"Comprehension of processes" or "Theory of everything" Modern scientific thinking has given our planet, with all its species and forms of life, at the mercy of technological progress. The world of traditional religious thinking gave the human soul to be torn to pieces. Lead in

Chapter 12 World outlook, world order, world creation. Understanding the goals and objectives of human existence. Laws of social management. Theory of anomalies Everywhere a yoke, an ax or a crown, Everywhere a villain or a coward, And a man is everywhere a tyrant or a flatterer, Or a slave of prejudice

Philosophical understanding of the nature of the tragic "I am" (in the world) tends to mean that I exist only if I can separate myself from being ... "I hold on to the bowels of non-being", this is sad and disturbing, but it also speaks of that miracle that nothingness is in my power, that I can not

Philosophical understanding of the world and a person - in - the world "image of the world" as a way of knowing a person and the world - style of thinking as a characteristic of individual consciousness - two types of philosophizing - "classical" and "non-classical" philosophizing - "aesthetic

On February 12, 1809, the famous English scientist, naturalist and traveler was born. Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution and the origin of species is studied in school biology lessons. Nevertheless, many misconceptions, inaccuracies and myths are associated with the name of Darwin,

You all know the official version and more about Darwin, this. Let's first go over the current myths:

Myth 1. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution

In fact, the first scientific theory of evolution was developed at the beginning of the 19th century Jean Baptiste Lamarck. He owns the assumption that acquired characteristics are inherited. For example, if an animal feeds on leaves from tall trees, its neck will stretch, and each successive generation will have a slightly longer neck than its ancestors. So, according to Lamarck, giraffes appeared.

Charles Darwin improved this theory and introduced the concept of "natural selection" into it. According to the theory, individuals with those features and qualities that are most conducive to survival are more likely to continue the genus.

Myth 2. Darwin claimed that man descended from a monkey

The scientist never said such a thing. Charles Darwin suggested that apes and humans may have shared an ape-like ancestor. Based on comparative anatomical and embryological studies, he was able to show that the anatomical, physiological and ontogenetic characteristics of humans and representatives of the primate order are very similar. This is how the simial (monkey) theory of anthropogenesis was born.

Myth 3. Before Darwin, scientists did not correlate humans with primates.

In fact, the similarity between humans and monkeys was noticed by scientists at the end of the 18th century. The French naturalist Bufon suggested that people are the descendants of monkeys, and the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified humans as primates, where we, in modern science, coexist as a species with monkeys.

Myth 4. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, the fittest survive

This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term "natural selection". According to Darwin, it is not the strongest who survive, but the fittest. Often the simplest organisms are the most "tenacious". This explains why strong dinosaurs died out, while single-celled organisms survived both the meteorite explosion and the ice age that followed.

Myth 5. Darwin at the end of his life renounced his theory

This is nothing more than an urban legend. 33 years after the scientist's death, in 1915, a story was published in a Baptist publication about how Darwin retracted his theory just before his death. There is no reliable evidence of this fact.

Myth 6. Darwin's theory of evolution is a Masonic conspiracy

Fans of conspiracy theories claim that Darwin and his relatives were Freemasons. Freemasons are members of a secret religious society that arose in the 18th century in Europe. Noble people became members of the Masonic lodges, they are often credited with the invisible leadership of the whole world.

Historians do not confirm the fact that Darwin or any of his relatives were members of any secret societies. The scientist, on the contrary, was in no hurry to publish his theory, which had been worked on for 20 years. In addition, many of the facts discovered by Darwin were confirmed by further researchers.

Here you can read the arguments of the supporter of the theory elvensou1 - Reject or accept evolution?

Clickable.

Now let's take a closer look at what the opponents of Darwin's theory say:

The man who put forward the theory of evolution is the English amateur naturalist Charles Robert Darwin.

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 for five years sailed to different parts of the world. 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 the 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 was established 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 that have more successfully adapted to natural conditions pass on their characteristics 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 were in the complex organs of living organisms that could not have appeared by chance (for example, the eyes), as well as fossil remains, 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 dogma prevailing in biology now resembles not so much a granite monolith as Swiss cheese.

