2. The evolutionary theory of J. B. Lamarck Remember! What is evolution? most scientists were ready to accept the idea of ​​species variability. The active accumulation of scientific

3. Prerequisites for the emergence of the teachings of Charles Darwin Remember! Who was the author of the first evolutionary theory?What kind biological discoveries were made by the middle of the 19th century? Natural scientific background. By the middle of the XIX century. many new discoveries were made in natural science.

2.5. Evolutionary biology and systematics Theoretical positions evolutionary biology are fundamental to the principles of systematics. Outside systematics there is no biology. Not a single biological problem can be considered without taxonomy, including

11.5. Evolutionary psychology Evolutionary psychology is the only direction in psychology that adequately reflects the achievements of genetics and evolutionary biology. Its strength is its interdisciplinary approach. Analysis of the interaction of biological and

Darwin never really studied biology, but only had an amateur interest in nature and animals. And as a result of this interest, in 1832, he volunteered to travel from England on the state research vessel "Beagle" and sailed for five years different parts Sveta.

During the trip, young Darwin was impressed by the species of animals he saw, especially the various types of finches that lived on the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the difference in the beaks of these birds depends on environment. Based on this assumption, he concluded for himself: living organisms were not created by God separately, but originated from a single ancestor and then changed depending on the conditions of nature.

This hypothesis of Darwin was not based on any scientific explanation or experiment. Only thanks to the support of the then famous materialistic biologists, over time, this hypothesis of Darwin established itself as a theory.

According to this theory, living organisms come from one ancestor, but over a long time they undergo small changes and begin to differ from each other. Species more successfully adapted to natural conditions pass their characteristics on to the next generation. Thus, these beneficial changes over time turn the individual into a living organism, completely different from its ancestor.

- What was meant by "beneficial changes" remained unknown. According to Darwin, man was the most developed product of this mechanism. Reviving this mechanism in his imagination, Darwin called it "evolution by natural selection". From now on, he thought he had found the roots of the "origin of species": the basis of one species is another species. He revealed these ideas in 1859 in his book On the Origin of Species.

However, Darwin realized that there was much unresolved in his theory. He acknowledges this in Difficulties of Theory. These difficulties lay in the complex organs of living organisms, which could not have appeared by chance. (e.g. eye), as well as fossils, animal instincts. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome in the process of new discoveries, but for some of them he gave incomplete explanations.

In contrast to the purely naturalistic theory of evolution, two alternatives are put forward. One is purely religious in nature: this is the so-called "creationism", a literal perception of the biblical legend about how the Almighty created the universe and life in all its diversity.

- Creationism is professed only by religious fundamentalists, this doctrine has a narrow base, it is on the periphery of scientific thought. Therefore, for lack of space, we confine ourselves to mentioning its existence.

But another alternative has made a very serious bid for a place under the scientific sun. The theory of “intelligent design” (intelligent design), among whose supporters there are many serious scientists, recognizing evolution as a mechanism for intraspecific adaptation to changing environmental conditions (microevolution), categorically rejects its claims to be the key to the mystery of the origin of species (macroevolution), not to mention about the origin of life itself.

Life is so complex and diverse that it is absurd to think about the possibility of its spontaneous origin and development: it must inevitably be based on intelligent design, advocates of this theory say. What kind of mind it is is not important. Intelligent design theorists are more agnostic than religious, and are not particularly interested in theology. They are only concerned with punching gaping holes in the theory of evolution, and they have succeeded in riddling it so much that the prevailing dogma in biology now resembles not so much a granite monolith as Swiss cheese.

During the whole history Western civilization It was considered an axiom that life was created by a higher power. Even Aristotle expressed the conviction that the incredible complexity, elegant harmony and harmony of life and the universe cannot be a random product of spontaneous processes. The most famous teleological argument in favor of the existence of a rational principle was formulated by the English religious thinker William Paley in his book "Natural Theology" ( natural theology ), published in 1802.

Paley reasoned as follows: if, while walking in the forest, I stumble on a stone, I will not have any doubts about its natural origin. But if I see a clock lying on the ground, I will voluntarily or involuntarily have to assume that they could not have arisen by themselves, someone had to collect them. And if a watch (a relatively small and simple device) has a reasonable organizer - a watchmaker, then the Universe itself (a large device) and the biological objects that fill it (more complex devices than a clock) it should be the great organizer is the Creator.

But then Charles Darwin showed up, and everything changed. In 1859 he published a seminal work entitled"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Survival of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life", which was destined to produce a genuine revolution in scientific and social thought. Based on the achievements of breeders (“artificial selection”) and on his own observations of birds (finches) in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin concluded that organisms could undergo slight changes adapting to changing environmental conditions through “natural selection”.

