скачать книгу бесплатно
Civilizations development and species origin technologies
Вадим Валерьевич Корпачев
The origin of life on Earth is the basic view of the world’s concept. At present, its origin and development are treated either from the scientific evolutionary theory points of view or religious mythological ones. At the same time, the evolutionary theory fails to provide grounded explanations to a lot of events which have happened and are observed in nature. The data related to the complexity of life processes genetic programming and many biology and palaeontological facts cast doubt on the possibility of spontaneous occurrence of protein organisms during evolutionary transformations. They indicate that the protein life development occurred in the direction of the planned improvement through the complex technology’s implementation which requires specific scientific knowledge. Therefore, the necessity to formulate the new technological concept of the life appearance on Earth which is provided by the given book has occurred. It summarizes numerous well-known facts which are being interpreted as the result of the highly developed civilization technological developments. The stated views have more grounds for existence than the evolutionary theory and biblical ideas about the divine creation of the world. The fact that society treats all the ideas of the life creation as religious ones and that they are used by the theologians turns out to be the ideological problem. The book is aimed at overcoming the barrier of such non-perception. The analysis performed allows the reader to understand in which cases random events occur, and in which ones there is a logical purposeful intelligent activity, the result of which is the development of self-replicating protein organisms programmed to perform the work necessary to meet the needs of their creators on Earth. Reflections on the possible material nature of the highly developed mind carriers are given.According to the author, a human being is not a passive observer of random evolutionary changes in nature, but has his mission in the artificially developed system of energy supply of Earth along with other protein organisms. If the protein world, including humans, has been created for a specific purpose, then mankind must not violate its implementation and should follow its mission. A new worldview should introduce changes in the main mankind’s activity spheres: science, politics, religion and the human being’s personal life.The book is designed for a wide range of readers of various specialties. Conceptually, it is important for people who do not share the evolutionary theory provisions and existing religious beliefs.
V. V. Korpachev
CIVILIZATIONS DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIES ORIGIN TECHNOLOGIES
This book is dedicated to the memory of the outstanding scientist, Cambridge University Trinity College professor, my distant relative and like-minded person William Whewell
INTRODUCTION
The protein life’s origin on Earth turns out to be one of the fundamental world views concepts in a human beings’ society. There are several theories existing to explain the Universe’s occurrence. These are the Big Bang theory and Penrose-Hawking singularity theory to complement it, Hoyle-Bondi-Gold theory of stationary Universe, Alfevn-Klein cosmological theory and so on. But, none of them is completely proved and taken for granted by all the scientific society members. At the same time, such an important phenomenon as the life origin on Earth is being explained on the basis of two polar points of view. According to one of them, Universe, Earth and protein life have been created by the Creator within a short period of time. In accordance with the second one, life on our planet has originated from the inanimate matter as the result of accidental evolutionary transformations. The existing contradictory world views on the life origin on Earth’s settlement is of vital importance as it is impossible to develop the mankind future development programs without actual views on the environmental development.
It is worth mentioning that existing concepts are not pure scientific in the literary meaning of this word, as they are based neither on observations nor experimental researches which are possible to be reconstructed with the certain degree of credibility. The events under review took place in past and cannot be checked in present. One can judge about them by certain palaeontological and archaeological facts to evidence previous eras. Each of these world views is just a supposition, one of which has been turned into religion while the second one has been granted the scientific status. The facts which can be treated in different ways and viewed from other theoretic point of view are used to justify one’s views.
The accumulated data states that the events sequence can neither be explained by the spontaneous evolutionary processes nor by God’s activity; they need quite another interpretation based on the scientific approach.
From the point of view of the evolutionary theory, it is impossible to explain the way the nucleic acids and a single genetic code were formed from inorganic elements many millions of years ago on Earth. Within the process of experimental studies, it turned out to be possible to get some simple organic compounds under conditions supposedly existed on Earth many millions of years ago, but this does not mean that they did take place in the past. Moreover, the possibility is perceived by the scientific community as a reality. The arguments given can only confirm certain changes, but they do not prove that they did take place. Many modern evolutionary theory conclusions are not obvious and require sophisticated justifications.
However, this is the only fundamental theory in biology nowadays that explains the development and diversity of life on Earth. Despite the great number of shortcomings, it turned into an indisputable faith. Until now, the grounds for abandoning it were not enough, since no other alternative scientific theory existed. At the same time, a huge amount of facts has been accumulated nowadays that either contradict the evolutionary theory, or which cannot be explained by this theory. It is difficult to imagine the lack of expediency and programming nature in an increasingly complex development that occurs according to the pre-defined program similar in different representatives of the animal world and embedded regardless of the each individual’s desires. Therefore, a contemporary educated person is often in uncertainty. On the one hand, he/she cannot accept the evolutionary theory of the species origin by Charles Darwin as a basic concept, realizing that the complexity of protein organisms on Earth cannot have occurred spontaneously, and on the other hand, a person cannot accept religious and mythical views because of their primitiveness and implausibility. Realizing the limited possibilities of a blind evolutionary process, some researchers have put forward a number of other alternative hypotheses. For example, it was assumed that life was brought from outer space by meteorites or particles of light (panspermia), or by intelligent creatures from other planets as an experiment. None of these hypotheses has ever been proved and arises a number of objections.
