolution could be applied. After all, if Malthus is right, then the chances for better survival are higher for organisms that are better adapted to living conditions! In the “struggle for existence,” they will prevail over those less adapted, produce more offspring, and, due to better reproduction, occupy a wider area.

After this insight, a general picture quickly formed in the mind of Wallace, who had been thinking about the problems of species change for many years. Since he already had the basic facts, it was not difficult for him to hastily sketch out the theses of the article and also hastily complete the entire work, giving it a clear title: “On the tendency of varieties to move endlessly away from the original type.” He sent this article to Darwin at the first opportunity, asking for help with publication. As Nekrasov wrote, “Wallace sent it to Darwin, hoping that the application of the principle of the “struggle for existence” to the question of the origin of species would be as much news to Darwin as it was to himself.”

However, Wallace's assumption that Darwin would help popularize his work was a mistake and forever deprived him of his completely legitimate priority in publishing the principle of evolution through the selection of organisms best adapted to environmental conditions. Darwin not only did nothing to quickly publish Wallace's work, but also tried to take all measures to assert his primacy.

Hasty publication of Darwin's work

Having received Wallace's work, Darwin realized that he had been ahead of him. It is significant that in a letter to Lyell he admitted: “I have never seen such a striking coincidence; if Wallace had my 1842 manuscript, he could not have produced a better abridged review. Even its titles correspond to the titles of my chapters."

Having learned about what had happened, two of Darwin's friends - Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who occupied a high position in the scientific circles of England, decided to save the situation and presented to the members of the Linnean Society of London both Wallace's completed work and Darwin's short (two pages) note “On the Tendency of Species.” to the formation of varieties and species through natural selection." Both materials were read on July 1, 1859 at a meeting of the society and then published under this date.

Darwin was not present at the meeting. There were two speakers - Lyell and Hooker. One of them eagerly, the other more restrainedly, said that they had witnessed Darwin’s creative torment and certified with their authority the fact of his priority. The meeting ended in deathly silence. Nobody made any statements.

By the end of the year, Darwin had completed On the Origin of Species and paid for its publication. The book was printed in two weeks; the entire circulation (1250 copies) was sold out in one day. Darwin hastily paid for the second edition, and a month later another 3,000 copies went on sale; then the third edition, corrected and expanded, was published, then the fourth, etc. Darwin's name gained enormous popularity.

Wallace, fully reconciled with the loss of priority, published the book “Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection” in 1870, and in 1889 - a huge (750 pages) volume, symbolically entitled “Darwinism. An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection and Some of Its Applications".

The main purpose of these books was to illustrate with examples the principle of better survival of animals and plants that are more adapted to a given environment. Darwin largely used examples from the field of domestication of animals, breeding of livestock breeds, ornamental birds and fish, and selection of plant varieties.

It is appropriate to remember that Wallace had previously (in an article in 1856) rejected the evidence of examples of evolution drawn from the sphere of variability of domesticated animals, rightly pointing out that adaptive variability does not exist in domestic animals. After all, it is man who selects the best forms for him, and the animals themselves do not participate in the struggle for existence: “Thus, from observations of the varieties of domestic animals, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the varieties of animals living in the wild.”

Darwin's attitude towards Lamarck

Darwin never tired of repeating that his views had nothing in common with Lamarck’s, and throughout his life he never ceased to speak ill of his great predecessor. Perhaps the very thought that he was not the first and that 50 years before him the same thoughts had already been expressed by a Frenchman weighed heavily on him.

In the 1840s. in letters to Hooker, he wrote about this more than once: “... I don’t know any systematic works on this subject, except Lamarck’s book, but this is real rubbish”; “Lamarck... damaged the issue with his absurd, although intelligent, work”; “May Heaven save me from the stupid Lamarckian “striving for progress”, “adaptation due to the slow desire of animals” and so on.” True, he was forced to continue the last phrase from the above quotes with the words: “But the conclusions I come to do not differ significantly from his conclusions, although the methods of change are quite different.”

In one of his letters to Lyell, sent almost twenty years later, he wrote, discussing the significance of his predecessor’s work: “I look at it (the Philosophy of Zoology - author’s note), having read it carefully twice, as a miserable book , from which I gained no benefit. But I know you took advantage of her more.”

