There is a hypothesis about the possible introduction of bacteria, microbes and other tiny organisms through the introduction of celestial bodies. Organisms developed and as a result of long-term transformations, life gradually appeared on Earth. The hypothesis considers organisms that can function even in an anoxic environment and at abnormally high or low temperatures.

This is due to the presence of migrant bacteria on asteroids and meteorites, which are fragments from collisions of planets or other bodies. Due to the presence of a wear-resistant outer shell, as well as due to the ability to slow down all life processes (sometimes turning into a spore), this kind of life is able to move for a very long time and over very long distances.

When getting into more hospitable conditions, “intergalactic travelers” activate the main life-supporting functions. And without realizing it, they form, over time, life on Earth.

The fact of the existence of synthetic and organic substances today is undeniable. Moreover, back in the nineteenth century, the German scientist Friedrich Wöhler synthesized organic matter (urea) from inorganic matter (ammonium cyanate). Then hydrocarbons were synthesized. Thus, life on planet Earth quite likely originated by synthesis from inorganic material. Through abiogenesis, theories of the origin of life are put forward.

Since the main role in the structure of any organic organism is played by amino acids. It would be logical to assume that they were involved in the settlement of the Earth with life. Based on the data obtained from the experiment of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey (the formation of amino acids by passing an electric charge through gases), we can talk about the possibility of the formation of amino acids. After all, amino acids are the building blocks with which complex systems of the body and any life, respectively, are built.

Cosmogonic hypothesis

Probably the most popular interpretation of all, which every student knows. The Big Bang Theory has been and remains a hot topic of discussion. The Big Bang came from a singular point of energy accumulation, as a result of which the Universe expanded significantly. Cosmic bodies were formed. Despite all the consistency, the Big Bang Theory does not explain the formation of the universe itself. As a matter of fact, no existing hypothesis can explain it.

Symbiosis of organelles of nuclear organisms

This version of the origin of life on Earth is also called endosymbiosis. The clear provisions of the system were drawn up by the Russian botanist and zoologist K. S. Merezhkovsky. The essence of this concept lies in the mutually beneficial cohabitation of the organelle with the cell. Which, in turn, suggests endosymbiosis, as a symbiosis beneficial for both parties with the formation of eukaryotic cells (cells in which a nucleus is present). Then, with the help of the transfer of genetic information between bacteria, their development and population increase were carried out. According to this version, all further development of life and life forms is due to the previous ancestor of modern species.

Spontaneous generation

This kind of statement in the nineteenth century, could not be taken without a share of skepticism. The sudden appearance of species, namely the formation of life from non-living things, seemed like a fantasy for people of that time. At the same time, heterogenesis (the method of reproduction, as a result of which individuals are born that are very different from the parents) was recognized as a reasonable explanation of life. A simple example would be the formation of a complex viable system from decaying substances.

For example, in the same Egypt, Egyptian hieroglyphs report the appearance of a diverse life from water, sand, decaying and rotting plant remains. This news would not have surprised the ancient Greek philosophers. There, the belief about the origin of life from the inanimate was perceived as a fact that did not require substantiation. The great Greek philosopher Aristotle spoke of the visible truth this way: “aphids are formed from rotten food, Crocodile is the result of processes in rotting logs under water.” Mysteriously, but despite all sorts of persecution from the church, the conviction under the bosom of mystery lived for a century.

Debates about life on Earth cannot go on forever. That is why, at the end of the nineteenth century, the French microbiologist and chemist Louis Pasteur carried out his analyzes. His research was strictly scientific. The experiment was carried out in 1860-1862. Thanks to the removal of disputes from a sleepy state, Pasteur was able to solve the problem of the spontaneous generation of life. (For which he was awarded the prize by the French Academy of Sciences)

Creation of existence from ordinary clay

It sounds like madness, but in reality this topic has the right to life. After all, it is not in vain that the Scottish scientist, A.J. Cairns-Smith, put forward a protein theory about life. Strongly forming the basis of similar studies, he talked about the interaction at the molecular level between organic components and simple clay ... Being under its influence, the components formed stable systems in which changes occurred in the structure of both components, and then the formation of a sustainable life. In such a unique and original way, Kearns-Smith explained his position. Clay crystals, with biological inclusions in it, gave birth to life together, after which their “cooperation” ended.

Theory of permanent catastrophes

According to the concept developed by Georges Cuvier, the world that you can see right now is not at all primary. And what he is, so it's just another link in a consistently torn chain. This means that we live in a world that will eventually undergo a mass extinction of life. At the same time, not everything on Earth was subjected to global destruction (for example, there was a flood). Some species, in the course of their adaptability, survived, thereby populating the Earth. The structure of species and life, according to Georges Cuvier, remained unchanged.

Matter as an objective reality

The main theme of the teaching is various spheres and areas that bring closer to understanding evolution from the point of view of the exact sciences. (materialism is a worldview in philosophy that reveals all causal circumstances, phenomena and factors of reality. Laws are applicable to man, society, the Earth). The theory was put forward by well-known adherents of materialism, who believe that life on Earth originated from transformations at the level of chemistry. Moreover, they occurred almost 4 billion years ago. The explanation of life has a direct connection with DNA, (deoxyribonucleic acid) RNA (ribonucleic acid), as well as some HMCs (high molecular weight compounds, in this case proteins.)

The concept was formed through scientific research, revealing the essence of molecular and genetic biology, genetics. The sources are authoritative, especially given their youth. After all, studies of the hypothesis about the world of RNA began to be carried out at the end of the twentieth century. A huge contribution to the theory was made by Carl Richard Woese.

Teachings of Charles Darwin

Speaking about the origin of species, it is impossible not to mention such a truly brilliant person as Charles Darwin. His life's work, natural selection, laid the foundation for mass atheist movements. On the other hand, it gave an unprecedented impetus to science, an inexhaustible ground for research and experimentation. The essence of the doctrine was the survival of species throughout history, by adapting organisms to local conditions, the formation of new features that help in a competitive environment.

Evolution refers to some processes aimed at changing the life of an organism and the organism itself over time. Under hereditary traits, they mean the transfer of behavioral, genetic, or other kind of information (transmission from maternal to child.)

The main forces of the movement of evolution, according to Darwin, is the struggle for the right to exist, through the selection and variability of species. Under the influence of Darwinian ideas, at the beginning of the twentieth century, research was actively carried out in terms of ecology, as well as genetics. The teaching of zoology has changed radically.