Throughout the history of Western civilization, it has been considered an axiom that life is 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 for the existence of a rational principle was formulated by the English religious thinker William Paley in his book 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) must have a great organizer - 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 make a real 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 can undergo small 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 mercilessly rejected by nature, and traits that give an advantage in the struggle for life, gradually accumulating, over time 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, because 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 to 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 allow in the future to find transitional forms of life and confirm the validity of his theoretical calculations.

But the collections of paleontologists grew and grew, and there was no evidence of Darwin's theory. 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 must have been in effect - say, the use of universal templates-prototypes 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 the existence of life, only the simplest single-celled organisms lived on our planet. But about 570 million years ago, the Cambrian period began, and over the course of several million years (by geological standards, a fleeting moment), as if by magic, almost all the diversity of life arose from scratch 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 stopped: 90% of all marine organisms and 70% of terrestrial species 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 can find is the similarities of different species, 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 practice, 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 treasured 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 a whole 40 years before the scientific world was forced to officially admit that he had been 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 Homo sapiens dead man.

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 changing 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 leap 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, 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 to gain a foothold and give their carriers a decisive advantage 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 it culls out traits that are not conducive to survival, and leaves only "selected" traits. 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 Behey published the sensational book Darwin's Black Box, where he showed that there are biochemical systems of incredible complexity in the body that cannot be explained 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 constituent parts should have been born and “turned 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 (mostly on the Internet). 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 of scientific publications." However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anticipating the storm his book would cause while working on it, Michael Bahey delved into the 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 fundamentally refuse to put intelligent design in the place of 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. His book is 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 “A Brief History of 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 the individual systems included in it” . 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 at the molecular level, and entropy prevents this. 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's co-author, astrobiologist Chandra Wykramasingh, put it more eloquently: "The chance of spontaneous generation of life is as slim as the chance of a hurricane wind sweeping over a junkyard to pick up a serviceable airliner from the trash in one rush."

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 Crick (who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA with James Watson), became disillusioned with Darwinism and believed that life on earth was brought from space. This idea was first put forward more than a century ago by another Nobel laureate, the outstanding Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who proposed the “panspermia” hypothesis.

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: 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 their book 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: it is known how - 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, it is too tough for them.

However, the majority of evolutionists categorically reject any attempts to cast a shadow on their teaching. The intelligent design hypothesis, like a red rag that is teased by a bull, causes them to 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 stated with absolute certainty that anyone who does not believe in evolution is either an ignoramus, or a fool, or insane (or maybe a bastard, although in the last don't want to believe it). This phrase alone 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 gaps 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.

On February 12, 1809, the famous English scientist, naturalist and traveler was born. Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution and the origin of species is studied in school biology lessons. Nevertheless, many misconceptions, inaccuracies and myths are associated with the name of Darwin,

You all know the official version and more about Darwin. Let's first go over the current myths:

Myth 1. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. In fact, he developed the first scientific theory of evolution at the beginning of the 19th century. Jean Baptiste Lamarck. He owns the assumption that acquired characteristics are inherited. For example, if an animal feeds on leaves from tall trees, its neck will stretch, and each successive generation will have a slightly longer neck than its ancestors. So, according to Lamarck, giraffes appeared.

Charles Darwin improved this theory and introduced the concept of "natural selection" into it. According to the theory, individuals with those features and qualities that are most conducive to survival are more likely to continue the genus.

Myth 2. Darwin claimed that man descended from a monkey. The scientist never said such a thing. Charles Darwin suggested that apes and humans may have shared an ape-like ancestor. Based on comparative anatomical and embryological studies, he was able to show that the anatomical, physiological and ontogenetic characteristics of humans and representatives of the primate order are very similar. This is how the simial (monkey) theory of anthropogenesis was born.

Myth 3. Before Darwin, scientists did not correlate humans with primates. In fact, the similarity between humans and monkeys was noticed by scientists at the end of the 18th century. The French naturalist Bufon suggested that people are the descendants of monkeys, and the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified humans as primates, where we, in modern science, coexist as a species with monkeys.