The current situation emphasizes the need to analyze the known facts from different perspectives and formulate a new concept of the life origin on Earth, which could provide answers to controversial questions and explain many obscure phenomena and events on the planet. William Whewell, a distant noble relative of Maria Wevel, my grandmother, once advocated an inductive method of cognition in science. He stated that the facts should be strung like beads on the thread of an idea that arose in the brain of the researcher and depends on the individual characteristics of the mind. Until nowadays, there were two life and biological species origin ideas threads to string the facts of observation and the environmental research results, which were often customized. One thread was a religious one, and it provided a very simple way to explain the diversity of life by the supernatural deity’s activity. Another thread suggested a gradual organisms’ complication through random natural selection and evolutionary changes. It is considered a scientific one.
Unfortunately, other scientific threads capable of forming a plausible necklace of the protein life occurrence and development on Earth’s theory had not existed yet. Nowadays, there is every reason to consider the creation of the vegetable and animal world on Earth as a thought-out highly intelligent biotechnological process. Therefore, this publication is an attempt to string the already known facts onto the thread of the «technological theory of the species origin». It considers the protein organisms on Earth’s occurrence as a technological process being developed and implemented by a highly developed civilization, the material nature of which is significantly different from protein forms of life.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace developed the evolutionary theory at a time when highly intelligent technological production was not developed and modern scientific achievements of human civilization were not available. Therefore, they explained the accumulated facts on the basis of the animals’ intraspecific improvement observations during selection.
It is obvious that the self-organizing processes do exist, but, in accordance with the evolutionary theory, the natural selection leads to the occurrence of capable of thinking organisms from the protozoon organisms. Homo Sapience can serve the example. After that, the further environmental development is subordinated to their natural activity. A lot of scientists have no doubts regarding the existence of the intelligent life in the Universe. But this intelligence can exist not on the distant planets but on the very Earth and the protein life complexity can be the result of its activity.
If the protein world could not have occurred spontaneously as a result of evolutionary processes, the obvious question arises: who has created it and what for? This requires a scientific explanation, leaving religious beliefs beyond. This publication provides ideas regarding the possible material nature of the highly developed intelligence’s carriers. Nowadays, the army (military) archives have accumulated tens of thousands of the unidentified flying objects (UFOs) reported sightings, and Joseph Allen Hynek, Professor of astronomy at North-Western University, USA (Josef Allen Hynek), who had been the U.S. Air Force consultant on the UFO issues for 20 years, and Jacques Vallee, his student, Bachelor of Mathematics and Master in «Astrophysics» of University of Lille, confirmed the existence of UFOs having thoroughly analyzed the data accumulated. Moreover, the USSR Navy commander, the Hero of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Chernavin, Admiral of the Fleet, Nikolay Smirnov, Admiral of the fleet, submitted data regarding the observation of the high-tech facilities in the depths of the ocean and Professor Vladimir Azhazha, the four-striper (post-captain), the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Oceanographic Commission Undersea Research Section Deputy-Head, and many other researchers have revealed the facts of numerous cases of UFO observation.
On the other hand, leading specialists in the field of genetics claim that it is impossible to generate a genetic code spontaneously, and the data by biologists, paleontologists, geologists and volcanologists, complementing each other, line up in one line, confirming the possibility of the existence of an intelligence that controls a lot of processes on Earth. Therefore, it would be logical to combine these observations, what the author of this book has tried to do.
The fact that it is the creationism that is the only alternative to Darwinism and that all ideas to justify the creation and not a spontaneous occurrence are classified as religious ones in the view of society constitutes the ideological problem. In this regard, religion has caused significant harm to the development of a real worldview. However, truth is not based on God but on scientific ideas. Therefore, the modern science’s task is not to neglect the idea of creating the world surrounding us just because it is close to religious dogmas.
The book attempts to overcome the barrier of the laws governing the protein life creation on Earth’s rejection only because these views somehow coincide with the divine creation and are used by theologians. Any scientific concepts that do not share the idea of God will expand our understanding of this most important process on Earth. The book is aimed at replacing both blind faith in the divine creation of the world, and existing views on the evolutionary spontaneous species origin. Even judging from religious positions, the faith of millions of people in the Creator determines the need to answer the question regarding His probable existence on a scientific basis. Then the mythical and deceitful ideas used by theologians to seize the minds of believers will disappear.
The purpose of the given book is to lay the foundation for a new scientific trend in the origin of life on Earth’s study, based not on religious beliefs or the evolutionary theory, but on the basis of universal principles of the intelligent matter development, from primitive thinking to a highly developed civilization, and also to determine the focus and causality of its behaviour. In order to perceive new ideas, it is necessary to get rid of the pressure of the knowledge system imposed by education and try to look at the surrounding phenomena from a different point of view.