Creation of God

Many people from all over the globe still profess faith in God. Creationism is an interpretation of the formation of life on Earth. The interpretation consists of a system of statements based on the Bible and considers life as a being created by a creator god. The data is taken from the "Old Testament", "Gospel" and other sacred writings.

Interpretations of the creation of life in different religions are somewhat similar. According to the Bible, the earth was created in seven days. The sky, the celestial body, water and the like, were created in five days. On the sixth day, God created Adam from clay. Seeing a bored, lonely man, God decided to create another miracle. Taking Adam's rib, he created Eve. The seventh day was recognized as a day off.

Adam and Eve lived without trouble, until the malevolent devil in the form of a snake decided to tempt Eve. After all, in the middle of paradise stood the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The first mother invited Adam to share the meal, thereby violating the word given to God (he forbade touching the forbidden fruits.)

The first people are expelled into our world, thereby starting the history of all mankind and life on Earth.

At school, we were taught that life appeared on Earth by chance in a “primordial soup” several (1.5-3) billion years ago, after which, gradually developing, it reached such a variety that we see now. Although not a single case of spontaneous generation of life has been found, evolutionists, under the spell of their “religion,” are ready to believe in any nonsense, if only they would not recognize the creation of life by God.

Back in the 19th century, L. Pasteur established the great truth - "Everything that lives is from life." In order to reject it as leading to "priestly nonsense", it was possible to adjust the facts to the necessary hypothesis.

The goal was achieved, and now all textbooks contain a description of Stanley Miller's experiment, which supposedly proved that life on Earth originated by chance.

What is the point of that experiment? S. Miller in 1953 passed through a mixture of heated gases (steam, methane, ammonia and hydrogen) an electric coronary discharge. As a result of each cycle, an insignificant amount of liquid accumulated in the accumulator was formed. A week later, enough material had accumulated to make it possible to analyze this liquid, in which several of the simplest amino acids (which make up proteins) and other organic compounds were found. It was claimed that this allegedly confirmed Oparin's hypothesis about the self-emergence of life on Earth.

As a rule, however, they forget that in the experiment they used a storage device that did not exist in nature and without which the same electrical discharges would have destroyed the alleged “proto-life” in the bud. This process is as productive as trying to build a house, for which the conveyor releases bricks, which are immediately broken by a hammer. They forget that amino acids and even proteins are far from being life. They forget that the main thing in the cell is the genetic code, and its origin is the deepest mystery for evolutionists.

It should be noted that Miller's initial assumptions about the absence of oxygen in the Earth's primary atmosphere are incorrect: it was found that 70% of atmospheric oxygen is of abiogenic origin (as evidenced by the existence of Precambrian iron sulfides), which means that the process of formation of amino acids could not occur, because they would be oxidized to the simplest gases.

Evolutionists also cannot explain the presence in a living cell of only left-handed amino acids: after all, the presence of at least one right-handed (optically) isomer makes a protein lifeless. In Miller's experiment, 50% of each of these isomers was obtained, which means that even the probability of random synthesis of the necessary amino acids is negligible.

In general, evolutionists, instead of explaining the appearance of a specific organism, begin to talk about some fantastic chimera - a "protocell" that no one has ever seen before. This is understandable. After all, the complexity of the most “primitive” cell is such that even now it cannot be not only synthesized, but even resurrected by the world's best scientists with all their advanced technology. What a "wise guy" you have to be to believe that unreasonable, dead matter "accidentally" could give rise to life!

Let us present a number of estimates of the probability of spontaneous generation of life. Fred Hoyle cited the following data: "If you calculate how many combinations of amino acids are generally possible in the formation of enzymes, the probability of their random occurrence by random enumeration is less than 1 in 10 40,000". And this is only the probability of the formation of enzymes - only some elements of the cell!

Marcel Golet argued that for the appearance of the simplest self-reproducing system, it is necessary that 1,500 random events occur in a strict sequence, each of which has a probability of 1 out of 2. This means that the probability of a random occurrence of the simplest life (and not existing now - since all the simplest organisms known to science are much more complex than the hypothetical system for which the probability of random occurrence was estimated) will be equal to one chance in 10,450. This, of course, is practically zero, because any event that has a probability of less than 1 chance in 10 50 is considered unreal.

Thus, life, of course, appeared only from the Living One, and anyone who denies this only confirms the correctness of the words of the prophet David about the intellectual state of an atheist (“The fool has said in his heart: “There is no God”” (Ps. 13, 1)). One has only to learn from the power of their conviction - how they believe in something that is absolutely crazy and stupid for anyone with a sober mind!

How did living beings appear on Earth?

Initially, the Church taught that God created in the days of creation all kinds of living beings. Then they developed under the leadership of the living logoi of the creature, which directed them to the goal. But they never go beyond the primordially created races. The experience of the entire history of mankind has clearly confirmed this truth, and amazing examples of the adaptation of living beings to the conditions of their existence have always been considered as teleological proof of the existence of God.

The theory of evolution assumes the incessant spontaneous complication of the system of living organisms, while everyday experience shows, rather, the opposite. Everything in the Universe, left to its own devices, rushes towards chaos, not order (leave a bucket on the street and it will not evolve into something new in speed, but will rust). This is exactly what the second law of thermodynamics says. It forbids evolution.

This law applies to both open and closed systems, and the chaotic influx of solar energy does not at all decrease, but, on the contrary, increases entropy (a measure of the system's randomness). A good example of chaotic energy at work is a rabid elephant hitting a china shop or a bomb hitting a building materials warehouse. It is clear that neither a new building nor a luxurious vase will appear from this.

In order for energy to complicate the system, it will be necessary that there be a mechanism for its transformation and the necessary information for this process. Otherwise, the entropy will not decrease, but increase.

Realizing that this law of nature clearly contradicts evolution, people often begin to argue that the example of water crystallization shows the possibility of self-complication of life. But it should be noted that this example is not suitable, because it is accompanied by a decrease in the energy of the system, because the energy potential of water is higher than that of ice. On the contrary, the energy potential of proteins, fats, carbohydrates and nucleic acids is higher than that of the substances that make them up. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics holds true for both snowflakes and life. Therefore, evolution is, without a doubt, impossible.

It is clear to everyone that if you do not take care of the garden, it will be reborn into a wild one, and will not become even more fruitful and will not turn into a spruce forest; if you do not maintain the purity of the dog breed, then it will turn into a mongrel, and not into a bear, etc. Thus, this objection alone is enough to remove the question of evolution from the agenda.

