evolutionary problems. Scientific electronic library. Darwin's theory of evolution
Geological and biological sciences in recent decades have accumulated huge new information about the evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds of the Earth, as well as about the physical-geographical, geological and biogeochemical prerequisites for the possible existence of any life forms in the past or present on other planets of the solar group. Evolution in many cases can now be represented by measure and number. Extensive information has been collected on numerous biological catastrophes (crises), primarily during the last billion years; about their correlation with abiotic crises, about the possible common causes of these phenomena.
At the same time, vast amounts of information have been accumulated on the structural organization and molecular genetic mechanisms of cell functioning - the basis of life, factors of genome variability, and the patterns of molecular evolution of cells and organisms. At the same time, despite extensive data on the molecular genetic mechanisms that determine the responses of genomes, cells, and organisms to environmental changes, we know little about the relationships between these mechanisms and the processes of biota evolution that took place on Earth at the moments of global geological changes. Despite the abundance of information on the patterns of evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds obtained by the Earth sciences and biology, it still remains fragmented and requires systematic generalization.
Among the major achievements of recent decades is the deciphering by paleontologists and geologists of the Precambrian chronicle of the development of the organic world of the Earth, which expanded the geochronological range of our knowledge of the evolution of life from 550 million to almost 4 billion years. Classic Concepts evolution of the organic world, based on the experience of studying its Phanerozoic history, when the main features of the taxonomic and ecosystem hierarchy were already formed biological systems, starting with C. Darwin, developed within the framework of a gradualistic understanding of the phylogenetic process, the central link of which is the species. The study of the Precambrian forms of life and the conditions of its existence has put new problems on the agenda.
Thanks to the achievements of molecular biology (including molecular phylogeny), since the early 1980s, it has become clear that the paths of the biological evolution of life in the conditions of the initial anoxic (reducing) atmosphere and its gradual transition to an oxidizing one (an increase in the concentration of oxygen in the habitat) are associated with the life of three kingdoms (domains of organisms) of nuclear-free prokaryotes: 1) true eubacteria; 2) archeobacteria, the genome of which has some similarities with the genome of eukaryotes; 3) eukaryotes with a well-formed nucleus and carpathological cytoplasm with various types of organelles.
The most important link in the development of the biodiversity of the living shell of the Earth is the Vendian skeletal Metazoa (vendobionts) discovered in recent decades with mysterious metabolic features, the immediate predecessors of the main types of modern invertebrates, the main phylogenetic trunks (at the level of types and families) of which arose about 540 million years ago in beginning of the Cambrian period.
The study of microbial communities in modern extreme conditions and their experimental modeling made it possible to reveal the features of the interaction of autotrophic and heterotrophic forms of prokaryotic life as a special type of adaptation in a spatially inseparable two-in-one organism-ecosystem system. The development of microbial paleontology methods and the detection by these methods in meteorites, presumably brought to Earth from Mars, of structures resembling traces of bacterial life, gave a new impetus to the problem of "eternity of life".
In recent years, paleontology and geology have accumulated a lot of data on the correlation of global geological and biotic events in the history of the biosphere. Of particular interest recently was the “phenomenon” of the explosive biodiversification of the organic world in the Ordovician period (450 million years ago), when a huge number of new ecological specializations arose, as a result of which a global closed biogeochemical cycle was formed in marine ecosystems for the first time. This "environmental revolution" is well correlated with the appearance of an ozone screen in the atmosphere at that time, which radically changed the spatial parameters of the life zone on Earth.
The accumulated data on the interrelations of the main trends and the periodicity of global processes in the evolution of the outer and inner shells of the Earth and the biosphere as an integral system have put on the agenda the problem of the control link in the coevolution of the Earth and its biosphere. In accordance with the new ideas, consistent with the theory of the development of large systems, the evolution of the biosphere is determined by the higher hierarchical levels of the global ecosystem, and at lower levels (population, species) its more “fine” tuning is provided (“the system hierarchy paradox”). From these positions, the problem arises of combining the concept of speciation by Ch. Darwin and the biospheric concept of V.I. Vernadsky.
In connection with the discovery in the 1970s of the 20th century in the modern oceans of unique ecosystems (“black smokers”), traces of which are now found in sediments of an ancient age (at least 400 million years), existing due to the endogenous energy of hydrothermal one problem: are solar energy and oxygen atmosphere are necessary conditions for the evolution of life on planets, and what is the evolutionary potential of ecosystems of this type?
Thus, we can formulate the following modern problems of the theory of evolution:
1. Did life arise on Earth during the natural evolution of the inorganic world (the theory of spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter)? Or was it introduced from the Cosmos (the panspermia theory) and, thus, is much older than the Earth and is not directly connected in its genesis with the conditions of the primitive Earth at the time the first traces of life were recorded in the geological record?
In the theory of molecular evolution, a significant amount of knowledge has been accumulated, pointing to the possibility of self-origination of life (in the form of the simplest self-reproducing systems) from inorganic matter under the conditions of the primitive Earth.
At the same time, there are facts that testify in favor of the theory of panspermia: a) the oldest sedimentary rocks with an age of 3.8 billion years have preserved traces of the mass development of primitive life forms, and the isotopic composition of carbon C12 / C13 practically does not differ from that in modern living substance; b) features were found in meteorites that can be interpreted as traces of vital activity of primitive life forms, although there are objections to this point of view.
At the same time, it should be noted that the question of the eternity of life in the Universe ultimately rests on the question of the eternity of the Universe itself. If life is brought to Earth from the Cosmos (the theory of panspermia), this does not remove the problem of the origin of life, but only transfers the moment of the origin of life to the depths of time and space. In particular, within the framework of the "big bang" theory, the time of the emergence and spread of life in the Universe cannot be more than 10 billion years. However, it should be borne in mind that this date applies only to our Universe, and not to the entire Cosmos.
2. What were the main trends in the evolution of primitive unicellular life forms on Earth during the first 3.5 billion years (or more) of the development of life? Was the main trend increasing complexity internal organization cells in order to maximize the consumption of any resources of the undifferentiated environment of the primitive Earth, or even then some organisms began to adapt to the predominant use of any one resource (specialization), which should have contributed to the differentiation of the global primitive biosphere into a system of local biocenoses? In this regard, the question also arises of the ratio of exogenous (sun) and endogenous (hydrothermal) energy sources for the development of life at early and later stages.