The book systematizes numerous well-known facts gleaned from extensive scientific and educational literature, but interpreted from the point of view of the protein life technological origin. They do not pretend to be absolutely accurate, but they provide quite another point of views on the life on Earth’s occurrence and the role of a human being in this process. The task of the book is to show that the creation of protein life is the result of the highly developed civilization’s activity in order to satisfy its energy needs.
The protein life on Earth’s occurrence vagaries and consistent patterns’ analysis is provided, which allows any reader to figure out where and in which cases one deals with random events, random probabilities and possible patterns.
The stated views are the basis for the fundamentally new trends in the scientific, technological, political and religious activities of a human being. They have the same rights to existence as well as the traditional evolutionary and religious views. If the protein world, including human beings, has been created for a specific purpose, then humanity should follow this goal and should not violate its implementation. At the end of the book, the need for the relationships reforming within the human society in accordance with biological laws and the programmed purpose of Homo sapiens as a species is being emphasized, and the possibility of the similar self-replicating structures’ creation to colonize areas unsuitable for living is substantiated.
The book is of a worldview nature and is designed for a wide range of readers of various specialties. The use of specific terms is as reduced as it has been possible. It is neither a popular nor a specialized monograph, since it examines well-known information, but from other scientific positions. Therefore, the book cannot be treated as a popular science one. The style of writing is best suited for the essay regardless of the relatively large volume.
The author has not knowingly set out factual material in accordance with the requirements of academic science while citing published sources. Thousands of various biological specialties’ researchers have already perfectly done it. Taking into consideration the fact that in most cases data provided can be found in any textbook or manual, as well as data by well-known authors, there has been no point in referring to them. At the end of the book there is a list of authors cited, whose papers are well known, and the reference to the main literature used for familiarization by interested readers is provided as well.
Chapter I
ARCHEBIOSIS ON EARTH: CRISIS OF VIEWS ON THE PROBLEM
1.1. RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON THE DIVINE CREATION OF THE WORLD
People have been asking themselves the question «How has the life on Earth originated and developed?» since ancient times, and the answer to it depended on one’s imagination, knowledge and worldview. It is believed that there are three historical types of worldview: mythological, religious and scientific-philosophical one. Historically, religion has always been an instrument for the unification of peoples around a single power, the education of humility and equanimity of power, which, the way it was justified, was given by God.
Despite the fact that basically people agreed on the existence of higher forces in nature, they were represented differently in each tribe and each people had its own understanding of them, developing myths or certain religions. The essence of the religious type of worldview is based on the divine creation of the world and the life on Earth’s occurrence. Most religions set forth common themes about the origin of the Universe and Earth from abyss, as well as the animal and vegetable world by means of a «creation» volutionary act on the part of a higher being.
Paganism when people worshiped certain gods symbolized by them in the form of idols can be considered the earliest religion. The ancient Egyptian mythology does not provide a single version of the world creation; different theories existed in different regions of the country. Ra, the Supreme Sun God, considered the main Creator of the world, was the central point to unite all the theories. According to one version of the God RA emerged from a comprehensive chaos, that is, out of nowhere. He appeared to be the father of all other gods who embodied different elements and forces. An animal or a bird represents the deity giving birth to the Sun and creating the world in many ancient Egyptian legends. There are the traces of the legend according to which the Sun was believed to be borne by the sky in the form of the golden calf; the sky was believed to be a huge cow with the stars scattered over its body.
In other legends, neither animals nor birds are the creators of the world, but gods and goddesses. In one of these legends, the sky is represented in the form of Nut, the female goddess, whose body is curved above Earth, and the fingers and toes rest on Earth. Nut gives birth to a sunny baby, who then creates gods and people. According to later ideas, the creator god Khnum modeled the whole world on a potter’s wheel and created humans and animals in the same way.
As for the Chinese mythology, it was a man who occupied the central place, not God or any other higher power, and the male and female inception, not the elements, were the main active forces. According to the oldest and most famous ancient Chinese legend, Chaos initially reigned in the world, but once upon a time, two opposite inceptions, Yin (Darkness) and Yang (Light) spontaneously appeared from Chaos; they gave birth to the sky and Earth. The first man, Pangu, appeared immediately after it. He was not an ordinary man; he was huge and lived for a very long time. And when his hour came round at last, his body gave birth to nature and people.
