Rudiments and atavisms as evidence of animal origin. Evidence for the evolution of the organic world

Materialists see proof of evolution in rudiments and atavisms. Rudiments (lat. rudimentum- germ, initial stage) materialists call organs that have fewer capabilities compared to similar organs in other creatures, which is perceived as the loss of their main meaning over time. For example, many birds fly with the help of wings, and ostriches use their wings to maintain balance on the run, shake off insects, courtship dances, etc. One of the most famous human rudiments is the coccyx, taken as the remainder of the tail. The term atavism has now fallen out of scientific use, but it continues to be used outside of academia. Under atavism (lat. atavismus, from atavis- ancestor) is understood as the presence in an individual of signs characteristic of supposedly distant ancestors. For example, in humans, it is hairline on parts of the body where it is usually absent, including the face.

At first glance, especially if one believes in evolution, rudiments and atavisms may well serve as confirmation of Darwin's theory. However, they are well explained by the concept of creation.

Along with the growth in popularity of the theory of evolution in the second half of the 19th century, there was also an increase in interest in everything that confirmed it in one way or another. Already widely known at that time, Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection (1871) listed a number of organs that he classified as rudimentary. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, many scientists enthusiastically looked for "unnecessary" organs in the human body. And they were delighted that there were a lot of them - about two hundred. However, over time, their list began to thin out, since the useful properties of organs were established: some produced the necessary hormones, others entered into work under certain external conditions, others were needed at a certain stage of the development of the organism, the fourth acted as a reserve ... Therefore, most likely , soon the concept of rudiment will be revised. Here is what, for example, is written about the coccyx in the Wikipedia encyclopedia: “The coccyx has a rather important functional significance. The anterior parts of the coccyx serve to attach muscles and ligaments… In addition, the coccyx plays a role in the distribution of physical load on the anatomical structures of the pelvis, serving as an important fulcrum… when a seated person is tilted.” And here is what you can read about the appendix there: “The appendix is ​​... a kind of“ farm ”where beneficial microorganisms multiply ... The appendix plays a saving role in preserving microflora.”

That is, organs that are considered rudiments each play their own role in the functioning of the body. Try to take the ostrich's wings. Will he be better or worse without them? The answer is obvious: wings, although they are less functional than those of flying birds, are necessary for an ostrich. If the organism needs the rudiments, this means that they do not prove evolution! Now, if in our body found at all unnecessary elements, as the remnants of the development from simple to complex, then this would be a weighty confirmation of Darwin's theory. However, all creatures have an optimal functional structure, they are harmonious and aesthetic in their own way, pointing to the Author who created them.

As for atavisms, they are a different story. The fact is that this term is no longer entirely scientific and therefore not completely unambiguous. Let's take hair as an example. They play an important role in the "work" of the skin. The sweat and sebaceous glands are located next to the hair follicle. The excretory ducts of part of the sweat and most of the sebaceous glands come to the surface of the skin along with the hair. Sebum prevents the development of microorganisms, softens the skin and gives it elasticity. However, if a person’s body is covered with hair, then materialists call such a pathology atavism and associate it with heredity from distant ancestors. Why? Yes, because monkeys and many other animals are completely covered with wool. But wool, although similar to human hair, is significantly different from them. Excessive hairiness of people is simply a disease well known to physicians under the name of hypertrichosis. Echoes of our animal past include additional underdeveloped nipples, which are sometimes found in humans. Although these nipples are clearly human, not cow or monkey. Also, atavism, some materialists consider the “tail” - an elongation rarely found in people in the coccyx region. But in fact, such outgrowths from the human body are not a tail, like the tails of animals. This elongation is a tumor, growth, or cyst. That is, it is a disease, often known as the coccygeal passage.

At the same time, for some reason, materialists are not embarrassed by the fact that there are no people with scales, gills, wings, feathers and fins. And for some reason, evolutionists do not claim that humans had, for example, six-fingered, five-pointed and two-headed ancestors, although people with similar deviations are sometimes born into the world. That is, we see a strange picture: materialists consider some congenital deformities and anomalies of development, supposedly similar to our ancestors, to be related to them, that is, atavisms. And many other defects, including internal ones, which do not have an obvious similarity with the alleged progenitors, are called deviations associated with disturbances in the functioning of the body. Although it is clear that in both cases the cause of pathologies is a genetic or hormonal failure, which can be caused by a variety of external factors. But, it is convenient for materialists to apply to a number of defects not the concept of disease, defect or anomaly, but the term atavism, since it fits into the theory of evolution.

Despite the partial similarity, all living beings are unique and perfect in their own way, which is an excellent proof of creation - we are created by an intelligent Creator. And the fact that a number of organs are similar in different living beings indicates that we have one Creator! He designed his creations for different conditions and for different tasks, but at the same time successful “architectural” and functional solutions were used and repeated, taking into account specific nuances. Of course, there are people who are trying to find flaws in the organisms of living beings - imperfections. However, their claims to the Creator are easy to verify - you just need to surgically correct the found "imperfection" and follow the further life of the operated being under different external conditions, comparing it with the unoperated one.

Rudiments and atavisms - proof of evolution?

Materialists see proof of evolution in rudiments and atavisms. Rudiments (lat. rudimentum - germ, initial stage) materialists call organs that have fewer capabilities compared to similar organs in other creatures, which is perceived as the loss of their main meaning over time. For example, many birds fly with the help of wings, and ostriches use their wings to maintain balance while running, shake off insects, courtship dances, etc. One of the most famous human rudiments is the coccyx, taken as the rest of the tail.

The term "atavism" has now fallen out of scientific use, but it continues to be used outside of academia. Atavism (lat. atavismus, from atavis - ancestor) is understood as the presence in an individual of signs characteristic of supposedly distant ancestors. For example, in humans, this is a hairline on parts of the body where it is usually absent.

At first glance, especially if one believes in evolution, rudiments and atavisms may well serve as confirmation of Darwin's theory. However, they are well explained by the concept of creation.

In the second half of the XIX century. along with the growth in popularity of the theory of evolution, interest in everything that confirmed it in one way or another increased. Already widely known at that time, Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection (1871) listed a number of organs that he classified as rudimentary. At the end of the XIX century. - the beginning of the XX century. many scientists enthusiastically looked for "unnecessary" organs in the human body. And they were delighted that there were a lot of them - about two hundred. However, over time, their list began to thin out, as their useful properties were established: some organs produced the necessary hormones, others came into operation under certain external conditions, others were needed at a certain stage of development of the organism, the fourth acted as a reserve. Therefore, most likely, the concept of "rudiment" will soon be revised.

Here is what, for example, is written about the coccyx in the Wikipedia encyclopedia: “The coccyx has a rather important functional significance. The anterior parts of the coccyx serve to attach muscles and ligaments... In addition, the coccyx plays a role in the distribution of physical load on the anatomical structures of the pelvis, serving as an important fulcrum... when a seated person is tilted. And here is what you can read about the appendix there: “The appendix is ​​... a kind of“ farm ”where beneficial microorganisms multiply ... The appendix plays a saving role in preserving microflora.”

Rice. Organs, which today are called rudiments, each play their own role in the functioning of the body.

That is, organs that are considered rudiments each play their own role in the functioning of the body. Try to take the ostrich's wings. Will this living creature be better or worse without them? The answer is obvious: wings, although they are less functional than those of flying birds, the ostrich needs. If the organism needs the rudiments, then they do not prove evolution! Now, if in our body found at all unnecessary elements as the remnants of the development "from simple to complex", then this would be a weighty confirmation of Darwin's theory. However, all creatures have an optimal functional structure, and each is harmonious in its own way, pointing to the Author who created it.

As for atavisms, that is a different story. The fact is that this term is no longer quite scientific, and therefore ambiguous. Let's take hair for example. They are needed for thermoregulation, protect against friction, microtrauma, irritation, diaper rash... They also play an important role in the functioning of the skin. The sweat and sebaceous glands are located next to the hair follicle. The excretory ducts of part of the sweat and most sebaceous glands come to the surface of the skin along with the hair. Sebum prevents the development of microorganisms, softens the skin and gives it elasticity. However, if a person’s entire body is covered with hair, then materialists call such a pathology atavism and associate it with distant ancestors. Why? Yes, because monkeys and many other animals are completely covered with wool. But wool, although similar to human hair, is significantly different from them. Excessive hairiness of people is simply a disease well known to physicians under the name of hypertrichosis.

Echoes of "our animal past" include additional underdeveloped nipples, which are sometimes found in humans. Although these nipples are clearly human, not cow or monkey. Also, some materialists consider the “tail” to be an atavism - an elongation in the coccyx area that is rare in humans. But in fact, such outgrowths from the human body are not a tail, like the tails of animals. This elongation is a tumor, growth, or cyst. That is, it is a disease, often known as the coccygeal passage. At the same time, for some reason, materialists are not embarrassed by the fact that there are no people with scales, gills, wings, feathers and fins ... And for some reason, evolutionists do not claim that a person had, for example, six-fingered, three-legged and two-headed progenitors, although people are sometimes born with similar deviations.

That is, we see a strange picture: materialists explain some congenital deformities and anomalies of development, allegedly similar to the signs of our ancestors, kinship with them, that is, they consider them to be atavisms. And many other defects, including internal ones, which do not have an obvious similarity with the alleged progenitors, are called deviations associated with disturbances in the functioning of the body. Although it is clear that in both cases the cause of pathologies is a genetic or hormonal failure, which can be caused by a wide variety of external factors. But it is convenient for materialists to apply to a number of defects not the concepts of illness, vice or anomaly, but the term "atavism", since it fits into the theory of evolution.

Rice. What is often considered an atavism is an anomaly, not a legacy from animal progenitors.

Despite the partial similarity, all living beings are unique and perfect in their own way, which is an excellent proof that we are created by an intelligent Creator. And the fact that in a number of organs of different living beings there is a similarity indicates that we have one Creator! He designed his creations for different conditions and for different tasks, but at the same time successful “architectural” and functional solutions were used and repeated, taking into account specific nuances.

Of course, there are people who try to find flaws and imperfections in the organisms of living beings. However, their claims to the Creator are easy to verify - it is enough to surgically correct the found “imperfection” and follow the further fate of the operated being in different external conditions, comparing it with the unoperated one.

Note that similar experiences have already taken place in history. Particularly zealous physicians since the beginning of the 20th century. began to "correct the mistakes of nature", surgically removing healthy, but, as it seemed to them, unnecessary and even dangerous organs from people. Thus, tens of thousands of people lost their large intestines, caecum, tonsils, appendix... This practice was stopped only when doctors became convinced of the negative consequences of their "good" activities.

As you can see, the concepts of “rudiments” and “atavisms” used by materialists do not prove evolution, since this question can be looked at from a completely different angle. It is obvious that the above creationist opinion scientifically validates the concept of creation.