The theory of evolution, as mentioned earlier, also contradicts mathematics, because the probability of the random appearance of any organism is practically zero. “There is no point in discussing the numbers,” L. Berg wrote, “with such a probability of the required mutation, not a single complex feature could develop during the entire existence of the Universe.” Consequently, mathematics puts a grave cross on the evolutionary hypothesis.

In the 1960s, it was discovered that all living things, from bacteria to humans, have the same genetic code. “That is,” even evolutionists write, “if life on Earth appeared and developed according to Darwin, the gene code of one organism would be different from another.” But it's not. In general, it should be noted that the appearance of two interconnected alphabets at once is absolutely unbelievable (and the fact that the genetic code is an alphabet is clear, because it has all the signs of sign information). This is tantamount to as if we, having taken a volume of Shakespeare, decided that this is the fruit of a random self-organization of inanimate nature.

One of the clearest pieces of evidence that evolution never happened is the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationists claim that all sedimentary rocks appeared in the days of Noah's Flood, but even if this were not the case, no transitional forms were found in them. The remains of about 250,000 species, represented by tens of millions of specimens, have been found in the sediments. But almost all of them are independent species, and not “unfinished forms”.

A particularly striking example, inexplicable within the framework of the theory of evolution, is the so-called "Cambrian explosion", when tens of thousands of invertebrate species unexpectedly "appear" geologically, which have survived unchanged to this day. There is still no evidence that these animals have evolutionary ancestors.

And there are many such examples: vertebrates, insects, dinosaurs, and almost all modern species have no ancestors.

Evolutionists claim that they do not have enough materials for analysis and that not all sedimentary rocks have been examined, but this is only an attempt to grab a drowning man at straws. George states, for example: “There is no point in complaining about the poverty of the excavation material anymore. The number of remains found is enormous, we find more of them than we can explore.

Few people know that the strange petrified creature Archeopteryx, which is often cited as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds (because it has the features of both classes), does not in fact contain any of the decisive transitional structures that can put an end to doubt - the feathers are fully formed and the wings are already wings. This creature has claws turned back, and its limbs are curved, like those of birds sitting on branches. And if anyone tried to reconstruct this creature, it would by no means look like a running dinosaur with feathers.

“1984 – bird fossils were discovered in Texas. Their age, according to evolutionists, is "millions of years" older than the age attributed to Archeopteryx. And these birds are no different from modern ones.

Some living creatures (for example, the platypus) are also a mixture of traits that can be found in different classes. A strange little creature that has fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, poisonous glands like a snake, it lays eggs like a reptile, although it breastfeeds its young - this is a good example of such a "mosaic" . However, this is not at all a "crossroads" between any two of these creatures.

This general absence of intermediate forms is also true of the so-called "evolution of man." It is simply amazing how many "ancestors" are attributed to a person. It is difficult to trace all the changing and alternating statements on this subject, but the last century has clearly shown that any loudly glorified "ancestor" is immediately forgotten, as soon as the next "candidate" for his role appears. To date, this role is claimed by Australopithecus, of which the most famous fossil "Lucy".

Studying various animal proteins and comparing them with each other showed that evolution did not go as scientists advised it to go, thinking that they could determine the age of a branch of a given species from the evolutionary tree by the biochemical clock. Moreover, it turned out that the difference in the structure of proteins between completely different species is absolutely the same.

Evolutionary theory offers no explanation for this. how could, for example, an eye or a wing appear, the structure of which and the connection with the rest of the organism makes the life of an “unfinished ancestor” impossible. For example, if a certain animal accidentally had an eye, then it would simply be meaningless without a corresponding change in the brain and the entire system of the behavior of the animal, and all this should have happened instantly. At the same time, the mutation must “come across” at least two individuals at once, because otherwise the trait would immediately disappear. This is clearly impossible!

And we must remember that 99.99% of mutations are harmful or even fatal to the body. And natural selection obviously has no plan and direction. Therefore, the very mechanism proposed by Darwin is suitable only for micro-evolution, which is not denied by the supporters of creation, but does not explain the formation of larger taxa, such as a family, genus, order or class.

Thanks to DNA, every living organism contains a program (a set of instructions, like punched tape or a recipe) that determines exactly whether it will be, for example, an alligator or a palm tree. Well, for a person, this program determines whether he will have blue or brown eyes, straight or curly hair, etc.

DNA itself, like a jumble of letters, does not contain any biological information; and only when the chemical "letters" that make up DNA line up in a certain sequence do they carry information that, when "read" by a complex cellular mechanism, controls the structure and functioning of the organism.

This sequence does not emerge from the "intrinsic" chemical properties of the substances that make up DNA, just as the molecules of ink and paper cannot randomly assemble into a particular message. The special sequence of each DNA molecule is formed only because the molecule is formed under the direction of the instructions coming from "outside" contained in the DNA of the parents.

The theory of evolution teaches that a relatively simple creature, such as a single-celled amoeba, becomes much more complex in structure, such as a horse. Although even the simplest known single-celled creatures are unimaginably complex, they clearly do not contain as much information as, say, a horse. They do not contain specific instructions on how to create eyes, ears, blood, brain, intestines, muscles. Therefore, moving from state A to state B would require many steps, each of which would be accompanied by an increase in information, information coding of new structures, new functions - much more complex.

If it were found that such information-enhancing changes do occur, though infrequently, it could reasonably be used to support the argument that a fish can actually become a philosopher if given enough time to do so. But in reality, those many minor changes that we observe are not accompanied by an increase in information - they are not at all suitable for confirming the theory of evolution, because they have the opposite direction.

A living organism is programmed to transmit this information, that is, to make its own copy. A man's DNA is copied and passed on through sperm cells, and a woman's DNA is copied through eggs. In this way, the information of the father and mother is copied and passed on to the next generation. Each of us contains inside our cells two parallel long "chains" of information - one from the mother, the other from the father (imagine a paper tape with Morse code - in the same way DNA is "read" by the complex mechanism of cells).

The reason siblings don't look alike is because that information is combined in different ways. This rearrangement or recombination of information results in many variations in any population, be it human, plant, or animal.

Imagine a room full of dogs - descendants of the same pair. Some of them will be higher, some lower. But this normal variational process does not introduce new information - all the information has already been presented in the original pair. Therefore, if a dog breeder selects shorter dogs, pairs them up, then chooses the smallest individual from the litter, it is not surprising that over time a new type of dog appears - undersized. However, no new information has been added. He simply selected the dogs he wanted (those he thought were the most suitable for gene transfer) and rejected the rest.

