????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
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 - 10001.000.000 - 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.