He further concluded that, given a sufficiently long time, the sum of such small changes gives rise to larger changes and, in particular, leads to the appearance of new species. According to Darwin, new traits that reduce the organism's chances of survival are ruthlessly rejected by nature, and traits that give an advantage in the struggle for life, gradually accumulating, eventually allow their carriers to take over less adapted competitors and force them out of contested ecological niches.

This purely naturalistic mechanism, completely devoid of any purpose or design, from the point of view of Darwin exhaustively explained how life developed and why all living beings are so ideally adapted to the conditions of their environment. The theory of evolution implies a continuous progression of gradually changing living beings in a row from the most primitive forms to higher organisms, the crown of which is man.

The problem, however, is that Darwin's theory was purely speculative, for in those years, paleontological evidence did not provide any basis for his conclusions. Throughout the world, scientists have dug up many fossil remains of extinct organisms of past geological epochs, but they all fit within the clear boundaries of the same unchanged taxonomy.

- Not a single intermediate species appeared in the fossil record, not a single creature with morphological features that would confirm the correctness of a theory formulated on the basis of abstract conclusions without relying on facts.

Darwin clearly saw the weakness of his theory. No wonder he did not dare to publish it for more than two decades and sent his capital work to print only when he learned that another English naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, was preparing to come up with his own theory, strikingly similar to Darwin's.

It is curious to note that both opponents behaved like true gentlemen. Darwin wrote a courteous letter to Wallace outlining the evidence of his superiority, who responded with a no less polite message proposing that a joint report be presented at the Royal Society. After that, Wallace publicly acknowledged Darwin's priority and, until the end of his days, never once complained about his bitter fate. That's how it was in the Victorian era. Talk about progress after that.

The theory of evolution was like a building erected on grass so that later, when the necessary materials were brought up, a foundation would be laid under it. Its author relied on the progress of paleontology, which, he was convinced, would make it possible in the future to find transitional life forms and confirm the validity of his theoretical calculations.

But the collections of paleontologists grew and grew, and the evidence Darwinian theory was not in sight. Scientists found similar species, but could not find a single bridge thrown from one species to another. But it follows from the theory of evolution that such bridges not only existed, but that there must have been a great many of them, because the paleontological record must reflect all the countless stages of the long history of evolution and, in fact, consist entirely of transitional links.

Some followers of Darwin, like himself, believe that you just need to be patient - they say, we simply have not yet found intermediate forms, but we will certainly find them in the future. Alas, their hopes are unlikely to come true, because the existence of such transitional links would be in conflict with one of the fundamental postulates of the very theory of evolution.

Imagine, for example, that the front legs of dinosaurs gradually evolved into bird wings. But this means that during the long transitional period these limbs were neither paws nor wings, and their functional uselessness doomed the owners of such useless stumps to a deliberate defeat in the fierce struggle for life. According to Darwin's teaching, nature had to ruthlessly uproot such intermediate species and, therefore, nip the process of speciation in the bud.

But it is generally accepted that birds are descended from lizards. The dispute is not about that. Opponents of the Darwinian doctrine fully admit that the front paw of a dinosaur could indeed be the prototype of a bird's wing. They argue only that whatever perturbations may occur in living nature, they could not proceed according to the mechanism of natural selection. Some other principle should have been in effect - for example, the use of universal prototype templates by the carrier of a reasonable beginning.

The paleontological record stubbornly testifies to the failure of evolutionism. During the first three-plus billion years of life, only protozoa lived on our planet. unicellular organisms. But about 570 million years ago, the Cambrian period began., and for several million years (by geological standards - a fleeting moment), as if by a wave magic wand, from scratch, almost the entire diversity of life arose in its current form and without any intermediate links. According to Darwin's theory, this "Cambrian explosion", as it is called, simply could not happen.

Another example: during the so-called Permian-Triassic extinction 250 million years ago, life on earth almost ceased: 90% of all species of marine organisms and 70% of terrestrial ones disappeared. Nevertheless, the basic taxonomy of the fauna has not undergone any significant changes - the main types of living creatures that lived on our planet before the “great extinction” were completely preserved after the catastrophe. But if we proceed from the Darwinian concept of natural selection, during this period of heightened competition for filling vacant ecological niches, numerous transitional species would certainly have arisen. However, this did not happen, which again implies that the theory is wrong.

