An imaginary dialogue between Darwin and Mark, as a thesis of a student from a high school next to the Hebrew University. 1988
From a bulletin for biology teachers
Marina Bykov
Yen, my dear friend, without your help, I might never have come to Torah
my evolution You formulated the idea of development so beautifully
From simple forms to more complex forms - from the inorganic material to
The real person.
Lemark: Although the idea was good, unfortunately, it was only an idea. No
I was able to discover the mechanisms responsible for the development I was talking about and therefore
Nor was I able to convince anyone of the correctness of my words. It's no wonder, I spoke
In abstract ideas, such as a natural tendency to create complex organisms
More.
Darwin: How could you, then, be sure of the truth of your words?
Lemark: The facts speak for themselves - I mean the fossils of Kivia
for example. Also, when I was engaged in the sorting of plants and animals, I was present
To know that the accepted method of sorting from the developed organisms in descending order
To the most primitive organisms it is hard and cumbersome and appropriate
The opposite method - aliyah - was less suitable for reality
From the primitive organisms to the developed organisms. the explanation
The best for this phenomenon was, probably, that the species evolved from the creatures
From the simplest to the most human, one out of the other in a natural and continuous way. but
At this point my thought stopped.
Darwin: This is perfectly understandable; After all, you didn't have any data to base it on
You could go on and on. I on the other hand had the essay of
Malthus, which was published years after your death, and in which the author says, that my son tells
Man living in our world is limited by the amount of food available. He shredded
That saving the poor with better social conditions will only lead to their death
In other ways (on this point I strongly disagree with him). but
The main thing, about, in Malthus's words, was that when only a few can
to exist, survive the fittest. It was the thing that got me, as well
To Wallace's friends, discover the mechanism of natural selection and don't impute it
Discovery of some special virtue. And after this discovery I, just like you,
I stopped and couldn't find an explanation for those variations that made the
the process of natural selection.
Lamark: Oh, nothing could be more ridiculous than the explanation I tried
I give the matter - the tangible and abstract liquids! But neither of us
Answer in the dark due to our lack of knowledge of genetics.
Darwin: In your time Mendel's work had not yet been published, but in my time it was
After all, it was already strong and existing, and I didn't even know about its existence; Some
Too bad.
Lemark: But then it seemed that he contradicted your theory in an explicit way.
Only today it seems so simple and clear that the two things fit together.
After all, the fact that there is an iron law in the inheritance of traits rules out, so to speak, everything
Possibility of change and development.
Darwin: Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to re-examine my theory in light of his work
Mendel's but I think I would have reached a dead end, so it was lucky
She didn't reach me. Interestingly, I did experiments similar to these
that Mendel did and I even noticed the uniformity of the phenotype of the offspring in the first generation
(the fruit of a cross between pure varieties), but I did not draw the conclusions he drew
Mendel and I did not discover his laws.
Lemark: And it was for the best, Charles, since you could have reached the point where your experiments were
Yours have contradicted what you have worked for so many years. By the way, I think there were all
These years are completely unnecessary. An overall view of things - is
the important and not the small facts.
Darwin: Hereby I disagree with you, M. de Lamarck. If not for all the facts
The smallness, which I labored so long for the collector, was not useful to the apparatus and the people
My evolution would be treated exactly as your degradation was treated. but
There is truth in your words - Mendel's laws were not useful at all, they were just
bothering me What is the use of having fixed hereditary factors
The ones that divide into gametes in a certain way? What is the matter of the succession of phenotypes
And the genotypes change the characteristics of organisms over the generations? That's how it is
Regarding Mendel's laws, but I would gladly sacrifice my right hand to know then
the theory of chromosomes and genes.
Lemark: The same goes for me, and we'll even start from the beginning, from the little thing
most. How wonderful that all the qualities we are born with are folded into a number
Molecules found in every cell and cell of the living organism! molecules
Chemicals are complex but defined, with no mysteries whatsoever. The thing already
puts us on solid ground. in a defined molecule can apply
Chemical changes are determined by a thousand reasons: radiation that penetrated from space; material
a foreigner, such as the genetic material of the virus, which managed to penetrate the cell nucleus;
extreme cold and heat; In the end - just a disruption in replication! And there already is
We have a mutant cell. And if this is the cell of a single-celled creature or a multi-bodied gamete
Thai - after all, we already have a mutant creature. And that's how the feature problem is solved
The occasional news that we both, if I may say so,
We've been butting heads for so long.
Darwin: Oh, it does not follow automatically from the discovery of the hereditary material
DNA You mentioned a number of other phenomena, among which the replication of DNA. This is indeed the case
A wonderful phenomenon; I'm sure Mandel himself was happy to meet her. all
The process of cell division is carried out with miraculous precision, which is so characteristic of the body
the animal at the microscopic level. The DNA builds an exact copy of itself according to
The information contained in it - it is not yet clear exactly how, since it has not yet been deciphered
All the DNA code, but it's probably not too bad for us to wait a few more years.
After that, the cell, by behaving according to a fixed pattern, transfers the two
The sets of chromosomes for both poles: it dissolves the nuclear membrane,
The chromosomes line up at the equator, skill fibers are sent to them
which transport them to the cell pole and then a nuclear and cell membrane is formed around them
divisible. After all, this is the basis of reproduction. And then - the division into gametes. Actually,
Mendel also talked about it, but from the opposite point - he didn't talk about
The cases in which exchanges occurred, as is known today, but only about the cases
in which the resulting hybrids are phenotypically identical to those of one of the parents. the replacement
He is the important one, he is an answer from heaven to my need to explain the variations -
Because it happens relatively often. when the chromosomes exchange
New combinations of dominant and recessive genes are formed in the segments
And when it comes to quantitative inheritance - all the more so. and when created
The zygote again forms a new combination between the characteristics of the father and the characteristics of the mother.