In general, as the Russian researcher of Darwinism Vl. Karpov, initially “Lamarck was alien and little understood by Darwin, as a representative of a different mentality, a circle of ideas, a different nationality.” Nevertheless, there were more fundamental similarities in the books of Lamarck and Darwin than differences. Both authors were unanimous on the central issue - the proclamation of the principle of progressive development of species, and both stated that it was the need to better meet the requirements of the external environment that forced species to progress.

Even the main groups of examples used by Darwin coincided with Lamarck's examples (breeds of dogs, poultry, garden plants). Only Darwin tried to give as many examples as possible, albeit of the same type, but giving the reader the impression of solidity and thoroughness; Lamarck limited himself to one or two examples for each point.

The extinction of species, according to Darwin, is a phenomenon that correlates with the origin of new species: “Since, over time, new species are formed by the activity of natural selection, others must become increasingly rare and finally disappear. ...In the chapter devoted to the struggle for existence, we saw that the most fierce competition should occur between forms that are closest - varieties of the same species or one genus or genera closest to each other, since these forms will have almost the same structure, a common warehouse and habits"

Where Darwin's thoughts differed greatly from Lamarck's was in his attempt to explain the causes of evolution. Lamarck looked for them inside organisms, in their inherent ability to change the structure of the body depending on the exercise of the organs (and in the second half of the 19th century, this position of Lamarck was regarded as extremely important, because the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that living beings inherently have the property of self-improvement). Darwin initially proceeded from the fact that the properties of organisms could change due to random reasons, and the external environment played the role of a controller, cutting off less adapted individuals. But since Darwin did not understand what could change in organisms, what hereditary structures were, these thoughts of his were entirely hypothetical philosophizing.

The paradox is that, having started with a categorical denial of Lamarck’s “stupid” views, Darwin gradually began to change his views and talk about the possibility of direct inheritance of characteristics acquired during life. The main reason for this change was the most important circumstance that also hindered Lamarck, namely: the lack of information about the laws of inheritance of traits, ignorance of the fact that there are special structures in the body that carry hereditary information.

However, if at the time of Lamarck science was still far from posing questions related to the discovery of the laws of heredity, and it would have been absurd to cast even a shadow of reproach against Lamarck, then by the time of the publication of “The Origin of Species” the situation had changed radically.

Gemmules instead of genes

The first approaches to understanding the laws of heredity, although still in a rather amorphous form, emerged as a result of the work of the German researcher Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuther (1733–1806), who worked for several years in St. Petersburg, and a number of other European scientists. Koelreuter in 1756–1760 conducted the first experiments on hybridization and formulated the concept of heritability.

The Englishman Thomas Andrew Knight (1789–1835), crossing different varieties of cultivated plants, came to the conclusion that in generations of hybrid plants, the characteristics by which the original varieties differ from each other “scatter” and appear individually. Moreover, he noted that there are minor individual differences that are not further “divided” during crossings and retain their individuality over generations. Thus, already at the beginning of the 19th century. Knight formulated the concept of elementary inherited traits.

Frenchman Auguste Sajray (1763–1851) in 1825–1835 made another important discovery. By monitoring Knight's "elementary traits," he discovered that some of them, when combined with others, suppressed the expression of those traits. This is how dominant and recessive traits were discovered.

In 1852, another Frenchman, Charles Naudin (1815–1899), studied these two types of traits more closely and, like Sajray, found that in combinations of dominant and recessive traits, the latter cease to appear. However, as soon as such hybrids are crossed with each other, they appear again in some of their descendants (later Mendel will call this process the splitting of characters). These works proved the most important fact - the preservation of hereditary structures that carry information about suppressed (recessive) traits, even in cases where these traits did not appear externally. Naudin tried to discover quantitative patterns of the combination of dominant and recessive traits, but, having undertaken to monitor a large number of them at once, he became confused in the results and was unable to move forward.

Darwin was well aware of the results of the work of these scientists, but he did not understand their significance, did not appreciate the great benefit that the discoveries of elementary hereditary units, the patterns of their combination and manifestation in descendants brought him. One more step should have been taken - to simplify the problem and analyze the quantitative distribution of traits in organisms that differ in one or at most two traits, and then the laws of genetics would have been discovered.

This breakthrough in science was made by the Czech naturalist and brilliant experimenter Johann Gregor Mendel, who in 1865 published a brilliant work in which he outlined the conclusions of experiments to identify the laws of heredity. Mendel built the scheme of his experiments precisely by simplifying the problem, when he decided to scrupulously monitor the behavior in crossings, first of only one inherited trait, and then of two. As a result, he proved, now definitively, the presence of elementary units of heredity, clearly described the rules of dominance, discovered quantitative patterns of combining units of heredity in hybrids and the rules for the splitting of hereditary characters.