Darwinists are desperately looking for transitional life forms, but all their efforts have so far been unsuccessful. The maximum that they manage to find is similarities different types, but the signs of genuine intermediate beings are still only a dream of evolutionists. Periodically, sensations flare up: a transitional link has been found! But in reality, it invariably turns out that the alarm is false, that the organism found is nothing more than a manifestation of ordinary intraspecific variability. And even just a falsification like the notorious Piltdown man.

It is impossible to describe the joy of evolutionists when, in 1908, a human-type fossil skull with an ape lower jaw was found in England. Here it is, the real proof of the correctness of Charles Darwin! The jubilant scientists had no incentive to take a closer look at the cherished find, otherwise they could not help but notice the obvious absurdities in its structure and realize that the “fossil” is a fake, and a very crude one at that. And it took 40 years before academia I was forced to officially admit that he was played. It turned out that some hitherto unknown prankster had simply glued the lower jaw of a by no means fossil orangutan with a skull from an equally fresh dead Homo sapiens.

By the way, Darwin's personal discovery - the microevolution of Galapagos finches under environmental pressure - also did not stand the test of time. A few decades later, the climatic conditions on these Pacific islands changed again, and the length of the beak of birds returned to its former norm. No speciation occurred, just the same species of birds temporarily adapted to the changed environmental conditions- the most trivial intraspecific variability.

Some Darwinists are aware that their theory has reached a dead end and are frantically maneuvering. For example, the late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed the hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium" or "dotted evolution." This is a kind of hybrid of Darwinism with Cuvier's "catastrophism", which postulated the intermittent development of life through a series of catastrophes. According to Gould, evolution took place in leaps and bounds, and each jump followed some universal natural disaster with such speed that it did not have time to leave any trace in the fossil record.

Although Gould considered himself an evolutionist, his theory undermines the basic premise of Darwin's theory of speciation through the gradual accumulation of favorable features. However, “dotted evolution” is just as speculative and just as devoid of empirical evidence as classical Darwinism.

Thus, the paleontological evidence strongly refutes the concept of macroevolution. But this is far from the only evidence of its failure. The development of genetics has completely destroyed the belief that environmental pressure can cause morphological changes. Countless mice have been cut off by researchers in the hope that their offspring will inherit a new trait. Alas, tailed offspring were stubbornly born from tailless parents. The laws of genetics are inexorable: all the features of the organism are encrypted in the parental genes and are directly transmitted from them to the descendants.

Evolutionists, following the principles of their teaching, had to adapt to new conditions. “Neo-Darwinism” appeared, in which the place of the classical “adaptation” was taken by the mutational mechanism. According to neo-Darwinists, it is by no means excluded that random gene mutations could give rise to a sufficiently high degree of variability, which, again, could contribute to the survival of the species and, being inherited by offspring, could gain a foothold and give its carriers a decisive superiority in the struggle for an ecological niche.

However, the deciphering of the genetic code dealt a crushing blow to this theory. Mutations are rare and in the vast majority of cases are unfavorable, so that the likelihood that a “new favorable trait” will be fixed in any population for a long enough time to give it an advantage in the fight against competitors is practically nil.

In addition, natural selection destroys genetic information as the characters that are not conducive to survival are culled, and leaves only the “selected” features. But they can by no means be considered “favorable” mutations, because these genetic traits in all cases were originally inherent in the population and were only waiting in the wings to manifest themselves when environmental pressure “cleaned up” unnecessary or harmful garbage.

The progress of molecular biology in recent decades has finally driven evolutionists into a corner. In 1996, Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Bahey published the acclaimed book "Darwin's Black Box" , where he showed that in the body there are biochemical systems of incredible complexity that cannot be explained in any way from Darwinian positions. The author described a number of intracellular molecular machines and biological processes characterized by "irreducible complexity".

By this term, Michael Bahey designated systems consisting of many components, each of which is of critical importance. That is, the mechanism can only work if all its components are present; as soon as at least one of them fails, the whole system goes wrong. From this, the conclusion inevitably follows: in order for the mechanism to fulfill its functional purpose, all its components had to be born and “turn on” at the same time - contrary to the main postulate of the theory of evolution.

The book also describes cascade phenomena, such as the mechanism of blood clotting, which involves a dozen and a half specialized proteins plus intermediate forms that are formed during the process. When cut in the blood, a multi-stage reaction is launched in which proteins activate each other in a chain. In the absence of any of these proteins, the reaction is automatically interrupted. At the same time, the cascade proteins are highly specialized, none of them perform any other function than the formation of a blood clot. In other words, “they certainly had to arise immediately in the form of a single complex,” Behey writes.