His breath turned into wind and clouds, his voice became thunder, his left eye became the sun, and his right one became the Moon. Earth was formed from the Pangu’s body. His arms, legs and torso turned into 4 cardinal points and 5 main mountains, and the sweat on his body turned into rain. Blood flowed through the land in rivers; muscles became the soil, hair turned into grass and trees. His teeth and bones formed simple stones and metals, while his brain formed pearls and precious stones. And the worms on his body turned into people. According to the ancient Greeks’ views, initially there was only Chaos, and the first 6 primordial gods, the ancestors of everything, appeared from it. As in the Egyptian mythology, the Greek gods also personified some forces and elements: Chronos – time, Gaia (Gaea, Ga) – Earth, Eros – Love, Tartarus – the abyss, Erebus (Erebos) – darkness Nyx – night. Later, the first primordial gods children, and then every generation of their descendants have filled the world with new and significant phenomena. Thus, the Nyx’s children introduced the world of light (God Aethir) and day (Goddess Hemera), and the children of Gaia (Gaea, Ga) became the personification of heaven (Uranus) and the sea (Pontus) and so on. There is also the known number of gods who had nothing to do with the world creation; they just governed the world and natural forces. Finally, gods gave rise to Titans who were later precipitated to the Tartarus bowels during the war.
According to the Judaism provisions, the foundations of which are set forth in the Talmud, the first day saw 10 creations: heaven and Earth, confusion and emptiness, light and darkness, spirit and water, the day and night properties.
The Christianity’s central dogma of creation is the «Creation out of Nothing» (Creatio ex Nihilo), when God, with his free will, transforms everything from a non-being state to a state of being. This faith found its first expression in the first three chapters of the first book of the Bible − the Genesis book. All people are created by two definite persons − Adam and Eve. God provided the created angels and man with freedom that was used by them for evil (Genesis 3: 1−6).
As for Catholicism, the first chapters of Genesis are not treated as a literal description of the creation process, but as an allegory. Traditional Lutherans also do not accept the first chapter of Genesis in its literary sense. Some Orthodox theologians instruct to interpret the term «day» as some very long stage of the Universe creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses also point out that the word «day» does not means a day only, but it often means an indefinite period of time. At the same time, in case of modern Protestantism fundamentalist currents and in Orthodoxy, theologians insist on a literal understanding of the first chapters of the Genesis book: the creation of the world within six days.
As for Islam, the creation of the world is described in other way than in the Bible. The Qur’an does not reject the idea of a weekly holiday, which is Friday in Islam. In Islam, contrary to the Bible, it is considered sacrilege to attribute the property of fatigue to the Almighty God, who rested on the seventh day from the work that He spent on the creation of the world. The Bible treats the Sun and the Moon as two luminaries − for controlling the day and controlling the night, the Koran distinguishes them by the use of different epithets: light (nur) – to determine the Moon and torch (siraj) – to determine the Sun.
Hinduism provides at least 3 versions of the world occurrence: from the «cosmic egg», from the «primordial heat» or from parts of the body of the original man. The Rig-Veda (Rigveda) mentions a certain cosmic intercourse.
Buddhist cosmology claims that there is an alternation of the cycles of the Universe emergence and destruction. The Buddhist religion does not have the concept of creating the world by the highest non-material being as God is. The emergence of each new Universe is due to the action of the aggregate karma of living beings of the previous world cycle. Similarly, the cause of the Universe destruction, which has ended its period of existence, is the accumulated bad karma of living beings. Each world cycle is divided into 4 stages: 1) emptiness (from the destruction of one world till the beginning of the formation of other one); 2) the world formation; 3) a stable state period; 4) the world destruction (coagulation, extinction). Each of these stages (kalp) consists of twenty periods of increase and decrease.
Buddhism provides no answer to the questions related to the beginning of world cycles, its end or infinity. The God Brahma appears to be the first creature in the new Universe, who is considered the Creator of the world in Hinduism. As for Buddhism, he is not a Creator but the first divine creature to be worshiped. As any other creatures, he is not immutable and is the subject to the karma cause and effect (consequence) law.
According to the Zoroastrianism universe concept, the world has been existing for 12 thousand years. Its entire history is conditionally divided into 4 periods; each of them lasts for 3 thousand years. The prototypes of everything later created on Earth had already existed in the first Divine Creation period. God creates the sky, planets as well as the first man and first ox during the second period. The first man gives birth to a man and a woman who generate mankind while the first ox generates all the animals. The clash of opposing elements sets the world to motion: water acquires fluidity; mountains arise, celestial bodies run.
In accordance with the Taoism concept, the Universe’s creation is the result of two main forms of energy processes’ occurrence out of nothing: Yin and Yan. Their combinations and interaction generate the «Chi» energy and everything existing in the world as the result.
Realizing the religious doctrines’ insolvency, the attempts to improve them have been made. Thus, Deism, the religious and philosophical trend, acknowledges the God’s existence and the Divine Creation, but disclaims most of supernatural and mystic phenomena, the Divine Revelation and religious dogmatism. Lord Herbert Cherbury is the founder of it. Most of deists believe that God does not interfere in the events taking place in the world after He has created it. They state that intelligence, logics and nature observation are the only means to the God and His Will’s perception. Deism seeks to harmonize science and the idea of the God’s existence, and not to oppose them. The deism followers believe that the scriptures, judging by modern standards, are quite controversial and disputable. They are just the result of a human thought, not the God’s words, and therefore it is impossible to base a worldview on their basis. Traditional religions excessively speculate on the promises of posthumous blisses and threats of hellish torment, which is the way to keep their flock, depriving it of freedom of thought and religion.
