Let us analyze with a specialist in molecular evolution - what the supporters of the concept of intelligent creation of the world are right and what are wrong.
Modern man does not trust anyone. How else? Indeed, during the lifetime of one generation, the bourgeois, whom we remember with the stigma of a bloodsucker and exploiter, became the locomotive of the economy. The religion known as the opium of the people has become a spiritual bond. But what if science, which in the mass consciousness is associated with the famous "British scientists", is also lying? For example, regarding the theory of evolution. Moreover, on the Internet, supporters of the idea of the creation of the world by a higher mind (creationists) put forward arguments that, at first glance, look quite reasonable. Here is the evidence, they list, to refute that science is unable to. We decided to analyze these arguments together with Alexander Panchin, Candidate of Biological Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Molecular Evolution Sector of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences.
1. Bombardier beetle against evolution
What is the phenomenon:
The small insect is a walking living flamethrower. He has a special reservoir in his body where substances such as hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide accumulate. In case of danger, this mixture is pushed into a narrow passage, where it is enriched with special enzymes. As a result, a chemical reaction occurs with the release of a large amount of heat. The combat mixture heats up to about 100 degrees, and then a boiling jet is thrown towards the aggressor. Creationists say that such a complex living "chemical factory" could only appear immediately "assembled". Otherwise, the beetle would simply be torn apart!
Scientist comment:
- Actually, creationists started using this example because they were not very well versed in the structure of this mechanism. In fact, we can very easily explain how this thing came about through small successive changes. Intermediate variants of such a defense system are found in various arthropods. First, hydroquinone is a slightly modified quinone that is used as a secretion on the outer layer of insect skin to darken it. At the same time, the quinones themselves are disgusting and unpleasant for many arthropod eaters, so some beetles use this substance on their surface as a protective agent against predators. It reduces their palatability. Further, the beetles evolved depressions in the back,where these quinones could be stored in significant quantities - so that the aggressor, in the event of an attack, would swallow this muck even more. At the next stage, muscle cells appear that are able to squeeze this cavity with quinone, and you get a more effective delivery means - a jet that beats at a certain distance. There are known beetles that throw out non-burning slurry, as bombardiers do, but just a jet - such a caustic chemical weapon. And at the last stage, in order to heat this mixture, you need to add special enzymes - peroxidase and catalase. But here, too, nothing needs to be invented: these molecules are already produced by cells. You just need to learn how to develop them more efficiently and allocate them at the right time in the right place. This is how, in small steps, we in the course of evolution get an improvement in the protective function.
Promotional video:
2. The bat and 50 million years
What is the phenomenon:
Thomas Woodward, professor of theology at Trinity College, Florida, cites this example. He compares images of a bat from the Eocene era (this is 50 million years ago) and modern bats and comes to the conclusion that there is no difference between them. Where is the same evolution and development that Darwin was talking about ?! the professor exclaims.
Scientist comment:
- There are a great many bats and it is not clear what they mean. It is useful to understand here: even if it seems to you that all bats are outwardly the same, then for a professional zoologist-taxonomist they differ very much. In addition, today we can read the entire genome - that is, the DNA sequence of a bat - and see changes in specific genes. We may not notice these differences in appearance. But these genes can affect metabolism or resistance to certain diseases. Roughly speaking, there are people who are genetically resistant to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Outwardly, they are no different from other people. But there is an evolutionarily significant difference between them. There are, of course, differences in bats as well. They changed both morphologically (externally) and at the genetic level. But it is worth adding another point: the theory of evolution, in principle, does not predict that the structure of the organism will always change significantly. Because if the body shape of a living creature is ideally adapted to the ecological niche in which it lives, and this niche is stable, then what is the point of this species to change if any change does not lead to an improvement in its ability to reproduce better? Therefore, in nature there are organisms that outwardly have changed little over a long period of time - for example, some fish and reptiles.if any change does not improve its ability to reproduce better? Therefore, in nature there are organisms that outwardly have changed little over a long period of time - for example, some fish and reptiles.if any change does not improve its ability to reproduce better? Therefore, in nature there are organisms that outwardly have changed little over a long period of time - for example, some fish and reptiles.
3. How did the inanimate become alive?
What is the phenomenon:
John Rockefeller said: I can account for every million I own, except the first. Scientists can also explain the appearance of all animals. Except for one thing - they don't know how the first living cell appeared. The origin of life can be explained by only one thing - the intervention of higher powers.
