Charles Darwin errors in theory. Darwin's contributions to biology in brief

It is difficult to exaggerate how brilliant and grandiose Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection was and remains. It literally shocked Victorian England - at least to the extent that traditional and stuffy Victorian England could be shocked by people who dared to raise their voices a little in polite protest. But some representatives of that society, especially staunch adherents of Christian teaching, did not really like the idea that nature could well exist and develop independently, without the pointing finger of a higher power. They didn't like her at all.

Although few people know it today, scientists had been mulling over the idea of ​​evolution since before Darwin—even Charles's grandfather, Erasmus, mentioned it in one of his poems. Charles's contribution was directly to the theory of natural selection, which holds that living things change over time, and these changes allow them to better adapt to their environment, increasing their chances of passing on their characteristics to future generations. (Interestingly, Darwin's friend, the brilliant naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, came to the same conclusion at about the same time as Darwin himself. Both of them presented their preliminary findings to the Linnean Society of London, and only then did Darwin produce the real revolution by publishing his work On the Origin of Species.)

However, there was one weak point in his theory of natural selection: Darwin could not fully explain how exactly it works. The descendants undoubtedly possessed the traits of their parents. But how did this work? What happened at the moment of conception? This was a gigantic gap in Darwin's theory of evolution. Therefore, in 1868, almost a decade after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin tried to fill this gap with his theory of “pangenesis” - a completely erroneous theory, which in general terms is as follows.

Each cell in our body exudes tiny particles called gemmules, “which are distributed throughout the whole system,” as Darwin wrote, and, “having received the necessary nourishment, these particles begin to multiply by division and are ultimately converted into units similar to those from which they originally happened.” In essence, from Darwin's point of view, gemmules are the seeds of cells. “They are collected from all parts of the system and concentrated in the reproductive elements. Their development in the next generation leads to the formation of a new being.”

Since the sex seeds of both parents are united at the moment of conception, their offspring ultimately possesses the characteristics of both the mother and the father. But what about a child who has adopted more traits from one parent than the other? This occurs when “the gemmules in the fertilized embryo are in excess” and when “the gemmules of one parent have some advantage—in number, similarity, or strength—over the gemmules of the other parent.” In other words, they seem to put more effort into the process of forming the embryo.

The gemmules must develop in the correct order to result in a healthy organism. Therefore, when some kind of failure occurs, congenital malformations occur. Darwin writes: “According to the doctrine of pangenesis, in the early stages the gemmules of displaced organs begin to develop in the wrong place due to union with the wrong cells or collections of cells.”

However, the merit of Darwin's theory of pangenesis was that it finally explained the existence of differences between organisms - that unrefined fuel of evolution. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, “fluctuating variability” arises as a result of “lack, excess and movement of gemmules, as well as a new round of development of those gemmules that had previously been latent for a long time.” In other words, some gemmules may be embodied in their grandchildren, skipping a generation, although they themselves “do not undergo any changes.”

The second reason has to do with the now discredited theory of Lamarckism, according to which those characteristics that an organism acquires during life - due to the action of environmental factors - can then be inherited by its offspring. Darwin believed that gemmules could change during the life of an organism and that these changed gemmules could multiply and displace previous gemmules. (Lamarckism is dead, but some modern scientists believe that because behaviors such as our language are acquired through life, they are examples of nongenetic inheritance that can change the course of an organism's evolution. However, this is still a highly controversial issue. which we will not dwell on now.)

Let's summarize: gemmules are the seeds of cells that the body receives at the moment of its conception. They must be formed in the correct order to produce a healthy organism, and mixing them leads to variations. Some gemmules may become latent for a time, causing some traits to appear after one or more generations, or they may change during the life of the organism, so that its offspring will inherit the traits that their parents developed due to environmental factors. .