Cascading is the antagonist of evolution. It is inconceivable that the blind, chaotic process of natural selection would provide for the future storage of many useless elements that remain in a latent state until the last of them finally appears in the world of God and allows the system to immediately turn on and earn on full power. Such an idea fundamentally contradicts the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution, which Charles Darwin himself was well aware of.

“If the possibility of the existence of any complex organ, which could in no way be the result of numerous successive small changes, is proved, my theory will crumble to dust,” Darwin frankly admitted.

In particular, he was extremely concerned about the problem of the eye: how to explain the evolution of this most complex organ, which acquires functional significance only at the very last moment, when all its constituent parts are already in place? After all, if you follow the logic of his teaching, any attempt of the body to start a multi-stage process of creating a vision mechanism would be ruthlessly suppressed by natural selection. And where, for no reason at all, did the developed organs of vision appear in trilobites - the first living creatures on earth?

After the publication of Darwin's Black Box, its author was subjected to a hail of violent attacks and threats. Moreover, the vast majority of advocates of the theory of evolution expressed confidence that “the Darwinian model of the origin of irreducibly complex biochemical systems is presented in hundreds of thousands scientific publications". However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anticipating the storm his book would cause while working on it, Michael Bahey immersed himself in studying scientific literature to get an idea of ​​how evolutionists explain the origin of complex biochemical systems. And… found absolutely nothing. It turned out that there is not a single hypothesis of the evolutionary path of formation of such systems. Official science arranged a conspiracy of silence around an uncomfortable topic: not a single scientific report, not a single scientific monograph, not a single scientific symposium was devoted to it.

Since then, several attempts have been made to develop an evolutionary model for the formation of systems of this kind, but all of them invariably failed. Many scientists of the naturalistic school clearly understand the impasse in which their favorite theory has ended up. “We refuse on principle to replace intelligent design with a dialogue between chance and necessity,” writes biochemist Franklin Harold. “But at the same time, we must admit that, apart from fruitless speculation, to this day no one has been able to offer a detailed Darwinian mechanism for the evolution of any biochemical system.”

Like this: we refuse on principle, and that's it! Just like Martin Luther: "Here I stand and I can't help it!" But the leader of the Reformation at least justified his position with 95 theses, and here there is only one bare principle, dictated by blind worship of the dominant dogma, and nothing more. I believe, Lord!

Even more problematic is the neo-Darwinian theory of the spontaneous generation of life. To Darwin's credit, he did not touch on this topic at all. In his book we are talking about the origin of species, not life. But the followers of the founder went a step further and offered an evolutionary explanation for the very phenomenon of life. According to the naturalistic model, the barrier between inanimate nature and life was overcome spontaneously due to a combination of favorable environmental conditions.

However, the concept of spontaneous generation of life is built on sand, because it is in flagrant contradiction with one of the most fundamental laws of nature - the second law of thermodynamics. It says that in a closed system (in the absence of a purposeful supply of energy from the outside), entropy inevitably increases, i.e. the level of organization or degree of complexity of such a system is inexorably reduced. And the reverse process is impossible.

The great English astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in his book “ Short story time” writes: “According to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always and in all cases increases, and when two systems merge, the entropy of the combined system is higher than the sum of the entropies of its constituents individual systems". Hawking adds: “In any closed system, the level of disorganization, i.e. entropy inevitably increases with time.

But if entropic decay is the fate of any system, then the possibility of spontaneous generation of life is absolutely excluded; spontaneous increase in the level of organization of the system when a biological barrier is broken. The spontaneous generation of life under any circumstances must be accompanied by an increase in the degree of complexity of the system by molecular level, which is prevented by entropy. Chaos cannot by itself give rise to order, this is forbidden by the law of nature.

Another blow was dealt to the concept of spontaneous generation of life by information theory. In Darwin's time, science believed that the cell was just a primitive container filled with protoplasm. However, with the development of molecular biology, it became clear that a living cell is a mechanism of incredible complexity, carrying an incomprehensible amount of information.

But information itself does not arise out of nothing. According to the law of conservation of information, its amount in a closed system never and under no circumstances increases. External pressure may cause a “shuffling” of information already available in the system, but its total volume will remain at the same level or decrease due to an increase in entropy.

In short, as the world-famous English physicist, astronomer and science fiction writer Sir Fred Hoyle writes: “There is not a shred of objective evidence in favor of the hypothesis that life spontaneously originated in the organic soup on our earth.” Hoyle co-author astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasingh expressed the same thought more vividly: “The probability of spontaneous generation of life is as negligible as the probability that a hurricane wind, sweeping over a landfill, in one gust will collect a serviceable airliner from garbage.”

