| This contest is fueled by the following news: |
| 
There are five siblings living in Turkey who would walk on only all four and who could provide researchers with an insight into human evolution. The three sisters and two brothers may yield clues about how our ancestors transitioned from walking on four legs to walking on two legs, according to Professor Nicholas Humphrey, an expert in the U.K. He rejects the idea that there is a gene for bipedism or upright walking. Humphrey, from the London School of Economics, says that our own species transition to upright walking must have been a far more complex process than involved changes to the skeleton and to the genetic makeup of human beings. A German group counters, however, arguing that a genetic abnormality does not seem to be involved in the siblings who are walking on all fours.
Some insights into the theory of evolution:
The reopening of the laws of Mendel took place in 1900 in three different countries: Holland (Gugo de Friz 1848-1935), Germany (Karl Erich Korrens 1864-1933) and Austria (Erich Phon Chermak 1871-1962), who simultaneously found forgotten works of Mendel. In 1902, Wolter Satton (Seton, 1876-1916) gave cytological justification to mendelism: diploid and haploid kits, homologous chromosomes, the process of pairing during meiosis, predictionof linking of genes located in one chromosome, the concept about dominance and recessiveness, and also allelic genes – all this was demonstrated on cytological preparations, based on the accurate calculations of Mendeliev algebra and differing a lot from hypothetic descent trees, from the style of naturalistic Darwinism of the 19thcentury. The mutative theory of De Friza (1901-1903) was not accepted not only by the conservativeness of orthodox Darwinists but also in that the investigators could not get the same results on other trees in what they got on Oenothera lamarkiana: a wide spectrum of volatility. (now it is known, that Oenothera– polymorphic kinds having chromosome translocation, a part of which heterozygous, but homozygote are lethal. De Friz chosen a very successful object for getting the mutations and simultaneously not fully successful, as in his case there was a requirement of proof achieved in the results on other types of plants). De Friz and his Russian predecessor botanist Sergei Ivanovich Korzhinski (1861-1900), who wrote in 1899 (Petersburg) about sudden uneven "heterogeneous" deviations, they thought that the possibility of a demonstration of macro mutations rejects the Darwin theory. At the dawn of the formation of genetics, many concepts came out, according to which evolution was not dependent from external mediums. Darwinists had criticized even Nederland’s botanic Jan Paulus Lotsi (1867-1931), who wrote the book "Evolution by hybridization", where he fairly paid attention to the role of hybridization in the formation of plants.
If in the middle of the 18th century, there were insuperable contradictions between the transformism (continuous change) and discreteness of taxonomic units, but in the 19th century there was thinking that the gradualist tree, built based on the relationship entered in to the contradiction with the discreteness of heredity material. Evolution by visually differentiating big mutations could not be accepted by the gradualism of Darwinists.
Thomas Gent Morgan (1886-1945) returned the trust to the mutations and their role in the formation of variability of types, when this American embryologist and zoologist in 1910 shifted to genetic studies and finally stopped at his selection on well known drosophila. Probably, you need not be surprised, that after 20-30 years after the events being described, popular genetics have come to the evolution through macro mutation (which was accepted as less probable), but not through steady and gradual change of frequencies of allelic genes in populations. As macro evolution by that time was interpreted by the indisputable continuation of studied events of micro evolution, gradualness had become a non-separable part of the evolution process. The return to the Leibnitsev "law of continuity” took place at a new level and in first half of the 20th century, there was a synthesis of evolution and genetics. In turn the concepts, which were never the opposite, joined. (The names and conclusions of evolutionists and the chronology were taken from the book of Nikolai Nikolaevich Vorontsov, "Growth of evolutionary ideas in biology", 1999)
Let us remember, that in the light of new biological ideas put forward from the position of materialism, again the distance is being increased from the law of continuity, now already not from geneticists, but from evolutionists. Well known S. J. Guld raised the issue about punctualism (the broken equilibrium), against the generally accepted gradualism, so it can become possible to explain the reasons of the already obvious picture of the absence among the fossils of the remains of transition forms, i.e. the impossibility to build a really continuous line of relations from the sources to modernity. There is always a break in the geological chronicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
