Für haeckel*

A couple of years ago, I had to participate in the discussion that unfolded in Wikipedia around the article “Biogenetic Law” [1]. In the course of this discussion, such a quote from the creations of creationist Alexander Khomenkov surfaced: “The theory of embryonic recapitulation” of Geckel began ... at a fantastic speed to spread around the world, while stimulating the spread of abortion. After all, if the human embryo is not yet a person in the proper sense of the word, but a kind of unknown creature with something like fish gills and a dog tail, which Haeckel was also able to “see” on his drugs, then it is not a pity to kill him.

I then claimed that this quote distorts the opinion of scientists and ascribes to them some wild views. And suddenly in the newspaper Trinity Option No. 111 I saw an article by Lev Klein “ On the rights of embryos ”. In general, the article, in my opinion, is very reasonable. At least its last part. But in this article, the author writes: in this regard , the main biogenetic law of recapitulation is the most thorough ...: Each animal organism (and person) in its individual development (ontogenesis) repeats the phases of species and generic development (phylogenesis) - in particular the species development of mankind. Indeed, observing the stages of the development of the embryo, embryologists first note the phases in which the embryo in the appearance of the emergency of reptiles, then fish and birds ... (highlighted by me. - S. G. )

Why is a person’s embryo passes through the development of first reptiles, and then fish and birds? I have only one explanation - this is how the evolution “went” in the Old Testament, and Lev Samuilovich at the subconscious level remembered this option:

And God said: let it produce the water of reptiles, a living soul; And the birds may fly over the earth, along the firmament of heaven.

And the god of fish of large and every soul of animals of reptiles, which water produced, by their family, and every bird was climbed by its family, created. And God saw that it was good.

Everything converges - first reptiles, then birds and fish; Ampibis is not mentioned at all. Now I don’t hope that readers of the TRV-hobby should not remind how the evolution of vertebrates actually went. First, fish appeared, amphibians came from the cysteper fish, reptiles from primitive amphibians, and mammals from primitive reptiles. Birds are generally not among the ancestors of mammals - they came from dinosaurs noticeably later than the first mammals appeared!

There are other inaccuracies in the cited fragment (why is phylogenesis is a species and birth development? How does the human embryo repeat the species development of a person?), But this is not about them.

Such an interpretation of the views of biologists could not but attract attention. And in the next, the 112th number of the TRV-hunger, an article by Mikhail Gelfand “ Sanding Clock in Development Biology ” appeared. The author is so certified by the biogenetic law and Haeckel: unfortunately, this law is not only incorrect, but is also one of the dark spots in the history of evolutionary teaching; It is not without reason that creationists love him so much. Geckel, a skilled drawingman, depicted in his books not what he saw, but what he wanted to see based on the idea of ​​the progress of the organic world.

Further, the “poor” biogenetic law of Haeckel is contrasted with the “good” law of the embryo resemblance of Baer: this stage is called Philotypical, since at that time the signs characteristic of the type of “vertebrates” appear, and it is not at all the earliest. In embryology, this phenomenon is called the "model of the hourglass" - wide at the edges and narrow in the middle. But, as the history of Geckel shows, morphological similarities are a deceptive thing, it is difficult to strictly determine . But modern methods of molecular biology ... (my discharge. - S. g).

An hour from an hour is not easier! With the systematics, not everything is in order here either-after all, zoologists distinguish the type of chordal, and vertebrates-this is a subtype. But the main thing is very far from reality the point of view of Mikhail Gelfand for the role of a biogenetic law in the development of evolutionary teaching and the role of Haeckel as a “falsifier”.

In the formulation of Haeckel, the biogenetic law, of course, is incorrect (it is not for nothing that many modern embryologists speak sharply quite sharply: see the discussion on the website of the TRV-hunger [2]-I myself inserted the quotes brought there into Wikipedia!). However, the basis of the “Haeckel Law” The principle of recapitulation - a repetition of signs of ancestors in the embryonic development of descendants - is absolutely correct and not refuted by anyone. It seems that the reality of the evolution of ontogenesis is not denied by anyone by extension of the stages. And in this case, the biogenetic law cannot but be implemented. Every summer, fish “in the eyes of the amazed public” go to land and turn into terrestrial vertebrates: after all, on all their main signs, tadpoles are a real fish! There is not the slightest doubt that the course of ontogenesis here largely repeats the course of phylogenesis.

Geckel himself understood the limited applicability of his law and made many reservations. For example, he formulated the concept of cenogen-zz (embryonic devices), “obscuring” recapitulation. Academician Alexei Severstsov set the biogenetic law “from head to toe”, realizing that the changes in ontogenesis are primary in relation to phylogenesis (see the review of the problem of the ratio of onto and phylogenesis [3]). He clearly formulated the possibility of changing ontogenesis at any stage of development - including the initial one. But, it seems, Severzo did not even occur to the biogenetic law of a “dark spot” in the history of evolutionism. It’s the same as considering the heliocentric system of Copernicus “a dark spot in the history of astronomy” due to the fact that the orbit of the planets in it are circular, not elliptical ...