Any theory must be proven experimentally, and this task fell on the shoulders of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. To prove that gemmules caused variation, he took the blood of one rabbit and injected it into another, assuming that the descendants of the second rabbit would have the characteristics of the first. In his essay entitled “Darwin and Heredity: The Evolution of the Pangenesis Hypothesis,” Gerald Geison writes: “These experiments, like all subsequent ones, failed to prove Darwin’s hypothesis, and when in addition the idea of ​​inheritance of acquired characters was discredited, the theory of pangenesis was quickly supplanted by other, more convincing explanations.”

“As a result,” Geyson writes, “the theory of pangenesis has often been perceived as one of the mysterious and inexplicable errors of genius. Perhaps it is precisely because many want to focus only on Darwin’s genius that some biographers completely forget to mention pangenesis.”

I have written about this before and I will write again: in science, errors are a completely normal and very useful phenomenon, because when someone disproves a particular theory, this is already progress. Of course, quite annoying progress for the person whose theory is being refuted, but progress nonetheless.

The foundations of genetics were laid, as strange as it may seem, by a monk who conducted experiments with peas in the 1850s - just when Darwin was working on his work On the Origin of Species. While growing peas and carefully recording how traits were inherited from generation to generation, Gregor Mendel noticed that offspring were not simply some amalgamation of parents, as biologists of the time had believed. That is, as a result of crossing a plant with smooth peas and a plant with wrinkled peas, for example, you will not get a plant with slightly wrinkled peas - it will be a plant with either smooth or wrinkled peas. These are what we now call dominant and recessive alleles, or variations of a particular gene: for example, if you have blue eyes, this is a manifestation of the recessive allele, and brown eyes are a manifestation of the dominant allele. This happens because you receive two copies of each gene, one from your mother and one from your father.

“Hey guys, I found something interesting here,” Mendel probably said to the deafening sound of crickets. But in those days no one noticed his work. It was only in the 1900s that botanists began to seriously study his work, laying the foundations for the era of genetics. Scientists soon found out that it is DNA that contains information that determines the presence of certain characteristics, and in 1953 Watson, Crick and their colleagues finally formulated the famous theory of the double helix.

We now know that the inheritance of traits has nothing to do with the mixing of gemmules. Of course, we receive our DNA, which contains the genes of our mother and father. But each time these genes produce unique combinations, which leads to differences between brothers and sisters. Diversity can also be caused by gene mutations: when our cells divide, sometimes they reproduce their DNA with errors (you may be carrying a huge number of mutations that you don't even notice) So these mutations, combined with the mixing of genes at conception, underlie variability and therefore evolution: some people are born with traits that make them better adapted to their environment, increasing their chances of surviving and passing on their genes to future generations.

Darwin took a shot at the problem of inheritance and, of course, failed, but let's not forget that he formulated one of the greatest theories in human history - the theory of evolution by natural selection. He simply did not live to see the last piece of the puzzle fall into place (the last major piece of the puzzle, I must say - we still have a lot to learn about evolution).

And doesn't the thought that even the greatest minds in history could make serious mistakes bring us at least some peace? Personally, I find it very reassuring, considering that until recently I didn’t even know that avocados were a fruit. I mean, who could have guessed it would turn out like this?

In recent years, many scientists associated with biology and zoology have raised their voices against the more than century-old omnipotence of Darwin's theory of evolution. And they do this under the pressure of facts, which, as you know, cannot be argued with. Nevertheless, our children still not only study Darwinism in schools, but also pass a very difficult exam on it, which is also a state exam. Are we really teaching the younger generation something that is pure fiction?
HTo answer the questions, the easiest way is to turn to the very facts that “press” scientists. And to do this, just take a close look at the natural world around us in order to understand who is right: evolutionists who claim that modern plants, animals, birds and insects, and after them you and I, became what we are, in the process of a long historical development. Or is the Bible right when it claims that today’s world was created by the Creator in six days, and all animals, birds and even the smallest midges from the first moment of creation were immediately the same as we see them now.