Myth 4. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, the fittest survive This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term "natural selection". According to Darwin, it is not the strongest who survive, but the fittest. Often the simplest organisms are the most "tenacious". This explains why strong dinosaurs died out, while single-celled organisms survived both the meteorite explosion and the ice age that followed.

Myth 5. Darwin renounced his theory at the end of his life. This is nothing more than an urban legend. 33 years after the scientist's death, in 1915, a story was published in a Baptist publication about how Darwin retracted his theory just before his death. There is no reliable evidence of this fact.

Myth 6. Darwin's theory of evolution is a Masonic conspiracy Fans of conspiracy theories claim that Darwin and his relatives were Freemasons. Freemasons are members of a secret religious society that arose in the 18th century in Europe. Noble people became members of the Masonic lodges, they are often credited with the invisible leadership of the whole world.

Historians do not confirm the fact that Darwin or any of his relatives were members of any secret societies. The scientist, on the contrary, was in no hurry to publish his theory, which had been worked on for 20 years. In addition, many of the facts discovered by Darwin were confirmed by further researchers.

Now let's take a closer look at what the opponents of Darwin's theory say:

The person who put forward the theory of evolution is the English amateur naturalist Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin never really studied biology, but had only 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 for five years sailed to different parts of the world. 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 the 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 was established 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 that have more successfully adapted to natural conditions pass on their characteristics 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 were in the complex organs of living organisms that could not have appeared by chance (for example, the eyes), as well as fossil remains, 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 dogma prevailing in biology now resembles not so much a granite monolith as Swiss cheese.

Throughout the history of Western civilization, it has been considered an axiom that life is 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 for the existence of a rational principle was formulated by the English religious thinker William Paley in his book 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) must have a great organizer - 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 make a real 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 can undergo small 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 mercilessly rejected by nature, and traits that give an advantage in the struggle for life, gradually accumulating, over time 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, because 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 to 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 there was no evidence of Darwin's theory. 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 the existence of life, only the simplest single-celled organisms lived on our planet. But about 570 million years ago, the Cambrian period began, and over the course of several million years (by geological standards, a fleeting moment), as if by magic, almost all the diversity of life arose from scratch 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 stopped: 90% of all marine organisms and 70% of terrestrial species 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 most they can find are the similarities between different species, but 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 a whole 40 years before the scientific world was forced to officially admit that he had been 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 Homo sapiens dead man.

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 leap 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 the 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 it culls out traits that are not conducive to survival, and leaves only "selected" traits. 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 Behey published the sensational book Darwin's Black Box, where he showed that there are biochemical systems of incredible complexity in the body that cannot be explained 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 shatter into 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 (mostly on the Internet). 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 of scientific publications." However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anticipating the storm his book would cause while working on it, Michael Bahey delved into the 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. His book is 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 “A Brief History of 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 the individual systems included in it” . 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 at the molecular level, and entropy prevents this. 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's co-author, astrobiologist Chandra Wykramasingh, put it more eloquently: "The chance of spontaneous generation of life is as slim as the chance of a hurricane wind sweeping over a junkyard to pick up a serviceable airliner from the trash in one rush."

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 Crick (who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA with James Watson), became disillusioned with Darwinism and believed that life on earth was brought from space. This idea was first put forward more than a century ago by another Nobel laureate, the outstanding Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who proposed the “panspermia” hypothesis.

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: 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 their book 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: it is known how - 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, it is too tough for them.

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 the evolutionists was eloquently summed up by one of the most vociferous Darwinists, the English zoologist Richard Dawkins: don't want to believe it). This phrase alone 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 gaps 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.

nbsp;  

We, who see everything,

what the day gave us to see,

We can't find the words

for songs and praises .

William Shakespeare. Sonnet 106

(translated by N. Gerbel

The ordinary human mind cannot accept that our beautiful green surrounding world, inhabited by millions of living beings, with us at the head, could arise on its own, without any intention from the outside, that this is only the result of the evolution of living nature. Idea, plan, meaning are the elements that accompany human activity throughout the entire known period of its existence. Therefore, theological thinking is inherent in man. Clouds in the sky so that it rains from them, the sun rises to illuminate the Earth, etc. From here, only half a step, to the recognition that there is a higher plan. And that's exactly what the Bible says.
Even the American biologist Collins slyly called his book on deciphering the human genome

« Deciphering divine blueprints ».