Another religious trend is Ietsisme. Its followers believe that, on the one hand, there is something between Heaven and Earth, but, on the other hand, they do not perceive and do not support the established system of beliefs, dogmas and existing explanations of the God’s nature by any particular religion.
Agnosticism doubts the truth or possibility of either proving or refuting the existence of God. According to one point of view, the term «agnostic» can also be used to describe those who believe that the question of the God’s existence can be resolved, but considers the arguments presented in favour of the God’s existence or non-existence of to be unconvincing and insufficient for the firm conclusion.
Ignosticism, or igtheism, is a point of view on theology, according to which the problem of the God’s existence is considered insoluble, since there is no evidence that the theist creature discussed by theologians and philosophers, is intelligible. Igtheists are neither atheists nor agnostics. While atheists do not believe in the God’s existence and agnostics do not know whether God exists or not, igtheists do not understand what is meant when one says that God exists.
The reference to the religions’ gods allowed everyone to answer the most complex and different questions. M. Lomonosov said it well:
«It is easy to be philosophers, having learned three words by heart: God has created in such a way, and giving these words as an answer instead of all the reasons». As for science, such answers are unacceptable. Religion based on faith rejects doubts. Faith is a simplified way to explain the surrounding world phenomena difficult to understand by God’s activity, while religion is a way to cash in on this faith.
From a scientific point of view, the hypothesis about the God’s existence (and «soul», «spirit», «heaven», «hell», concepts related to it, etc.) cannot be verified. Therefore, any speculations about the God’s existence are not scientific by their nature. While science widely uses observation in pursuit of the truth, theology perceives the truth through divine revelation and faith. In science the truth always contains the hypothesis element, preliminary character, but the divine truth is an absolute for the believer. Moreover, the generally accepted evidence of the God’s existence has not been formulated as the definition of God has never been generally accepted. For the same reason, the generally accepted evidence of the God’s non-existence cannot be formulated. However, the issue of His existence remains the subject of lively philosophical disputes and discussions.
Clinton Richard Dawkins, the author of «The God Delusion», published in 2006, argues that the likelihood of any supernatural creator is extremely low and the religious faith is an illusion. According to him, «God is not a convincing explanation, so we can only wait and hope that someone will offer something better».
1.2. SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES OF THE LIFE OCCURRENCE ON EARTH
There are a number of theories to explain the life occurrence on the planet that are difficult to prove their accuracy. A lot of these theories and their points to explain the existing species diversity exploit the same data but emphasize the data different aspects.
The assumption of spontaneous life occurrence was common in ancient China, Babylon and Egypt as an alternative to the divine creation of the world. Aristotle, on the basis of his own observations, joined all organisms in a continuous row. He stated that «Nature makes the transition from lifeless objects to animals with such a smooth sequence, placing creatures living without being animals between them so that one can hardly notice the differences between neighboring groups due to their close proximity». According to Aristotle’s hypothesis of spontaneous nucleation, certain «particles» of a substance contain a certain «active principle (source)», which can lead to the living organism’s creation. He falsely believed that source was also present in sunlight, mud, and rotting meat. With the spread of Christianity, the theory of the life’s spontaneous origin was not recognized with the spread of Christianity, but it continued its existence as an idea for many years.
According to the stationary state theory, Earth never occurred, but always existed and was always able to support life, and if it changed, the changes were very insignificant. Species also never occurred, they always existed, and each species has only two options − either its quantity change or extinction. Most of the arguments in favour of this theory are associated with inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This theory is most precisely developed in this trend.
According to the panspermia hypothesis formulated by Herman Richter in 1865, life could have occurred one or more times at different times and in different areas of the Galaxy or the Universe. This idea was supported by G. Helmholtz, S. Arrhenius and W. Thompson were among this theory supporters.
S. Arrhenius believed that life did not occur on our planet, but was brought in by spores travelling through the outer space. After getting on a planet with suitable natural conditions, spores are transformed into cells, and cells give birth to life. S. Arrhenius having carried out calculations, in particular, proved the fundamental possibility of the bacterial spores transfer from planet to planet under the influence of the light pressure. The discovery of cosmic rays and the clarification of the radiation effect on biological objects have greatly weakened this hypothesis’s position.
Sankar Chatterjee, a professor of Texas Tech University and the University Paleontology Museum’s curator, having analyzed information about the early geological history of the planet and compared these data with various theories of chemical evolution, arrived at a conclusion that the simple life early forms occurrence on the planet would be impossible without the participation of comets and meteorites that fell on it. Organic compounds capable of the development of life’s launch were discovered in them during the study. This circumstance, to this or that degree, was taken into account by different authors of the life occurrence hypotheses. The fact of the organic substances in meteorites availability deserves special attention. According to the nuclear geochronology, their age stands for 4.6-4.5 billion years, which basically coincides with the age of Earth and the Moon. Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, purines, pyrimidines, amino acids, i.e., chemical compounds that make up living matter constituting its base, have been found in meteorites. Also, more than a hundred different minerals have also been discovered. Furthermore, 20 minerals not presented in Earth’s crust have been found in the meteorites. Carbides, sulfides, etc. are among them. The proximity to the organic complexes composition of biological origin turned out to be so great that some authors suggested that living organisms were found directly in the very meteorites in the past. However, careful examination of organic compounds taken from meteorites has not confirmed the presence of optical activity, which indicates their abiogenous origin. At the same time, the data obtained demonstrated that the organic compounds’ formation in the Solar system on the early stages of its development was a typical and massive phenomenon. However, the outer space chemicals and most of the Solar system bodies do not have the complexity of living matter, as is observed on Earth.