It is especially necessary to say about the "falsified" drawings of Haeckel. Firstly, the biogenetic law has no direct attitude towards them. Before Haeckel, this law (in the form of more private observation) was formulated by Fritz Muller, whom no one accused of falsifications. Haeckel was already accused during his lifetime - he was very painful and it painfully had a lot of enemies and competitors. However, the accusations were often unjustified. Geckel rightly indicated that his drawings were not “falsified”, but simply schematized. This is quite acceptable in the popular science book (which was his Anthropogeny). From the publication to the publication, hekkel tried to improve the drawings, bringing them closer to reality (usually the most schematic drawings from the first edition lead to).

These accusations were repeated many years later, including in authoritative publications (see, for example, [4]). But the only case where the falsification seemed to be proved is that on one of the other people's drawings, Geckel deleted the limb, so that it could be compared with the earlier stages of the embryos of other mammals. The mountain gave birth to a mouse! Note that at the end of the twentieth century, scientists trying to prove the dishonesty of Haeckel themselves used not quite conscientious techniques (see, for example, [5]).

In general, to criticize the biogenetic law (and those who take it for a clean coin), of course, should. But, as Koroviev said, "this should be done more likely." I can imagine how the creationists will applaud the next “revelations” of Haeckel: “You see, prominent biologists themselves admitted that his drawings reproduced in all textbooks are deception! Forbid to deceive our children! " And how they will spray the saliva “Orthodox activists”: “We said that these biologists consider the embryo of a person a fish, and it is not a pity to kill fish!”

In my opinion, it would not be worth "pouring water to the enemy’s mill." It is quite easy to avoid this.

When you write about the topic that is unfamiliar to you, you just need to consult with colleagues or at least look into the sources - for a start, at least in Wikipedia ...

It would not be necessary to respond so dismissively about morphology, contrasting it with “objective” genomics. Firstly, there are completely objective methods for determining the morphological similarity-for example, the method of geometric morphometry [6]. Secondly, one should not forget that in general, confirmation of the genomic-based genomics built on the morphological features of the genealogy animals and plants is so complete that it is deservedly considered one of the main evidence of evolution [7]. And thirdly, the methods of bioinformatics are also far from real objectivity. To make sure of this, it is enough to compare the results obtained with their help by different authors. For example, most scientists consider archais one of the oldest groups of organisms; But Thomas Cavali-Smith-one of the leading macro-systems-believes that they arose simultaneously with eukaryotes only 0.9 billion years ago [8]. He also substantiates his point of view by comparison of genes, and articles are printed in normal reviewed magazines. There is still far from objectivity and consensus.

The second of the articles quoted by Mikhail Gelfand in Nature quoted by Mikhail Gelfand raises questions. I don’t know how the authors defined the “antiquity” of genes - for example, correctly. However, the article provides four drawings - transcriptomes profiles for four different animals (Danio fish, disrupts, mosquitoes and nematodes). The naked eye shows that there is nothing in common between them (except for a decrease in the expression of the “new” genes in old individuals). And the only profile where the new genes are more expressed at the “Philotypical” stage, and in general, their expression is clearly a pronounced bimodal character is a profile for the fish. The mosquito has a monotonous growth of the studied index to the adult stage, the nematode has minimums at the stage of zygote and larvae, in Drusophila minimums at the stage of zygote and germinal strips. At the same time, the values ​​of the index for the “philotipic” stage are barely different in the fish for an adult male, and Drosophila for an adult female. And the authors write nothing nothing that all these trends are the same! Where is Haeckel there with its unfinished legs of the embryo ... In the modern article in Nature, there is a much more free and subjective interpretation than that of Haeckel.

The consensus is that there is a “philotipic stage” from the point of view of molecular biology, there are no molecular biologists among molecular biology. In addition, the idea of ​​the stage of lengthening of the embryo strip as a “philotypic” insects on which the authors of the article in Nature are based on is poorly justified. Probably based on this view, Mikhail Gelfand claims that it is in the middle stages of development that the foundations of the body structure plan are laid in both insects . In fact, the plan for the structure of the body of insects is laid in the course of the development of the egg and is detailed at the stage of the syncitial blastoderm - very early, when there is still no even separation of the cytoplasm of the zygote into separate cells (see, for example [9]).

And when it comes to Nematoda, the authors of the article in Nature are generally “forgetting” about the Philotypical stage. And it is no wonder: perhaps the most similar stage of embryonic development in all nematodes is the stage of “Bob” - an early gastrul, about 30 cells (although the larvae of non -treasured nematodes are quite similar). Such “sand clocks” will have too short the upper funnel. And according to another genomic study, the molecular “Philotypical stage” of the Nematode of the genus Caenorhabditis is the stage of the late Gastrula [10]) ...

It should be noted that the early stages of development within many animal groups differ strictly in species with different amounts of yolk in the egg. And the number of yolks itself greatly depends on the environmental conditions and, as can be assumed, is determined by a very small number of genes. If this is true, then the “sand clock” at the molecular level is unlikely to turn out to be a characteristic feature of animals [11].

Get data on the expression of a large number of genes during embryonic development, of course, is important. But maybe it is equally important to comprehend these data and somehow connect with other data-about morphology, physiology and ecology of species? With this, it seems to me, in many bioinformation works, not everything is smooth.

The author thanks V.V. Aleshin for the discussion of the manuscript and valuable comments

* Für darwin - the abbreviated name of the book by Fritz Muller, one of the creators of the "Basic Biogenetic Law" of Darwin - Müller - Haeckel.