In fact, starting with only a short breed (rather than a mixture of tall and short individuals), no matter how long crosses and selection will lead to the emergence of a tall variation, because part of the "tall" information in this population will already be lost.

"Nature" can also "choose" some and reject others - in certain environmental conditions, some are more suitable for survival and transmission of information than others. Natural selection may favor one piece of information or cause another to be destroyed, but it is incapable of creating any new piece of information.

In the theory of evolution, the role of creating new information is given to mutations - random errors that occur when information is copied. Such errors occur and are inherited (because the new generation copies information from a damaged copy). Such damage is passed on and a new error may occur somewhere along the way, and thus mutational defects tend to accumulate. This phenomenon is known as the problem of increasing mutation load, or genetic overload.

Thousands of such genetic defects are known in humans. They cause such hereditary diseases as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, thalassemia, phenylketonuria ... It is not surprising that random changes in an extremely complex code can cause diseases and functional disorders.

Evolutionists know that the vast majority of mutations are either harmful or just meaningless genetic "noise". But their creed requires that there must be "ascending" random mutations. In fact, only a tiny handful of mutations are known to make it easier for an organism to survive in a given environment.

Eyeless fish in caves survive better because they are not susceptible to eye disease or eye damage; wingless beetles do well on wind-blown sea cliffs because they are less likely to deflate and drown.

But the loss of eyes, the loss or damage of information necessary for the production of wings, is, no matter how you look at it, a defect - damage to the functional unit of the mechanism.

Such changes, even if they are "useful" from the point of view of survival, raise the question - where can we see even one example of a real increase in information - new coding for new functions, new programs, new useful structures? There is no point in looking for a counterargument in the resistance of insects to insecticides - in almost every case, before humans began to spray the insecticide, several individuals in the insect population already had information that provided resistance.

In fact, when the mosquitoes, unable to resist, die, and the population regenerates from the survivors, then a certain amount of information, which was the bearer of the deceased majority, is already missing from the surviving minority and, accordingly, forever lost for this population.

When we consider the hereditary changes that occur in living organisms, we see either unchanged information (recombined in various ways), or damaged or lost (mutation, extinction), but we never see anything that could qualify as true informational "ascending" evolutionary change.

Information theory, coupled with common sense, convinces that when information is transferred (and this is reproduction), it either remains unchanged or is lost. Plus added meaningless "noise". In both living and non-living systems, real information never arises or grows by itself.

Accordingly, when we consider the biosphere - all its living organisms - as a whole, we see that the total amount of information decreases over time as more and more copies are successively received. Therefore, if you make the way back - from the present to the past - the information, in all likelihood, will increase. Because this reverse process cannot be continued indefinitely (there were no infinitely complex organisms that lived infinitely long ago), we inevitably come to a point where this complex information had a beginning.

Matter itself (as true observational science claims) does not generate such information, so the only alternative is that at some point some creative mind external to the system ordered matter (as you do when you write down a sentence) and programmed all the original plant and animal species. This programming of the ancestors of modern organisms must have happened in a miraculous or supernatural way, because the laws of nature do not create information.

This is consistent with the biblical statement that the Lord created organisms to multiply "according to their kind." For example, a supposed "kind of dog" created with a lot of built-in variation (and no inherent defects) could be modified by simple recombination of the original information to give rise to a wolf, a coyote, a dingo, etc.

Natural selection is only able to "select and sort" this information (but not to create a new one). Differences between descendants and without the addition of new information (and therefore without evolution) may be large enough to allow them to be called different species.

The way in which subspecies (breeds of domestic dogs) are bred from a population of mutts by artificial selection helps to understand this. Each subspecies carries only a part of the original amount of information. That is why it is impossible to breed a Great Dane from a Chihuahua - the necessary information is no longer in the population.

In the same way, the "elephant genus" may have been "split" (by natural selection on the basis of originally created information) into the African elephant, the Indian elephant, and the mastodon (the last two species are already extinct).

It is obvious, however, that this type of change can operate only within the limits of the original information of this kind; this type of change / formation of species does not in any way lead to the progressive transformation of an amoeba into a fish, because it is not informationally "ascending" - no new information is added. This "depletion" of the gene pool can be called "evolution", but it does not even remotely resemble the type of change (with the addition of information) that is usually meant when using this term.

It is clear that there was no evolution and could not be. But there are a number of so-called "proofs" of evolution that are very confusing to believers.

The alleged evolution of the horse is most often cited as examples of alleged evolution. It is claimed that from the four-toed ancestor (Nugacotherium) over time the modern one-toed horse was formed. But for some reason they forget to say that this whole chain of "ancestors" was not found in one place, but scattered all over the world. Moreover, modern horses lived in the same period as the so-called "primitive" horses. This means that they are not the "goal" of the development of proto-horses.

The "change" in the number of ribs in these animals is also surprising. At first there were 18, after 15, then 19, and finally 18 again. Similar variations are observed in the number of lumbar vertebrae. And the “first ancestor” himself turned out to be really the ancestor of ... modern chipmunks.

Therefore, the Curator of the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Dr. David Raup, wrote in an article published in the Museum's Bulletin: "In the light of the information received, a revision or even a rejection of ideas concerning classic cases ... such as the evolution of the horse in North America" ​​was required. The same can be said about the coelecanth, the "ancestor of amphibians" that still exists, and about the "ancestors of mammals", etc.

Another argument in favor of evolution is the similarity in the organization of the organs of various living beings, supposedly speaking of their relationship.

But theology brilliantly explains this fact. At the foundation of the world, the Creator put ideas that form the hierarchy of being and elevate it to the Word. They manifest themselves through the wise device of the creature. The Creator, as a wise artist and constructor, used one principle to arrange living beings living in similar conditions.

And the device itself, for example, hands or eyes speaks clearly about the Creator, and not about chaotic evolution. It should be noted that if similarity were due to kinship, then all homologous organs would come from the same genetic and embryonic material. But it's not! There is also a phenomenon inexplicable for evolutionists - the hind and fore limbs, although they are formed from different embryonic material, have the same plan. It certainly couldn't happen by chance!