But first, let's talk about... the woodpecker. This living jackhammer manages to hit wood at 8-10 beats per second! Moreover: a weak-looking bird is capable of making a hole not only in the hardest wood, but even in concrete! With such speed and force of impact, his brain should definitely suffer, but he does not suffer. How is this possible?

Perhaps because the woodpecker has a very special head structure, including special shock absorbers. Most birds have beak bones attached to the skull that covers the brain, but only the woodpecker has a porous pad between the beak and the skull: a sponge-like substance that dampens the shock of each blow. This natural shock absorber is so good that, according to experts, it is far superior to anything created by human hands.

Moreover, the devices that protect the bird’s brain are not limited to just a shock absorber: it turns out that the woodpecker also has special muscles that move the skull away from the beak at the moment of “slotting” - for each blow. But now the hole is made. Now, in order to dine, you need to remove the insects from there and eat them. And another amazing device is used - an incredibly long sticky tongue, longer than the bird’s body!

The question is: what to do with such a pagan when he is not busy?

All birds, except the woodpecker, have a tongue in their mouth - just like you and me. But for a woodpecker this is unacceptable: such a tongue cannot be “stored” in the mouth - it will get tangled and turn into a ball. So it grows not from his mouth, but from his right nostril and, passing right under the skin, wraps his entire head. Very convenient and quite neat! And all this taken together is an absolutely insoluble problem for those who believe in evolution...

How could such organs specialized for one purpose evolve gradually? The shock absorbers had to work from the very beginning, otherwise Woodpecker No. 1 would have simply blown his brains out before he could produce offspring, and the whole species of woodpeckers would have ended. And if the first woodpeckers had eaten differently and had not chiseled at trees, the shock absorber simply would not have been needed. What about the long tongue? After all, he wouldn’t be needed then! Moreover, to imagine that once upon a time a woodpecker’s tongue was normal, and then suddenly grew, detached itself from the back wall of its mouth, climbed into its nostril and wrapped itself around its head, perhaps only a cartoonist could... But that’s exactly what and evolutionary theory insists! Based on the fact that all modern “adaptations” of animals and birds that allow them to get food and “fight for existence” were formed over thousands of years - gradually!

But the facts are really stubborn things: in order to survive, the woodpecker had to be like it is today, right away. Any gradualism would simply cross out this amazing creature from the lists of living creatures on the planet. In other words, this is how he was created, and created by someone who knew for sure that the woodpecker would have to chisel trees, which means that his brain needed special protection from constant vibration, which would absolutely guarantee the survival of the species.

The interesting thing is that if we analyze any living creature on the planet from this point of view, we will get the same result. But if someone were to suggest choosing one single animal and using its example to prove that evolution simply could not have happened, a better creature than the sea snail aeolis could not be found for this purpose.

Eolis looks nothing like the snails that live in gardens and orchards. She is very beautiful, with hairs on her back that look like wool. And it feeds on another sea creature - anemones. Anemone, in turn, is one of the most poisonous creatures in the ocean. It is literally covered entirely with tiny stinging cells that shoot powerful poison at anyone who accidentally approaches it. From shrimp to fish. Then how does a sea snail manage to feed on this floating flask of poison? Today's science is unable to understand this. All she knows is that she tears the sea anemone into pieces along with the poisonous cells and swallows it all without any harm to herself. But the most interesting thing happens next.

These death-stinging cells in the aeolis's stomach are not digested. Because it has special channels covered with villi. These peculiar paths lead from the stomach straight to the same skin outgrowths on the back of the snail, similar in appearance to wool. And, having sent them there, now eolis herself uses the stings borrowed from the anemone for her protection!