It is now considered established that the simplest non-nuclear bacterial organisms gave rise to eukaryotes with a developed nucleus, compartmentalized cytoplasm, organelles, and a sexual form of reproduction. Eukaryotes at the turn of about 1.2-1.4 billion years ago significantly increased their biodiversity, which resulted in the intensive development of new ecological niches and the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms. This explains, in particular, the mass formation of the most ancient biogenic oils 1.2-1.4 billion years ago, perhaps the largest-scale process of transformation of the Earth's biomass that existed at that time (10 times greater than modern biomass) into inert matter. It should be noted here that the existing methods for calculating the mass of living matter for past geological epochs by the amount of fossilized organic matter do not take into account the balance ratios of the autotrophic and heterotrophic tiers of the biosphere, which should also be attributed to one of the important problems in the study of global patterns of biosphere evolution. It is possible that the first noticeable increase in the biomass and biodiversity of eukaryotes occurred about 2 billion years ago. The question arises about the connection of this global evolutionary event with the appearance of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.
3. What factors ensured the progressive complication of eukaryotic genomes and the peculiarities of the genomes of modern prokaryotes?
Were there conditions on the primitive Earth that favored the evolutionary complication of the structural and functional organization of the eukaryotic cell? If so, what is their nature, when did they originate, and do they continue to operate to this day?
What mechanisms ensured the coordination of ecosystem self-assembly “from below” (at the population and species levels) and “from above” (that is, at the level of interaction of the global ecosystem with global endogenous and exogenous geological processes)?
The question also arises about the evolutionary potential of different levels of biological organization (on the molecular, gene, cellular, multicellular, organismal, population) and the conditions for its implementation. In general terms, one can consider an obvious increase in the evolutionary potential at each new level of biological organization (i.e., the possibilities of morpho-functional differentiation of life at the organismal and ecosystem levels), however, the trigger mechanisms and limiting factors of autogenetic (intrinsic) and external (living environment) remain unclear. ) origin. In particular, the nature of aromorphoses (cardinal changes in the structure plans of organisms) and saltations (outbursts of biodiversification accompanied by the appearance of high-ranking taxa) remains mysterious. Aromorphoses and saltations coincide well with the epochs of global biotic rearrangements and fundamental geological changes in the environment (the balance of free oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the state of the ozone screen, the consolidation and breakup of supercontinents, and large-scale climate fluctuations). The emergence of new aromorphoses (for example, the appearance of skeletal, then skeletal marine Metazoa, vascular plants, terrestrial vertebrates, etc.) radically changed the functional and spatial characteristics of the biosphere, as well as evolutionary trends in specific taxonomic groups. This is in good agreement with the theoretical position of cybernetics about the guiding role in the evolutionary process top management hierarchical systems.
Has there been a global change in evolutionary strategies in the history of the Earth within the framework of stabilizing selection (constancy of environmental conditions), driving selection (pronounced unidirectional changes in critical parameters of the environment) and destabilizing selection (catastrophic changes in environmental parameters affecting hierarchically high levels of organization of biosystems from molecular- genetic to biospheric)? There is an idea that in the early stages of the evolution of the biosphere, the evolutionary strategy was determined by the search for optimal options for adaptation to the physicochemical conditions of the environment (incoherent evolution). And as the abiotic environment stabilizes, evolution acquires a coherent character, and the development of trophic specializations under the pressure of competition for food resources becomes the leading factor in the evolutionary strategy in ecologically saturated ecosystems.
How frequent were such changes, and what role did global geological changes play in them? To what extent is this related to the appearance of eukaryotes in the geological record, as well as the general flourishing of both nuclear and non-nuclear life forms at the turn of 1.2-1.4 billion years ago?
What is the ratio of gradual and explosive modes of evolution at the species and ecosystem levels, and how did they change at different stages of the history of the biosphere?
Is it possible to reliably restore the picture of the evolution of life on Earth, taking into account the fundamental incompleteness of the geological record and the complexity of real evolutionary processes?
What restrictions are imposed by the features of the structural and functional organization of ecosystems on the evolution of life forms prevailing in them?
4. What is the nature of trigger mechanisms that provide a radical change in the modes of evolution of life forms? Does it have an immanent essence, due to the internal features of the organization and evolution of biosystems, or due to external causes, for example, geological restructuring? How do these factors compare?
According to geological data, the mass development of highly organized life forms of Metazoa (with muscle tissues, alimentary tract, etc.) occurred in the Vendian about 600 million years ago, although they may have appeared earlier, as evidenced by paleontological finds of recent years. But these were non-skeletal soft-bodied Metazoa. They did not have a protective skeleton and, in the absence of an ozone layer, apparently had a limited ecological niche. At the turn of 540-550 Ma, there was a taxonomic explosion (massive, almost simultaneous appearance) of all the main types and classes of marine invertebrates, represented mainly by skeletal forms. However, the full development of life forms that occupied all the main biotopes on Earth occurred later, when the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere and hydrosphere increased significantly and the ozone screen began to stabilize.
All these events, on the one hand, are correlated with the largest geological events, and on the other hand, the explosive nature of these events requires the formation of new approaches to the construction of evolution scenarios based on the synthesis of classical Darwinian ideas and the theory of the development of large systems, which is in good agreement with the teachings of V.I. .Vernadsky about the biosphere as a global biogeochemical system of the Earth and modern ecological and geochemical models of different types of ecosystems. All major biotic crises correlate with major geological changes, but are prepared by the self-development of biological systems and the accumulation of ecological imbalances.
5. To what extent are photosynthesis and oxygen exchange obligatory and necessary conditions for the development of life on Earth? The transition from predominant chemosynthesis to chlorophyll-based photosynthesis probably occurred about 2 billion years ago, which may have served as the "energetic" prerequisite for the subsequent explosive increase in biodiversity on the planet. But in the last third of the 20th century, the phenomenon of the rapid development of life near hydrogen sulfide smokers on the ocean floor in total darkness was discovered and studied on the basis of chemosynthesis.
Local (point) distribution of "black smokers" and their confinement to certain geodynamic settings of the lithosphere (mid-ocean ridges - stretch zones earth's crust) are the most important limiting factors that prevent the formation on this basis of a spatial continuum of life on Earth in the form of a modern biosphere. The evolutionary potential of the endogenous sector of the biosphere is limited not only by spatial, but also by temporal limitations - the short-lived (on the scale of geological time) discrete nature of their existence, which is interrupted by the periodic damping of hydrotherms, and on a global scale by lithospheric rearrangements. Paleontological data show that in the geological past, the composition of the producers of these ecosystems (bacterial communities) remained practically unchanged, and the heterotrophic population was formed by emigrants from "normal" biotopes (facultative biocenoses). The ecosystem of "black smokers" can probably be considered as a good heuristic model for solving problems: 1) the early stages of the development of life on Earth in an oxygen-free atmosphere; 2) the possibilities of life on other planets; 3) the evolutionary potential of ecosystems that exist at the expense of endogenous and exogenous energy sources.