Academician V.I. Vernadsky also adhered to the panspermia hypothesis. In his opinion, life in the Universe is spreading with the help light quanta. As for Earth, life could have occurred when a meteorite being a particle of other planet that disintegrated as a result of some kind of disaster hit our planet. The fragments of such a planet with bacteria or other microorganisms could go beyond the planet and get to Earth.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, while studying the interstellar matter properties, noted that the cosmic dust’s infrared spectra are very similar to the organic matter’s spectra, to the dry bacteria, in particular. These scientists’ observations served the basis for putting forward the idea of the microorganisms’ possible existence in the interstellar space cosmic dust’s clouds. They suggested that within the period of 4.6−3.8 billion years ago, the life occurrence on Earth was the result of the microorganisms’ ingress from outer space. According to their calculations, a large number of space spores annually enter the upper atmosphere of Earth as the remnants of solid material scattered in the solar system. According to their ideas, comets are the life embryos’ carriers that were earlier formed in the interstellar space.
Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize winner for the DNA code discovery, also suggested in his book «Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature» (1982) that life on Earth did not occur by itself, it occurred through controlled panspermia, that is, through Earth’s deliberate colonization by microorganisms delivered on unmanned spacecraft by a developed alien civilization, which may have tried to perform terraforming for future colonization.
M. Sherman, a professor of Boston University, put forward the hypothesis of the «universal genome’s» artificial occurrence in Cambria to explain the causes of the so-called Cambrian explosion in the evolution of multicellular organisms. Moreover, he insists on the possibility of his hypothesis’s scientific verification.
In favour of their views, supporters of the panspermia hypothesis provide two indirect evidences in favour of their views: the genetic code universality and the need of molybdenum availability for the normal metabolism for all living creatures, which is currently extremely rare on the planet. Supporters of the comet panspermia theory deny the life spreading from one planet to other one process’s controllability, and suggest its spontaneity and chance.
Taking into consideration the fact that the life spontaneous occurrence’s probability on Earth is extremely negligible, the panspermia hypothesis is the most real in comparison with both the evolutionary theory and religious beliefs. Its disadvantage is that it does not explain how and where the first microorganisms to come to Earth were formed; it only indicates the other place where it could have occurred, but does not explain the process and the reasons for the given occurrence.
1.3. THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
The evolution theory is highly ranked in the study of the history of the origin of life on Earth. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was the first to identify two most common trends of the life on Earth’s development: the upward development from simplest forms to more complex and advanced ones and the adaptations’ formation in organisms depending on environmental conditions (vertical and horizontal development). In his works, the scientist noted the organisms’ historical development, which is not of random but of regular nature and occurs in the direction of gradual and steady improvement. He believed that the organisms’ development is not a spontaneous process. In his opinion, «the nature’s drive for progress», «the drive for perfection» was originally inherent in all organisms and laid down in them by the Creator. He argued in his paper «Philosophy of Zoology» that subsequent generations are able to inherit acquired useful properties thus forming new species. For example, in his opinion, giraffes generated from antelopes due to the constant extension of their necks when they tried to reach the leaves on the tops of trees.
Ch. Darwin, being inspired by similar examples, continued the Lamarckian series of assumptions. In his book «The Origin of Species through Natural Selection,» he revealed the main organic world’s evolution factors. Approximately at the same time, Alfred Russel Wallace published an article entitled «On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species», in which he came up with the idea of «survival of the most adapted ones».
Ch. Darwin grounded the theory of the gradual evolution of some species into other ones under the influence of such factors as the survival of the most adapted, the struggle for existence, natural selection, and adaptability to environmental conditions.
The essence of evolutionary doctrine lies in the following main points:
1. All the living creatures’ types that inhabit Earth have never been created by anyone.
2. Having occurred in a natural way, organic forms slowly and gradually transformed and improved in accordance with the surrounding conditions.
3. The species’ transformation in nature is based on such organisms’ properties as heredity and variability, as well as natural selection constantly occurring in nature.
4. Natural selection is carried out through a complex interaction of organisms with each other and with factors of inanimate nature; Ch. Darwin called this relationship a struggle for existence.
5. The adaptability of organisms to their living conditions and the diversity of species in nature is the result of evolution.