The question arises: was it possible to acquire such a cunning “nutrition-protection” system in the process of evolution, that is, gradually? Of course not, since it is impossible to develop such abilities in yourself without dying: after all, the poison of an anemone, directly injected into a snail, is still fatal for it today! Even if we assume that in time immemorial, a single snail, out of desperation from hunger, managed to devour a gaping anemone, it would still have died: the cells with poison would have burned its stomach, which is currently devoid of special tubules. Thus, only one option is inevitable: the very first specimen of the snail, even in time immemorial, looked and was structured the same as any modern one, with an equally complex, mathematically verified power supply and protection system! And if even much simpler systems (for example, security) require the participation of reason in the process of their emergence, only a madman can admit that a blind, unreasonable and soulless nature is capable of a work equal in complexity to an aeolis...

Just like tens of thousands of other no less thoughtfully arranged living beings on the planet, aeolis could only be created. Created by a mind immeasurably superior to that of man, that is, as the Bible states, by God. In those same six days of creation, which we learn about from Genesis and which in the biblical history of the world are called the Sixth Day.

But perhaps the most powerful modern argument for the Six Days against evolution is that world-famous document that we call the Red Book.

It is known that this is a book in which now endangered animals and plants are included. There is a widespread opinion, completely inconsistent with the actual state of affairs, that those species of animals and plants that man himself has intensively exterminated throughout the history of his existence are disappearing. It is not true! Any zoologist or botanist knows that of the huge number of living creatures included in the Red Book, no more than two dozen can be blamed on our vandalism, which includes a passion for hunting. The remaining thousands and tens of thousands of species were unable to cope with climate and environmental changes.

But what are environmental changes, or environmental deterioration in general? First of all, this is a much more gradual process than changes in the same climate, for example, during ice ages. This is proven by archaeological finds in the eternal ice of Antarctica. A few decades ago, a perfectly preserved family of mammoths was discovered there, frozen in a variety of positions, and even with tree branches in their mouths. This means that the glaciation of the poles occurred, as the Bible claims, instantly! At that second, when the last drops of the world’s first rain, which accompanied the Flood, poured out and the clouds that had previously wrapped it in a dense protective layer disappeared over the Earth for the first time in the history of its existence. And the sun appeared in the sky, on which from now on it depended on who would live after the Flood and who would not, since the sun became the only source of heat on the planet. This means that climatic zones were formed simultaneously. Taking the same mammoths, and at the same time their main food - antediluvian trees - by surprise, immediately covering them with ice.

Let us now return to the theory of evolution. If we assume that some ancestors of modern animals, instead of dying, did not freeze out along with the rest, but adapted, and even gradually, despite the sharp and rapid climate change, why then do modern species demonstrate a complete lack of adaptability to the current climatic and environmental conditions? conditions, inability to fight for survival?.. Here is a simple example.

It would seem, why would it be easier for trees that are dying out from air pollution to switch to the same food system that exists for ficus and several other species of this genus? It is known that ficus very well purifies the air of any room, because it “eats” not oxygen, like most plants, but what other oxygen-breathing plants exhale. However, both plants and animals, in the process of steady climate change over the past two centuries, either migrate in search of a zone more suitable for their organism, or die out. And in each subsequent generation, contrary to the same theory of evolution, more and more weakened individuals are born, completely unadapted to the struggle for life, than in the previous one. This is not the progress that evolutionists talk about, but the regression that the Bible predicts.

Finally, one cannot help but mention Charles Darwin himself, the author of this theory... The only question is: is it a theory? After all, Darwin himself never called it that way even once in his life, defining it as a scientific hypothesis, that is, an assumption! Moreover, this assumption seemed, in his presentation, to put it mildly, almost
just like his current followers.

Charles Darwin was always not just a believer, but also a person with a theological education - a fact that materialist atheists tried so hard not to mention. But it is precisely this fact that is important in order to correctly understand the original source of Darwinism.

Darwin in no way questioned the creation of our world by God. He, first and last, was busy trying to understand what exactly is hidden behind the word “day” in the Bible: are there really 24 daily hours or hundreds of thousands of years?.. After all, the Hebrew word for “day”, which is used in the original Bible, written in Hebrew, has another translation into other languages ​​- not only “day”, but also “period”! Darwin the theologian was keenly interested in this, and
Darwin the naturalist made an attempt to find out, to satisfy this interest...