The list of problems of the origin and evolution of life that first arose or received new coverage in the light of the latest data from biology, geology, paleontology, oceanology and other branches of natural science can be continued. However, the above problems convincingly indicate that at the present stage of the development of our knowledge, the problem of interdisciplinary, systemic synthesis of this knowledge within the framework of a new paradigm, which academician N.N. Moiseev called "universal evolutionism", comes to the fore.
6. The regular and directed nature of macroevolution allows us to raise the question of the possibility of predicting evolution. The solution of this question is connected with the analysis of the ratios of necessary and random phenomena in the evolution of organisms. As is known, in philosophy the categories need and chance denote different types of connections between phenomena. The necessary connections are determined by the internal structure of the interacting phenomena, their essence, and fundamental features. On the contrary, random connections are external in relation to this phenomenon, being due to side factors that are not related to the essence of this phenomenon. At the same time, the accidental, of course, is not without cause, but its causes lie outside the cause-and-effect series that determines the essence of this phenomenon. Randomness and necessity are relative: what is random for one causal series is necessary for another, and when conditions change, random connections can turn into necessary ones, and vice versa. Statistical regularity is the identification of necessary, i.e., internal, essential connections among numerous external random interactions.
7. Among the central problems of the modern theory of evolution is co-evolution different types in natural communities and the evolution of the biological macrosystems themselves - biogeocenoses and the biosphere as a whole. Lively discussions continue about the role of neutral mutations and genetic drift in evolution, about the ratios of adaptive and non-adaptive evolutionary changes, about the essence and causes of typogenesis and typostasis in macroevolution, its uneven pace, morphophysiological progress, etc. Much remains to be done even in the most developed areas of evolutionary science - such as the theory of selection, the theory of biological species and speciation.
8. An urgent task of evolutionary science is to rethink and integrate the latest data and conclusions obtained in recent years in the field of molecular biology, ontogenetics and macroevolution. Some biologists speak of the need for a "new synthesis", emphasizing the obsoleteness of the classical ideas of the synthetic theory of evolution, which is, in essence, mainly the theory of microevolution, and the need to overcome the narrow reductionist approach characteristic of it.
Lecture #11
Subject. The main stages of chemical and biological evolution.
1. The emergence of life (biogenesis). Modern hypotheses of the origin of life.
2. Formation of cellular organization, development of metabolism and reproduction of protobionts. The problem of the origin of the genetic code.
The manifestations of life on Earth are extremely diverse. Life on Earth is represented by nuclear and pre-nuclear, unicellular and multicellular beings; multicellular, in turn, are represented by fungi, plants and animals. Any of these kingdoms combines various types, classes, orders, families, genera, species, populations and individuals.
In all the seemingly endless variety of living things, several different levels of organization of living things can be distinguished: molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, ontogenetic, population, species, biogeocenotic, biospheric. The listed levels are highlighted for ease of study. If we try to identify the main levels, reflecting not so much the levels of study as the levels of organization of life on Earth, then the main criteria for such a selection should be recognized
the presence of specific elementary, discrete structures and elementary phenomena. With this approach, it turns out to be necessary and sufficient to single out the molecular-genetic, ontogenetic, population-species and biogeocenotic levels (N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky and others).
Molecular genetic level. In the study of this level, apparently, the greatest clarity has been achieved in the definition of the basic concepts, as well as in the identification of elementary structures and phenomena. The development of the chromosomal theory of heredity, the analysis of the mutation process, and the study of the structure of chromosomes, phages, and viruses revealed the main features of the organization of elementary genetic structures and the phenomena associated with them. It is known that the main structures at this level (codes of hereditary information transmitted from generation to generation) are DNA, differentiated in length into code elements - triplets of nitrogenous bases that form genes.
Genes at this level of life organization represent elementary units. The main elementary phenomena associated with genes can be considered their local structural changes (mutations) and the transfer of information stored in them to intracellular control systems.
Covariant reduplication occurs according to the matrix principle by breaking the hydrogen bonds of the DNA double helix with the participation of the DNA polymerase enzyme (Fig. 4.2). Then each of the threads builds a corresponding thread for itself, after which the new threads are complementaryly connected to each other. The pyrimidine and purine bases of the complementary strands are hydrogen-bonded to each other by DNA polymerase. This process is very fast. Thus, only 100 s are required for self-assembly of Escherichia coli (Escherichia coli) DNA, which consists of approximately 40 thousand base pairs. Genetic information is transferred from the nucleus by mRNA molecules to the cytoplasm to the ribosomes and is involved in protein synthesis there. A protein containing thousands of amino acids is synthesized in a living cell in 5-6 minutes, while in bacteria it is faster.
factors.
At the ontogenetic level, the unit of life is an individual from the moment of its occurrence until death. In essence, ontogeny is the process of unfolding, realizing hereditary information encoded in the control structures of the germ cell. At the ontogenetic level, not only the realization hereditary information, but also its approbation by checking the consistency in the implementation of hereditary traits and the operation of control systems in time and space within the individual. Through the assessment of the individual in the process of natural selection, the viability of a given genotype is tested.
Ontogeny arose after the addition of convariant reduplication by new stages of development. In the course of evolution, the path from genotype to phenotype, from gene to trait, arises and gradually becomes more complicated. As will be shown below, the emergence of ontogenetic differentiation underlies the emergence of all evolutionary neoplasms in the development of any group of organisms. In a number of experimental embryological studies, significant particular patterns of ontogeny have been established (see Chap. 14). But a general theory of ontogeny has not yet been created. We still do not know why strictly defined processes in ontogeny occur at the right time and in the right place. So far, it can be assumed that cells serve as elementary structures at the ontogenetic level of life organization, and some processes associated with differentiation serve as elementary phenomena. In general terms, it is also clear that ontogeny occurs as a result of the work of a self-regulating hierarchical system that determines the coordinated realization of hereditary properties and the work of control systems within the individual. Individuals in nature are not absolutely isolated from each other, but are united by a higher rank of biological organization at the population-species level.
Population-species level. The combination of individuals into a population, and populations into species according to the degree of genetic and ecological unity, leads to the emergence of new properties and features in living nature, different from the properties of the molecular genetic and ontogenetic levels.