Many other proofs can be cited that refute attempts to present evolution as a universal mechanism for the origin and development of life in all its diversity. But even the facts presented, I think, are sufficient to show the predicament in which the teachings of Darwin found themselves.

And how do the champions of evolution react to all this? Some of them, in particular, Francis Creek(who shared the Nobel Prize with James Watson for the discovery of the structure DNA),were disappointed in Darwinism and believed that life on earth was brought from space.

The first to put forward this idea more than a century ago was another Nobel laureate, an outstanding Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who proposed the hypothesis of "panspermia".

However, supporters of the theory of seeding the earth with life germs from outer space do not notice or prefer not to notice that such an approach only pushes the problem one step further, but by no means solves it. Let's assume that life is really brought from space, but then the question arises: and where did it come from - did it spontaneously arise or was it created?

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingh, who share this view, found a gracefully ironic way out. Having given in his book "Evolution from Space" (Evolution from Space) a lot of arguments in favor of the hypothesis that life was brought to our planet from outside, Sir Fred and his co-author ask: how did life originate there, outside the earth?

And they answer: known as - it was created by the Almighty . In other words, the authors make it clear that they have set themselves a narrow task and are not going to go beyond it, they are not up to it.

However, the majority of evolutionists categorically reject any attempts to cast a shadow on their teaching. The intelligent design hypothesis, like a red rag with which they tease a bull, causes them paroxysms of unbridled (it is tempting to say - animal) rage. The evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg, who did not share the concept of intelligent design, nevertheless allowed a scientific article to be published in his journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in support of this hypothesis. After that, such a flurry of abuse, curses and threats hit the editor that he was forced to turn to the FBI for protection.

The position of evolutionists was eloquently summed up by one of the most vociferous Darwinists, the English zoologist Richard Dawkins:

“It can be said with absolute certainty that anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, or a fool, or insane (or maybe a bastard, although one does not want to believe in the latter).”

This one phrase is enough to lose all respect for Dawkins.. Like orthodox Marxists waging war on revisionism, Darwinists do not argue with opponents, but denounce them; do not debate with them, but anathematize them.

This is the classic mainstream reaction to a challenge from a dangerous heresy. Such a comparison is quite appropriate. Like Marxism, Darwinism has long since degenerated, petrified and turned into an inert pseudo-religious dogma. Yes, by the way, that's what they called it - Marxism in biology. Karl Max himself enthusiastically welcomed Darwin's theory as "the natural-scientific basis of the class struggle in history."

And the more holes are found in the dilapidated teaching, the more violent the resistance of its adherents.

* Their material well-being and spiritual comfort are under threat, their entire universe is collapsing, and there is no anger more unrestrained than the wrath of the faithful, whose faith is crumbling under the blows of inexorable reality. They will cling to their beliefs with teeth and nails and stand to the last. For when an idea dies, it is reborn into an ideology, and an ideology is absolutely intolerant of competition.

As an agnostic and deist, Charles Darwin himself always believed that that the first living cell created by God. Already after the publication of his famous work, the scientist, studying the perfection of the structure of the eye, admitted: "Thoughts about the eye cooled me to this theory". According to some accounts, shortly before his death, Darwin went from deism to Christ, while lamenting strongly about the inappropriate atheistic resonance of his hypothesis.

A century and a half after the death of the creator of the theory of evolution, not a single one of the "transitional evolutionary forms" was found accurately attributed. Besides, genetics has proven that in nature degeneration occurs at least as often as evolution.

It was also experimentally confirmed that the genetic apparatus does not allow a plant or animal to deviate far from the norm and at the same time survive and give healthy offspring for several generations. Already in the middle of the 20th century, a machine calculation of the probability of a random formation of a living cell from the "primordial soup" gave a zero result. The latter concerns the so-called "spontaneous generation of life."

The genetic apparatus ... Genes, Genetics, that's where all the answers are. But so far the scientific world has no keys. (the mind has not yet come out).

There is something, such ... makes everyone who reads these lines think. Here it is:

The human genome contains amazing chronicles of the recent past, a kind of parallel version of history. The genome evolves rapidly, and if a community develops in isolation for religious, geographical or linguistic reasons, after a few centuries it acquires a genetic identity. DNA sheds new light on the history of such peoples as the Jews, the Icelanders, the inhabitants of the British archipelago. It keeps records of the genetic trace of the Mongol and Manchu male dynasties. And for those who know how to ask the right questions, could reveal family secrets of historical figures like Thomas Jefferson.