According to the mentioned above provisions, a variety of species possessing new specific features allowing a better adaptation to the environment (habitat) can be formed within each species. If the newly acquired qualities are inherited, then genetic differences are amplified in subsequent generations due to the selection of properties that ensure the genotypes’ survival and the new mutation’s accumulation. The mentioned above variety of species adapts better to existing conditions, phenotypically moving away from the parent species. Intraspecific competition leads to the deliberate (selective) removal of the least adapted to the environment individuals and an increase in the number of individuals whose properties favour the survival and reproduction in this habitat. According to the evolutionary theory proponents, such a natural selection is the main mechanism for the new species’ occurrence. Evolution is a process of long-term and gradual qualitative changes that ultimately result in the new species’ occurrence.
According to some evolutionary theory’s advocates, the palaeontological, biogeographic, systematics, plant and animal breeding, morphological, comparative embryology and comparative biochemistry data confirm the evolutionary occurrence of species through natural selection, although they are not indisputable evidence. Three groups of facts are used to confirm the theory. The first group represents examples of species’ minor changes observed within a geologically short period of time in the wild nature, as well as the results of agricultural plants and domestic animals’ breeding. The second group is the fossil record, which indicates a significant variability of life throughout the history of Earth. The third group of evidences deals with the similarity of the morphological features of the all organisms’ structure, which may indicate their common origin. All explanations of the facts discovered are reduced to a spontaneous random process without any intellectual interference in the programming system.
Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution in accordance with the morphological and physiological characteristics, using the natural selection ideas, but did not determine the source of variability in the population. A synthetic theory of evolution combining the Darwinian natural selection’s idea with the laws of heredity and population genetics was developed in the middle of the last century. Currently, it is the most developed system of ideas regarding the speciation’s processes. The hypothesis of the new genes’ recessivity was the impetus for its development; according to it mutations constantly arise in each reproducing group of organisms during the gamete maturation as a result of errors in the DNA replication. Therefore, the mutation process is the most important evolutionary factor, and the bulk of evolutionary material is represented by various forms of mutations, which are manifested by means of changes in the hereditary properties of organisms that occur naturally or are caused by artificial means. After the different types of isolation’s occurrence between populations, they begin to evolve independently, and as a result, genetic differences are gradually accumulated between them, and with time genetic incompatibility is achieved, and crossing becomes impossible.
Julian Huxley, the English biologist and naturalist, indicates in his famous book «Evolution: The Modern Synthesis» (1942) that the species is a system of populations that are reproductively isolated from other species’ populations, and each species is ecologically isolated; speciation lies in the genetic isolating mechanisms’ occurrence and is carried out mainly in conditions of geographical isolation. According to the J. Huxley’s ideas, reproductive isolation is the main criterion that indicates the speciation’s completion.
According to the synthetic theory of evolution, the formation of new species occurs as a result of the separation of individuals of one species into groups that do not interbreed, and the very evolution is defined as the populations’ genetic structure change over time. The allele’s frequency changes thus becoming more or less common compared to other forms of this gene. The acting evolution forces lead to changes in the allele frequency in this or that direction. The change disappears when the new allele reaches the fixation point − it completely replaces the ancestral allele or disappears from the population. Mutations increase the population’s variability due to the emergence of new genes’ allelic variants − mutational variability. If any allele increases the organism’s adaptability more than other ones of the given gene, then the share of this allele in the population will increase with each generation, i.e., selection takes place in favour of this allele. Evolution through the natural selection is a process in which mutations increasing the organisms’ adaptability are fixed. As a result, three processes are necessary for the evolution’s implementation: mutational (to generate new variants of genes with a low phenotypic expression); recombination (to create new phenotypes of individuals), and selection (to determine the compliance of these phenotypes with the given living conditions or growth).
Judging by the palaeontological chronical and by the mutations’ speed indexes, this concept advocates believe that it takes in average 3 million years to reach the complete incompatibility of genomes, which makes crossing impossible. Therefore, it is a rear event to witness the new specie’s formation in natural environment.
In addition to mutational, there is also the combinatorial variability distinguished, which is determined by recombination, but it leads not to the allele frequencies’ changes but to their new combinations.
The gene drift is one more factor contributing to the allele frequencies’ changes.
The synthetic theory of evolution differs from the Ch. Darwin’s evolution in the following points:
1. It distinguishes a population in which the same species individuals are able to interbreed, and but not an individual or a separate species.
2. It considers a steady change in the population genotype’s change the process of evolution.
3. Mutational processes and isolation are treated as the leading factors.
4. The mutational and recombinative variability are the material for evolution.
5. Natural selection is considered as the main reason for the adaptations and speciation’s development.
In accordance with the synthetic theory of evolution speciation is a time-consuming process. However, J. B. S. Haldane found a discrepancy between the real speciation speed and the expected one based on the population genetics models (Haldane’s dilemma) by means of mathematical calculations. He published an article «Cost of Natural Selection» on the basis of his research in the «Journal of Genetics» scientific edition. D. Haldane calculated the mathematical relationship between the intensity of selection and rate of the existing alleles’ substitution in the population by other, more adapted ones. He also evaluated the mortality rate caused by the positive natural selection, while maintaining the mutant gene. According to his calculations, the speciation would have taken much more time for the stage-to-stage formation than it has actually taken (according to the paleontological data) for the implementation of speciation would require much more time than is actually observed (according to palaeontological data).