In the same way, without resorting to evolutionism, it is necessary to explain the existence of different typological groups - classes, orders, etc. This is a reflection in matter of the immaterial hierarchy of the Creator's ideas, which arrange the entire hierarchy of sensually comprehended creature, which has a human as its crown. This well explains the famous similarity in embryonic development in all vertebrates. All of them, as it were, strive for the person through whom they are called to receive sanctification from the Creator, for He “subdued everything under his feet.”

The origin of life on Earth is one of the most impressive mysteries that has haunted the minds of mankind throughout our entire intelligent history. Today we know well when the first life appeared on our planet.

This happened about 4 billion years ago, while the Cambrian explosion, i.e. the period of rapid emergence of multicellular organisms corresponds to the time of 540 million years ago. Since then, life on Earth has been improving for a long time, due to Darwinian evolution. The huge changes that have taken place in the life of mankind and in the Universe show that our evolution is even accelerating. Our technology and life itself are becoming more and more perfect. We are moving forward with tremendous acceleration, and we do not know today what may be the result of these accelerations.

How did the first life on Earth originate? The Book of Genesis states that life, including man himself, was created by God from the dust of the earth (“The God formed man of dust of the ground”, Genesis). It is curious that, in general, this is true, although it is naturally not explained how this actually happened. The answer to this question can be found with the help of science, whose task is to explain the natural processes within our universe. Science does not operate on unproven statements. The goal of science is not only to trace all the stages of the origin of life on Earth, but also to reproduce these stages in the laboratory, as, for example, physicists not only explained the mechanisms of thermonuclear reactions inside the Sun, releasing gigantic energy, but also created a hydrogen bomb operating on the basis of the same principles. Physicists call it the little Sun on Earth. The German scientist G. Bethe won the Nobel Prize for explaining thermonuclear processes inside the Sun.

Today, scientists have proven that living organisms arose from inanimate matter in a long chain of transformations from simple molecules to the first life - bacteria. A bacterium is a unicellular organism, while complex living structures are multicellular. For example, a human is made up of a trillion cells, while a bacterium is made up of just one. Moreover, using these chains, scientists are trying to create fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the laboratory. These studies allow us to check whether our understanding of the complex processes that led to the emergence of the first life is correct. In 2009, scientists created the first molecular system in the lab that replicated itself and could evolve.

Biologists have found a way to form complex genetic molecules (RNA and DNA) using simple molecules (O, C, N, P) that existed at the early stage of the Earth's development several billion years ago. The discovery of the structure of RNA and DNA allows us to understand the key feature of biological molecules - to copy themselves and evolve. DNA is a complex molecule with a molecular weight of one trillion, while RNA has a molecular weight of only 35,000. Let me remind you that the molecular weight of water is 18, and carbon is 12. The main elements of life on Earth are water and carbon. Carbon is able to enter into various chemical bonds with other elements and produce complex organic molecules, including lipids, carbohydrates, proteins, and the genetic molecules RNA and DNA, which are the basic molecules of life. Therefore, life on our Earth is carbon-based life, although other forms of life are possible elsewhere in the Universe, for example, silicon-based life.

It is known that the main elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium. The attentive reader may ask how complex molecules or heavy elements other than hydrogen and helium appeared on our planet. Who "brought" them to Earth? The answer to this question is well known to us from astronomy: the so-called supermassive stars produce in their depths many of the chemical elements known to us as a result of various thermonuclear reactions. After the death of such stars, they throw these elements into the interior of the galaxy, which become part of the interstellar dust and planets. All heavy elements on Earth are the result of supernova explosions, which ultimately led to the appearance of the first life on Earth.

Without these elements, life would simply be impossible. We can even claim (perhaps proudly!) that we are part of the star stuff (“We are star stuff!”). For example, the presence of iron in our body, which determines the color of our blood, is the result of the production of iron inside stars, which is released after the death of a star. Spectral analysis of matter inside stars and galaxies shows that all bodies in the Universe consist of the same set of elements that make up the periodic table, and all living organisms, including the plant world, have a common ancestor (a common ancestor), i.e. they came from the same root of the tree of life. The tree of life itself consists of three main parts (eukarya, archaea, bacteria) and only two branches “eukarya” include the entire flora and fauna. Life on Earth did not arise immediately, but after almost 10 billion years since the Big Bang, when all the necessary conditions for the emergence of the first life appeared. Interestingly, our universe also came about as a result of a giant explosion from a single "point". This "dot", which physicists call "singularity", had an extremely small size and almost infinite density. Due to inflation (rapid expansion) and accelerations, our Universe has become gigantic today. Light can cross the Universe in only 14 billion years, although it covers the distance from the Earth to the Sun in just eight minutes.

Let us return, however, to the main question of this article - how did the first life on Earth arise. Back in the 1950s, two prominent scientists from the University of Chicago, L.Miller and H.Urey, conducted an interesting experiment that demonstrated that life could be formed naturally from a set of different molecules (H2. H2O, CH4, NH3) that existed on the early Earth, and a series of chemical reactions. The experiment showed that the basic molecules of life - amino acids (proteins) and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA bases) - can be easily obtained from molecules that were present in the early Earth's primordial atmosphere. They placed water, hydrogen, methane and ammonium in a glass tube and passed a strong electric current through it, which is analogous to lightning in nature. A week later, various organic molecules, including proteins, were found in the tube. The latter are responsible for all the complex metabolic functions of a living cell. However, such experiments, although they were the first important step on the way from inanimate matter to the first life, they could not explain many other processes, including the transition from amino acids (proteins) to the first life and, in particular, how a primitive cell could reproduce itself. , has evolved, i.e. as it led to the emergence of a new life.

Recently, scientists have been able to explain all the main processes, how the first living organisms on Earth arose from non-living matter (for example, the magazine “Scientific American”, September, 2009). These processes include the formation of nucleotides composed of sugars, phosphates, cyanide bases, acetylene and water, the genetic molecules of RNA and DNA, and the protocell that gives rise to the first life. The RNA molecule can be formed from simple molecules found on the early Earth before the formation of the first life. She was the first genetic material to form life on Earth, along with DNA, which was the result of evolution later. RNA gives rise to DNA, which in turn gives rise to proteins. "RNA world" includes the appearance of the first living organism - a protocell with an RNA genome capable of self-copying and Darwinian evolution, while "DNA world" includes a bacterial cell with a DNA genome, proteins and the beginning of a tree of life with a common ancestor for all life on Earth . Both RNA and DNA have long bases (from 2 to 40 in the case of RNA, and from 1000 to a million in the case of a typical gene) that include sugars, phosphates, and the simple molecules cyanide, acetylene, formaldehyde, and water found in the early Earth. Nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) are responsible for the genetic code and provide instructions for all processes within the cell. To form proteins, nucleic acids must form long and complex chains. All DNA molecules in all living organisms on Earth have the same structure, albeit with a different set of genes, and differ from each other in the way their DNA is connected.