Darwin, therefore, could have discovered these laws himself (he advanced in understanding the importance of elucidating the laws of inheritance, moreover, the progress of science at that time was so noticeable that what Mendel did was, in principle, accessible to anyone thinking about the problems of inheritance). But Darwin was not an experimenter. Of course, he could have simply read the work published by Mendel in German, but this also did not happen.

Instead, Darwin began to come up with a hypothesis (he pretentiously called it a theory) of pangenesis, about how the transmission of hereditary properties to descendants is carried out. He admitted the presence in any part of the body of “... special, independently reproducing and feeding hereditary grains - gemmules, which are collected in sexual products, but can be scattered throughout the body... each of which can restore in the next generation that part that gave them a start."

This hypothesis was by no means original: the same idea was put forward in his 36-volume History of Nature by Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon a hundred years before Darwin. Many major scientists, including those who helped Darwin strengthen his priority in proclaiming the role of natural selection in evolution (Hooker and Lyell), advised Darwin not to publish his “theory of pangenesis.” He verbally agreed with them, but in fact decided not to deviate from his own and included the corresponding chapter in the book “Changes in Animals and Plants under the Influence of Domestication,” published in 1868 (three years after Mendel’s work).

Until the end of his life, Darwin remained convinced that his theory of pangenesis was destined for a great future. Although in letters to those on whose help he depended all his life (Lyell, Hooker, Huxley), he coquettishly called this brainchild of his “a rash and half-baked hypothesis,” said that “to engage in such speculation is “pure nonsense”” and promised “ try to convince himself not to publish" a statement of his "theory", but he was not going to fulfill this promise, but only tried to dampen the critical fervor of his high friends. To other addressees at the same time he wrote something completely different: "Deep in my soul I believe that it contains a great truth" (letter to A. Gray, 1867), or: "I would rather die than cease to protect my poor child from attacks" (letter to G. Spencer, 1868). The same notes sounded later. : “With regard to pangenesis, I am not going to fold my banner” (letter to A. Wallace, 1875); “I had to think a lot about this issue, and I am convinced of its great significance, although it will take years until physiologists figure out that sexual organs only collect reproductive elements” (letter to J. Romains, 1875).

A tailless cat cannot be obtained by exercise.

In most cases, when discussing Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis, it is customary to say that its author did not go far from his time, but, they say, Mendel was ahead of his time by 35 years (it is not for nothing that his laws were actually rediscovered 35 years later). But we can say it another way: in understanding the mechanisms of inheritance of traits, Darwin did not reach the level of his contemporary Mendel.

Meanwhile, this question was the most important for Darwin. In the first edition of The Origin of Species, he proceeded from the premise that changes in living beings occur frequently and that they are indefinite: some are of some benefit to the organism, others are harmful or useless. He believed that with regard to useful traits, everything is clear - they are mainly inherited. “Any change, no matter how insignificant, and no matter what reasons it depends on, if it is in any way beneficial for an individual of any species, any such change will contribute to the preservation of the individual and will mostly be passed on to the offspring,” he wrote .

He believed that variability itself does not contain predetermination, original benefit. At this point he saw a radical difference between his views and Lamarck’s. There is no “internal striving for perfection”, no quality of predestination inherent in living beings in “improvement due to slow desire” (the words “slow desire” belonged to Darwin himself).

However, despite the demonstrative rejection of the Lamarckian postulate, Darwin, as the above quote shows about the inheritance of “any change, no matter how insignificant, and no matter what reasons it depends on,” as long as it “was beneficial for an individual of some kind.” species,” was even at this initial moment not too far from Lamarck. He also attributed to organisms an inherent (that is, predetermined) ability to retain, in a hereditary manner, any useful deviations. The hypothesis about gemmules perceiving useful stimuli did not change the essence of the matter. Darwin did not have a single fact in favor of his hypothesis, and in this sense, Lamarck with his “organ exercise” was no weaker in argumentation than Darwin.

Having rejected the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin did not offer anything real in return, but simply bypassed the question of what, how and when is inherited, dividing possible variability into two types. The first is definitely favorable changes that the organism “craves” and which are the result of a direct response to the action of the environment (he denied such inheritance). The second type is uncertain changes that may not occur under the direct influence of the external environment (they are inherited). At this point, he saw the main difference between his doctrine and the views of Lamarck, which he considered erroneous.

