10 Evolution Myths You Don't Believe

Myth 1. The human fetus in the womb repeats the stages of evolution of its species

You may remember the so-called Haeckel-Muller biogenetic law. It states that the embryo during development goes through the same stages as the ancestors of its species on the evolutionary tree.

That is, the human embryo in the womb at first looks like a fish fry, then like an amphibian with gills, then like a reptile embryo, and then like a creature resembling a bird. And only after going through all these stages, he finally turns into a decent mammal.

The law is even repeated by teachers in schools and can be found in biology textbooks.

This theory was put forward by the naturalists Ernst Haeckel and Fritz Müller in the 19th century. And already at that time, scientists found inconsistencies in it, and only later

researchE. Blechschmidt. The Beginnings of Human Life They left no stone unturned from her. It turned out that the embryos of different species develop in different ways.

In the early stages, vertebrate embryos are strongly differJ. Gerhart, M. Kirschner. Cells, Embryos and Evolution: fish, birds and reptiles can not be confused with mammals, even at the most rough examination.

Then, when the embryos of different classes begin to form features common to all vertebrates, they really become similar to each other - this is the so-called "resemblance knot". And it was he who prompted Haeckel and Müller to think about the phylogenetic law.

But at later stages embryos start to differ again. So there is no pattern here.

Myth 2. Modern scientists are followers of Darwinism

On the Internet, you can find many statements in the spirit of "Darwin's theory was refuted, but scientists still believe in Darwinism!" In the mass consciousness, it is associated exclusively with this name. But it's not that simple.

First, such theories appearedEvolution myths: All biologists are Darwinists / New Scientist even before Darwin wrote his On the Origin of Species in 1859. Them authorsA History of Evolutionary Thought / UCMP there were Buffon, Lamarck, Haeckel, Huxley and others. Assumptions about the development of living organisms from common ancestors were put forward even by Leonardo da Vinci and Aristotle.

Secondly, Darwinism was, of course, a breakthrough for its time, but allowed a lot of mistakesEvolution myths: All biologists are Darwinists / New Scientistbecause Charles had no idea about such thingsWas Darwin Wrong About Evolution? New Discoveries Suggest He May Have Been/National Geographiclike genetics and DNA.

Darwin set the right direction, but was inaccurate in the details.

Calling current scientists Darwinists is wrong, because the modern synthetic theory of evolution basedThe Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? /PMC not only on the legacy of Darwin, but also on the achievements genetics, paleontology, cladistics and molecular biology.

Science has stepped far forward, so it is not necessary to associate evolution exclusively with natural selection.

Myth 3. The first creatures to walk on land were fish

Another myth that we learned from school textbooks. You probably remember the pictures from there: uninhabited land and a deserted shore, on which a brave fish carefully crawls out on its fins. She gathered her courage and finally decided to leave her native element in order to conquer new spaces for life.

This is what psychologists and life coaches mean when they say it's time to "get out of your comfort zone."

It was this fish that became the first land animal. At least that's what many people think. And in vain.

In fact, when fish, the distant ancestors of modern terrestrial vertebrates, only made their first timid encroachments on land, it was already teeming with life. The land was inhabited by plants, fungi and lichens, as well as insects, centipedes and arthropodsR. J. Garwood. Early Terrestrial Animals, Evolution, and Uncertainty / Evolution: Education and Outreach.

pioneers on the landS. conway. The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals became not fish at all, but prehistoric spiders and scorpions. They came out of the water on beachAncient fossil ‘may prove scorpion was the first land‑dwelling animal’ / The Guardian approximately 440 million years ago.

At first, arthropods such as the scorpion-like megalograft only visited the shallows to lay their eggs there. It was safer on uninhabited land: there was less chance that someone would bite your offspring. But later they movedA. J. Wendruff. A Silurian ancestral scorpion with fossilised internal anatomy illustrating a pathway to arachnid terrestrialisation / Scientific Reports ashore on a permanent basis.

And fish for fun in the fresh air joinedHow fish learned to walk / Elements then, in the late Devonian period, about 380 million years ago.