The compilers of the Book of Genesis tried as best they could, gluing together a coherent story about the origin of man from the available legends and myths.

They tried to explain why there are different languages ​​on earth, why women give birth in pain, why a man covers his nakedness with clothes. Today, the origin of man can be described differently. Considering how little material evidence has come down to us from the distant past, it is amazing how much we learn about it today. Many of the described finds were made in the most last years. Although the cutting edge of science is replete with claims that require months or years of work to confirm, some of the discoveries that will be discussed are undeniable scientific breakthroughs. Biological "drawings" of the origin of man are drawn with unprecedented clarity. Information continuously extracted from the human genome leads us to a new understanding of things.

In our long striving to know ourselves, our mysterious origins, strange and contradictory nature, the division of the once united human family into different races and warring cultures speaking thousands of different languages, we finally begin to see in the darkness of the night that reigned in the history of people until very recently. dawn.

Genesis = Genetics? (most likely it is)

Mankind "Created" took as a basis the material of which there was already plenty on the planet - Chimpanzee .. was taken as a basis. The rest was done by the ancient geneticists.

99% - We are chimpanzees.

And only 233 genes distinguish us from them
Moreover, these 233 are not traced in any way earlier in the early species, that's the question!
- Where did they come from?

In the Bible, Creation called: "Genesis"
Genes - "Genesis", a coincidence huh?

The code, which, as it were, is the control matrix of these creatures. Genetics seems to be a young science, and very promising. Proteins, codons, metachondria .. deoxyribonucleic acid .. Everything is the same as that of all Earthlings. Everything, but not everything .. Something is something that we do not know. Or they don't tell us.

§ 3- SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE ORIGIN OF THE THEORY OF CHARLES DARWIN

1) List the main scientific prerequisites for the emergence of evolutionary theory. Fill the table.

• Scientific area	Basic premise
  Geology	The works of C. Lyell, showing that the surface of the Earth is constantly changing under the influence of everyday factors - fluctuations in temperature, wind, rain, vital activity of organisms and others.
  Cytology	The cell theory of T. Schwann, showing that the basis of the structure of all living beings is the cell.
  Embryology	Research by K. Baer, ​​showing the similarity in the structure of the embryos of vertebrates and that the development of all organisms begins with the egg.
  Comparative anatomy	Accumulated materials that testify to the variability of species, rudiments, atavisms, homologous and similar organs.

  2) Describe the observations made by C. Darwin during the expedition on the ship "Beagle", which made him doubt the divine creation of species.

  • Answer:
  • 1- Skeletons of extinct giant mammals similar to modern armadillos and sloths.
  • 2- Closely related species of Galapagos finches, differing from each other in the nature of food and the shape of the beak.
  • 3- Significant differences in the structure of animals living on the Cape Verde Islands, from species living on the continent that are closely related to them.

  § 4 THE DOCTRINE OF CHARLES DARWIN ON ARTIFICIAL SELECTION

1) Answer the questions.

1-What achievements Agriculture England in the XIX century, Charles Darwin paid special attention?

• Answer: By that time, English farmers had bred many breeds of dogs, pigeons, cattle and chickens, and intensive breeding of new varieties of cultivated plants was carried out.

2- What were his scientific interests as the reason for this?

• Answer: The constancy of species claimed that every variety and breed has its own wild ancestor, but Darwin believed that this was not so.

2) Fill in the gaps in the table.

3) Answer what explains the diversity of breeds of domestic animals and varieties of cultivated plants. Give two examples each of plant varieties and animal breeds resulting from the efforts of breeders.

• Answer: Breeders developed animals or plants, leaving those organisms in which the trait had the most pronounced degree. Domestic apple tree, black currant - plants, rabbit, domestic duck - animals.

4) Add an offer.

• Answer: The traditional way of breeding new varieties of plants and animal breeds is artificial systematic selection and reproduction of individuals with the most valuable traits and properties for humans.

§ 5 THE DOCTRINE OF CHARLES DARWIN ON NATURAL SELECTION

1) Choose and underline the correct answer.

What regularity is subject to the process of reproduction of living organisms in the absence of limiting factors?

• Answer: arithmetic progression, geometric progression, logarithmic progression.

2) Add a definition.

• Answer: The struggle for existence - it is a set of diverse and complex relationships that exist between organisms and environmental conditions.

3) What are the three forms of the struggle for existence that Ch. Darwin singled out.

• Answer:
• 1- Interspecies.
• 2- Intraspecific.
• 3- Fighting adverse conditions external environment.

4) Explain why intraspecific struggle is the most intense.