Literature
Pravdin F.N. Darwinism. M., 1973. S. 269-278
Konstantinov A.V. Fundamentals of evolutionary theory M., 1979. p.106
Yablokov A.V., Yusufov A.G. Evolutionary doctrine M., 1998. S.41-50
Must-see
The film was produced by the Living Waters team, who created the award-winning TV program The Way of the Master and the hit films 180 and Evolution Against God.
1 fact
Evolution theory tells us tales that it all happened very gradually. By gradual (step by step) complication and restructuring of the Russian stove into an internal combustion engine.
However, this explanation has two weaknesses. First of all, the famous "irreducible complexity" problem, that a complex functional system simply cannot be created in a step-by-step fashion. It must be collected immediately. Otherwise, it simply will not work (Darwinists have been "butting" with supporters of Intelligent Design for a long time about this problem).
- Second problem! If a complex feature was formed gradually, then, firstly, the corresponding paleontological traces of this evolution (the so-called "transitional forms") should remain, and secondly, a rather long evolutionary time is needed for such a scenario (gradual formation). And now, the second problem is that often (more precisely, almost always) - neither one nor the other is found in nature.
Instead, we observe a sudden "falling out of the singularity" (i.e. out of nowhere) of a complex feature immediately in finished form, and immediately with a new biological taxon that has this feature. It is clear that such a state of affairs (which is observed in fact) obviously contradicts the scenario of "gradual evolution of complex features".
Even in the first year of archeology, it is quite clearly explained that the transition link has not been found, and the existing finds are very doubtful. Everyone knows the fact
2 fact
70 -80% of the world's population are imitators and have no opinion of their own. As you were taught, so you will think according to the system. Take for example the famous story of Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit. Many will say that it was an apple, backing up their judgment with the Bible, but there is nothing like that in the book. Someone once decided that it must be an apple, and everyone else just believed.
The Bible does not state anywhere that the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate was an apple.
Only 20% can question another person's theory. This is the reason that for many years humanity has been deluded by Darwin's theory.
3 fact
Charles Darwin did not present in his book"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" no evidence, and was based only on his own conjectures and fantasies.
"After reading Darwin's Origin of Species from cover to cover, you can count at least 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood, such as "suppose ...", "probably ...", "possibly", "etc." L Merson Davies, Modern Science (1953), p.7.
There is still no direct evidence that humans evolved from apes. Scientists constantly put forward various hypotheses about the origin of man and evolution, but all of them are not particularly conclusive, without facts.
4 fact
Paradox of the current- this is indeed a very serious problem for Darwinism.
One of our most faithful Darwinists (of Russia), Alexander Markov, finally proved to himself that evolution is impossible. He did it in a very simple way. He just took it, and finally got acquainted with the famous paradox of the current.
The fact is that the so-called proves in fact that no evolution (even under the influence of the most powerful selection pressure) is impossible.
From myself I will add that the current paradox is indeed a very serious problem for Darwinism. In its extreme manifestations, refuting Darwinism in fact.
5 fact
Even nature decreed so, then for the subsequent preservation of a new species, its first representative needs a partner to continue the genus, therefore at least two individuals must evolve at the same time, which is impossible at the genetic level
This fact can already completely disprove the theory, but there is even stronger evidence. Until now, among the numerous fossil animals, no gene chain has been found that would clearly show the transition between the two species.
Every animal loves its like, and every man loves his neighbor. All flesh is united according to its kind, and man clings to his like - Bible Wisdom
6 fact
The Holy Faith of the Darwinists in that everything was randomly formed from nothing. Belief that there was nothing, nothing happened to anything, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-producing chunks, which then turned into people, animals and birds . Very meaningful...
But let's not encroach on their holy faith.
P.S. The big bang theory arose in the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. However, few people know that this theory has many opponents in the scientific community and, in particular, evolutionists. it sounds pretty implausible.
7 fact
Charles Darwin did not have his own laboratory and he did not receive special biological education , and had only amateur interest. He did all his research only superficially using primitive instruments.
As indirect evidence, one can cite the fact that when developing his theory, Darwin was not a biologist, he only loved nature and possessed rich imagination and fantasy.
This primitive microscope belonged to Darwin. He used it to study plants and insects while traveling in the Beagle.
Storing genetic information, subjected the theory to a complete collapse.
8 fact
The evolutionists fail find an acceptable explanation for the extraordinary diversity of languages and their complexity. It is impossible to establish or recreate any of the proto-languages that allegedly arose in an evolutionary way.
All agree with the fact that language is the main feature that distinguishes people from other biological species. In general, the gift of speech is inherent in all people, and none of the other living beings that inhabit the Earth.
I had to confess evolutionist Ashley Montagu: "Many 'primitive' languages ... are often much more complex and expressive than the languages of the so-called higher civilizations." The language, obviously, did not have a rough, primitive beginning. Although Ashley was an evolutionist for the rest of his life, he had many unanswered questions.
9 fact
Humans have 46 chromosomes, while monkeys have 48. Darwinists say that in the course of evolution the ape lost two chromosomes, but how can one evolve in mental development, having lost two chromosomes? It has been scientifically proven that the loss of chromosomes leads to degradation and subsequent death. Unfortunately, we can observe this phenomenon in our time.
Also, in the process of evolution, underdeveloped organs appear in animals, which in no way can contribute to existence on Earth.
10 fact
Darwin himself realized that in his theory there are, to put it mildly, huge gaps, which he wrote about in a specially highlighted chapter "Difficulties Encountered by Theory".
The hypothesis that evolutionary processes could create highly organized life from inanimate chaotic matter clearly contradicts one of the fundamental laws of physics, The second law of thermodynamics.
And although many people still hold on to this theory, nevertheless, every thinking person is well aware that our complex and wonderful world could not have happened on its own. It's obvious that he was created by Someone. And its Creator we call God.
XX III Lyubishchev's Readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2009. C. 113 – 124.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES IN THE LIFE AND CREATION OF LAMARCK AND DARWIN)
Nizhny Novgorod State University, Nizhny Novgorod
Great ancestors and modern assessments of their theories
In 2009, progressive mankind celebrates several significant dates in the development of evolutionism, which are interconnected. Firstly, it is 200 years since the publication of the book of the outstanding naturalist-encyclopedist Zh.B. Lamarck (1744-1829) "Philosophy of Zoology" (1809), containing provisions first evolutionary theory, the essence of which was "to recognize the natural origin and progressive development of the organic world along the path of complication, improvement (the law of gradations)" and "to prove the adaptive nature of the evolutionary process (Lamarck's first and second laws)" (Khokhryakov, 1984, p. 31) . Secondly, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great evolutionary biologist Ch.R. Darwin (1809-1882) and 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favorable Races in the Struggle for Life (1859).