Rudiments called organs that have no function or have a function that deviates from their structure. It is believed that in such bodies it is possible to establish a discrepancy between structure and function, that is, in these bodies, the structural costs seem excessively large for the function they perform. Loss of function or limitation of functional ability interpreted within the evolutionary theory loss of function in the course of evolution.

At first glance, it is clear that the rudiments cannot serve proof development from lower to higher forms. Anyway, the rudiments show dying process these organs. Rudiments are excluded as proof of progressive evolution.

But, in the end, there is another argument: vestigial organs testify and against act of creation for in a deliberate and planned creation such organs could not have taken place. Therefore, we consider the issue of rudiments in more detail and offer our interpretation of the phenomenon of rudimentary within the framework of the creation model (for a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Junker, 1989).

Most of the rudiments have not lost their functions

For a long time it was considered a classic organ that had lost its functions. caecal appendix person. At present, however, it is known that the appendix has a protective function in general diseases and is involved in the control of the bacterial flora in the caecum.

Birds, reptiles and some mammals have a third eyelid, a transparent nictitating membrane. Protecting the eye, it stretches from its inner corner through the entire eyeball. . When birds fly, the nictitating membrane functions like a windshield wiper. . "Rudimentary" nictitating membrane in humans (Fig. . 6.15 ) performs the task of collecting foreign bodies that fall on the eyeball, it binds them in the corner of the eye into a sticky mass. From there they can be easily removed.

Coccyx a person is necessary to strengthen the muscles of the pelvis, which holds the internal organs of the small pelvis and thereby makes possible an upright gait. The mobility to which the coccyx owes its origin in ontogenesis from the spinal column is of decisive importance for the process of childbirth.

Attachment of the esophagus to the trachea also not pointless: mucus in the respiratory tract can be removed through the esophagus . In addition, such a structure saves space and makes it possible to breathe through the mouth, which is an extremely convenient way in case of a severe cold. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a superfluous structure due to phylogenetic development. All these structures, however, are quite explicable from the point of view of constructive development ( see 6.5.2).

Examples from the animal world

Embryonic rudiments of teeth in mustachioed whales, which never become true teeth, play an important role in the formation of jaw bones. The same goes for the primordia of the upper incisors of ruminants, which never erupt through the upper jaw.

Remains of kiwi wings(rice. 6.16) serve to adjust the balance. However, in this case, the rudiments are only an evolutionary-theoretical concept, it is based on the belief (which should have been proven first) that the ancestors of the kiwi were once able to fly before.

Rudimentary bones of the pelvis and femur of a whale(rice. 6.17) serve as an attachment point for the muscles of the genital organs and the muscles of the anus, and if they are destroyed, the contents of the stomach of animals will be flattened under the influence of high hydrostatic pressure at great water depths. So in this case, there can be no question of loss of functionality, because without these bones, whales would not be able to dive to depth so well.

Remains hind limbs in the form of horny shields in boa and python("superrudimentary") are very helpful in moving snakes through branches, branches and serve as auxiliary organs during mating.

And finally, one should name one more, the so-called "rudiment behavior ": when a red deer threatens its fellow species, it raises its upper lip, as many animals with dagger-shaped fangs do. However, such teeth in a red deer are too small. But since threatening gestures are understandable even without clearly visible fangs, then in In this case, there is no urgent need to talk about the phenomenon of rudimentary.

It can be argued that the phenomenon of loss of function cannot be proven with absolute certainty. The arguments given are based, as a rule, on momentary ignorance.

Some rudiments arise through degeneration within one species and within a short period of time(degenerative microevolution). A typical example of this would be a person's "wisdom teeth". It is possible (both in the creation model and in the evolutionary model) to proceed from the fact that in the past all 32 human teeth were regularly used and were fully functionally loaded. The fact that modern man does not necessarily need wisdom teeth may be due to his changed eating habits. Therefore, the increased degenerative development did no harm. And since no structural change worthy of mention occurred with degenerative development, there can be no question of evolution in the sense of the evolutionary doctrine. Such degenerative development is possible only for a short period of time, it does not require either millions or hundreds of thousands of years. This is tantamount to considering "evolution" a greater predisposition to diseases or deteriorating vision.

Wisdom teeth atrophy varies from race to race. The Mongoloid race is especially advanced in this process. Discovered human fossils have functionally usable wisdom teeth.

The so-called well-known "diseases of civilization" may also be listed under this heading, such as the frequently mentioned examples of weakened intervertebral cartilage, inguinal hernia, hemorrhoids, varicose veins and flat feet. . This has nothing to do with "catastrophic planning", as the zoologist R. Riedl (1984, p. 192) recently put it, but only with "improper use". If the technical device is used improperly, then the resulting breakdowns cannot be explained by design flaws. A person is something more than a device, but his physical well-being also depends on his lifestyle.

A simple microevolutionary degeneration could explain the development of vestigial wings in ground beetles or in insects that live on islands exposed to strong winds (see Fig. section 3.3.3). Rudimentary stamens, found, for example, in Norichnikova, could also be included here. (Scrophulariaceae).

Many rudiments in behavior can be explained by microevolution. For example, the fact that dogs spin before falling asleep is seen as a vestige of a former meaningful behavior in order to personally ascertain if there is a threat.

Similarity Argument as a True Argument

The previous section could not include, for example, rudimentary pelvic and femoral bones of whales ( rice. 6.17]. They are. compared with the finally developed homologous parts of the skeleton of land animals, they perform only some functions. Partial loss of functions (according to locomotion) is compensated by a special adaptation to an atypical mode of locomotion for mammals, which cannot be acquired in the course of microevolution.

This example provides a good opportunity to compare approaches to argument when trying to explain vestigial organs within the framework of the evolutionary model and the creation model. .

Argument within evolutionary model: vestigial pelvic and femur bones of whales have a function, but this function is not required resemblance of these structures with the corresponding (homologous) bones of land mammals . The function described above can also be performed by non-homologous structures. Thus, this similarity indicates generic relationships. Thus, the true argument in favor of generic relationships in this case is the presence of similarity .

Within the framework of the model creation arguments can be made from Section 6. 1 (a variant of one general plan of creation for many different organisms). A programmer who is given the task of making many similar programs will not start from the beginning each time, but will each time use the "non-specialized" program made at the beginning, making unnecessary modifications.

Multifunctionality of vestigial organs

Statement of the loss of functionality or discrepancy between structure and function is a rash step and possible only when the relationships are not known and taken into account during the entire ontogenesis. Particularly instructive are the results of studying individual human development ( section 6.5.2). That this is not an exceptional case is shown by the following example.

Many cave fish have atrophied eyes. About the cave dweller Astyanax mexicanus it is also known that his visual apparatus initially forms normal. Then, in the course of further individual development, there is a reverse development (atrophy) of already existing individual structures. . This remarkable fact, however, is understandable, since the ocular apparatus is of physiological importance in the formation of the head. The eye, therefore, in these cave animals is clearly very limited in its function of the apparatus of perception, but on the other hand it also performs a form-forming function in the early stages of development. Therefore, reduction is possible only from the moment the formative function is not violated.

This example, to which many more similar ones could be added, shows that the ratio of parts during ontogenesis should be taken into account when trying to interpret the phenomenon of rudiments, since in the process of ontogenesis some structures of the body have certain functions (for example, during the formation of an embryo) that are impossible observe in the finally formed organ.

The same structure can thus perform different tasks at the same time. This can be regarded as evidence of a general organizing principle (probably the "principle of creation"): organs usually perform many functions simultaneously or sequentially in the course of individual development. Only in the case just described was the principle discovered that a certain organ (the eye) could, under certain environmental conditions, become a vestige in relation to one of its functions.

AT evolutionary model such phenomena are interpreted as "development in a roundabout way" or "recapitulation development". If, as has been repeatedly shown, there is an urgent physiological need in such "detours", then this interpretation is at least unconvincing. On the basis of such data, some biologists have come to the conclusion that the phenomenon of "roundabout development" should be regarded as evidence that it is on this path that the physiological selection pressure in the development of organisms is concentrated. Some researchers therefore consider it quite possible that for certain physiological problems of development there is only one way of formal solution, namely that the seemingly side ways of development are in fact "shortcuts to success"

atavisms

Structures that, by coincidence circumstances formed at separate individuals of the same species and which are intended to recall the supposed earlier phylogenetic stages of development, are called atavisms(lat. atavus- great-ancestor). In these cases, one speaks of a crisis in the previously passed historical and ancestral stages. As examples of atavisms in humans, fistulas in the throat, too pronounced hairline, ponytails and multi-nipples are given. .

Like "rudiments", atavisms are not evidence for progressive evolution. Moreover, it is clear that the reducible argumentation the appearance of atavisms is different inconsistency. Deformations (malformations) are considered only as evidence of a putative phylogenesis (that is, interpreted as atavisms) if they show a resemblance to the putative ancestors of the affected organisms . To be consistent, it would be necessary to historically interpret all the phenomena of deformation, for example, branched ribs, and a cleft lip, and the phenomenon of six-fingeredness, and the formation of two heads: and the appearance of a fifth leg .

This means that even such deformations should be regarded as evidence of previous stages of phylogenetic development, which cannot be certain. However, the opposite is also unacceptable: to interpret this or that defect in development only when it fits within the framework of a pre-built concept. Therefore, atavisms cannot be regarded as evidence of the phylogeny of organisms. The fact that some (but only some) deformations resemble other organisms (presumably the ancestors of the organisms in question), due to the numerous manifestations of external similarity, is not something unexpected and does not deserve special attention. (Atavisms are often "borderline cases of the manifestation of the norm", cf. section 6.5.2.)

An example of atavism in animals is the extra toes in horses ( rice. 6.18). In this case, probably as a result of an erroneous control signal, the only leg structure under normal conditions was formed twice (without any visible benefit). By the way, in horses, only three- and four-fingered forms are known, among them there are no two-fingered ones (as in our case).

How erroneous an atavistic interpretation can be, if applied consistently, is shown by the following example: four-winged fruit flies are taken as evidence that dipterous insects (Deptera) descended from the four-winged. The emergence of four wings is regarded as an atavism. But there are also mutant fruit flies with four swaying halteres and no wings at all - an absurd "construct" that is absolutely unsuitable as a phylogenetic ancestor.

When trying to explain the phenomenon of deformation as an atavism, the same thing applies that was said about the rudiments: all attempts at interpretation are hasty until the underlying genetic and physiological situation of development and the functional significance in the growth process are revealed. Therefore, we have abandoned speculative interpretations of anomalous structural formations.

Back to text

Rice. 6.15. The nictitating membrane is a "rudiment" of a person.