But why are the first changes not inherited, while the second ones arise and are inherited? He had no idea what hereditary structures were and how they were passed on to descendants. By calling them gemmules, he did not come one iota closer to understanding their nature. Intuitively, he may have guessed that no matter how much you cut off the tails of cats so that when they jump from chests of drawers they do not knock down Wedgwood figurines, the offspring of tailless cats will still have tails.

"Jenkin's Nightmare"

The only belief that Darwin shared with most of his contemporaries was that the transmission of heredity is akin to the fusion of a fluid, say blood. The blood of the record-breaking mother merges with the blood of an ordinary, unremarkable father - and the result is a half-breed. And if identical organisms (siblings) give birth to offspring, then the offspring will be of “pure blood” (they will later be called a pure “line”).

Darwin fully adhered to these views, which is why he was so devastatingly affected by the criticism expressed in June 1867 by the engineer Fleming Jenkin in the journal Northern British Review. Jenkin was a major expert in electricity and electrical networks; with his personal participation, cables were laid in Europe, South and North America; he is considered the father of the telegraph; all his life he was the closest friend of William Thomson, who later became Lord Kelvin. A year before the publication of his devastating article on the main principle used by Darwin to justify natural selection, Jenkin became a professor in the school of engineering at University College London. With his brilliantly written article, containing not a single superfluous word, Jenkin was considered to have at one blow cut down Darwin's explanation of the inheritance of beneficial biases.

Let's say Darwin is right, Jenkin explained, and there is an indefinite variability, thanks to which some single organism has acquired a deviation that is useful for it (necessarily a single one, otherwise it is a massive Lamarckian change under the influence of the environment). But this lucky one will interbreed with an ordinary individual. This means that the “blood” will be diluted - the trait in the offspring will retain only half of the useful evasion. In the next generation, a quarter will remain of him, then an eighth, etc. As a result, instead of evolution, useful deviations will dissolve (Jenkin used the term swamping“swamping” or absorption of altered potency by unchanged hereditary potencies).

The criticism of the engineering professor caused Darwin to experience what he called “Jenkin’s nightmare.” As Darwin admitted in one of his letters, the correctness of his opponent’s reasoning “can hardly be questioned.” In a letter to Hooker dated August 7, 1860, Darwin wrote: “You know, I felt very humbled when I finished reading the article.”

In the end, after much thought, he saw only one way to respond to criticism: to admit that the environment directly influences heredity and thereby leads to changes in a large number of individuals living in new conditions. Only in this case, “resorption” of new signs should not have occurred. Such recognition of the role of the massive direct influence of the environment in progressive evolution meant a decisive convergence with Lamarck’s position and recognition of the principle of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Agreeing with the arguments contained in Jenkin’s devastating article regarding Darwin’s mechanism of inheritance of useful traits, Darwin decided to make corrections to the next, fifth, and then sixth edition of the book. “...I am so sad,” he wrote to Hooker, “but my work is leading me to a somewhat greater recognition of the direct influence of physical conditions. Perhaps I regret it because it diminishes the glory of natural selection.”

Meanwhile, a way out for Darwin already existed. Gregor Mendel had proven several years earlier that hereditary structures do not merge with anything, but retain their structure unchanged. If the unit responsible for the transmission of heredity (later called the genome) is changed, and as a result the trait it controls is formed in a new way, then all the descendants of this first hereditarily changed organism will carry the same new trait. “Jenkin's Nightmare,” which had spoiled so much of Darwin's blood, was completely dissipating, and evolutionary theory was taking on a complete form. But Darwin did not know Mendel’s work, and he himself did not think of his conclusions.

Literature:
1) Loren C. Eisley. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the theory of natural selection // Proc. Amer. Philosopher Soc. 1959. V. 03, N. 1. P. 94–115.
2) Edward Blyth. An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals, with observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take place in various British species, and which do not constitute varieties // (London). 1835. V. 8. P. 40–53; On the physiological distinction between man and all other animals, etc. // The Magazine of Natural History(London), n.s.. 1837. V. 1. P. 1–9, and P. 77–85, and P. 131–141; excerpts from Blyth's works, as well as Arthur Grout's memoirs of him, published in the August issue of the magazine Journ. of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875, are given as an appendix to Eisley’s article (see note /1/, pp. 115–160).
3) Wallace A.R. Darwinism. A presentation of the theory of natural selection and some of its applications. Translation from English prof. M. A. Menzbir. Library for self-education. M.: Publishing house. Sytin, 1898. T. XV.
4) Fleeming Jenkin. Review of The Origin of Species // North British Review. 1867. V. 46. P. 277–318.

