SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION - CRITICISM

 

The synthetic theory of evolution (also modern evolutionary synthesis) is a new evolutionary theory, which is said to be "a synthesis of various disciplines, primarily genetics and Darwinism, also based on paleontology, taxonomy, molecular biology, and others."

It is believed that the evolutionary act took place when "selection retained a gene combination, atypical for the previous history of the species." As a result, for the implementation of evolution, it is allegedly necessary to have three processes:

1. mutational, generating new variants of genes with low phenotypic expression;

2. recombination, creating new phenotypes of individuals;

3. breeding, determining the correspondence of these phenotypes to the given habitat or growth conditions.

THEORY APPEARED WHEN IT HAS DISCOVERED THAT ARE MANY PROBLEMS AND CONTRADICTIONS IN DARWIN'S TEACHING. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE DECODING OF THE GENOME AND OTHER NEWEST DISCOVERIES OF THE END OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES DEFINED IT ALL.

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

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

Basic provisions of STE

In the 1930s and 1940s, a "synthesis of genetics and Darwinism" took place quickly. Genetic ideas have penetrated into taxonomy, paleontology, embryology, biogeography. The term "modern" or "evolutionary synthesis" comes from the title of the book by J. Huxley "Evolution: The Modern synthesis" (1942). The expression "synthetic theory of evolution" in its exact application to this theory was first used by J. Simpson in 1949.

The authors of the synthetic theory disagreed on a number of fundamental problems and worked in different areas of biology, but they were almost unanimous in their interpretation of the following basic provisions:

• the local population is considered an elementary unit of evolution;

• material for evolution is mutational and recombination variability;

• natural selection is considered as the main reason for the development of adaptations, speciation and the origin of supraspecific taxa;

• gene drift and the principle of the founder are the reasons for the formation of neutral traits;

• a species is a system of populations reproductively isolated from populations of other species, and each species is ecologically isolated;

• speciation consists in the emergence of genetic isolating mechanisms and is carried out mainly in conditions of geographic isolation.

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

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

Natural selection is not the only driver of evolution.

Evolution is not always divergent in nature.

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

Macroevolution can go both through microevolution and its own ways.

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

The random nature of mutational variability does not contradict the possibility of the existence of a certain canalization of evolutionary pathways that arises as a result of the past history of the species. The theory of nomogenesis or evolution based on regularities, put forward in 1922-1923, should also become widely known. L.S. Berg. His daughter RL Berg considered the problem of randomness and regularity in evolution and came to the conclusion that “evolution takes place along permitted paths” (RL Berg, “Genetics and Evolution”, Selected Works, Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1993, pp. .283).

Along with monophilia, the widespread occurrence of paraphilia is recognized.

A certain degree of predictability, the possibility of predicting the general directions of evolution (the provisions of the latest biology are taken from: Nikolai Nikolaevich Vorontsov, 1999, pp. 322 and 392-393) is also a reality.

We can confidently say that the development of STE will continue with the emergence of new discoveries in the field of evolution.

 

 

Criticism of the synthetic theory of evolution

The synthetic theory of evolution "is not in doubt among the majority of biologists (so-called theorists)": it is believed that the process of evolution as a whole is satisfactorily explained by this theory.

As one of the criticized general provisions of the synthetic theory of evolution, one can cite its approach to explaining secondary similarity, that is, close morphological and functional characters that were not inherited, but arose independently in phylogenetically distant branches of the evolution of organisms.

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

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

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

The authors of punctualism oppose their view to gradualism - Darwin's view of gradual evolution through small changes - and consider intermittent equilibrium to be sufficient reason to reject the entire synthetic theory. This radical approach has sparked a 30-year debate around the concept of intermittent equilibrium. Most authors agree that there is only a quantitative difference between the concepts of “gradual” and “discontinuous”: a long-term process appears as an instantaneous event, being depicted on a compressed timeline. Therefore, punctualism and gradualism should be considered as complementary concepts. In addition, supporters of the synthetic theory rightly note that intermittent equilibrium does not create additional difficulties for them: prolonged stasis can be explained by the action of stabilizing selection (under the influence of stable, relatively unchanging conditions of existence), and rapid change - by S. Wright's theory of shifting equilibrium for small populations , with sharp changes in the conditions of existence and / or in the case of the passage of a species or any of its isolated part, population, through the bottleneck.

And finally, the ardent opponents of all such evolutionary theories are CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS, that is, supporters of the creation of the world by the Creator, and it is not by accident that there are too many arguments in favor of rejecting Darwin's and the likelihood of a similar hypothesis. But most biologists stubbornly continue to "believe" in evolution.

   Julian Huxley's calculations:

   Mutations are different: for one true one, thousands of unbelievers.

   Mutations happen to all creatures, such as flies, but they continue to be flies. No one has ever seen the opposite happen.

   Serious mutations are harmful and even lead to the death of the animal.

   “Artificial selection seems to refute rather than support evolution” (On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8-9).

There is one useful mutation per 1000 (experiment with fruit flies). 1 mutation - 1 breed. To get 2 useful mutations, we need to breed 1000² breeds, 3 useful mutations - 1000³ breeds, n useful mutations - 1000ⁿ breeds (since we should get the next mutation only in a breed where ALL previous mutations were useful).

   In order for the transition to a more highly developed organism to occur, a million such beneficial mutations are needed, and the number of breeds - 1000^1.000.000 - a number with three million zeros. This is incomparably more than elementary particles in the Metagalaxy.

   Thus, EVOLUTIONISM IS COMPLETELY REFUSED, AND CREATIONISM IS CONFIRMED.

OTHER ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Although the new non-Darwinian theory is accepted by many scientists, it cannot be considered correct, because:

1. Geochronological ages of rocks and fossils, estimated by incorrect formulas, are still incorrect, not proven and are calculated using circular reasoning.

2. Incorrect assessment of the found remains, not to mention the fossils found in the layers mentioned above, for example, giant finds that are hidden from ordinary visitors to museums.

3. Inanimate and especially living nature is not taken into account as an undoubted product of the mind, for example, the complex structure of a living cell.

4. Even if we assume that God controlled evolution, this is not confirmed, since intermediate links between the types of animals have not been found.

5. Man is not like any animal and surpasses any of them. The found "remains of ancient people" as a result of the discovery of the genome were recognized as belonging to animals.

   It is a VERY Pity that the so-called scientists do not deal with other bottlenecks of this "new" theory at all, they keep silent about the problems and sacrifice them to fantasies.