Back to text

Rice. 6.16. Kiwi, a bird unable to fly, living in the Australian region. The lifestyle of a kiwi corresponds to that of a small mammal. Incapable of flight, bird species are common especially on the islands, since there are very few natural enemies living there. (Rosenstein Castle Museum, Stuttgart.)

Back to text

Rice. 6.17. Photo above: rudimentary pelvic bones of sperm whales, sei whales, fin whales (from top to bottom). Fin whales also have femoral rudiments. The lower picture shows the location of the pelvic rudiment in the abdomen of sei whales. Whale researcher Arvey believes that the pelvic rudiments of whales cannot be called homologous to the corresponding pelvic bones of land mammals. He calls these bones stomach bones. (Rosenstein Castle Museum, Stuttgart.)

Genotype and phenotype, their variability

Genotype is the totality of all the genes of an organism, which are its hereditary basis.

Phenotype - the totality of all signs and properties of the organism, which are revealed in the process of individual development under given conditions and are the result of the interaction of the genotype with a complex of factors of the internal and external environment.

Each species has its own unique phenotype. It is formed in accordance with the hereditary information embedded in the genes. However, depending on changes in the external environment, the state of signs varies from organism to organism, resulting in individual differences - variability.

Based on the variability of organisms, a genetic diversity of forms appears. There are modification variability, or phenotypic, and genetic, or mutational.

Modification variability does not cause changes in the genotype, it is associated with the reaction of a given, one and the same genotype to a change in the external environment: under optimal conditions, the maximum possibilities inherent in a given genotype are revealed. Modification variability is manifested in quantitative and qualitative deviations from the original norm, which are not inherited, but are only adaptive in nature, for example, increased pigmentation of human skin under the influence of ultraviolet rays or development of the muscular system under the influence of physical exercises, etc.

The degree of variation of a trait in an organism, that is, the limits of modification variability, is called the reaction norm. Thus, the phenotype is formed as a result of the interaction of the genotype and environmental factors. Phenotypic traits are not transmitted from parents to offspring, only the norm of reaction is inherited, that is, the nature of the response to changes in environmental conditions.

Genetic variability is combinative and mutational.

Combinative variability arises as a result of the exchange of homologous regions of homologous chromosomes during meiosis, which leads to the formation of new gene associations in the genotype. Arises as a result of three processes: 1) independent divergence of chromosomes in the process of meiosis; 2) their accidental connection during fertilization; 3) exchange of sections of homologous chromosomes or conjugation. .

Mutational variability (mutations). Mutations are called spasmodic and stable changes in the units of heredity - genes, entailing changes in hereditary traits. They necessarily cause changes in the genotype that are inherited by offspring and are not associated with crossing and recombination of genes.

There are chromosomal and gene mutations. Chromosomal mutations are associated with changes in the structure of chromosomes. This may be a change in the number of chromosomes that is a multiple or not a multiple of the haploid set (in plants - polyploidy, in humans - heteroploidy). An example of heteroploidy in humans can be Down syndrome (one extra chromosome and 47 chromosomes in the karyotype), Shereshevsky-Turner syndrome (one X chromosome is missing, 45). Such deviations in the human karyotype are accompanied by a health disorder, a violation of the psyche and physique, a decrease in vitality, etc.

Gene mutations - affect the structure of the gene itself and entail a change in the properties of the body (hemophilia, color blindness, albinism, etc.). Gene mutations occur in both somatic and germ cells.

Mutations that occur in germ cells are inherited. They are called generative mutations. Changes in somatic cells cause somatic mutations that spread to that part of the body that develops from the changed cell. For species that reproduce sexually, they are not essential, for vegetative reproduction of plants they are important.

Genetic heterogeneity of the population. S.S. Chetverikov (1926), based on the Hardy formula (see sections 3.3 and 8.4), considered the real situation in nature. Mutations usually arise and remain in a recessive state and do not disturb the general appearance of the population; the population is saturated with mutations, "like a sponge with water."

The genetic heterogeneity of natural populations, as shown by numerous experiments, is their main feature. It is maintained through mutations, the process of recombination (only in forms with asexual reproduction, all hereditary variability depends on mutations). The combinatorics of hereditary traits that occurs during sexual reproduction provides unlimited opportunities for creating genetic diversity in a population. Calculations show that in the offspring from crossing two individuals that differ only in 10 loci, each of which is represented by 4 possible alleles, there will be about 10 billion individuals with different genotypes. When crossing individuals that differ in total by 1000 loci, each of which is represented by 10 alleles, the number of possible hereditary variants (genotypes) in the offspring will be 10 1000, i.e. many times greater than the number of electrons in the universe known to us.

These potentialities are never realized, even to the smallest extent, if only because of the limited size of any population.

Genetic heterogeneity, maintained by the mutation process and crossing, allows the population (and the species as a whole) to use for adaptation not only newly emerging hereditary changes, but also those that arose a very long time ago and exist in the population in a latent form. In this sense, the heterogeneity of populations ensures the existence of a mobilization reserve of hereditary variability (S.M. Gershenzon, I.I. Shmalgauzen).

The genetic unity of a population. One of the most important conclusions of population genetics is the position of the genetic unity of a population: despite the heterogeneity of its constituent individuals (and perhaps precisely because of this heterogeneity), any population is a complex genetic system in dynamic equilibrium. A population is the smallest genetic system that can continue to exist for an unlimited number of generations. When crossing individuals within a population, many mutations occur in the offspring, including those that usually reduce viability due to homozygotization of individuals. Only in a real natural population, with a sufficient number of genetically diverse mating partners, is it possible to maintain the genetic diversity of the entire system at the required level. Neither an individual, nor a separate family or a group of families (dem) possess this property.

So, the main genetic characteristics of a population are constant hereditary heterogeneity, internal genetic unity and dynamic balance of individual genotypes (alleles). These features determine the organization of the population as an elementary evolutionary unit.

Ecological unity of the population. A feature of the population is the formation of its own ecological niche. Usually the concept of an ecological niche as a multidimensional space formed by each species in the biological and physical space-time continuum (J. Hutchinson) was used only for the species. However, since within a species there cannot be two populations that are identical in all their characteristics, the recognition of the fact that each population must have its own ecological characteristic characteristic only of itself, i.e., occupy a specific place in the ecological hyperspace

Mechanisms of interspecies isolation

The concept of a biological species implies the existence of interspecific reproductive isolation - that is, such isolation that prevents the interbreeding of individuals belonging to different species. Reproductive isolation ensures not only the coexistence of many closely related species, but also their evolutionary independence.

Distinguish between primary and secondary insulation. Primary isolation occurs without the participation of natural selection; this form of isolation is random and unpredictable. Secondary isolation arises under the influence of a complex of elementary evolutionary factors; this form of isolation occurs naturally and is predictable.

The simplest form of interspecies isolation is spatial , or geographical insulation. Species cannot interbreed because populations of different species are spatially isolated from each other. According to the degree of spatial isolation, allopatric, adjacent-sympatric and biotic-sympatric populations are distinguished.

Geographical areas allopatric populations do not overlap at all (examples: bison and bison, jackal and coyote). Geographical areas adjacent sympatric populations touch; such a degree of spatial isolation is characteristic of vicarious (replacement) species (examples: white hare and European hare). Geographical areas biotic-sympatric populations overlap to a greater or lesser extent (examples for the Bryansk region: the coexistence of four species of frogs, five species of larks, three species of swallows, nine species of tits, six species of buntings, six species of warblers, five species of thrushes, four species of warblers, five species of mice, six vole species).

Biotic-sympatric populations can interbreed with each other to form interspecific hybrids. But then, due to the constant formation of hybrids and their backcrosses with parental forms, pure species must sooner or later disappear altogether. However, in reality this does not happen, which indicates the existence of various mechanisms that effectively prevent interspecific hybridization in natural conditions, which were formed with the participation of specific forms of natural selection, known as "Wallace processes". (That is why ecological-geographic crossings between species that do not contact in natural conditions are most successful.)

Three groups of isolating mechanisms are usually distinguished: precopulatory, prezygotic, and postzygotic. At the same time, prezygotic and postzygotic isolation mechanisms are often combined under the general name "post-copulatory mechanisms".

Let us consider the main mechanisms of interspecific reproductive isolation that ensure the evolutionary independence of different species: BUT and AT.

I. Precopulatory mechanisms - prevent copulation (mating in animals or pollination in plants). In this case, neither paternal nor maternal gametes (and corresponding genes) are eliminated.

Precopulatory isolation can be primary(random) or secondary(formed under the influence of natural selection in favor of the highest fertility and survival). Precopulatory mechanisms include the following forms of interspecies isolation:

1. Spatial geographic isolation. Kinds BUT and AT are completely allopatric, meaning their geographic ranges do not overlap. (This form of isolation for the territory of the Bryansk region is irrelevant due to the lack of insurmountable spatial barriers (mountain ranges, deserts, etc.).)

2. Spatial-biotopic isolation. Kinds BUT and AT are adjacent-sympatric, that is, they live in the same territory, but are part of different biocenoses. In this case, the distance between biocenoses exceeds the radius of reproductive activity (for example, the radius of pollen and seed transfer in plants). This form of isolation is possible, for example, between obligate alluvial floodplain and obligate forest swamp species. However, this barrier is not insurmountable due to the transgression of floodplain-alluvial species into forest swamp cenoses.

3. seasonal isolation. Kinds BUT and AT are biotic-sympatric, that is, they are found in the same cenosis, but multiply (bloom) at different times. However, seasonal isolation is possible only for species with either very early or very late reproduction (flowering). For most species, seasonal isolation is irrelevant; some biotic-sympatric species reproduce simultaneously, but in nature they do not form hybrids, but successfully interbreed under laboratory conditions.

4. Ethological isolation. Plays an important role in animals; often due to differences in mating rituals between species BUT and AT. In biotically pollinated plants, there is isolation due to differences in the behavior of pollinating animals that prefer one or another type of flowers; this form of isolation is relevant for the specialization of pollinators.

5. Mechanical isolation. Due to differences in the structure of the reproductive organs of species BUT and AT, for example, copulatory organs in animals or pollination units in plants (flowers, inflorescences). This isolation barrier is not insurmountable: for example, the flowers of different plant species are often visited by the same pollinators (for example, bees), which ensures (at least at first glance) the equiprobability of both intraspecific and interspecific xenogamy.

II. Prezygotic mechanisms - prevent fertilization. At the same time, it happens elimination of paternal gametes(genes), but maternal gametes (genes) are retained. Prezygotic isolation can be either primary, and secondary.

In animals, prezygotic isolation mechanisms are usually associated with the death of paternal gametes. For example, in insects, the death of male gametes in the genital ducts of inseminated females is observed due to immunological reactions.