Myth 4. Evolution is the way from primitive organisms to more advanced ones.

Evolution is usually portrayed as a process of gradual complication of organisms. From fish to amphibian, from reptile to mammal, from ape to man, and so on. We've all seen pictures of primitive lifeforms turning into advanced ones. This concept seems logical at first glance. It's just that she's wrong.

In fact, evolution does not necessarily lead to an increase in the complexity of an organism. For example, animals living in the dark can easily, in the course of the development of a species loseHow This Cave‑Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution / National Geographic eyes like cave fish. Because well, they are not needed here.

Similarly, various intestinal parasitessuch as tapeworms, refusedScientists discovered mechanisms that protect / EurekAlert from the digestive system - the owner digests food for them. And bivalve mollusks generally decided do not waste time on triflesP. J. hayward. Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North‑West Europe and lost their heads and mouths.

Mussels and pearl mussels, leading a sedentary lifestyle of a bottom filter feeder, do not need all these excesses.

Nevertheless, from the point of view of evolution, such primitivism is only for the better, because the body stops spending resources on unnecessary parts and concentrates on what is really important.

It’s impossible to say that the same tapeworms are degrading: these unpleasant guys are so pumpedScientists discovered mechanisms that protect / EurekAlert their reproductive system, that their fertility can only be envied. And they continue to evolve, they just have a special way.

So to present evolution as a straight line from simple to complex, as they do in textbooks, is absolutely wrong. Such a scheme used S. J. gould. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Lamarck in the 18th century, but science has come a long way since then.

More correct portrayEvolution doesn't proceed in a straight line - so why draw it that way? / Che conversion the process of evolution in the form of a tree diagram, in which each living organism is the most developed of its kind.

Myth 5. Evolution takes a very long time

Often, when discussing the development of life on Earth, one can hear the statement: “Evolution occurs so slowly that we cannot see it with our own eyes.” This is not entirely true.

Indeed, most vertebrates evolve rather slowly, because they live long, reproduce slowly, and their generations are not replaced very quickly. But all sorts of bacteria and fungi there breed like mad, and their change can be observeEvolution to the rescue: Species may quickly adapt to rapid environmental change, yeast study shows / ScienceDaily literally with my own eyes. New species are formed constantlyHow Long Does Evolution Take? / AMNHfor several days and even hours.

Short-lived insects like fruit flies too evolveE. C. R. Reeve, I. black. Encyclopedia of Genetics extremely fast. That's why geneticists love them: you don't have to wait long to track changes in DNA.

Myth 6. Evolution proceeds according to the principle of "survival of the fittest"

The expression "survival of the fittest" is attributed to the 19th-century sociologist Herbert Spencer. He uttered it after reading the book "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. The last expression liked it, and he appliedDarwin, C. R. 1869. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 5th edition. tenth thousand him in the fifth edition of his 1869 book.

People who are not particularly knowledgeable in biology explain evolution in this way. However, this concept is wrong.

Myth appeared1. Survival of the Fittest vs. Natural Selection / ThoughtCo,
2. BUT. BUT. Pozdnyakov. Darwin and Spencer due to the ambiguity of the original phrase in English. Ssurvival of the fit test can be translated as "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the fittest". Word fit means both "healthy, strong, in good physical shape" and "suitable for the situation."

For example, the Tyrannosaurus rex was much stronger than the small ancestors of modern birds. And where is he now? And chickens are evolutionarily successful and inhabit the whole world. People are physically weaker than bears and tigers, but quite successfully hunted them, first with spears, and then with firearms.

Yes, what is there, the same cockroaches cannot boast of outstanding physical abilities, but they survive in such conditions that stronger creatures cannot be seen in a nightmare.

Myth 7. Chickens are descendants of tyrannosaurs

By the way, since we are talking about chickens and T-Rex, it is worth mentioning another myth. As everyone has long known, modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs. It would be even more accurate to say that birds are dinosaursP. J. Curry, K. Padian. Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, from the point of view of science. They belong to the diapsid reptiles - archosaurs.

Yes, not all terrible lizards have died out, they are still among us. Many of us even eat.