Well, it is clear that the book needs to be promoted, and America is a religious country, and in order to buy better, we had to sacrifice a little principles.
Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in England. The fifth of six children of wealthy physician and financier Robert Darwin. In the summer of 1825, he acts as an apprentice assistant and helps his father in his medical practice, helping the poor. Apparently on the advice of his Father, he enters the University of Edinburgh, where he studies medicine. (1825-1827)
During his studies, he found lectures boring and surgery painful, so he abandoned his medical studies.
During this time, he assists Robert Edmond Grant in his research on the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates. At the meetings of the society, in March 1827, Darwin presents brief messages about his first discoveries, which changed his view of familiar things.
During his second year in Edinburgh, Darwin attended Robert Jameson's natural history course, which covered geology. In the same year he studied plant classification and took part in the extensive collections at the University Museum, one of the largest museums in Europe of that period.
Darwin's father, having learned that his son had abandoned his studies in medicine, was annoyed and suggested that he enter the Cambridge Christian College and receive
rank of priest of the Anglican Church. (1828-1831)

In Cambridge, he is interested not only in the study of theology. There he got acquainted with entomology and became close to people who were fond of collecting insects. As a result, he develops a passion for collecting beetles.
He becomes a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Genslow.
In 1831, after graduating from Darwin University as a naturalist, despite having received a religious education, on the recommendation of Genslow, he went on a trip around the world on the expedition ship of the Royal Navy, the Beagle, from where he returned to England only on October 2, 1836.
The journey lasted almost five years. Darwin spends most of his time on the coast, studying geology and collecting natural history collections, while the Beagle, under the direction of Fitzroy, carried out hydrographic and cartographic surveys of the coast.
During his journey through all the continents, he apparently fell ill with some kind of mysterious illness from which he could never be cured. From childhood, he was distinguished by good health and could even become an athlete, as he ran amazingly fast.
Only upon his return from a trip in 1837, he raised the question of the origin of species and decided to start developing it. In 1839, after reading the book of Malthus, he quite clearly formulated the idea of ​​natural selection.
In 1859, Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life.
The theory of Charles Darwin was developed so carefully, based on such a wealth of facts, explained so many mysterious phenomena, and finally pointed out so many new ways for research, that it established itself in science with remarkable speed, despite the fierce attacks of opponents of transformism.
In 1868, Darwin published his second work on the subject of evolution, The Variation of Animals and Plants in the Domestic State, which included many examples of the evolution of organisms.
In 1871, another important work of Darwin appeared - "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection", where Darwin argued in favor of the natural origin of man from animals (monkey-like ancestors).

About evolution

It must be understood that evolution and the principle of natural selection can only work if there is the possibility of transferring hereditary information. Now we know that this information is recorded in the genome, the totality of the genes of a given individual. Without genes, evolution is impossible. Darwin did not know where it was recorded, but the results of observations pointed him to this very fact. According to R. Dawkins's modern idea, an individual is only a body for moving genes. Bodies live and die, genes remain.
Evolution by natural selection consists in the fact that individuals with certain genotypes and phenotypes leave more surviving and reproducing offspring than individuals of other genotypes, which are slightly less adapted. Therefore, evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population.
Evolution is an unprogrammed process. This non-programming ensures non-purposeful development.
At first glance, it may seem that understanding the operation of the principle of natural selection is simple. But this simplicity is apparent. In each case it is necessary to understand separately. The relationship of various living beings with each other is complex and diverse. We are unable to trace all connections. Everyone here influences everyone.