So, at the first stage, simple and organic molecules, as well as various chemical reactions, led to the formation of nucleotides. The three components of nucleotides - sugars, phosphates and nucleic bases - formed spontaneously from simple molecules. Then the nucleotides joined together to give rise to the first genetic molecule - RNA, and then, at a later stage of development, the DNA molecule. Nucleic acids, which are a collection of nucleotides, contain genetic information. The next stage is the formation of a primitive cell with an RNA genome, including a membrane and capable of self-copying by division. The protocell began to evolve. Metabolism, involving a series of chemical reactions, allowed the protocell to obtain energy from the environment. The next stage is the formation of DNA and the emergence of a new cell with a DNA genome that plays the role of a primary genetic molecule. RNA now plays an intermediate role between DNA and protein. The first bacterium with a DNA genome and a membrane appears. It is capable of self-copying and is capable of evolving. If earlier RNA was responsible for the formation of proteins, now proteins take over the functions of RNA in the implementation of cell self-copying and metabolic processes. Interestingly, the old paradox - which came first "chicken or egg" - finds a simple explanation based on these processes: first there was a chicken (nucleic acids), and then there was an egg (proteins). Then the proteins (egg) served as the beginning of the formation of nucleic acids (chicken).

Life is a chemical system capable of self-copying and Darwinian evolution. E. Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, in his book “Life from the Point of View of a Physicist” gave the following definition of life: “The living systems is self-assemble against nature’s tendency towards disorder, or entropy”.

Let's summarize. Life began after the early Earth's chemical molecules formed nucleotides, essential building blocks of RNA. Then a protocell with an RNA genome was formed, at the next stage DNA was formed and the first bacterium with a DNA genome. Bacteria remained unchanged for billions of years and began to evolve into more complex organisms when the era called the Cambrian explosion began, when the animal world evolved from small and primitive organisms to multicellular organisms. At the same time, on the basis of Darwinian evolution, a huge variety of the animal world appeared, and about 5 million years ago the first human-like creatures hominids appeared. The hominid Ardi has recently been discovered, which is 4.4 million years old and may be the first phase in human evolution. Modern Homo sapiens appeared about 50,000-100,000 years ago in southeast Africa and later spread throughout the world. The Egyptian pyramids were built 5,000 years ago. About two hundred years ago, we became a technological civilization when electricity was discovered, steam engines and airplanes appeared. If this time is compared with the age of our Universe (14 billion years), then it is only 0.00001% of this time, i.e. we are a young civilization, although we have succeeded in many ways. Another comparison is based on the use of the cosmic calendar. If we assume that the entire history of the Universe was one year, then the first modern people appeared only two minutes ago, the Egyptian pyramids were built 11 seconds ago, one second ago Galileo and Kepler proved that the solar system is heliocentric and only half a second ago we became a technological civilization .

Let's look into our future and ask ourselves if our evolution is over. To answer this question, we need to understand why evolution occurs, i.e. changes in our body over time, and whether new genes appear in our genome. The answer to the second question has been found - yes, additional genes appear and our evolution not only continues, but also accelerates in time. Eva Jablonsky, a biology theorist at Tel Aviv University, has published her findings that there are more than a hundred hereditary changes that were missing from the DNA sequence. These changes cover bacteria, fungi, plants as well as animals. Toxic substances, diet and even stress can cause changes in the genome. Mutations are the cause of new genes. We are changing faster today than at any previous time in our history.

Interestingly, the acceleration of our Universe was discovered relatively recently. Is there any relationship between the accelerations of the Universe and the acceleration of our evolution? To explain the cause of the acceleration of the Universe, physicists have assumed the existence of dark energy, i.e. a special repulsive force that causes the acceleration of the universe. Today, we know little about the nature of this force, despite the fact that hundreds of scientists around the world are trying to unravel its structure.

Time is the most fundamental characteristic of the Universe and it is responsible for all changes in our world. The reason for the changes in the world may be that the temperature of space has changed dramatically - from 1032K at the time of the Big Bang (this temperature is a trillion trillion times the temperature at the center of the hottest stars) to 3K today (-270C) within 14 billion years . This temperature is measured by the spectrum of the residual radiation of space, which fills our entire Universe and which is a clear proof of the reality of Big Bang and the fact that there was a beginning of the world. Such a sharp decrease in the temperature of space is associated with its expansion (inflation). Of course, this expansion and decrease in temperature cannot but affect the speed of all processes inside the Universe, causing changes not only in the Universe, but also affect the rate of our evolution, which will continue forever, as long as our Universe exists and changes in time. If the temperature of space drops to zero, our universe will die, which will mean the end of evolution and life itself. It is curious that of the four scenarios for the development of our universe, which are considered in astronomy, there is evidence that our universe will eventually die, due to uncontrolled expansion and a drop in temperature to absolute zero. This conclusion is based on the analysis of data on explosions of the so-called "white dwarfs" (white dwarf supernova explosion).

Then another Big Bang will herald the beginning of a new universe and a new world. This new universe will go through a completely different path of development and will have different laws of physics with different fundamental constants, such as the speed of light, the mass of an electron, the gravitational constant, etc., and, of course, a different life. Today, scientists are discussing the possibility of the existence of other universes (multiverse), in which life is also possible, but based on other principles and other laws of nature.

Ilya Gulkarov, Chicago

Modern science considers several theories origin of life on Earth. Most modern models indicate that organic compounds - the first living organisms appeared on the planet approximately 4 billion years ago.

In contact with

Development of ideas about the emergence of life

In a certain historical period, scientists imagined in different ways how life appeared on. Until the twentieth century, the following hypotheses played a huge role in scientific circles:

1. Theory of spontaneous generation.
2. The theory of the stationary state of life.
3. Oparin's theory (partially supported now).

Theory of spontaneous generation

Interestingly, the theory of spontaneous generation of life on the planet arose even ancient times. She existed with divine origin theory all living organisms on the planet.

The ancient Greek scientist Aristotle believed that the spontaneous generation hypothesis is true, while the divine is only a deviation from reality. He believed that life started spontaneously.