If Lamarck's "Philosophy of Zoology" was not appreciated by his contemporaries for objective and subjective reasons (Puzanov, 1947), and his ideas are fairly objectively considered only recently (see Khokhryakov, 1984; Steele et al., 2002), then the book Darwin immediately stirred up the evolutionary and social thoughts of the world community, caused still ongoing discussions between representatives of various sectors of society, scientists, educators, politicians, and religions.
What are the reasons for such a long and active attention to the famous book?
Firstly, apparently, primarily in the fact that, like any classical work, it touched upon universal problems, and their analysis was so deep and clearly stated (in contrast to Lamarck's "scientific romanticism") that the reader finds in it "initiating" thoughts, in some way consonant with his own, in some way contradicting his worldview. The range of opinions about Darwin's concepts, as well as a century and a half ago, is extremely wide.
Secondly, it seems to me that the eternal debatability of Darwin's book is due to its methodological features. At first, being a believer, Darwin subsequently, under the influence of the facts revealed to him, began to consciously express materialistic views. However, at the same time, unfortunately, he was very far from dialectical views on nature, which was reflected in the inconsistency of his ideas about the factors of evolution. He was captured by the idea of the struggle of organisms for their existence (albeit in the most metaphorical sense). The consequence of this struggle, Darwin saw basically one thing - natural selection, which divergently gives rise to the most diverse adaptations of organisms, and hence their numerous species. Such an exaggeration of the role of struggle and selection led to oblivion of the obligatory dialectical opposites - the phenomena of cooperation of organisms and convergence, polyphilia and leaps in the process of historical development, etc.
The factors exaggerated by Darwin were further absolutized by many evolutionists of the past and present, while other researchers, on the contrary, considered them either secondary or non-existent (see Savinov, 2007a, 2008). When politicians also intervene in this process of evaluating Darwinian ideas and their practical use, then worldview and social conflicts acquire a tragic coloring (see, for example, Kolchinsky, 2006). All this created and maintains collisions both in the field of evolutionism and in other areas of the activity of society in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries.
Darwin, as a talented logician, far-sighted and painstaking researcher, is rightly assigned priority in justifying principles struggle for existence and natural selection in nature. Although it is important to note that several biologists, primarily English (W.C. Wells, P. Matthew, A. Wallace, etc.), were very close to this independently of each other, and some - much earlier than Darwin (see Sobol , 1962). Undoubtedly, the single vector of their conclusions was due to the reality of the phenomenon of selection. Obviously, two interrelated reasons contributed to this: 1) the peculiarities of the English mentality (the desire to think and act independently and actively, to be closer to nature and practical life) and 2) high level socio-economic development of England, which required an adequate state of theoretical and applied science, and provided with a proper community of scientists (see Le Bon, 1995).
When writing the book On the Origin of Species, Darwin relied on the achievements in theory and practice of many natural scientists. But his hesitations and doubts in the assessments of evolutionary positions, including his own, are known; there are discrepancies with his officially expressed opinions and the views that he expressed in personal letters (see Blyakher, 1971).
So, on the one hand, the provisions of the evolutionary theory of Lamarck, whom he called "the famous naturalist" in his book, undoubtedly had a significant influence on him. In particular, Darwin took into account Lamarck's concept of the evolutionary role behavior living organisms, manifested in exercise–non-exercise" organs. At least in The Origin of Species, Darwin considered this phenomenon important in the evolutionary "fate" of biological species, since, in his opinion, along with natural selection, it determines speciation.
On the other hand, in some personal letters, Darwin called Lamarck's Philosophy of Zoology "an absurd, albeit talented work", "a miserable book ... from which ... he could not take anything" (cited in: Mednikov, 1975, p. 12). Now it is difficult to judge what was behind such statements. I believe that officially stated views are more important for science. And the inconsistency, inconsistency of scientists' statements, obviously, reflects the main attribute of Science - Eternal Doubt.
Recognizing Lamarck's concept of the evolutionary role of the adaptation process, Darwin later tried to formulate a hypothesis about the mechanism of inheritance by descendants of somatic changes acquired by parents as a result of "exercise-non-exercise" of the relevant organs. It is believed that in solving this most complex issue, Darwin used the idea of the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates and his associates (“hippocraticists”) that the seed (sex cells) are formed from substances collected from the entire human body (Blyakher, 1971). Darwin put forward a similar hypothesis of pangenesis, according to which, under the influence of external influences, submicroscopic embryos-gemmules arise in various organs, which migrate through the distribution systems of the body into its germ cells. They are gemmules and transmit changes that have arisen in different parts of the body. As a result, offspring that have developed from altered germ cells are able to inherit the properties acquired by their parents during their lifetime. But Darwin still considered natural selection to be an evolutionary factor controlling the adequacy of inherited properties to the environment (and therefore being the main one).
Thus, despite the exaggeration of the role of the struggle for existence and selection, Darwin, thanks to Lamarck, tried to take into account the impact on the evolution of organisms of their needs. Unfortunately, in the following decades, these beginnings of a comprehensive approach to solving evolutionary problems were not accepted, forgotten, or distorted. As a result, evolutionary science is in the grip of a permanent crisis. Since A. Weisman “declared war” on the Lamarckian principle of “exercise-non-exercise”, and Darwin was attacked by clerics and anti-selectionists, the argumentation of radical opponents has not fundamentally changed. Once again, you can read about the "impregnability" of the "Weismann barrier", about the "evidence" of the inefficiency of natural selection or its absence in nature, and even in a scientific (!) (!?) of Marxism, Nietzscheanism and Freudianism, should begin “with Satan” (Rhodes, 2008, p. 89).
However, the growing understanding that the revival of such views only exacerbates the situation and prevents a rational change in the evolutionist paradigm is encouraging (see Grinchenko, 2004; Mamkaev, 2004; Zusmanovsky, 2007; Savinov, 2007a, 2008).
Considering the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin.
An Integrative Approach to Solving the Problems of Modern Evolutionism
Thanks to a number of fair comments by critics of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, many researchers have now realized that the dominant (in various versions) since the 30s of the last century synthetic theory of evolution(STE) is not a system of evolutionary knowledge adequate to the realities of the world. This is primarily due to the fact that the evolutionary factors (mutational variability, struggle for existence, natural selection, isolation, and population waves) absolutized by STE are insufficient to describe the real mechanisms of phylogenesis (see Savinov, 2008). For this reason, STE initially did not justify its name: it was not "aimed" at the "perception" of new data obtained (in classical and modern areas of biology) and their "synthesis", integration.