See “Science at First Hand”, 2010, No. 3 (33). pp. 88–103.
“Science at first hand”, 2005, No. 3 (6). pp. 106–119.
Née Wedgwood, daughter of the owner of the famous ceramics factory (called "Wedgwood" to this day). She was famous for many virtues, including being a good pianist and taking music lessons from Chopin himself.
The most prominent American Darwinists of the 20th century. E. Mair, S. Darlington, S. D. Gould later disputed the opinion regarding Darwin's borrowing of E. Blyth's ideas, based on the fact that Blyth talked about the selection of degraded forms, and not about progressive evolution.
Already in the 20th century. Wallace's “law” on the role of geographic isolation in accelerating the evolution of species became an integral part of the doctrine called the “Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” developed by the American scientist of Russian origin F. G. Dobzhansky. S. S. Chetverikov was the first to point out the role of geographic isolation for gene selection in 1926 in his work “On some aspects of the evolutionary process from the point of view of modern genetics.”

The English natural scientist Charles Darwin outlined his view of evolution and its scientific basis in a work entitled “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Races in the Struggle for Life,” published in 1859, half a century after the publication of the evolutionary theory of biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck . What are Darwin's ideas?

Darwin's theory of evolution, Darwinism- this is a holistic doctrine about the development of the organic world. It covers a larger number of issues and problems, the main of which are: proof of evolution and identifying it driving forces, defining properties and patterns of evolution.

The main stimulus that greatly accelerated the publication of Darwin's work on evolution was the work of his compatriot Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently came to very similar ideas and conclusions.

Wallace recognized Darwin's priority, since the latter explored questions of evolution more deeply and provided more evidence.
Darwin's main merit is the choice of the correct scheme for studying the factors of evolution and the successful resolution of the question of the driving forces of evolution: the struggle for existence and natural selection.

Basic principles of Darwin's theory

All species have their own range of individual variability in physiological, behavioral, morphological and other characteristics. Variability always exists, having only different quantitative and qualitative composition.

1. Reproduction of living organisms occurs in geometric progression. Due to limited resources, there is a struggle for existence between species and individuals.

2. Those species that develop deviations that are adaptive to the existing environmental conditions survive and produce offspring.

3. Deviations arise randomly, few individuals have them, but the descendants of such individuals survive and predominantly reproduce - it is this process that the scientist called natural selection.

4. Natural selection over time leads to the divergence of characters and the formation of new species.

5. Results of evolution: adaptability of organisms and the emergence of new species in nature.

6. So, the main driving forces of evolution are natural selection, the struggle for existence and hereditary variability.

Darwin established the mechanism of evolution and the explanation for the diversity of species of living beings.

The scientist proved that this mechanism is a gradual natural selection of random, undirected hereditary changes.

Interrelation of the driving forces of evolution

In nature, hereditary variability is constantly observed. For example, ants are able to distinguish individuals of their own species living in another anthill - they, of course, are close and similar, but under the influence of hereditary changes they are already slightly different. Organisms enter life with new changes in characteristics and begin the struggle for existence. Its result is always natural selection.
Exists 3 types of struggle for existence.

Darwin also determined why some individuals die while others survive. Due to constant variability in each generation, heterogeneity and inequality of individuals appears, that is, their quality is different. As a result of the struggle for existence, individuals with the most competitive set of traits survive. Thus, the least adapted individuals are selectively destroyed - natural selection occurs.

Results of evolution according to Charles Darwin

1. The appearance of protective coloring.

2. Appearance of warning coloring.

3. Development of the ability to mimicry.

4. Divergence (divergence) of characters between existing and new species. Variety of species of living organisms.

So, the main conclusions following from Darwin's evolutionary theory.

1. Individuals of any species have hereditary variability.

2. Within a species, the number of offspring is very high, and the amount of necessary resources is limited.

3. This leads to the struggle for existence and, as a consequence, to natural selection - the survival and reproduction of the fittest individuals and species.

4. As a result of natural selection, new types and mechanisms of adaptation appear that are relative in nature.

You can learn more about the topic by watching video and online lectures by the author of these biology courses.

Do you want to pass the exam with flying colors? Click here -

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) 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 changes. 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 did not occur 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 theory 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.