According to his thoughts, the theory of spontaneous generation lies in the fact that some “active principle” unknown to people under certain conditions able to create from an inorganic compound simple organism.

After the adoption of Christianity in Europe and its spread, this scientific assumption faded into the background - its place was taken by divine theory.

Steady State Theory

According to this scientific assumption, it is impossible to answer when life arose on Earth, since it existed forever. Thus, the followers of the theory testify that species never originated - they can only disappear or change their numbers (). The stationary state of life hypothesis was quite popular until mid-twentieth century.

The so-called "theory of the eternity of life" suffered a general collapse when it was established that The universe didn't always exist either., but was created after the Big Bang. Answering the question: how many forms of life existed initially, the answer emerges that all four, including viruses, which contrary to the generally accepted .

For this reason, the hypothesis is not discussed in academic scientific circles. The "theory of the eternity of life" is of exclusively philosophical interest, since its conclusions are largely inconsistent with modern advances Sciences.

Oparin's theory

In the twentieth century, the attention of scientists was attracted by an article by Academician Oparin, which returned interest in the theory spontaneous generation of life. He considered in it some "protogranisms" - coacervate drops or simply "primary broth", as they were dubbed in scientific circles.

These droplets were protein globules that attracted molecules and fats, which were then bound. This is how the first information carriers were created - first pracells containing DNA.

This hypothesis does not give an answer, where did it come from, and therefore in academic circles many refute it.

Previous theories of the origin of life on Earth are not considered as the main ones in modern scientific thought. A small group of scholars also suggest that life could have originated in hot water that surrounds underwater volcanoes. This hypothesis is not the main, but it has not yet been refuted, and therefore it is worthy of mention.

The main theories of the origin of life on Earth

The main theories of the origin of life on Earth appeared not so long ago, namely in the twentieth century - a period when mankind made more discoveries than in its entire previous history.

Modern hypotheses of the origin of life on Earth have been confirmed to varying degrees by a number of studies, and are key to discussion in academic circles. Among them are the following:

• biochemical theory of the origin of life;
• the RNA world hypothesis;
• PAH theory of the world.

biochemical theory

The key is considered biochemical theory the origin of life on the planet, which most scientists adhere to.

Chemical evolution preceded the emergence of organic life. It is during this stage that the first living organisms appear, which arose as a result of chemical reactions from inorganic molecules.

The appearance of organic life forms 4 billion years ago as a result of reactions is very likely, since it was then that the most favorable environment.

A temperature of 1000 degrees is considered optimal. The oxygen content in the air was minimal, because in large quantities it destroys simple organic compounds.

RNA world

The RNA world is just a hypothesis, which indicates that before the emergence of DNA, RNA compounds stored genetic information.

In the 1980s, it was shown that RNA compounds could exist independently and self-reproduce. Millions of years of the RNA life cycle have led to the fact that DNA compounds are formed during mutations, which acted as specialized repositories of genes. The evolution of RNA has been proven by many experiments, which partially explain the origin of life on Earth and answer the question of how life developed on Earth.

World of PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons)

The PAH world is considered stage of chemical evolution and indicates that the first RNA arose from PAHs, which later led to the creation of DNA and life on the planet.

PAHs can still be observed today - they are common in the universe and were first discovered in nebulae throughout the cosmos. A number of researchers call PAHs "seeds of life".

Alternative theories

It just so happens that the most interesting theories are alternative, and many scientists even ridicule them. It is not yet possible to confirm the reliability of alternative assumptions, and they are partially or largely contrary to modern scientific ideas, but their mention is obligatory.

space hypothesis

According to this assumption, life never existed on Earth, and it could not originate here, since there were no prerequisites. The first living organisms appeared on the planet after fall of a cosmic body, which brought them on itself from another galaxy.

This hypothesis does not answer the question: how many forms of life were on it, what they were, and how they developed further.

It is also impossible to establish when this cosmic body fell. But the most important thing is scientists don't believe that any organism could survive on a falling cosmic body after its entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

In recent years, scientists have discovered bacteria that can exist under extreme circumstances and even in open space, but if a meteorite or asteroid burned, they definitely would not have survived.

UFO hypothesis

Highlighting the most interesting hypotheses, one cannot fail to mention the assumption that life on Earth is the work of aliens. Adherents of this hypothesis believe that in such a vast universe, the probability of the existence of other forms of intelligent life is very high. Science also does not deny this fact., since people have not yet explored 99% of space.

Followers of the UFO hypothesis say that one of the intelligent life forms that we call aliens, specifically brought life to earth. There are several suggestions as to why they created man.

Some say it's just part of the experiment during which they observe people. Adherents of such an assumption cannot give a reliable answer to why they need to observe people, and what is the meaning of this experiment.

The latter indicate that a certain race of cosmic beings is engaged in the spread of life in the universe, and humans are one of the many races they created. Therefore, there are some fathers of all living things, which a person could take for gods.

The cosmic theory of the origin of life on Earth does not answer the main question: where did life originally originate before it was brought to Earth?

Theological hypothesis

Attention! The divine theory of the origin of life on the planet is the most ancient among all, and at the same time it is considered one of the most widespread in the 21st century.

Adherents of the hypothesis believe in some kind of omnipotent being or beings, which are usually called gods.

In different religions, the gods have different names, as well as their number. Christianity speaks of only one god, like Islam, but the pagans believed in dozens or even hundreds of gods, each of which is responsible for something specific.

For example, one god is considered the creator of love, and the second - commands the seas.

Christians believe that God created the earth and life on it in just seven days. It was he who created the first man and woman, who became the progenitors of mankind.

Since billions of people on the planet identify themselves with a particular religion, they believe that all life was created precisely by the hands of a god or gods.

And although the same facts coincide in many religions, in scientific circles deny the existence of an omnipotent being, which created the world and life in it, since this theory contradicts many scientific achievements and discoveries.

Also, the divine hypothesis does not make it possible to establish when life arose on Earth. Some scriptures do not contain this information at all, in the rest the data simply do not match, which puts the hypothesis under great doubt.

None of the above theories is not ideal and cannot comprehensively reveal the question of the origin of life on the planet. Which theory to follow is up to you.

Modern theory of the origin of life on Earth

Stages of development of life on Earth

Outcome

Summing up the above, we can conclude that life originated 4 billion years ago. The first stage in the development of life was chemical, after which they created RNA and DNA, and then all five known life forms.