Reaction of the Marxists

Marx, 10 years younger than Darwin, read The Origin of Species for the first time just a year after its publication, and he liked the book so much that he reread it two years later.
He attended Thomas Huxley's lectures on Darwin's ideas and "did not talk for months about anything but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries."
Darwin's book is very important; it is the basis of my idea of ​​natural selection in the class struggle throughout history. It not only dealt a death blow to "teleology" in natural science and empirically explained its rational meaning.
Another Marxist, Leon Trotsky, wrote, "Darwin's discovery is the greatest triumph of dialectics in the realm of all organic matter."

Nothing could be more stupid. If only Darwin had read that the thread was made of diamat, his health would have been completely and irrevocably upset.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, interpreted Darwinism in accordance with their philosophical views. They did not understand the essence of Darwinism.
It is safe to say that if Darwin had also been a philosopher, he would never have written On the Origin of Species....
The fact is that philosophers do not bother to study specific phenomena, they are “armed” with the highest knowledge about everything, and specific facts must fit into the framework assigned to them by the philosopher. Such is, in fact, their dialectic
In Darwin, Max liked the term "Struggle for coexistence" the most.
She was in great harmony with his "class struggle"
But these are completely different concepts. For Marx, the struggle is a struggle not for life, but for death. Darwin used the term in a very broad sense.
Karl Marx even dedicated the first German edition of his book Das Kapital to Darwin and signed the title page to Charles Darwin from an ardent admirer.
Darwin did not accept this initiation.
In turn, Engels, in his book The Dialectics of Nature, undoubtedly written under the influence of the ideas of The Origin of Species, highly appreciated Darwin's teaching and tried to contribute to the development of the theory, devoting an entire chapter of the book to this: "The role of labor in the process of formation of man from apes".

In this work, Engels stands firmly in the position of Lamarck, who believed that acquired traits are inherited. Therefore, according to Engels, a person developed more and more limbs in labor, and therefore they improved. You can write like this only without mastering the methods of analysis used by Darwin in his book. But philosophers have their own ways of knowing.
100 years after Engels, our Great mystifier T. Lysenko under the philosophical cover of an academician Presentation managed to prove to the leadership of the country that, through education, rye can be turned into wheat. And the genes and chromosomes were already known.
But they were branded as inventions of bourgeois science and new abusive words were introduced - the Mendelists-Morganists.
This is how our (Soviet) recognition of Darwin turned into its opposite. And science was divided into our domestic and bourgeois
It is difficult to understand why smart people (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, Trotsky, etc.) could not understand and accept the principles of natural selection, which are so detailed and illustrated in many examples by Darwin.
The key to the riddle is provided by Engels' frank statement.

In 1883, F. Engels gave a dialectical assessment of Darwinism -
“In Darwin’s teachings, I agree with the theory of development, but I consider Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for existence, natural selection) to be just the first, temporary, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact”
But it is precisely the method of proving evolution that is the essence of Darwin's teaching.

Thus, Engels hopes in time to find a more appropriate dialectical explanation of evolution than natural selection, which by no means fits into their dogmatic conception.
The usual philosophical way to get around some difficulty is to discard it, to forget it, to pretend that there is nothing. But evolution is too significant a fact to be ignored.
Having received a philosophical education, the classics considered themselves to be the possessors of a certain higher knowledge, which, like a key, allows one to penetrate into any other field of knowledge and put everything upside down where the Marxist’s beard has not yet been, as they “did” with Hegel’s dialectics.
When Marx was working on Capital, he wrote that he was studying algebra (It seems that philosophers were not taught this subject at all). But in Capital, he mastered only the simplest linear equations, the square trinomial, which schoolchildren study in the 5th grade, was inaccessible to Marx.
The great economist of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, considered Marx's Capital an outdated textbook on economics, not only erroneous from an economic point of view, but also devoid of interest and practical application.
In the USSR, the imposition of a Marxist economy in the 1930s was accompanied by the destruction of the world-class Russian school of economics ( Nikolay Kondratiev, Vasily Leontiev, Alexander Chayanov).
If you look at life through the cloudy glasses of dialectics, then you can see not much, and the way of thinking turns out to be programmed. The orthodoxy of thinking did not make it possible for all Marxists to understand an idea that did not fit into their dogmas, but was essentially simple. I can't find any other explanation.