Later, M. Kimura, while studying the rate of amino acid substitutions in proteins, found that for mammals the substitution rate for the genome per generation was several hundred times higher than the Haldane’s estimation. Kimura showed that in order to maintain a constant population size while preserving mutational substitutions, the rate of occurrence of which stands to one substitution in two years, each parent should produce 3.27 106 descendants so that one of them survives and begins to breed. The mismatch of this impressive number with real data served as the basis for the «Neutral Molecular Evolution Theory» development.
Another argument in favour of this theory’s development was the fact that the assumption regarding more frequent occurrence of favourable mutations (in reality, such mutations are rather rare compared to the adverse ones) was necessary in order to explain the molecular evolution rate provided it proceeds under the natural selection influence.
The «neutral evolution» hypothesis’ main content lies in the point that majority of the changes at the macromolecular level are not controlled by natural selection as Darwin’s theory states, but are determined by the random drift of neutral mutations. According to the authors, this theory is proved by a number of direct and indirect arguments. At the same time, the neutral molecular evolution theory does not turn down the role of natural selection in the development of life on Earth, but emphasizes the proportion of mutations that possess adaptive significance. This theory has demonstrated that the processes associated with speciation are still far from a final explanation based on population-genetic models.
Modern synthetic theory of evolution has a number of disadvantages. It makes no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering one the continuation of other one on a larger scale. Such view’s advocates have detected genetic changes from the population’s original composition from generation to generation, in various laboratory scientific experiments, including the model organisms’ development (drosophila, mice, and bacteria). It gave the grounds to assume that both microevolution and macroevolution are based on the same mechanisms and, in their view, minor changes can lead to significant ones over time, but the authors provide no evidences to prove it. Experts have no doubts regarding the microevolutionary processes within the species, for example, the hair colour or skin colour change, the beak shape, etc., due to which many types of breeds and sorts can exist within the same species. However, microevolution is determined by the alleles frequency’s change in a population (i.e. genetic variability due to such processes as selection, mutation, genetic drift), while the macroevolution involves changes at the species level or higher.
Fred Hoyle argued in his books «The Intelligent Universe» (1983), «Mathematics of Evolution», «Evolution from Space» (1981) and «Why Neo Darwinism Does Not Work» (1982), that the calculation results state that the Neo-Darwinism theory either does not work at all, or works only partially. Many of the common arguments that biologists use to confirm evolutionary theory turn out to be doubtful.
Academician Yu. P. Altukhov (Алтухов Юрий Петрович), a Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of General Genetics named after N. I. Vavilov, the «Successes of Modern Biology» journal editor-in-chief, points out in his book «Genetic Processes in Populations» (2003) criticizing the synthetic theory of evolution:
«In any case, it is becoming more and more obvious that evolutionary consequences are not necessarily concluded from the results of a study of both natural and experimental populations with their systemic organization taken into account. On the contrary, it confirms once again that the genetic variability of the simplest populations, traditionally regarded as the evolutionary process’s elementary units, is nothing but a stabilization mechanism for the species’ hierarchical, historically formed structure. Such a conclusion contrasts with the population genetics’ tradition, which has always been focused on the dynamics of populations, identifying it with the very evolutionary process».
However, the synthetic theory of evolution still remains the only scientific model to explain the known facts of the species’ origin and development. At the same time, the contradictions accumulated require the development of other theoretical concept of the of life occurrence on Earth.
1.4. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION’S DISPUTABLE ISSUES
Many scientific researchers have been focused on the evolution doctrine’s problems, but it is absolutely clear that the unity of opinion regarding all its provisions has not been achieved yet. A rather general descriptive definition of the term «evolution» is the only aspect that arises no discussions. Many of the evolutionary theory critics drew attention to the low, in their opinion, probability of certain facts and events in the living beings’ development.
Among the number of the Darwinism critics appeared immediately after its appearance, the Russian philosopher N. Ya. Danilevsky is worth paying special attention, who carefully analyzed all the papers by Charles Darwin, as well as the critical papers related to them and introduced his own views on evolution. In his three-volume work, «Darwinism. A Critical Study» (1885), containing almost 1,500 pages, he comprehensively criticized Darwin’s doctrine. He wrote the following: «On the one hand, it is impossible for a mass of accidents not related to each other, to produce order, harmony, and surprising expediency; on the other hand, a talented scientist, having all the data of science and extensive personal experience in hand, shows you in a clear and obvious way how simple, however, it can be done. Only after a long study and even longer consideration I saw the fi st way out of this dilemma, and it was a great joy for me. Then a lot of such exits had been opened so that the entire theory building was riddled with, and fi ally fell apart in my eyes into an incoherent pile of garbage».