He failed to get an answer to his own question during his lifetime. Because the main evidence of evolution was not found - the transitional link between ape and man. Dying, doubting the correctness of his assumptions, Darwin bequeathed to his students: search, dig, dig again and - search...

And, as happens with the devil's disciples, his disciples also turned out to be too diligent. So much so that they allowed themselves to falsify the desired transitional link, mixing human and ape bones and, where necessary, carefully tinting them... For more than a hundred years, the fake lay under glass in the London Museum of Archeology, the only one in the world and therefore untouchable, copied in the form of dummies, with whom Darwinian scientists were allowed to work. Ten years ago, the glass was opened, and thunder struck... But for some reason, it did not destroy either the entire network of Darwinian institutes that had grown over the century all over the world, or school textbooks. The reason may lie with equal probability both in the inertia of thinking inherent in the human mind and in problems of economics or politics.

But no matter what it is, not a single impartial scientist will deny the fact itself: evolutionary theory is just another figment of human imagination, another unconfirmed hypothesis. If there is something that distinguishes it from others of the same kind, then, as one of the Russian academicians said at the World Meeting of Archaeologists in Dubna two years ago, “unlike other untenable hypotheses, Darwinism managed to reject the development of a science called biology, at least a hundred years ago..."

Prepared by Maria VETROVA

Today, few would deny Darwin's enormous contribution to biology. The name of this scientist is familiar to every adult. Many of you can sum up Darwin's contributions to biology in a nutshell. However, only a few will be able to talk in detail about the theory he created. After reading the article you will be able to do this.

Achievements of the ancient Greeks

Before describing Darwin's contributions to biology, let us briefly describe the achievements of other scientists on the path to the discovery of the theory of evolution.

Anaximander, an ancient Greek thinker, back in the 6th century BC. e. said that man evolved from animals. His ancestors were supposedly covered in scales and lived in water. A little later, in the 4th century. BC BC, Aristotle noted that nature preserves useful traits that randomly appear in animals in order to make them more viable in the future. And brothers who do not have these signs die. It is known that Aristotle created the “ladder of beings”. He arranged the organisms in order from simplest to most complex. This staircase began with stones and ended with a man.

Transformism and creationism

The Englishman M. Hale first used the term “evolution” (from the Latin “unfoldment”) in 1677. He outlined to them the unity of the historical and individual development of organisms. In biology, in the 18th century, the doctrine of how different species of plants and animals changed appeared. It was opposed to creationism, according to which God created the world and all species remain unchanged. Supporters of transformism include the French scientist Georges Buffort, as well as the English researcher Erasmus Darwin. The first theory of evolution was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in his 1809 work Philosophy of Zoology. However, it was Charles Darwin who revealed its true factors. The contribution to biology of this scientist is invaluable.

The merit of Charles Darwin

He owns an evolutionary theory, scientifically substantiated. He outlined it in a work entitled “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.” Darwin published this book in 1859. Contributions to biology can be briefly summarized as follows. Darwin believed that - hereditary variability, as well as the struggle for existence. In conditions of struggle, the inevitable result of this variability is natural selection, which represents the preferential survival of the fittest individuals of a particular species. Thanks to their participation in reproduction, beneficial hereditary changes accumulate and are summed up, as Charles Darwin noted.

His contribution to biology was recognized by scientists who continued research in this direction. The development of science subsequently confirmed that Darwin's theory is correct. Therefore, today the terms “evolutionary doctrine” and “Darwinism” are often used as synonyms.

So, we have briefly described Darwin's contributions to biology. We propose to take a closer look at the theory he created.

Observations that led Darwin to the theory of evolution

Charles Darwin first began to think about the reasons why there are certain similarities and differences between species. He did not make the contribution to biology that we have briefly described immediately. First, they had to study the achievements of their predecessors, as well as make several trips. It was they who prompted the scientist to important thoughts.