Prezygotic mechanisms in plants include:

1. Death of male gametophytes of a foreign species: non-germination of pollen grains on the stigma of the pistil, death of pollen tubes in the style or in the ovule, death of spermatozoa in the pollen tubes or in the embryo sac.

2. Non-competitiveness of the pollen of a foreign species in relation to the pollen of its own species when they jointly fall on the stigma of the pistil.

III. Postzygotic mechanisms - prevent the transfer of genes of parental species to subsequent generations through hybrids. This form of interspecific isolation can occur among first-generation hybrids, second-generation hybrids, and among backcrosses (backcrosses). Postcopulation isolation leads to gamete death; formed randomly. The most common postzygotic mechanisms include the following forms:

1. Inability or reduced fitness of hybrids compared to parental species (or simply inability).

1.1. Full toconstitutional, or morphophysiological disability. Means the absolute impossibility of the development of hybrids even under controlled conditions. Associated with the impossibility of normal morphogenesis due to the incompatibility of parental genomes. Includes the death of zygotes, embryos, seedlings, juvenile and virginal individuals.

1.2. Reduced constitutional fitness. It is expressed in the appearance of morphoses and terat (deformities), a decrease in survival. Reduced constitutional fitness largely determines all other forms of disability.

1.3. Inability to adapt to abiotic (physico-chemical) habitat factors. It differs from constitutional unsuitability in that it is possible to create conditions in which hybrids that are unadapted in the natural environment will develop normally. For example, in plants, the natural limiting factors for hybrids include: insufficient moisture, lack of light, lack of certain elements of mineral nutrition, environmental movement (wind, precipitation), temperature and humidity changes, insufficient length of the growing season. In practice, the elimination of the adverse effects of physical and chemical factors means the germination of hybrid seeds on filter paper in a humid chamber, the cultivation of seedlings in peat-humus pots in closed ground, the early production of hybrids under controlled conditions (while they have time to prepare for wintering), the first wintering in closed ground.

1.4. Inability to adapt to the biotic factors of the habitat particularly resistance to pests and diseases.

1.5. Non-competitiveness(first of all, non-competitiveness in relation to parental or close species). In disturbed habitats, in anthropogenic landscapes, and on the periphery of ecological niches (for plants, on the periphery of edapho-phytocenotic areas), this form of unsuitability plays a lesser role.

2. Complete or partial decrease in the fertility of hybrids (infertility).

2.1. Complete (constitutional) infertility- consists in the impossibility of sexual reproduction in any conditions. In plants, it occurs with the complete absence of flowers or the formation of ugly flowers (for example, with interspecific hybridization in Willows).

2.2. Decreased fertility- for example, a decrease in the number of flowers in plants.

2.3. Segregation sterility- violation of the normal segregation of chromosomes during meiosis. As a result, normal gametogenesis (sporogenesis) is impossible. Among animals, such sterility is observed in mules (horse and donkey hybrids), nars (one-humped and two-humped camel hybrids), kidus (sable and marten hybrids), cuffs (brown hare and white hare hybrids).

2.4. Ethological-reproductive disability hybrids in animals. It consists in a violation of reproductive behavior, for example, deviant behavior during courtship, when building nests, when raising offspring.

For example, in different species of lovebird parrots (genus Agapornis) different behavior is observed during nest building: individuals of the same species ( A. personata) carry pieces of building material in their beaks, while representatives of another species ( A. roseicollis) put them under the feathers. Interspecific hybrids ( F 1 ) showed a mixed type of behavior: at first, the birds tried to put the building material into the feathers, then they took it out, took it in their beak, and then everything started all over again.

Similar intermediate forms of behavior were found in the demonstrative behavior of finches and in the nature of the sound signals of crickets.

So, in relation to sympatric species, the existence of a wide variety of isolating barriers that prevent their complete mixing (secondary intergradation) is possible. At the same time, none of these barriers (of course, with the exception of the complete constitutional inability of hybrids) is not insurmountable. Therefore, the similarity between different species can be a consequence not only of convergence in similar habitats, but also the result of horizontal , or lateral gene transfer (gene flow).

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is the totality of different living organisms, the variability among them and the ecological complexes of which they are part, which includes diversity within species, between species and ecosystems.

Biological diversity is one of the most important biological resources.

A biological resource is genetic material, organisms or parts thereof, or ecosystems used or potentially useful to mankind, including the natural balance within and between ecosystems.

There are the following levels of biological diversity:

alpha diversity is the number of species in a community;

beta diversity - the number of communities in a certain area;

gamma diversity - the total number of species and communities in a certain area;

omega-diversity - global diversity (number of species and communities in vast areas).

However, all forms of diversity are based on genetic intraspecific (intrapopulation and interpopulation) diversity.

Building resilient ecosystems

The stability of a system in the simplest case is determined by the additive stability of its structural components. The main indicators of the resistance of individual plants include: winter hardiness, resistance to transpiration losses in the winter-spring period, resistance of buds, flowers and ovaries to frost, resistance to lack or excess of heat, solar radiation and a shortened growing season; heat resistance and drought resistance; correspondence between the rhythms of the passage of phenophases and seasonal changes in environmental conditions; resistance to certain pH values, salt concentrations; resistance to pests and diseases; balance of photosynthesis and reproductive processes. At the same time, the environment surrounding organisms is gradually changing - the problem of climate change is already becoming a global, political problem. For example, over the past 50 years (compared to 1940–1960) in central Russia, the average annual air temperature has increased by 1.2 °C, while relative humidity has decreased by 3%. These changes are even more pronounced in the winter-spring period: the air temperature in January, February and March increased by 4.4 °C, and the humidity in March and April decreased by 10%. Such changes in temperature and humidity significantly increase the transpiration losses of woody plants in the winter-spring period.

Unfortunately, the current level of development of science does not allow us to fully foresee the changes in the environment that will occur even in the near future, and to foresee not only climate change, but also the emergence of new pests, pathogens, competitors, etc. Therefore, the only a reliable way to increase the stability and productivity of natural ecosystems is to increase the level of heterogeneity, genetic heterogeneity of ecosystem components. Such heterogeneous ecosystems provide the possibility of continuous and inexhaustible nature management, since in genetically heterogeneous systems there are compensatory interactions of individuals with different characteristics of growth and development, sensitivity to the dynamics of environmental factors. In relation to pests and diseases, such a heterogeneous ecosystem is characterized by collective group immunity, which is determined by the interaction of many structural and functional features of individual biotypes (ecotypes, isoreagents).

To create heterogeneous artificial plantations (plantations), vegetatively propagated plants are used clone mixtures , or polyclonal compositions - in a certain way selected combinations of seedlings belonging to different clone varieties. In addition, each clone must have characteristics that other clones do not have. The most important such characteristic is shoot development rhythm . In turn, the rhythms of shoot development are determined by the species and individual specificity of genetically determined programs of ontogeny.

Thus, in order to create polyclonal compositions, it is necessary to identify among wild plants (or in collection plantations) intraspecific groups that stably differ in a set of characters. At the same time, the main thing is not the strength of differences, but their constancy, i.e. the ability to persist through generations (at least in vegetative propagation) under certain growing conditions.

As such an intraspecific grouping, it usually appears the form(morph). Unfortunately, very often this term is treated quite freely, calling forms and ecotypes, and varieties (variations), and isoreagents (forms in the narrow sense of the word), and biotypes; in microsystematics, the form is considered as an intraspecific taxonomic category (forma).

When isolating forms, first of all, attention is paid to morphological features. At the same time, in different plant species, due to parallel variability, forms of the same name are distinguished, differing in leaf configuration (typical vulgaris, broad-leaved latifolia, angustifolia angustifolia, small-leaved parvifolia, lanceolate lancifolia, elliptical elliptica, rounded ovoid crassifolia, rounded rotundata; some types of leaf blades receive special names, for example, orbiculata- widely oval, heart-shaped at the base and pointed at the top), according to the color of the leaves (monochrome concolor, multicolored discolor, green viridis, dove glaucophylla, shiny splendens, silvery argentea), by crown configuration (spherical sphaerica, weeping pendula, pyramidal pyramidalis); various cultivars (cultivars) are usually assigned the rank f. cult with a detailed description of the morphology.

In a more detailed description of the forms, various morphometric indicators are used, which in woody plants include: growth force (in particular, the annual increase in trunk diameter), type of branching, branching angle, length of internodes, branching intensity and shoot length, leaf size. These indicators are revealed by direct observation, are easily digitized and can be mathematically processed using the methods of variation statistics, which make it possible to assess the genetic conditionality of traits.

Polyploidy is known to be widespread among plants. Therefore, the identification of intraspecific (intrapopulation) groups that differ by chromosome number, could make it possible to unambiguously describe the level of diversity. Various cytogenetic methods are used to determine chromosome numbers, in particular, direct chromosome count in dividing cells. However, this is not always possible, so chromosome numbers are often determined by indirect methods, for example, palinometric method(according to the size of pollen grains).

However, all of these indicators are static, they do not reflect the process of realization of genetic information. At the same time, it is known that any trait is formed in the course of morphogenesis. Based on the analysis of morphogenesis, a selection is made ontobiomorph, and according to seasonal changes in the habitus of plants, phenobiomorphs. When using dynamic indicators of diversity, the set of genes of an organism can be considered as a program of its ontogenesis (individual development), and in particular cases, as a program of morphogenesis (shaping).

The promise of this approach was shown in the works of C. Waddington, N.P. Krenke and other classics of natural science.

Hereditary polymorphism of natural populations. genetic load. The process of speciation with the participation of such a factor as natural selection creates a variety of living forms adapted to living conditions. Among the different genotypes that arise in each generation due to the reserve of hereditary variability and recombination of alleles, only a limited number determines the maximum adaptability to a particular environment. It can be assumed that the differential reproduction of these genotypes will eventually lead to the fact that the gene pools of populations will be represented only by "successful" alleles and their combinations. As a result, there will be a fading of hereditary variability and an increase in the level of homozygosity of genotypes. However, this does not happen, as the mutation process continues, and natural selection supports heterozygotes, because. they dampen the harmful effect of recessive alleles. Most organisms are highly heterozygous. Moreover, individuals are heterozygous for different loci, which increases the total heterozygosity of the population.

The presence in a population of several equilibrium coexisting genotypes in a concentration exceeding 1% in the rarest form (the level of hereditary diversity for which a mutation process is sufficient) is called polymorphism. Hereditary polymorphism is created by mutations and combinative variability. It is supported by natural selection and is adaptive (transitional) and stable (balanced).

Adaptive polymorphism arises if, in different, but regularly changing conditions of life, selection favors different genotypes.

Balanced polymorphism occurs when selection favors heterozygotes over recessive and dominant homozygotes. In some cases, balanced polymorphism is a round robin (see Figure 1.4, p. 14).