• Answer: In individuals of the same species, the needs for food, territory and other conditions of existence are the same. Males of some species compete for females.

5) Describe the organisms that win in the struggle for existence.

• Answer: In the struggle for existence, individuals who have a hereditary complex of signs and properties survive and leave offspring.

6) Explain what Ch. Darwin understood by natural selection.

• Answer: He understood the processes of selective extermination of some individuals and preferential reproduction of others taking place in nature.

7) Finish the statement.

• Answer: The material for natural selection is hereditary variation.

8) Explain why variability due to direct environmental influences does not matter for evolution.

• Answer: Variability due to the direct influence of the external environment does not matter for evolution, since it is not inherited.

9) Give comparative characteristic natural and artificial selection. Fill the table.

• Characteristic	Natural selection	artificial selection
  Source of genetic diversity	hereditary variation, natural mutations	hereditary variability, artificial mutations, crossbreeding, etc.
  Selecting factor	Environmental conditions
  The significance of acquired traits for the organisms themselves	New species	New varieties of plants, breeds of animals, strains of microorganisms, lead to the appearance of species impossible in nature
  The dependence of the result on the will of man	Increase the adaptability of organisms to environmental conditions	May be harmful to organisms themselves

  §6- FORMS OF NATURAL SELECTION

  1) List the main forms of natural selection.

  • Answer:
  • 1- Driving.
  • 2- Stabilizing.

  2) Name the form of natural selection that maintains the conformity of shape and size between the flowers of insect pollinating plants and pollinating insects.

  • Answer: Stabilizing selection.

  3) Add an offer.

  • Answer:
  • Living fossils (relict forms of plants and animals) have survived to our time thanks to the action of stabilizing forms of natural selection.
  • Give an example of a relict animal and a relict plant: coelacanth coelacanth fish, gymnosperm plant ginkgo biloba.

  4) Choose and fill in the correct variants of the missing words.

  • Answer:
  • Stabilizing selection operates in permanent environmental conditions throughout big periods of time.

  5) Name the form of natural selection that operates in changing environmental conditions, and indicate its evolutionary results.

  • Answer:
  • Form of natural selection - driving selection.
  • Results:
  • A) The emergence of new characters within the species.
  • B) Weakening or loss of an irrelevant feature.
  • C) Elimination of less successful combinations of genes.

  6) It is known that some time after the start of the use of a particular pesticide, forms of animals resistant to it appear. Explain this phenomenon in terms of natural selection.

  • Answer: There is motive selection. Species have new features that provide resistance to changes in the external environment.

  7) Finish the statements.

  • Answer:
  • 1- The form of natural selection that transforms species is called driving selection.
  • 2- The form of natural selection, fixing the received forms, is called stabilizing selection.

  8) Expand the meaning of the thesis: "Natural selection plays a creative role in the evolution of organisms."

  • Answer: It eliminates less successful individuals from reproduction, that is, less successful combinations of genes. The creative role of selection is that the result of its action is the emergence of new types of organisms and new forms of life.

  9) Define the terms.

  • Answer:
  • Sexual selection - This is the competition of males for the possibility of reproduction.
  • Sexual dimorphism - external differences in the structure of the sexes.

Surprisingly, Charles Darwin arrived at his theory of evolution by natural selection almost by accident. After all, initially he planned to become a doctor, then he studied religion, and after that he generally took up shooting and horseback riding.

And the "culprit" of Darwin's idea was his trip around the world on the Beagle. During this journey (which lasted five years), Darwin managed to see the world and made notes about what he saw.

So Darwin came to biology. After the return of the Beagle, Darwin became seriously interested in biology and even published many books. At some point, he got the idea that life on the planet is evolving due to the struggle for survival - so to speak, nature selects the fittest creatures - natural selection.

This idea was not new - it was already mentioned by Jean Lamarck and others (in particular, the grandfather of Charles Darwin himself and Alfred Wallace, who wrote a book on this topic at the same time as Darwin).

However, when Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection came out, the event was like a bombshell. Thousands of people - both eminent scientists and ordinary people - fiercely argued whether Darwin's theory was correct or not.

Why, then, was attention paid to the theory of evolution by natural selection only after the publication of the book? But because Darwin not only put forward a theory, but also brought a lot of evidence in its favor. That is why he was able to draw attention to his idea.

A little later, Darwin once again stunned the world community by publishing the book "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection", where he claimed that man descended from apes. This is where the world shook even more.