Alternative theories that are not supported in scientific circles say otherwise. Among them it is worth noting cosmic and theological(divine). Modern hypotheses of the origin of life on Earth are more progressive, but the old ones cannot be discounted either.

Valery Spiridonov, the first candidate for a head transplant, for RIA Novosti

For many years, mankind has been trying to unravel the true cause and history of the appearance of life on our planet. A little more than a hundred years ago, in almost all countries, people did not even think to question the theory of divine intervention and the creation of the world by a higher spiritual being.

The situation changed after the publication in November 1859 of the greatest work of Charles Darwin, and now there is a lot of controversy around this topic. The number of supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution in Europe and Asia is more than 60-70%, approximately 20% in the USA and about 19% in Russia according to the data of the end of the last decade.

In many countries today there is a call to exclude Darwin's work from the school curriculum, or at least to study it on a par with other plausible theories. Apart from the religious version, to which most of the world's population is inclined, today there are several main theories of the origin and evolution of life, describing its development at various stages.

Panspermia

Proponents of the idea of ​​panspermia are convinced that the first microorganisms were brought to Earth from outer space. So thought the famous German scientist-encyclopedist Hermann Helmholtz, the English physicist Kelvin, the Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky and the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who is considered today the founder of this theory.

It has been scientifically confirmed that meteorites from Mars and other planets have been repeatedly found on Earth, possibly from comets that could even come from alien star systems. No one doubts this today, but it is not yet clear how life could have arisen on other worlds. In fact, panspermia apologists transfer "responsibility" for what is happening to alien civilizations.

The primordial soup theory

The birth of this hypothesis was facilitated by the experiments of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in the 1950s. They were able to recreate almost the same conditions that existed on the surface of our planet before the origin of life. Through a mixture of molecular hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane, small electric discharges and ultraviolet light were passed.

As a result, methane and other primitive molecules turned into complex organic substances, including dozens of amino acids, sugar, lipids, and even the rudiments of nucleic acids.

Relatively recently, in March 2015, scientists at the University of Cambridge led by John Sutherland showed that all types of "molecules of life", including RNA, proteins, fats and carbohydrates, can be obtained during similar reactions, which will involve simple inorganic carbon compounds, hydrogen sulfide, metal salts and phosphates.

Clay breath of life

One of the main problems of the previous version of the evolution of life is that many organic molecules, including sugars, DNA and RNA, are too fragile to accumulate in sufficient quantities in the waters of the Earth's primordial ocean, where, as previously believed most evolutionists, the first living beings arose.

The British chemist Alexander Cairns-Smith believes that life has a "clay" and not water origin - the optimal environment for the accumulation and complexity of complex organic molecules can be found inside the pores and crystals in clay minerals, and not in Darwin's "primary pond" or the ocean of Miller-Urey theories.

In fact, evolution began at the level of crystals, and only then, when the compounds became sufficiently complex and stable, did the first living organisms go into "open swimming" in the primary ocean of the Earth.

Life at the bottom of the ocean

This idea competes with the popular idea today that life did not originate on the surface of the ocean, but in the deepest regions of its bottom, in the vicinity of "black smokers", underwater geysers, and other geothermal sources.

Their emissions are rich in hydrogen and other substances, which, according to scientists, could accumulate on the slopes of the rocks and give the first life all the necessary food resources and reaction catalysts.

Evidence of this can be recognized as modern ecosystems that exist in the vicinity of such sources at the bottom of all the oceans of the Earth - they include not only microbes, but even multicellular living beings.

RNA Universe

The theory of dialectical materialism is based on the simultaneous unity and endless struggle of a pair of principles. We are talking about the heredity of information and structural biochemical changes. The version of the origin of life, in which RNA plays a key role, has come a long way since its inception in the 1960s until the late 1980s, when it acquired its modern features.

On the one hand, RNA molecules are not as efficient at storing information as DNA, but they are able to simultaneously speed up chemical reactions and assemble copies of themselves. At the same time, one must understand that scientists have not yet been able to show how the entire chain of evolution of RNA life worked, and therefore this theory has not yet received universal recognition.

Protocells

Another important question in the evolution of life is the mystery of how such molecules of RNA or DNA and proteins "fenced off" from the outside world and turned into the first isolated cells, the contents of which are protected by a flexible membrane or semipermeable hard shell.

A well-known Soviet chemist Alexander Oparin became a pioneer in this field, showing that water droplets surrounded by a double layer of fat molecules can have similar properties.

His ideas were brought to life by Canadian biologists led by Jack Szostak, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. His team was able to "pack" the simplest set of self-replicating RNA molecules into a membrane of fatty molecules by adding magnesium ions and citric acid inside the first "protocell".

Endosymbiosis

Another mystery of the evolution of life is how multicellular creatures arose and why the cells of humans, animals and plants include special bodies such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, which have an unusually complex structure.

For the first time, the German botanist Andreas Schimper thought about this problem, suggesting that chloroplasts in the past were independent organisms, similar to cyanobacteria, which "made friends" with the cells of plant ancestors and began to live inside them.

This idea was later developed by the Russian botanist Konstantin Merezhkovsky and the American evolutionist Lynn Margulis, who showed that mitochondria and potentially all other complex organelles of our cells have a similar origin.
As in the case with the theories of the "RNA world" and the "clay" evolution of life, the idea of ​​endosymbiosis initially caused a lot of criticism from most scientists, but today almost all evolutionists do not doubt its correctness.

Who is right and who is wrong?

In favor of the Darwinian hypotheses, many scientific works and specialized studies have been found, in particular in the field of "transitional forms". Darwin did not have the necessary number of archaeological artifacts in his hands to confirm scientific works, since for the most part he was guided by personal guesses.

For example, in the last ten years alone, scientists have found the remains of several such "lost links" of evolution, such as Tiktaalik (Tiktaalik) and Indohyus (Indohyus), which allow us to draw a line between land animals and fish, and whales and hippos.
On the other hand, skeptics often argue that such animal species are not true transitional forms, which gives rise to constant endless disputes between supporters of Darwinism and their opponents.

On the other hand, experiments on ordinary Escherichia coli and on various multicellular creatures clearly show that evolution is real, and that animals can quickly adapt to new living conditions, acquiring new features that their ancestors did not have 100-200 generations ago.

At the same time, it is worth remembering that a significant part of modern society is still inclined to believe in the existence of a higher divine mind or extraterrestrial civilizations that founded life on Earth. So far, the only true theory does not exist, and humanity has yet to answer this question in the future.