He made his main discovery in South America, in geological deposits. These are the skeletons of giant edentates, very similar to modern sloths and armadillos. In addition, Darwin was greatly impressed by the study of the animal species living on the island. The scientist discovered on these volcanic islands of recent origin close species of finches that are similar to the mainland ones, but have adapted to different food sources - flower nectar, insects, hard seeds. Charles Darwin concluded that these birds came to the island from the mainland. And the changes that have occurred to them are explained by adaptation to new conditions of existence.

Charles Darwin raised the question that environmental conditions play a role in speciation. The scientist observed a similar picture off the coast of Africa. Living animals, despite a certain similarity with the species inhabiting the mainland, still differ from them in very significant features.

Darwin could not explain the creation of species and the peculiarities of the development of the rodent tuco-tuco, described by him. These rodents live underground, in burrows. They give birth to sighted cubs, which subsequently become blind. All these and many other facts significantly shook the scientist’s faith in the creation of species. Darwin, returning to England, set himself a large-scale task. He decided to solve the question of the origin of species.

Major works

Darwin's contributions to the development of biology are presented in several of his works. In 1859, in his work, he summarized the empirical material of contemporary breeding practice and biology. In addition, he used the results of his observations made during his travels. His circumnavigation of the world shed light on various species.

Charles Darwin supplemented the main work "The Origin of Species..." with factual materials in his next book, published in 1868. It is known as "Change in Domestic Animals and Cultivated Plants." In another work written in 1871, the scientist hypothesized that humans descend from an ape-like ancestor. Today, many agree with the assumption made by Charles Darwin. His contributions to biology allowed him to become a great authority in the scientific world. Many people even forget that the origin of man from the ape is just a hypothesis, which, although very probable, is still not fully proven.

The property of heredity and its role in evolution

Let us note that Darwin’s theory is based on the property of heredity, that is, the ability of organisms to repeat types of metabolism and, in general, individual development over a series of generations. Together with variability, heredity ensures the diversity and constancy of life forms. It is the basis of the evolution of the entire organic world.

Struggle for existence

“The struggle for existence” is a concept that is one of the main ones in the theory of evolution. Charles used it to refer to the relationships that exist between organisms. In addition, Darwin used it to describe the relationships between abiotic conditions and organisms. Abiotic conditions lead to the survival of the fittest individuals and the death of the less fit.

Two forms of variability

As for variability, Darwin identified two main forms. The first of them is a certain variability. This is the ability of all individuals of a particular species under certain environmental conditions to react in the same way to given conditions (soil, climate). Second form - Its character does not correspond to the observed changes in external conditions. Undefined variability in modern terminology is called mutation.

Mutation

The mutation, unlike the first form, is hereditary. According to Darwin, the minor changes observed in the first are amplified in subsequent generations. The scientist emphasized that in evolution the decisive role belongs to uncertain variability. It is usually associated with harmful or neutral mutations, but there are also some that are called promising.

Mechanism of evolution

According to Darwin, the inevitable result of hereditary variability and the struggle for existence is the survival and reproduction of new organisms that are most adapted to living in their respective environment. And in the course of evolution, the death of the unadapted occurs, that is, natural selection. Its mechanism operates in nature in a similar way to breeders, that is, vague and insignificant individual differences are formed, from which the necessary adaptations in organisms are then formed, as well as differences between species.

Charles Darwin spoke and wrote about all this and much more. The contributions to biology briefly described go beyond what we have covered. However, his main achievements were outlined in general terms. Now you can talk in detail about Darwin's contributions to biology.

Charles Darwin went down in the history of science as the creator of the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory has been one of the foundations of modern biology for many years, without which it is impossible to imagine science.

February 12 marked the 205th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, an English traveler and naturalist who went down in the history of science as the creator of the theory of evolution.