The phenomenon of selective advantage of heterozygotes is called overdominance. The mechanism of positive selection of heterozygotes is different.

Due to the diversity of environmental factors, natural selection acts simultaneously in many directions. In this case, the final result depends on the ratio of the intensity of different selection vectors. Thus, in some regions of the globe, the high frequency of the semi-lethal allele of sickle cell anemia is supported by the preferential survival of heterozygous organisms in conditions of high incidence of tropical malaria. The end result of natural selection in a population depends on the overlap of many selection and counter selection vectors. Thanks to this, both the stabilization of the gene pool and the maintenance of hereditary diversity are achieved at the same time.

Balanced polymorphism imparts a number of valuable properties to a population, which determines its biological significance. A genetically heterogeneous population develops a wider range of living conditions, using the habitat more fully. A larger amount of reserve hereditary variability accumulates in its gene pool. As a result, it acquires evolutionary flexibility and can, changing in one direction or another, compensate for environmental fluctuations in the course of historical development.

In a genetically polymorphic population, organisms of genotypes are born from generation to generation, the fitness of which is not the same. At each point in time, the viability of such a population is below the level that would be achieved if it contained only the most “successful” genotypes. The amount by which the fitness of a real population differs from the fitness of an ideal population of the "best" genotypes possible with a given gene pool is called genetic cargo. It is a kind of payment for ecological and evolutionary flexibility. Genetic load is an inevitable consequence of genetic polymorphism.

Balanced genetic polymorphism, intraspecific diversity, ecological races and, probably, subspecies are among the reasons for the evolutionary immutability of species (Severtsov A.S., 2003). The existence of two or more morphs of balanced polymorphism, each of which is adapted in its own subniche of the species ecological niche, indicates that qualitatively different adaptive strategies of morphs ensure their equal fitness. When the ecological situation changes, one of these morphs gains an advantage at the expense of other (other) morphs. Their number is maintained or increased not only due to the preservation of fitness, but also due to the resources released during the reduction in the number or extinction of those morphs for which this change in the environment is detrimental.

An example is the history of polymorphism of the Moscow population of innanthropic rock pigeons. Columbia livia(Obukhova, 1987). The polymorphism of the populations of this species is represented by a continuous series of morphs that differ in plumage color: from gray (slate-gray), which is considered the original, to black (melanistic). There are two types of feather melanization. In one case, melanin is concentrated at the ends of the covert feathers, forming black speckles. As these specks increase, they merge into a solid black color. This more common form of melanization is due to the strong Black gene and 5-6 genes with little phenotypic effect. In another case, melanin is diffusely distributed over the feather fan. Therefore, intermediate morphs look more or less sooty or dirty, with more severe melanization they become black. This type of melanization is determined by the strong Dack gene and also 5-6 weak genes (Obukhova, Kreslavsky, 1984).

Before the Great Patriotic War, the gray morph prevailed in Moscow. Melanists were few in number. During the war, the Moscow population of pigeons almost completely died out or was destroyed. After the war, the number of pigeons recovered slowly until 1957, when, in connection with the World Festival of Youth and Students, the “bird of the world” began to patronize and feed. As the population increased, so did the proportion of melanistic morphs. By the end of the 60s of the twentieth century. the proportion of melanists and intermediate morphs was about 80%.

Changes in the ratio of morphs were due to differences in their behavior. The gray morph is more active, flies farther in search of food and actively guards its nesting territories. Melanists are passive. Their nests in attics can be located close to each other. Intermediate morphs are also intermediate in activity. Under the conditions of unlimited food resources provided by garbage dumps and top dressing and limited nesting sites in panel houses, the gray morph could not compete with the mass of melanists and intermediate morphs and was forced out into attics, inconvenient for nesting, where low density made it possible to protect nesting sites. Thus, changes in the ecological situation lead to changes in the frequencies of morphs. Either one of them (gray with a low population), then the other (melanists with a high population) gains an advantage, but in general the species retains its stability and does not change. It will exist even if any of the morphs die out.

An analysis of the color polymorphism of males of the pied flycatcher leads to similar results. Ficedula hypoleuca(Grinkov, 2000), White Sea gastropods (Sergievsky, 1987).

Ecological races are as important to maintaining evolutionary stasis as morphs of balanced polymorphism. An example is the ecological races of the willow leaf beetle, Lochmea caprea(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae), on Zvenigorodskaya biological stations Moscow State University, studied by Mikheev (1985). One of the two races feeds leaves broad-leaved willows, mainly goat and eared willows, aspen is an additional fodder plant. Another race feeds mainly leaves downy birch, additional fodder plant - warty birch. The exchange within each of the races between beetles feeding on the main and additional plants is about 40%. The exchange between willow and birch races is 0.3-5%, although these trees in a number of disturbed phytocenoses are in contact with branches. The fact is that the larvae and adults of the willow race, with forced feeding birch leaves die in 100% of cases. On the contrary, beetles and their larvae of the birch race feed on willow leaves without harm to themselves. Thus, races are isolated both ecologically and genetically. A rigid relationship with forage plants means that birch beetles in this area are confined to a certain stage of succession - a small-leaved forest. The willow beetles are confined to humid habitats where the normal course of succession is disrupted - forest edges, neighborhoods of settlements, etc. When the stage of succession changes, the populations of the birch race will either move or die out. The dispersion of beetles from wintering is about 4 km. The same will happen to the populations of the willow race with a decrease in moisture or with an increase in anthropogenic pressure. However, the extinction of any of the races will not mean the extinction of the species, but mosaic biotopes ensures the sustainable existence of each of the races. Probably, similar reasoning can be applied to geographic races - subspecies (A.S. Severtsov, 2003).

Thus, population polymorphism ensures the stability of the population as a whole when the ecological situation changes, and is also one of the mechanisms for the stability of a species in evolutionary time.

. Biodiversity . Genetic polymorphism of populations as the basis of biological diversity. The problem of biodiversity conservation

Biological diversity refers to all “the many different living organisms, the variability among them and the ecological complexes of which they are part, which includes diversity within species, between species and ecosystems”; at the same time, one should distinguish between global and local diversity. Biological diversity is one of the most important biological resources (a biological resource is considered to be “genetic material, organisms or parts thereof, or ecosystems used or potentially useful to mankind, including the natural balance within and between ecosystems”).

There are the following types of biological diversity: alpha, beta, gamma and genetic diversity. α-diversity is understood as species diversity, β-diversity is the diversity of communities in a certain territory; γ-diversity is an integral indicator that includes α- and β-diversity. However, these types of biodiversity are based on genetic (intraspecific, intrapopulation) diversity.

The presence of two or more alleles (and, accordingly, genotypes) in a population is called genetic polymorphism. It is conditionally accepted that the frequency of the rarest allele in polymorphism should be at least 1% (0.01). The existence of genetic polymorphism is a prerequisite for the conservation of biodiversity.

Ideas about the need to preserve genetic polymorphism in natural populations were formulated as early as the 1920s. our distinguished compatriots. Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov created the doctrine of the source material, substantiated the need to create repositories of the world gene pool of cultivated plants. Alexander Sergeevich Serebrovsky created the very doctrine of the gene pool. The concept of "genofund" included the genetic diversity of a species that developed in the course of its evolution or selection and provided its adaptive and productive capabilities. Sergei Sergeevich Chetverikov laid the foundations for the study and methods for assessing the genetic heterogeneity of populations of wild plant and animal species.

Global environmental problems escalated after World War II. To solve them in 1948 was formed International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources(IUCN). The primary task of the IUCN was to compile Red Books– lists of rare and endangered species. In 1963-1966 the first International Red Book. In 1980, its fourth edition was published. In 1978-1984. the Red Book of the USSR is published, and in 1985 - the Red Book of the Russian Federation.

However, humanity realized the seriousness of this problem only in the last quarter of the 20th century. A little over thirty years ago (1972), the first UN conference on the human environment took place in Stockholm. At this forum, the general principles of international cooperation in the field of nature protection were outlined. Based on the decisions of the Stockholm Conference, modern principles for the preservation of the living environment were formulated.

The first principle is the principle of universal connection in wildlife: the loss of one link in a complex chain of trophic and other connections in nature can lead to unforeseen results. This principle is based on classical ideas about the existence of cause-and-effect relationships between the elements of superorganismal biological systems, and many of these relationships lead to the formation of various chains, networks and pyramids.

Hence follows the principle of the potential utility of each component of living nature : it is impossible to foresee what significance this or that species will have for humanity in the future . In the public mind, the distinction between “useful” and “harmful” species loses its meaning, and the notion that “a harmful or weedy species is just an organism out of place” is affirmed.

Based on the principles of universal connection and the potential utility of each component of living nature the concept of non-interference in the processes occurring in natural ecosystems is formed: “We do not know why This will, so it's best to leave it as it is." The perfect way to save status quo considered the creation of protected areas with an absolute reserve regime. However, the practice of conservation has shown that modern ecosystems have already lost the ability to naturally restore themselves, and active human intervention is required to preserve them.

As a result, the transition from the concept of non-intervention and conservation of the status quo to concept of sustainable development society and the biosphere. The concept of sustainable development implies an increase in the ecological and resource potential of natural ecosystems, the creation of sustainable controlled ecosystems, the satisfaction of society's needs for natural resources based on scientifically based rational, sustainable and multi-purpose nature management, protection, protection and reproduction of all components of ecosystems.

Further development of the concept of sustainable development inevitably led to the principle of the need to conserve biological diversity : only diverse and diverse living nature is sustainable and highly productive . The principle of the need to preserve biological diversity is fully consistent with the basic principles of bioethics: "every form of life is unique and unrepeatable", "every form of life has the right to exist", "what is not created by us, should not be destroyed by us". At the same time, the value of a genotype is determined not by its usefulness for a person, but by its uniqueness. Thus, it was recognized that "the preservation of the gene pool is a responsibility to further evolution" (Frankel, XIII International Genetic Progress at Berkeley, 1974). Swaminathan (India) identified three levels of responsibility for the preservation of the gene pool: professional, political and public.

In 1980, the World Conservation Strategy was developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The materials of the World Strategy note that one of the global environmental problems is the problem of nutrition: 500 million people are systematically malnourished. It is more difficult to take into account the number of people who do not receive adequate nutrition, balanced in proteins, vitamins and microelements.

The World Strategy has formulated the priority tasks of nature protection:

– maintenance of the main ecological processes in ecosystems.

– Conservation of genetic diversity.

– Long-term sustainable use of species and ecosystems.

In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), a number of documents were adopted, signed by representatives of 179 states:

– Program of Action: Agenda 21.

– Statement of principles on forests.

– United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

– Convention on Biological Diversity.