Scientist comment:
- In order for life to appear in the modern sense of the word, we do not need a cage. There are 3 main molecules that are used in the modern genetic apparatus - DNA, RNA and proteins. Proteins by themselves cannot reproduce. DNA too. But it turned out that even short RNA molecules can simultaneously store information and act as an enzyme that accelerates the assembly of their own molecules into chains (in 1989, American molecular biologists Thomas Check and Sidney Altmanreceived the Nobel Prize for this discovery). And this is the same proto-life that can be created in a test tube. In this case, the self-copying chains of RNA molecules may not be long at all - about a hundred nucleotides (these are the “letters” with which the genetic “text” is written). Even such simple molecules are capable of gradual evolutionary complication. Imagine the past, where puddles arose in the ebb and flow zone. There, under the influence of the sun, evaporation took place, which means that the concentration of substances increased greatly. This accelerated chemical reactions. In such puddles, the RNA molecule, using these conditions, increased the number of its copies. Since any copying process is not perfect, self-reproduction proceeded with minor modifications. Then, on the next ebb and flow cycle, mixing took place. And the descendants of this molecule appeared in different puddles. Similar, but slightly different. Some descendants of such a molecule copied themselves even better, leaving more offspring. Here it is - evolution to cells.
4. Virginity and divine providence
What is the phenomenon:
Girls have anatomical features that speak of sexual innocence. And this is nothing more than evidence of the divine exclusivity of man. Because the testimony of maiden integrity does not bear any physiological function, but serves only to strengthen morality and virtue. Otherwise, why is a trait transmitted from generation to generation, which in women producing offspring is inevitably destroyed (virgins do not give birth)?
Scientist comment:
- The problem is that this tissue is present not only in humans, but, for example, in chimpanzees, some species of whales and manatees … Following this logic, we must admit that some creator also cared about the moral character of chimpanzees and whales.
There are three hypotheses that explain the rationale for this device in terms of evolutionary benefits. The most plausible one says: it is the protection of the genital tract from infections. Especially in the early stages of life, when the immune system of children is not yet working as well as in adults. Protection of the reproductive tract, from the point of view of evolution, is the primary thing. If something is broken there, then this is tantamount to death - you will not pass on your genes to anyone.
The second hypothesis suggests that this may indeed be a factor in sexual selection, since a man, or rather a male (since this applies not only to humans), will be more willing to protect offspring if he is sure that these are his cubs.
And there is a third explanation: this tissue by the time of puberty becomes more elastic and with age it becomes easier to have sexual intercourse. Perhaps this is again the protection of the reproductive system of very young females - from damage as a result of the encroachments of males. It is clear that not all males can be stopped by such a biological defense system. But some - maybe.
QUESTION - RIB
Does Darwin's theory have material evidence?
Skeptics say: Darwin's theory is just a theory. Why should we believe in it? There are many other theories. In this regard, the question is: are there iron material proofs of evolutionary theory?
- If we want reinforced concrete arguments in favor of the fact that all living things in nature came from one common ancestor (and this is what the theory of evolution suggests), then the answer is very simple. There is such a thing called the genetic code. Figuratively speaking, this is the language in which chemical molecules "communicate", or a set of rules by which the DNA sequence determines the proteins that the body will synthesize. The famous genetic engineer George Church in his laboratory managed to make significant changes in the genetic code of some microorganisms and created living things that do not occur in nature. That is, it does not matter for life which genetic code to use. The only thing is that the already established genetic code is almost impossible to change through small evolutionary changes. But!All living organisms on our planet have the same code, which means that we all - from bacteria to fungi, plants and people, descended from a common ancestor.
Nothing like this! You will be immediately told that this is precisely the “autograph” of the Lord God, who created all living organisms in a single image and likeness
“He could do that if he wanted to hide his existence. Then we must admit that some supernatural being is doing everything possible to rob us of the biological arguments that it interfered with the development of life. Maybe you should respect his desire for anonymity? Because if God wanted to put proof of his existence into the foundation of life, he would do it easily. As soon as we saw that the genetic code in chimpanzees is one, and in humans is completely different, then this would inevitably prove the existence of some genetic engineer who, at will, changed the genetic code.
By the way, in online disputes, supporters of the divine origin of man often write to Darwin's admirers: you descended from a monkey, and God created us …
- There is concrete evidence that both humans and chimpanzees descended from the same common ancestor. This evidence is the second human chromosome. The fact is that chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23. But since we have learned to read the genome (hereditary material contained in the cell of the body), we see that the reason for this "shortage" that distinguishes us from related monkeys is that a person has a fusion of two neighboring chromosomes. This is clearly visible if we look at our 2nd chromosome. In it, the genes are arranged in such a way as if you took and connected two texts. In this case, the word order is such that you have one "fairy tale" first, and then another "fairy tale". And there are thousands of such molecular genetic evidence.
YAROSLAV KOROBATOV