The difficult situation in modern evolutionism is caused by objective and subjective reasons. The most important of them is the reluctance of many evolutionists to rely on the corresponding philosophical laws or use them consistently, the preference for idealism over materialism (Ignatiev, 2004). Meanwhile, many evolutionary concepts contain rational provisions that must be separated from obviously unacceptable ones and combined into a rational theory.
In the current situation of "methodological uncertainty", it is possible to integrate the rational elements of alternative concepts through the consistent use of materialist dialectic(MD). This will serve to resolve the current conflict and prevent new confrontations that hinder the development of science. After all, true dialectics is "thinking in polarities", i.e. inextricably linked, interacting opposites(Zelenov, 2007). MD Laws ( the transition from quantity to quality, unity and opposition of opposites, negation of negation, the spiral course of the historical development of the material world) are not the fruit of ideological tricks, they are objective (see Brief ..., 2004).
Dialectical logic and the system-cybernetic approach generated by it make it possible to naturally combine the rational elements of alternative evolutionary concepts. Thanks to this methodology, provisions can be formulated that take into account the presence of such, for example, dialectical pairs: "tychogenesis - nomogenesis", "antagonism - cooperation of organisms (symbiogenesis)", "endogenous mutation process - exogenous ecosystem factors", "genotype - phenotype" (Savinov , 2007a, 2008). Based on these methodological guidelines and in accordance with the proposed the principle of integration of rational elements of the developed evolutionary theories , the author started the development of philosophical, methodological and general biological foundations integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution (ITE) (Savinov, 2008). The criteria for the rationality of the elements combined in the ITE are determined by compliance with: 1) the laws of MD, the principles of the system-cybernetic approach and biosystemology (Savinov, 2006); 2) practical achievements of the natural sciences.
In general, any theory is system generalized knowledge about a certain set of material objects and phenomena, including, first of all, philosophical foundations(corresponding logic) and methodology formation of concepts and operating with them (Kratkiy…, 2004). Thus, in order to create and further improve the rational theory of evolution, first of all, it is necessary to consistently use the corresponding philosophical laws, philosophical categories and, on this basis, form a system of categories of evolutionary biology. After all, each scientific field, including biology, has its own categories - general, basic (especially important) concepts (see Levin, 2007), which are also used to identify the laws of this scientific field (see Furman, 1974).
As already mentioned, for the formation of ITE it is proposed to consider dialectical pairs alternative biological phenomena and objects previously artificially separated in conflicting evolutionary concepts. The interconnection of the dialectical pairs themselves, which together make up single system. I will try to start such a dialectical study, taking into account the experience in creating a dialectical concept of development in biology (see Furman, 1974), based on the fundamental ideas of Lamarck and Darwin. At the same time, due to the novelty and complexity of the questions posed, which require a large amount of theoretical development and their large-scale presentation, the author can only touch on some aspects of the developed theory in this article.
The dialectical pair "nomogenesis – quietogenesis" . In this case, it is necessary to use the philosophical categories "accident" and "necessity" (regularity). Regularity (necessity) is what, firstly, is determined by the very essence of a phenomenon or object (material system) (Kratkiy…, 2004; Ivlev, 1997). Secondly, the natural (law) is “the continuously reproducing necessity of certain phenomena” (Furman, 1974, p. 75), which necessarily occur in the main one way and not otherwise (Kratkiy…, 2004). On the contrary, randomness is something that “has a basis and a reason predominantly not in itself ... that follows not from the main connections and relationships, but from side ones ...” (Kratkiy ..., 2004, p. 250; see also - Ivlev, 1997).
Genetic conditioning of the organism's phenotype in the main- this is the regularity (see Ivlev, 1997), i.e. nomogenetic component of evolution. “Randomness is the ambiguous conditionality of a trait by the specifics of the genetic material” (Ivlev, 1997, p. 119). In this understanding, the mutation process is a quiet genetic component of evolution, basically a stochastic process, mainly due to external factors.
Living beings belonging to a certain biological species have common (species) features that arise in the process of phylogenesis and are inherited. But from the dialectical point of view, these necessary (specific) features always exist in individual form, which is random with respect to the required basis (see Kratkiy…, 1979). “Some of these initially random for a given (biological - A.S.) the type of signs in the course (historical - A.S.) development are fixed, inherited and become necessary, and those of the necessary features that turn out to be inappropriate in another (new - A.S.) environment, disappear, appearing in subsequent generations only in the form of ... (atavism - A.S.), i.e. random feature” (Kratkiy…, 1979, p. 201). This is how the transition of chance into necessity and the transformation of necessity into chance takes place.
It was noted above that the mutation process is stochastic only in the main. Indeed, various types of mutations (gene, chromosomal, genomic, extranuclear) occur primarily under the influence of external (environmental) mutagenic factors. However, there are reasons to believe that the phenomenon is dialectical here as well. Evidence is accumulating that mutations can be not only random, but also necessary to a certain extent. This is evidenced, for example, by the phenomenon of "adaptive mutagenesis" in microorganisms. In a certain sense, this is also indicated by the epigenetic phenomena caused by external factors (methylation, DNA acetylation), which led to the introduction and use of the concept of "epimutation".
Dialectical pair "genotype - phenotype" . Each system of the organismal level in its most general form is the dialectical unity of the genotype (control subsystem - PM) and phenotype (executive subsystem - IE), interacting on the basis of direct(from UE to IP) and reverse(from IP to UP) informationconnections(Savinov, 2006). This eliminates the conflict between supporters of endogenesis and ectogenesis, since the cybernetic model integrates the rational elements of both approaches. According to this cybermodel, the evolution of systems at the organismal level occurs through coordinated transformations of genotypes and phenotypes, on the one hand, under the influence of environmental changes. This is the result of regular, evolutionarily long-term effects of environmental factors on the phenotype, which gradually translates them to the genotype, where various kinds of mutations of “ectogenetic origin” occur, giving qualitatively and quantitatively different geno- and phenotypic effects. In this case, ectogenetic information through a number of intraorganismal mediator molecules circulating in the system of substance transport, after evolutionary long "exercises" of the corresponding structures, enters the genome of the germ cells of the organism (where it is fixed) and is transmitted to descendants. On the other hand, the dominant alternative process of counteracting genetic changes (reparation), including environmentally conditioned ones, is continuous. After all, such changes to a certain extent violate the species-specific genetic program of "life preservation", i.e. the nature of condensation and dispersion of matter, absorption and release of energy during the interaction of a given biological species with an ecosystem. The contradictory interaction of the genotype and phenotype (with the leading role of the genotype) in a series of ontogenies is the phylogeny of a given biological species. The genotype mainly determines heredity, the phenotype - variability.