The materials of the Convention on Biological Diversity note that "...diversity is important for the evolution and conservation of the life support systems of the biosphere." To preserve the life support systems of the biosphere, it is necessary to preserve all forms of biological diversity: "Countries that accede to the Convention must determine the components of biological diversity, ... control activities that may have a harmful effect on biological diversity."

At the UNCED conference, it was recognized that the decline in biological diversity is one of the main causes of the progressive degradation of natural ecosystems. There is no doubt that only if the optimal level of diversity is maintained, it is possible to create ecosystems that are resistant to extreme effects of physical and chemical factors, pests and diseases.

In 1995, in Sofia, at a conference of European ministers of the environment, the Pan-European Strategy for the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity was adopted. We list the principles of the Pan-European Strategy for the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity of Nature:

– Protection of the most vulnerable ecosystems.

– Protection and restoration of disturbed ecosystems.

– Protection of territories with the highest species diversity.

– Preservation of reference natural complexes.

The halt in the productivity of artificial ecosystems is also associated with low levels of biodiversity, with only 150 species of cultivated plants currently cultivated and 20 species of domestic animals bred. At the same time, the low level of global diversity is combined with a low level of local diversity, with the dominance of monoculture or cultural rotations with a short rotation period. The pursuit of uniformity in plant varieties and animal breeds has led to a sharp narrowing of genetic diversity. A consequence of the decline in diversity is a decrease in resistance to extreme physical and chemical environmental factors and, to an even greater extent, to pests and diseases.

Numerous studies have shown that the only reliable way to increase the stability and productivity of natural ecosystems is to increase the level of their heterogeneity, since in genetically heterogeneous systems there are compensatory interactions of individuals with different characteristics of growth and development, sensitivity to the dynamics of environmental factors, diseases, and pests. It is heterogeneous plantations that provide the possibility of continuous and inexhaustible nature management.

Consequently, there is a need for a wider use of the species and intraspecific (genetic) potential of the largest possible number of species suitable for cultivation under controlled conditions. The whole variety of material to be preserved includes the following categories of organisms: varieties and breeds currently cultivated and bred; varieties and breeds that have gone out of production, but are of great genetic and breeding value in terms of individual parameters; local varieties and native breeds; wild relatives of cultivated plants and domestic animals; wild species of animal plants that are promising for introduction into culture and domestication; experimentally created genetic lines.

Naturally, in order to solve a set of tasks related to the problems of biological diversity, it is first necessary to develop criteria for assessing biodiversity, to identify and assess the level of diversity in specific ecosystems (natural-territorial complexes), to develop recommendations for the conservation and enhancement of the identified diversity, to test and implement these recommendations for agro-industrial production.

I. CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

established conviction

Darwin's theory

Miller's experience

The most complex microcosm

Protein

Cell

The structure of the eye, hearing

Brain

Leather

A heart

Blood

Stomach

The immune system

Male and female

Self-sufficiency of the body

Rudiments and atavisms - proof of evolution?

Unique and ingenious creations

Micro- and macroevolution. Natural selection

Natural selection plus mutation

Why are there no transitional forms (intermediates)?

Cambrian Explosion

Monkeys are not human ancestors

Pithecanthropus ( Pithecantropus erectus)

Piltdown Man ( Eoanthropos)

Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

Sinanthropus (Homo erectus)

Australopithecus (Australopitek)

falsified drawings

Section Conclusion

II. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Age of the solar system

The Big Bang Theory

meteor dust

Comets

radiocarbon method

Radioisotope dating

Earth's magnetic field is weakening

Moon close to Earth

Ice rings show not years

The coral reef has been growing for less than 5.5 thousand years

Polonium radio halo

Soil erosion at the initial level

geological column

canyons

Mutual responsibility

Oil, coal, peat. Pierced Layers

Dinosaurs are reliable witnesses

All humans are descended from Adam and Eve

Population growth matches the biblical age of the earth

Ancient civilizations no more than 5.5 thousand years old

Unique living conditions

Lack of scientific evidence

Section Conclusion

III. THE BIBLE WITNESSES OF THE CREATOR GOD

Famous scientists about God

Max Born, physicist, mathematician, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize winner: "Many scientists believe in God."

Isaac Newton, physicist, mathematician, astronomer: "The delightful order of the Sun, planets and comets could not have arisen otherwise than according to the plan and design of the Almighty."

Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate: "I believe in God ... Science without religion is unconvincing, religion without science is blind."

Carl Linnaeus, creator of the classification of flora and fauna: "I read His traces in His creations."

Louis Pasteur, one of the founders of microbiology and immunology: “The day will come when they will laugh at the stupidity of our modern materialistic philosophy. The more I do science, the more I become a believer.”

Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics, Nobel Prize winner: "In essence, science and religion do not oppose each other, on the contrary, for every person with serious intentions, they serve as a mutual complement."

Arthur Compton, physicist, Nobel Prize winner: “For me, faith originates from the realization that a higher intelligence called the Universe into existence and created man ... The ordered vast Universe confirms the truth ... of the statement ...: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth ... ".

Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, one of the creators of quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize winner: “In science, the puzzle is given to you by none other than the Lord. He came up with the game itself, and its rules ... ".

Artur Shavlov, physicist, Nobel laureate: “When looking at the wonders of the universe and life, one should ask not only the question “how”, but also the question “why”. Only religion provides answers to these questions... The religious context becomes an excellent basis for scientific research.”

Derek Barton, chemist, Nobel laureate: "Science and religion are compatible ... Science shows that God exists."

Abdus Salam, physicist, Nobel laureate: “We believe that God created the Universe beautiful, symmetrical and harmonious; order is visible in it and there is no place for chaos.

John Eccles, neurophysiologist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: “The apparent conflict between science and religion is the result of ignorance ... Each of us - a unique being endowed with consciousness - is a creation of God. This is a religious point of view, and only it is consistent with what we know about the world.

I. CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

established conviction

Many modern people believe that everything they hear from a teacher, and even more so from a scientist, is necessarily true. And this is understandable, because we live in an age of rapidly developing science. Therefore, a person, as a rule, does not even think that his teacher can be mistaken, and a scientist can be a slave of his own prejudices. However, as before and now, in some matters you cannot fully trust your teachers and common scientific theories.

Darwin's theory of evolution, which became popular at the end of the 19th century, quickly grew into the natural sciences and soon became indisputable for most people. Meanwhile, when Darwin put forward his hypothesis, genetics and microbiology did not yet exist. Now Darwin's theory is not so convincing. But scientists are in no hurry to make changes to the curricula of schools and universities. Many prominent minds, even having doubted the scientific validity of Darwin's theory, are forced to remain silent because of the stereotypes that have developed in the world. And those who speak, write articles, publish books, openly appealing to the mind of the rest, colleagues simply try not to pay attention, because "troublemakers" are a minority.

Indeed, it is difficult for people who grew up in an atheistic world to abandon their usual materialism. In the media, in the educational literature, we are constantly faced with the imposition of the theory of evolution on a "scientific platform". And at the same time, a dismissive attitude is artificially formed towards creationism (the concept of intelligent design), as something archaic and utopian, simply speaking, like fairy tales for superstitious grandmothers. Meanwhile, this is far from being the case. Contrary to popular belief, creationism does not contradict scientific facts. On the contrary, all 100% proven scientific data (not theories and hypotheses) fit well into the concept of creation. And at the same time, on the contrary, many scientific facts do not fit into the theory of evolution. Moreover, the theory of evolution itself, by definition, is not an empirical part of science (built on the results of experiments), but only a hypothesis, since it does not have indisputable experimental confirmation, which we will discuss later.

That is, today there is not a confrontation between science and religion, as people often think, but scientific discussions about the emergence and development of life on Earth, where outstanding minds of the planet with high scientific degrees and titles stand on both sides. It's just that scientists interpret the same facts in different ways, since a person perceives and explains reality through his worldview, which has been formed in him for years, or even decades.

Not so long ago, more than 600 scientists around the world signed an appeal to the scientific community, proposing to reconsider the evolutionary theory introduced by Charles Darwin. Specialists in the field of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics from the USA and a number of European countries have openly expressed their skepticism regarding the understanding of the laws of evolution, which still dominates in our world. In their opinion, many discoveries of recent decades and paleontological data (fossils) contradict the basic principles of Darwin's theory. And this theory itself contains too many contradictions.

Often a person who has been taught from childhood that the theory of evolution is an indisputable fact does not even want to listen to new information, although such a position cannot be called objective. In science, if an event has two probable causes, both must be considered. And if the probability of one is much less than the other, no doubt, it is much more reasonable and scientifically sound to accept the one whose probability is higher.

Let us now carefully analyze the available objective facts that modern science possesses. As you will soon see, in order to draw a conclusion in favor of one of the two options listed above, you do not need a higher education, much less a doctoral degree. Choose for yourself which point of view is better argued.

In this book, we will examine many, but by no means all, of the weaknesses of evolution and the strengths of creationism. I want to note right away that this book is not scientific, but written for ordinary people, so there will not be too deep scientific research and complex formulas here. I hope that if the reader wants to go into more detail about any of the arguments presented here, he can do it himself, since today it is easy to buy books and look at publications on the Internet on the topics of evolution and intelligent design.

Darwin's theory

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a good naturalist. In his youth, he traveled a lot, studying the flora (plant world), fauna (animal world) and geological formations of the Earth. As a result of observing birds of the mockingbird family in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin noticed that some of their representatives differ from their relatives from Chile and from each other on different islands. He also drew attention to the different forms of shells of land turtles. Even before his research trips, the young scientist was familiar with the ideas of materialism. Therefore, while conducting his observations, the naturalist looked at the facts and analyzed them taking into account the possible absence of the Creator, although at that time the opinion dominated in society that God created the Earth and everything on it. Returning from his travels, Darwin began to study the breeds of domestic animals, thinking a lot about the natural change of living beings. The result of his long-term observations was the conclusion: animals evolved in parallel from lower species, surviving due to natural selection. At the same time, one must understand that Darwin put forward his hypothesis without knowledge of genetics, mutations and DNA. In those days, scientists could only see large bacteria through a microscope, and the cell seemed to people a tiny container with a jelly-like liquid. That is, the new theory was based solely on the researcher's visual observation of different animal species, including within the same genus. Darwin detailed his thoughts in On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. It is worth noting that in the book itself, outlining the hypothesis, the scientist immediately focused on its controversy and lack of evidence base. Darwin expressed the hope that in the future, thanks to new discoveries in science, his theory would be confirmed. These statements of the famous scientist will be given below as we analyze the arguments of his followers and their opponents - creationists, those who believe that the Earth and life on it were created by the Creator.