On the Internet on this topic, you can find a lot of comics about the following content. sits huge tyrannosaurus rex rex, looks at chickens and sparrows and sighs: “What happened to us ?!”

However, such jokes mislead people. Despite the fact that these dinosaurs and chickens really have a very much in common1. T. rex kinship with chickens confirmed / New Scientist,
2. Molecular analysis confirms T. Rex's evolutionary link to birds / Harvard Gazette and in the structure of bones, and in biochemistry, and even in habits, birds did not come from rex.

Tyrannosaurus was relativeP. J. Curry, K. Padian. Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs birds, but not their ancestor: most predatory theropods died out 66 million years ago, leaving no offspring. Today's birds happenedAre Chicken Dinosaurs? / Randy's Chicken Blog, let's say, from the cousins ​​​​of the tyrannosaurus rex - maniraptor-like, small agile pangolins with feathers.

Myth 8. There are "living fossils"

In popular science books you can find the term "living fossils". This is the name of creatures that supposedly have not changed in any way for many millions of years.

For example, the tuatara lizard, the coelacanth fish (sometimes mistakenly called the coelacanth), the marine arthropod horseshoe crab, crustaceans, and many other animals. They have been living on planet Earth for tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of years and do not think of developing into something more advanced.

Opponents of science often use "living fossils" as an excuse to say: Darwin was wrong, there is no evolution.

But in fact, it is absolutely wrong to call all kinds of tuatara and horseshoe crabs that way. Popular science books reprint half a century old information - modern molecular genetics long ago proved1. Relic species: a relic concept? / Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
2. Three‑dimensional reconstruction and the phylogeny of extinct chelicerate orders / PMC,
3. Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’ / BioEssays,
4. Multiple global radiations in tadpole shrimps challenge the concept of ‘living fossils’ / PMC,
5. The rapid evolution of tuatara / Naturethat horseshoe crabs, and coelacanths, and shields, and many other species that supposedly remain unchanged actually evolve, and how.

If you take the modern tuatara and its Mesozoic ancestor, who lived 240 million years ago, they will be completely different species, far genetically and incapableLet's make living fossils extinct / The Guardian to crossbreeding.

So the term "living fossil" is long overdue refuseUnless They're Zombies, Fossils Don't Live / National Geographic. Unless, of course, we're talking about zombies... Joke.

Myth 9. Bacterial flagella could not have evolved

Many species of bacteria have flagella, thin extensions that they use to move around and also to capture prey.

Proponents of creationism and "intelligent life design" claimMarkov A. AT. Problems of Evolutionthat this organelle is too complex for such primitive creatures, which means that it could not have developed through natural evolution. So, someone bacteria created in their current form!

It is not particularly clear, however, what is so complex in the flagellum. It's not a robotic pneumatic manipulator.

Scientists long ago explainedNanoscale‑length control of the flagellar driveshaft requires hitting the tethered outer membrane / Nature the appearance of spiral processes, cilia and flagella in bacteria. Initially this wereN. J. Matzke. Evolution of the bacterial flagellum not peculiar “limbs”, but the mechanisms of protein transfer inside the cell. And they turned into a means of transportation by accident.

Myth 10. Darwin at the end of his life renounced the theory of evolution

Opponents of modern science often argue that Charles Darwin at the end of his life renounced his theory, repented and believed in God. And if the author of The Origin of Species himself went back on his word, then this evolution of yours is stupid, and there is nothing to talk about it!

In fact, Darwin never thought of repudiating his theory. This bike came up withDarwin's Deathbed Conversion - a Legend? / Answers in Genesis many years after the scientist's death, the Baptist preacher Elizabeth Hope. In 1915, she published a life-saving story in The Watchman-examiner, and everyone believed her.

Naturalist's children, Francis Darwin and Henrietta Lichfield, claimed1. S. Yates. Lady Hope Story,
2. 13 myths about human evolution / Anthropogenesis. RU: their father did not know any Hope, she was not present at his death and he did not say anything that she attributed to Darwin. In addition, although Charles was not a militant atheist, he also never differed in particular religiosity and did not mix faith with science.