Within the new categories, I propose to highlight specific systems: autogene (syngen) – systemgenotypes demogene– system of autogenomes in democenosis; specialogene – demogenome system in a special cenosis; auto dryer(sinphenom) – phenotype system the host and its symbionts in autocenosis; demophenome – system of autophenomes in democenosis; speciophenome - demophenome system in a special community.
In the STE, due to ignoring symbiogenesis, individuals (organisms) are recognized as elements of the population level system, and the population is represented by an elementary evolutionary unit (EEE). Obviously, democenosis should be considered as EEE in ITE. Of course, this does not preclude the use of the classical categories of "organism" and "population" if such a reduction degree in relation to biosystems is correct when solving certain issues.
Thus, already now (and in the future) the ITE is based on consideration of a number of dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors and systems: “genotype – phenotype”, “nomogenesis – tychogenesis”; "endogenesis - ectogenesis"; "monophilia - polyphilia"; "divergence - convergence"; “gradualism – saltationism”, “antagonism – cooperation (symbiogenesis)”, etc. Proceeding from this, evolution seems to be a process of development of contradictions in the system of these dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors. In accordance with this understanding of the nature of phylogeny, ITE can be continuously developed and improved, since it is always “open” to consider new (and in-depth analysis of known) dialectical pairs of evolutionary factors that are identified as various areas of biology develop.
LITERATURE
Blyakher L.Ya. The problem of inheritance of acquired traits. Moscow: Nauka, 1971.
Grinchenko S.N. The system memory of the living. M.: IPI RAN, Mir, 2004. 512 p.
Zelenov L.A. Dialectical Method // Philosophy and Society. 2007. No. 1. S. 5–13.
Zusmanovsky A.G. Evolution from the point of view of a physiologist. Ulyanovsk: UlGSHA, 2007.
Ignatiev V.A. On the lines of Plato and Democritus in the development of culture // Philosophy and Society. 2004. No. 2. S. 99–124.
Kolchinsky E.I. Biology of Germany and Russia-USSR in the conditions of socio-political crises of the first half of the 20th century (between liberalism, communism and national socialism). St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Nestor-History", 2006. 638 p.
Brief Dictionary of Philosophy. M.: Politizdat, 1979. 414 p.
Brief philosophical dictionary. M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2004. 496 p.
Lebon G. Psychology of socialism. St. Petersburg: Maket, 1995. 544 p.
Mamkaev Yu.V. Darwinism and nomogenesis // Fundamental Zoological Research. Theory and methods. M.–SPb.: T-vo nauchn. editions of KMK, 2004, pp. 114–143.
Mednikov B.M. Darwinism in the 20th century. M.: Sov. Russia, 1975. 224 p.
Puzanov I.I. Jean Baptiste Lamarck. M.: Izd-vo MOIP, 1947. 40 p.
Rhodes V.B. Darwinism // Vestn. Tomsk. state university Philosophy. 2008. No. 1(2). pp. 89–119.
Savinov A.B. New population paradigm: population as a symbiotic self-governing system // Vestn. Nizhny Novgorod. un-ta im. N.I. Lobachevsky. Ser. Biology. 2005. Issue. nineteen). pp. 181–196. (/savinov.htm)
Savinov A.B. Biosystemology (system foundations of the theory of evolution and ecology). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house of UNN, 2006. 205 p. (/Macroevolution/savinov.doc)
Savinov A.B. The problem of a new evolutionary paradigm (philosophical, systemic and general biological aspects) // XXI Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2007a. pp. 60–72. (/savinov2007.htm)
Savinov A.B. Integrative theory of evolution (to the 35th anniversary of the publication of the article by A.A. Lyubishchev “On the postulates of modern selectogenesis”) // XXII Lyubishchev readings. Modern problems of evolution. T. 1. Ulyanovsk: UlGPU, 2008. S. 107–116. (/Macroevolution/savinov2008.doc)
Sobol S.L. The principle of natural selection in the works of some English biologists 10 – 30s of the nineteenth century. // History of biological sciences. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. S. 17.
Steele E., Lindley R., Blunden R. What if Lamarck is right? Immunology and evolution. M.: Mir, 2002. 235 p.
Furman A.E. The dialectical concept of development in modern biology. M.: Higher. school, 1974. 272 p.
Khokhryakov A.P. Adaptation genesis as the main content of the evolutionary process and its possible driving forces // Evolutionary research. Macroevolution. Vladivostok: DVNTs AN SSSR, 1984, pp. 24–32.
Savinov A.B.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF LIFE AND CREATIVITY
Lamarck and Darwin)
The ideas of Lamarck and Darwin laid the foundations of evolutionary doctrine. Taking these ideas into account, the author develops an integrative (symbiotic) theory of evolution, which makes it possible to combine rational elements of conflicting evolutionary concepts.
DEVELOPMENT THE INTEGRATIVE (SYMBIOTIC) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(TO SIGNIFICANT DATES OF THE LIFE AND CREATIVITY
LAMARK AND DARWIN)
Ideas Lamark and Darwin have put in pawn bases of the theory of evolution. In view of these ideas the author develops integrative (symbiotic) theory of the evolution, allowing to unite rational elements of clashing evolutionary concepts.
M.: Indrik, 2014.
The collection was prepared for the anniversary of the Doctor of Historical Sciences Irina Gennadievna Konovalova, Deputy. Director, Chief Researcher, Head Department of Special Historical Disciplines and Head. Center for Historical Geography of the Institute world history Russian Academy of Sciences, the largest orientalist in our country, author of a large number of studies and publications of sources, an outstanding specialist in the field of historical geography, executive editor of the almanac "Historical Geography" recently organized by her. The collection includes articles by her colleagues and friends written in the following areas: historical geography, humanitarian and cultural geography, history of geography and cartography.
For historians, geographers, philologists.
The article deals with the unequal position of school teachers in various regions of the Russian Federation. There are numerous research works on the relationship between the salaries of school teachers and regional educational and economic systems. In world practice big number indicators can be used to track the salaries of school teachers. It is necessary to take into account the ratio of teachers' salaries to the average salary in the region, which acts as a target indicator in state programs, in combination with other indicators, such as: the ratio of teachers' salaries to the cost of a fixed set of goods and services, as well as the ratio of the fund remuneration of teachers to the total volume of expenditures of regional budgets. A study based on cluster data analysis allowed the author to identify four types of regions. Official data provided by the Federal State Statistics Service of the Federal Treasury were used. The recommendations developed for each cluster of regions are aimed at improving the effectiveness of educational policy through the differentiation of support measures from the federal government
Hyafil A., Fontolan L., Kabdebon C. et al. eLife. 2015. No. 4. P. 1-45.