In accordance with Darwin's theory, all life on Earth developed gradually - from lower species to higher ones, that is, vertical evolution took place, during which the weakest were exterminated and, conversely, the strongest survived, thereby creating over millions of years the flora and fauna of the Earth, which we have today. Such a hypothesis is certainly interesting and even logical at first glance. With its help, the presence on the planet of full-fledged living beings is explained, which can adapt to the environment and stand up for themselves, protecting the right to exist. But this theory, as noted above, has many contradictions and there is no evidence base at all, since there is not a single recorded fact of vertical evolution, that is, the formation of a new being of a higher organization from a lower species.

Analyzing Darwin's theory, one cannot help but wonder how life could have originated on Earth at all. Already at this stage, the theory of evolution gives a serious failure. The fact is that so far none of the scientists, despite the achievements of science and the potential of modern technology, has been able to prove empirically (that is, repeat) the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. That is, scientists cannot create even the most primitive organism and start a life cycle in it. So far, researchers are only trying to obtain the integral constituent (building) components of living beings from inanimate matter. The most famous person among these scientists is Stanley Miller.

Miller's experience

In the middle of the last century, Stanley Miller, a scientist at the University of Chicago, tried to synthesize organic molecules from inorganic ones in the laboratory. He mixed water vapor, ammonia (NH 3), methane (CH 4) in a flask and passed electricity through this medium. As a result, Miller obtained four types of amino acids out of twenty, which are the constituent elements of a protein (protein). And proteins, as you know, are integral components of the cells that make up any organisms. So, experimentally, according to some supporters of evolution, the fact of the accidental emergence of life on Earth was proved. Why some?

Rice. Miller's experience

The fact is that this experiment has a number of significant shortcomings, which, although not advertised, are recognized by some evolutionists:

1) with considerable effort, artificially Miller obtained only four types of amino acids out of the required twenty involved in the creation of the protein;

2) the substances used in the experiment, presumably, constituted an inanimate broth that was at that time on the surface of our planet. And the electrical discharge passed through the substance imitated thunderstorms that could have been in the atmosphere of the young Earth. However, the experimenter created conditions that were far from even imaginary realities. During the week, he passed the discharge through one environment, although the lightning is of a one-time, short-lived nature and very rarely hits one place. At the same time, the scientist immediately isolated the resulting reaction products, protecting them from further exposure to electricity, since he knew that the discharges would break the resulting bonds;

3) obtaining amino acids, as such, is not yet proof of the possibility of spontaneous generation of life, since a protein consists of a complex sequence of amino acids interconnected (which will be discussed below). Moreover, the amino acids obtained by Miller in practice could not form a protein due to the so-called “chirality problem”. As a result of the experiment, amino acids were obtained with different rotation (orientation) from an imaginary axis, which makes it impossible to combine them into a protein;

4) as a result of Miller's experiment in an isolated sediment, not only protein components were obtained. The main products of the chemical reaction were formaldehydes, various acids (including hydrocyanic, acetic, formic) and oil-like substances, and amino acids accounted for only about 2% of this composition. It is impossible to imagine that a protein could form in such a caustic mixture of amino acids, and then a living cell began to emerge in the same place, since this environment will poison any biochemical reaction;

5) ammonia (NH 3) could not be on Earth in such quantity, since this gas is destroyed under the influence of ultraviolet sunlight;

6) methane (CH 4) was not found in ancient sedimentary alumina;

7) oxygen was not taken into account during the experiment. Materialistic scientists believe that at the time of the birth of life on our planet, there was no oxygen in its atmosphere. The fact is that oxygen would immediately destroy any organic bonds that have arisen. Meanwhile, today, at great depths, geologists find oxidized stones, which proves the constant presence of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.

Why did Miller at one time insist on this gas mixture? The answer is simple: without the chemicals used in the experiment, the formation of amino acids is impossible, which means that the appearance of protein is also impossible. Evolutionists, in arguing their hypotheses, often use the fact that there is no way to test their scientific assumptions. After all, there are no living witnesses who could confirm or refute what was supposedly millions and billions of years ago ... But, as we see and will observe further, even without this there is enough evidence that refutes the theories of materialists.

After Miller, other researchers repeated his experience, changing the reaction conditions, and also obtained the constituent components of organic matter, even in greater quantities than Miller's. But the above problems also apply to the results of their experiments. In general, even if we imagine that the necessary 20 amino acids were accidentally formed from inorganic substances and somehow combined into a protein, then this fact will not be proof of the spontaneous generation of life. After all, proteins in relation to a “living” cell can be compared with bricks in relation to a house. It is clear that, in addition to bricks, the construction of a building requires: a construction project, a construction site, construction equipment for moving bricks, energy for production, other building materials with their suppliers, foremen, workers, inspection inspectors, etc.

Let's, without going into details, look at the structure of the cell in order to understand how it is extremely complex and could not be created by random combination of inorganic substances.

The most complex microcosm

Protein

To be convinced of the impossibility of spontaneous generation of life, let's see how the living microcosm works. Recall that we will consider it only superficially, since it is very complex. Nevertheless, this and the next two chapters may seem difficult for someone to understand. Such a reader can safely flip through a couple of pages of the book and move on, and will return here when there is a desire to begin to understand this difficult issue.

As we already know, the minimum "building blocks" from which any living organism is built are proteins, also called proteins. The protein consists of interconnected amino acids, the number of which can vary from a few units to tens of thousands (for example, titin protein from human muscle consists of 34,350 different amino acids).

Rice. The principle of the structure of a protein from amino acids

Many amino acids are known in nature, but only 20 of them are part of proteins. It is difficult to overestimate the variety of protein structures that can be obtained from 20 types of amino acids. So, the chain of amino acids of a small protein can be represented in more than 10 85 variants, simply speaking, 10 and 85 zeros. For example: in the oceans there are 10 40 water molecules (10 and 40 zeros). Moreover, the location of each amino acid in the protein structure is important. If at least one element is rearranged, then in most cases we will get another protein with other functions, since it is the order of alternation of amino acids that determines the properties of the protein molecule.

Cell

To many types, including those inherent only to this type of cells . In any cell of the body there are: protein-enzymes that contribute to the flow of certain biochemical reactions; structural proteins that serve as "building blocks" for cell walls; transport proteins that carry oxygen and carbon in the process of "breathing" of the cell; protective proteins that bind toxins and provide an immune barrier, as well as proteins that perform regulatory, signaling, receptor, energy and other tasks. There are also various proteins in the intercellular space. In general, tens of thousands of different types of proteins can be present in living organisms - some, due to their structure, are needed in the bones, others - in the muscles, others - in the blood, etc. That is, for the functioning of the body, an incredible variety of different proteins are needed, and each must be in its place. Imagine how negligible the possibility of spontaneous appearance of even a simple protein. And it is all the more difficult to imagine how different types of proteins appeared and how they then ended up where this or that organism needs. The same applies to cells that are made up of these proteins and many other functional components.

Cells have their own metabolism, can develop and reproduce themselves. They are able to share. And these are not random breaks, but a complex, lengthy process in which all the functional components of the cell make their copies and then the cell in the middle is sort of pulled until it neatly separates. This mechanism involves special complexes of protein molecules that help to separate all components of the cell. Some cells are able to "live" in isolation, and in multicellular organisms (including humans), cells represent a certain integral cellular system with the exchange of substances and signals among themselves. There are about one hundred trillion, that is, 10 14 different "living" cells in the human body.

The structure and functioning of cells is so complex that a separate science, cytology, has been created to study them. The researchers compare the cell to a city in miniature. It has its own managers, employees, information and computing centers, roads, factories, power plants, overpasses, treatment facilities, etc. If you look at a cell as a kind of organism, then you can see organs in it, called organelles: mitochondria, the Golgi apparatus, a vacuole, a nucleus with chromosomes, including DNA, ribosomes, lysosomes, and others. The cell also contains RNA, a membrane, proteins and its other “components”, each of which, in turn, is complex. All these elements inside the cell interact in a unique way with each other. At the same time, each cell of a living organism does not just exist, but performs its own role - a mission in the overall functioning of the organism.

Already this most general consideration of the structure and physiological functions of the cell speaks of its rational and perfect structure.

Rice. Cell structure (left). The structure of Mitochondria - one of the organelles of the cell (right)

Naturally, a cell can “live” by itself and perform its external functions only if it contains all the elements that make it up and, moreover, interact in a certain way. We will not consider in detail the functioning of all the structural components that make up the cell, but we will dwell a little on DNA, which is much talked about in the world today.

DNA

Everyone knows that DNA contains complete information about any organism. But few people have heard that DNA consists of 50 - 245 million pairs of nitrogenous bases connected to each other. To understand how long this information chain is, you can imagine that its length is greater than its width by about 25 million times. The actual length of the DNA chain of one human cell is about 2 meters. If we take into account that there are about 100 trillion cells in the human body, then the total length of the DNA information chains connected to each other will exceed the distance from the Earth to the Sun by several times. If we present the information in the form of printed pages, then in one cell there is as much data as in 600 thousand book pages! For example, the largest, according to some estimates, the British Encyclopedia, which contains the basic knowledge of mankind, consists of 32 thousand pages. Imagine how incomprehensibly huge and compressed the information contained in DNA is!

Biochemists considered that in 1 DNA molecule, 10 87 degrees of connection variants of the material contained in it are possible. And only one option will allow you to create you personally - with all properly functioning organs and individual qualities. To approximate this probability, imagine that the same person won the top prize in a lottery with a million participants 14 times in a row! Do you believe in a happy accident in this case, and do not suspect a plan? Material scientists believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This period of time corresponds to 10 25 degrees of seconds. That is, if one version of DNA is invented every second, then the age of the Earth will not be enough to create one functioning DNA. But the point is not only in its multivariance: the information in DNA is written in the form of a code that can be compared with a computer program. Only this code surpasses in its size and complexity all programs created by man. The famous programmer Bill Gates said this about DNA: "Human DNA is like a computer program, only infinitely more perfect".

Rice. DNA structure

DNA does not contain a blueprint for an organism: the information it contains is more like instructions for creating and maintaining it. In cells, the “construction” and “repair” of the whole organism takes place according to the instructions laid down in DNA. Matrix RNA copies the code from DNA, according to which it is necessary to create the protein necessary at this stage for the cell or organism from amino acids. The transfer RNA delivers the necessary amino acids to the ribosome, where the messenger RNA provides the blueprint for protein assembly. Ribosomes work like a machine, releasing about a hundred different proteins per minute.

Rice. Simplified principle of protein synthesis in a cell

At the output, the protein passes quality control. If an error was made during assembly, the protein is marked with a marker as requiring disposal. The same procedure awaits the proteins that have become unnecessary. The self-monitoring procedure does not end with the analysis of the produced proteins. The cell is constantly examining itself for the presence of an irreparable defect (aging, infection, DNA damage, etc.). And in certain cases, if it is impossible to eliminate the malfunction, the process of self-destruction, called apoptosis, starts. Loss of apoptosis in tumor cells leads to their endless division.