However, Charles Darwin did not get into great people at all because he proved to the world the correctness of the theory of evolution through natural selection (by the way, disputes about whether Darwin was right or not have not subsided to this day). But because he changed his view of the world, of science, politics, sociology and, of course, religion. After all, before Darwin the world was perceived as an immutable given (from a religious point of view - created by God). And if we accept loyalty to the Darwinian theory of evolution, then the whole history of the world and man in it looks completely different.

Darwin made mankind doubt the immutability of being itself, and this is precisely his greatest merit, and not at all in the discovery / popularization of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and this is why we recognize his right to be considered a great man.

What statements are related to the theory of Ch. Dar-vi-na?

1) Inside the type of races-ho-de-ing signs of pri-vo-dit to vi-do-o-ra-zo-va-niyu.

2) The view is not-one-but-ro-den and is represented by a multitude of in-pu-la-tions.

3) Natural selection - on-right-la-th-factor of evolution.

4) When creating varieties and breeds, artificial selection serves as a factor.

5) Inner striving for perfection is a factor of evolution.

6) Po-pu-la-tion is a unit of evolution.

Clear-no-no.

Statements from-no-xia-schi-e-xia to the theory of Ch. vi-do-ob-ra-zo-va-niyu; natural selection - on the right-la-th-factor of evolution; when creating varieties and breeds, artificial selection serves as a factor.

Answer: 134.

Note.

Evo-lu-qi-on-naya theory of Dar-vi-na represents-la-is a holistic teaching about the historical development of or- ha-no-che-th world.

The basic principles of the evo-lu-qi-on-noy theory of Ch. Dar-wi-na.

1. In the pre-de-lah of each species of living or-ga-niz-mov, there is a huge range of in-di-vi-du-al-noy on-the-next- stven-noy from-men-chi-vo-sti according to mor-fo-lo-gi-che-skim, physio-lo-gi-che-skim, ve-den-che-sky and any other gim signs. This iz-men-chi-ness can have a continuous, numer- ous , or a pre-ry-vis-st-qualitative character, but she su-sche-stu-e-everywhere.

2. All living or-ga-bottom-we are multiplied in a geo-met-ri-che-pro-gression.

3. Life resources for any kind of living or-ga-niz-mov ogra-no-che-na, and therefore there must be a fight -ba for the existence of either between individuals of the same species, or between individuals of different species, or with natural conditions -i-mi. In the understanding of the “struggle for existence” Darwin included not only the individual’s own struggle for life, but also the struggle for success in times-many-same.

4. Under the conditions of the struggle for existence, you-live-va-yut and give offspring of the most-capable individuals, having -those from-clo-not-nia, some-rye cases-but-were-adapted-by-we-mi to given environmental conditions. This is the principle of qi-pi-al-but an important moment in the ar-gu-men-ta-tion of Dar-wi-na. From-clo-non-niya voz-no-ka-yut not on-right-len-but - in response to the action of the environment, but by chance. Not many of them are ok-y-va-yut-xia-les-we-mi in specific conditions. In the same way, you-living-necks, someone-rye-next-du-ut-useful from-clo-non-nee, pos-living-the-neck-to-live-their pre- ku, eyes-zy-va-yut-sya are more adapted to this environment than other pre-hundred-vi-te-whether in-pu-la-tion.

5. You-living-in-and-im-image-many-of-the-same-of-fit-of-persons Dar-win called natural from -bo-rum.

6. Natural selection from del-iso-li-ro-van-ny different kinds of species in different conditions -degree-but leads to divergence (ras-hod-de-ny) of the signs of these different species-no-stay and, in the end, to vi-do-about-ra-zo-va-nyu.

Answer: 134

Source: Unified State Examination in Biology 05/30/2013. main wave. Siberia. Option 4.

Ilya Safronov (Veliky Novgorod) 02.09.2013 18:14

Well, according to the idea, the sixth option is also correct. The elementary unit of evolution is the local population.

Natalya Evgenievna Bashtannik

The population is the elementary unit of evolution - this is already the position of the Synthetic theory of evolution

Olga Ivanova 27.01.2014 17:14

Artificial selection is not the subject of evolutionary theory, and the synthetic theory of evolution develops Darwin's. Historical development of the world does not affect selection issues.

Natalya Evgenievna Bashtannik

Darwin emphasized the special importance of unconscious selection from a theoretical point of view, since this form of selection also sheds light on the process of speciation. It can be seen as a bridge between artificial and natural selection. Artificial selection was a good model on which Darwin deciphered the process of shaping. Darwin's analysis of artificial selection played an important role in substantiating the evolutionary process: firstly, he finally approved the position on variability; appropriate adaptations and divergence of varieties and breeds. These important premises opened the way to a successful solution of the problem of natural selection.