This theory, although it is more than 150 years old, still causes fierce controversy in society - even to the point of demands to ban its teaching in schools. Meanwhile, Darwin's theory has been one of the foundations of modern biology for many years, without which it is impossible to imagine science.

However, modern concepts in biology have still evolved since Darwinian times. Alexander Markov, head of the Department of Biological Evolution at the Faculty of Biology at Moscow State University, author of books on human origins and winner of the Enlightenment Prize, told RIA Novosti about Darwin’s mistakes, as well as the erroneous ideas about his theory that exist in society.

Inheritance of acquired

Darwin did not deny the possibility of inheritance of acquired characteristics, that is, for example, direct inheritance of the results of exercise.

“This was not a specific error of Darwin, at that time everyone thought so, it was generally accepted: that learning, events during life can influence heredity. Only several decades later, the German zoologist August Weismann experimentally proved that, for example, if you cut off the tails of rats from generation to generation, then this does not affect heredity; tailless pups do not begin to be born. And other experiments have shown that acquired characteristics are not inherited,” says Markov.

“However, the latest advances in molecular biology show that there are still a number of very specific exceptions when acquired characteristics can still be inherited. So Darwin was not 100% wrong,” he added.

Carriers of heredity in the blood

Darwin believed that the carriers of hereditary characteristics are submicroscopic objects - gemmules, which enter the germ cells through the bloodstream and carry hereditary information.

“Not knowing the nature of heredity, he tried to come up with a molecular mechanism to explain the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and proposed the theory of pangenesis. He suggested that there are particles in the cells of the body that contain information about events that happened to the body, about the experience gained, and they enter the germ cells through the bloodstream and transmit this information. It was a very bold hypothesis; in general, it was not confirmed,” Markov said.

He noted that technically such a possibility could exist: there was a hypothesis about so-called endogenous retroviruses embedded in the chromosomes of higher organisms, which could play the role of Darwinian gemmules.

Downplayed the role of natural selection

In Darwin's later works, natural selection was less important than it actually was.

“Darwin was very sensitive to the criticism of his contemporaries. Therefore, the first edition of his book “The Origin of Species” is now considered the best. He made many corrections in subsequent editions. In particular, he reduced the importance that he initially attached to the mechanism of natural selection: he added various reservations about the influence of the environment and learning. But today it is clear that Darwin’s original version of the leading role of natural selection was closest to reality,” says Markov.

He emphasized that in Darwin's time the nature of heredity and the nature of variability were not yet known. Knowing nothing about DNA, chromosomes, or mutations, Darwin was able, on the basis of such incomplete data, to correctly guess the main evolutionary mechanism that really provided all the diversity of life on our planet, the scientist notes.

Society's mistakes

Darwin said nothing about the origin of life. “He didn’t write about it at all. There is not a word in any of his books about how life appeared. He only once, in a letter to his friend, Hooker, mentioned in one phrase the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life. In the latest editions, he even mentioned the Creator,” says Markov.

Evolution is a random process

Evolution is often viewed as a chain of blind mutations that lead to the emergence of surprisingly purposefully designed creatures. However, Darwinian natural selection is anything but a blind force.

“This is a strictly natural process that gives evolution direction; it is this process that explains the apparent expediency of the structure of living organisms. There is a gap between a random process and evolution under the influence of natural selection; there are random processes in evolution, these are random mutations and genetic drift, but they do not give direction,” says Markov.

Monkey man?

The phrase “man descended from apes” can be misinterpreted.

“With many interpretations, it turns out that this phrase is incorrect. For example, if by “monkey” we mean modern apes. We did not descend from chimpanzees, orangutans, or gorillas,” says Markov.

Humans have common ancestors with them: the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived 6-7 million years ago, from whom we descended.

“From the point of view of biological systematics, this common ancestor belonged to the order of primates, to the group of narrow-nosed monkeys. But from a systematic point of view, man did not descend from a monkey, but he is a monkey, he belongs to monkeys, to great apes,” says Markov.