How did “non-living” substances accidentally combine into cell components, and then, having combined into a cell, acquire such a complex relationship with each other, including saving suicide? What is important here is that although all the processes occurring in the cell are chemical, they are regulated and controlled by information. And information goes beyond chemistry and physics, being a product of intelligence!

Understanding that DNA is the carrier of the code, imagine how by chance the code itself could be recorded on the carrier of information? If, even forgetting about the complexity of the code, one still imagines that inanimate chemical elements, having spontaneously combined in DNA, accidentally lined up in a program code, then the following question immediately arises: how did a device for reading this code inadvertently appear? How can a music cassette appear by chance, and then also by chance a tape recorder appear to play the melodies recorded on it? How can a computer disk with a program written on it accidentally appear, and then a computer appears by chance to read this program? Of course not! If there is a code, then there must be an encoder and a decoder. But that's not all. After reading the code from the DNA and deciphering it, you need to follow the instructions in this program. That is, believing in chance, we must admit that the most complex code accidentally self-created and self-recorded in DNA, and also the reading and executing mechanisms of this code appeared by chance. Anyone familiar with the theory of probability understands how tiny - almost zero - is the possibility of such randomness. That is why the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists is often called the confrontation of two faiths. Some believe in the “invisible” God the Creator, others believe in the accidental origin of life, since advocating the idea of ​​spontaneous generation, taking into account the above facts, cannot be explained otherwise than by faith.

Sir Fred Hoyle, a professor at Cambridge, devoted much of his time to the mathematical calculation of the possibility of the accidental origin of life, and subsequently stated: “It is more likely that a tornado rushing through a cemetery of old cars can collect a Boeing 747 from trash raised into the air than living things can arise from inanimate nature.”

Think! How millions of non-living elements, with the help of chemical bonds, organized themselves into the most complex structures of DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins, etc., observing a strictly defined sequence (including representing a “program”), and then, “thinking through” and “distributing” roles and tasks among themselves, having surrounded themselves with a shell, created a “living” cell from itself with a variety of capabilities and functions? How does the self-construction of any organism begin from one cell in which DNA is located? How do the cells of growing living beings create various proteins, other substances and elements, as well as various types of cells necessary for building an organism? How cells divide, not spreading into jelly, but, having organized a single “leather shell”, they line up inside it into separate organs, tissues, bones, joints, blood vessels, brain. And then all together at once begin to interact with each other in a complex way, forming a viable organism? And if we are talking about plants, then how do cells, dividing from a tiny seed, themselves line up in bizarre grass, beautiful flowers, majestic trees?

Now we will talk about some organs of living beings in order to reflect on the unique, ingenious device of representatives of the animal world.

The structure of the eye, hearing

Getting acquainted with modern scientific and educational materials about evolution, sometimes you can find a chain of conclusions in them, which is typical only for the 17th-18th centuries. It was then that people, observing how flies start up in rotten meat, made a conclusion about the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. Although, of course, we now know that if the fly does not lay eggs, then the larvae will not appear. So today, popular information sources sometimes tell us that it was dark for the worm and therefore it eventually had eyes ... And this, together with other miraculous transformations, later made a snake out of it.

Let's look at the structure and function of the eye and see if it could have arisen by chance. We will consider the human eye, realizing that although it differs from the snake, but in general, the organs of vision of various creatures are in many ways similar.

Light, reflected from objects, enters our eye in the form of flying photons. The pupil, controlled by the brain, opens and closes depending on the degree of illumination of the environment so that the optimal amount of light enters the retina. The lens, through muscles, also controlled by the brain, adjusts the focus, tuning in to the object being examined. All modern optical equipment is made according to the same principle. Naturally, dozens of good designers worked on each such device. But despite this, the human eye remains more perfect than any created mechanism. Therefore, it is at least strange that many people continue to believe in his accidental appearance. In a matter of seconds, the eye adjusts to any lighting and adjusts to any view, and has been doing this relentlessly for many years. How could such a complex and precise optics be self-created?

Rice. Structure of the eye (left). Simplified principle of image processing by the camera and the eye (right)

But this is not all the "miracles" of the work of the organs of vision. Photons of light, hitting the retina of the eye, cause a complex chemical reaction in the photoreceptor cells, as a result of which nerve impulses are produced - certain electrical signals that carry information through the nerve cells to a special section of the brain. There, these impulses are processed and converted into a finished picture that we see. Television is reminiscent of such a process: an information signal is received by an antenna, then it, in the form of a current of certain frequencies, goes through the cable veins and enters a special TV device, where it is processed and only then a video image is displayed. That is, the eye itself does not see what we are looking at, but it is the brain that “sees” the entire reality surrounding us.

In general, the organ of vision consists of at least 40 elements, and if at least one of them does not work or has a significant defect, then the person loses his sight or loses it partially.

It is worth noting that Charles Darwin himself, after the publication of his famous work on evolution, thinking about the structure of the eye, wrote:

"Thoughts about the eye cooled me to this theory".

The organ of hearing is a little simpler. Can you tell me how the piano makes sounds? Many are sure that it is quite simple: the hammers strike the strings and the music flows. However, it is not. Hammers really hit the strings. This causes the air to vibrate at different frequencies. This vibration is received by a complex hearing aid, translating the received vibrations into electrical signals, which, as in the case of vision, are transmitted through nerve cells and enter the brain. And already the brain forms the heard sounds in our minds. All the sense organs work according to the same principle: touch, smell, taste sensations... Everywhere the information received is converted into electrical signals, which through nerve cells enter the brain and are processed there.

Brain

As noted above, the brain receives signals from all the senses. The very process of transferring information is admirable. But processing data is even more complex than transmitting it. The brain, like a high-speed computer, processes a huge amount of information in real time. We simultaneously see a colored moving picture, hear sounds of different frequencies, feel an extravaganza of smells, feel any touch to the body, react to the ambient temperature, and also perceive painful processes inside the body ... Also, the brain constantly controls all the vital functions of our organs and chemical reactions that take place in the body. We breathe, blink, digest food, etc., without even thinking that all these processes are under the control of the brain. In addition, we simultaneously think, experience emotions and feelings ... All this variety of work, without which our body is either inferior or unviable, takes place in one small jelly-like organ of the body - in the brain. Significant brain damage in most cases is fraught with fatal consequences.

It is impossible to prove modern ideas about the evolution of life by direct methods. The experiment will drag on for millions of years (civilized society is no more than 10 thousand years old), and the time machine will most likely never be invented. How is truth obtained in this field of knowledge? How to approach the burning question "Who came from whom"?

Modern biology has already accumulated a lot of circumstantial evidence and considerations in favor of evolution. Living organisms have common features - biochemical processes proceed in a similar way, there is a similarity in the external and internal structure and in individual development. If tortoise and rat embryos are indistinguishable in the early stages of development, does this suspicious similarity hint at a single ancestor from which these animals descended over millions of years? It is about the ancestors of modern species that paleontology will tell - the science of the fossil remains of living beings. Interesting facts that give food for thought are provided by biogeography - the science of the distribution of animals and plants.

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
Morphological
Embryological
paleontological
Biochemical
Biogeographic

1. Biochemical evidence for evolution.

1. All organisms, whether viruses, bacteria, plants, animals or fungi, have a surprisingly close elemental chemical composition.

2. For all of them, proteins and nucleic acids play a particularly important role in life phenomena, which are always built according to a single principle and from similar components. A high degree of similarity is found not only in the structure of biological molecules, but also in the way they function. The principles of genetic coding, biosynthesis of proteins and nucleic acids are the same for all living things.

3. In the vast majority of organisms, ATP is used as energy storage molecules, the mechanisms for the breakdown of sugars and the main energy cycle of the cell are also the same.

4. Most organisms have a cellular structure.

2. Embryological evidence of evolution.

Domestic and foreign scientists have discovered and deeply studied the similarities of the initial stages of the embryonic development of animals. All multicellular animals go through the stages of blastula and gastrula in the course of individual development. The similarity of the embryonic stages within individual types or classes comes out with particular clarity. For example, in all terrestrial vertebrates, as well as in fish, the formation of gill arches is found, although these formations have no functional significance in adult organisms. This similarity of embryonic stages is explained by the unity of origin of all living organisms.

3. Morphological evidence of evolution.

Of particular value for proving the unity of the origin of the organic world are forms that combine the features of several large systematic units. The existence of such intermediate forms indicates that in the previous geological epochs there lived organisms that were the ancestors of several systematic groups. A good example of this is the unicellular organism Euglena green. It simultaneously has features typical of plants and protozoa.

The structure of the forelimbs of some vertebrates, despite the performance of completely different functions by these organs, is similar in principle. Some bones in the skeleton of the limbs may be absent, others may grow together, the relative sizes of the bones may vary, but their homology is quite obvious. homologous are called such organs that develop from the same embryonic rudiments in a similar way.

Some organs or their parts do not function in adult animals and are superfluous for them - these are the so-called vestigial organs or vestiges. The presence of rudiments, as well as homologous organs, is also evidence of a common origin.

4. Paleontological evidence for evolution.

Paleontology points to the causes of evolutionary transformations. In this regard, the evolution of horses is interesting. Climate change on Earth has led to a change in the limbs of the horse. In parallel with the change in the limbs, the whole organism was transformed: an increase in the size of the body, changes in the shape of the skull and the complication of the structure of the teeth, the appearance of the digestive tract characteristic of herbivorous mammals, and much more.

As a result of changes in external conditions under the influence of natural selection, a gradual transformation of small five-toed omnivores into large herbivores took place. The richest paleontological material is one of the most convincing evidence of the evolutionary process that has been going on on our planet for more than 3 billion years.

5. Biogeographic evidence for evolution.

A clear evidence of the evolutionary changes that have taken place and are taking place is the spread of animals and plants over the surface of our planet. Comparison of the animal and plant world of different zones provides the richest scientific material for proving the evolutionary process. The fauna and flora of the Paleoarctic and Neoarctic regions have much in common. This is explained by the fact that in the gap between these areas there was a land bridge - the Bering Isthmus. Other areas have little in common.

Thus, the distribution of animal and plant species over the surface of the planet and their grouping into biographical zones reflects the process of the historical development of the Earth and the evolution of living things.

Island fauna and flora.

To understand the evolutionary process, the flora and fauna of the islands are of interest. The composition of their flora and fauna depends entirely on the history of the origin of the islands. A huge number of diverse biographical facts indicate that the features of the distribution of living beings on the planet are closely related to the transformation of the earth's crust and evolutionary changes in species.