Many environmental stimuli present a quasi-rhythmic structure at different timescales that the brain needs to decompose and integrate. Cortical oscillations have been proposed as instruments of sensory de-multiplexing, i.e., the parallel processing of different frequency streams in sensory signals. Yet their causal role in such a process has never been demonstrated. Here, we used a neural microcircuit model to address whether coupled theta-gamma oscillations, as observed in human auditory cortex, could underpin the multiscale sensory analysis of speech. We show that, in continuous speech, theta oscillations can flexibly track the syllabic rhythm and temporally organize the phoneme-level response of gamma neurons into a code that enables syllable identification. The tracking of slow speech fluctuations by theta oscillations, and its coupling to gamma-spiking activity both appeared as critical features for accurate speech encoding. These results demonstrate that cortical oscillations can be a key instrument of speech de-multiplexing, parsing, and encoding.
The review examines and analyzes the main ideas of D. Dennett regarding the nature of human consciousness. Particular attention is paid to such topics as intentionality, the possibility of artificial intelligence, evolutionary biology and the emergence of language.
This article continues the topic of similarities and differences between social and biological evolution and is a continuation of the article published in the first issue of the almanac "Evolution" (Grinin, Markov, Korotaev 2009). Since the comparison of biological and social macro-evolution is an extremely important, but, unfortunately, little developed topic, in some places of the introduction it will be necessary to repeat some of what was discussed in the first article.
Whatever deep meaning we are looking for in life, nature has its own answer to this question: the continuation of life. But how do we manage to adapt for so many thousands of years and find new ways to survive in the process of evolution? Humanity has an answer to this question: the mind is probably the pinnacle of the adaptation of a living being to nature. But how does this object of a truly cosmic scale function? Together with the journalists of the Nauka TV channel, Alexander Kaplan tried to unravel the riddle of the human brain. In this book, leading Russian neuroscientists, linguists, anthropologists, paleontologists, biochemists and evolutionary biologists express their opinion on the structure and evolution of the human brain. More details: https://www.labirint.ru/books/621583/.
Svetunkov S. G. In the book: Methodological problems of the multilevel theory of competition. St. Petersburg: Levsha-St. Petersburg, 2016. Ch. 1. S. 5-9.
It is shown that the competitive struggle in the economy, acquiring various forms, contributes to the evolutionary development of society. An analogy is drawn with the competition and struggle for existence of Charles Darwin.
Kornienko D.S., Kozlova M., Kozlov A. I. Perm: Perm State Humanitarian and Pedagogical University, 2016.
The textbook is devoted to the consideration of the evolutionary history of the genus Homo and the species Homo sapiens (human of modern appearance) in the context of general and social ecology. Certain issues concerning the social ecology of modern man are considered in the evolutionary and historical perspective.
Oster A., Faure P., Gutkin B. BioRxiv. http://dx.doi.org/. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2014. No. 10.1101/008920.
Midbrain ventral segmental area (VTA) dopaminergic neurons send numerous projections to cortical and sub-cortical areas, and diffusely release dopamine (DA) to their targets. DA neurons display a range of activity modes that vary in frequency and degree of burst ring. Importantly, DA neuronal bursting is associated with a significantly greater degree of DA release than an equivalent tonic activity pattern. Here, we introduce a single compartmental, conductance-based computational model for DA cell activity that captures the behavior of DA neuronal dynamics and examine the multiple factors that underlie DA firing modes: the strength of the SK conductance, the amount of drive, and GABA inhibition. Our results suggest that neurons with low SK conductance are in a fast firing mode, are correlated with burst firing, and require higher levels of applied current before undergoing depolarization block. We go on to consider the role of GABAergic inhibition on an ensemble of dynamical classes of DA neurons and find that strong GABA inhibition suppresses burst firing. Our studies suggest differences in the distribution of the SK conductance and GABA inhibition levels may indicate subclasses of DA neurons within the VTA. We further identify, that by considering alternate potassium dynamics, the dynamics display burst patterns that terminate via depolarization block, akin to those observed in vivo in VTA DA neurons and in substantia nigra pars compacta DA cell preparations under apamin application. In addition, we consider the generation of transient burst ring events that are NMDA-initiated or elicited by a sudden decrease of GABA inhibition, that is, disinhibition.
Hypoxia of trophoblast cells is an important regulatory factor in the normal development of the placenta. However, the effect of hypoxia on the placenta in a number of pathological conditions, such as preeclampsia, leads to impaired cell function. The oxyquinoline derivative is able to inhibit HIF prolyl hydroxylases, stabilizing the HIF-1 transcription complex and simulating the cell response to hypoxia. BeWo b30 human choriocarcinoma cells are used to model the trophoblast, which is the basis of the placental barrier. Under the influence of oxyquinoline, not only an increase in the expression of a number of genes of the "response core" to hypoxia was revealed, but also an increase in the expression of the NOS3, PDK1, BNIP3 genes and a decrease in the expression of the PPARGC1B gene. This indicates the activation of the mechanisms of metabolic reprogramming of cells aimed at reducing oxygen consumption due to a decrease in the number of mitochondria and the transition from aerobic to anaerobic glucose metabolism. The possibility of practical application of the obtained results is discussed.
3rd international conference "Modern problems of biological evolution", dedicated to the 130th anniversary of the birth of N.I. Vavilov and the 110th anniversary of the founding of the State Darwin Museum.
Institute of Problems of Ecology and Evolution. A. N. Severtsov RAS
Institute of General Genetics. N.I. Vavilov RAS
Paleontological Institute. A. A. Borisyak RAS
Institute of Developmental Biology N.K. Koltsov RAS
Department of Biological Evolution, Lomonosov Moscow State University M. V. Lomonosov
Department of higher nervous activity Moscow State University M. V. Lomonosov
State Darwin Museum
Information mail.
Dear colleagues!
We invite you to take part in the III International Conference "Modern Problems of Biological Evolution", which will be held October 16-20, 2017 at the State Darwin Museum.
Papers containing empirical research or theoretical reviews in the following areas are accepted for participation in the conference:
evolutionary genetics
View and speciation
Intraspecific differentiation and adaptation
Evolution of ontogeny
Evolutionary morphology and paleontology
Behavior evolution
Community evolution, evolutionary biogeography
History of evolutionary research
Popularization of evolutionary theory and museum work