Lemark: I agree with every word. It is terrible to think what things are not accepted
In my mind I had to invent. I, a member of the French Academy and Adam
Makes perfect sense, to prove an idea that was fundamentally correct and later
Years proved true by others. I never got to the selection mechanism
the natural one by environmental conditions and the choice of spouses: when conditions change
The environment survives only the individuals with a set of traits suitable for survival
Under these conditions: For various details that can exist in a new environment there is
the cultural advantage over a group of individuals that is repressed within the old environment;
Individuals of a certain species will choose their partners according to their suitability for the condition
the environment. It makes so much sense, and what I wrote was: change in condition
The environment causes the needs of the organism to change, this causes change
His behavior and then there is more or less use of a certain organ and its shape
variable. And the worst are the liquids - the tangible liquid, the liquid
The abstract and the nervous fluid.
Darwin: My friend de Lamarck, you are too hard on yourself, you judge
yourself by modern standards. You were the one who formed the
The idea of development in a better way than, for example, my late grandfather. are you
You included in your Torah the genealogy of the groups of animals that became known
In later years, and as for your "proofs" - it must be remembered that you went
to a Jesuit school and not through your fault but because of the poverty of your parents;
The fact that you eventually became a scientist should be credited to you
Much more than any of my life's work, as I have always enjoyed financial conditions
comfortable It is no wonder that under the influence of the Jesuit school you became a Hasidic
Vitalist, which after a few decades became ridiculous, but in your time
She was at her peak. All your mistakes made perfect sense in context
The vitalist school. The same liquid you talked about - isn't it "power".
the life" of the vitalists. Everything you said is based on the active part of
The animal (this does not hold so much for plants) in its unconditional adaptation
Life. And scientists are returning to this idea of yours even today. also,
You and I share a mistake, a bigger mistake than the inability to explain your appearance
Variations. We both said that acquired traits are inherited. This is it
A very serious mistake; And the reality of the hereditary material contradicts the assumption of everything
and all.
To Mark: This mistake unites us, my friend Charles, like a heavy iron cable
The link between two prisoners. I have heard many people say: "Well, there were."
Intelligent people, how to invent such a thing?" These people do not know
That this was logical and almost self-evident. After all, how could they have happened?
Mutations but with the help of the inheritance of the change in the parents? But it should be noted that it is not
We were equally mistaken: the whole mechanism of development, or degradation,
My description was based on this assumption - the different organ in the parent is passed on
Inherited to the offspring, etc., whereas you only needed the explanation of the changes
The sudden ones that caused the changes that manifested in the phenotype of the individuals.
Darwin: I have heard that this assumption of ours will be misused, as in many
scientific theories. A political philosophy was developed from it. in philosophy
In itself there is nothing wrong, although I myself avoided getting into trouble
The ever-changing human philosophy and thought and I stuck to the facts
The solid sciences. But politics! This is most unfortunate being a foreigner
In the spirit of pure science. The most unfortunate is the suppression of the development of the science that created the
the assumption. Indeed, we ate, or rather, we produced an entire generation
of scientists in a vast world region - his teeth are dull.
Lemark: You never know what will come out of a scientific theory, what my children will make of it
Man.
Darwin: True, but precisely because of this it is incumbent upon the scientist to delve into the works
his and leave philosophy to philosophers and politics
to politicians A scientist must always be the solid foundation of our immaterial world
stable. I must not draw rash conclusions from insufficient data
and disregard arduous years of experimentation. Only on rigorous experimentation
and careful observations based on real science.
Lemark: I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you on this point. what a value
Ant work has the pitfalls of collecting the smallest facts, which are of no use
man? Why waste a brilliant mind of a scientist on such work? No, the motel
A scientist must see the thing as a whole, draw conclusions and analyze.
Darwin: Why do you despise gathering the facts so much? After all, it's work
Wonderful and extremely satisfying, in which you encounter again and again the beauty of creation. the hours
The best moments of my life were spent bending over a tiny insect
some kind of, looking at it with a magnifying glass. Although I do not object to the fact,
Maybe a brilliant person like you doesn't need any prolonged effort to deduce the
His conclusions, but I, being equipped only with my common sense and nothing else, the thing
The only thing that helped me was the diligence with which I worked. And I have to say
that my observations brought me nothing but pleasure.
Lemark: Please, don't underestimate yourself. Have you ever thought, that the first life
Earths were created by the heat of the sun and an electric spark from inorganic material
Moist gelatin?
Darwin: Of course not, my friend, I hope you don't mean once
I read your words, in my ignorance, "Lamarck's nonsense"?
Lemark: No, of course not. It was stupid of me to try and solve your question
The beginning of life without knowledge of genetics, but who could have thought that there would be one day
Does such a thing exist? Actually, it wasn't even a matter of genetics, but of
Elementary biochemistry, which was based on Lavazia's new chemistry, which I
I opposed him. If I hadn't done that I would have saved myself a mistake
Shameful one. Everything is interconnected: chemistry, biochemistry, genetics,
Evolution - everything is one. Just think of the wonderful way in which a supervisor
The DNA is about everything that happens in the cell. mRNA is built according to the structure of DNA
his copy. It comes out of the nucleus in complicated chemical ways and finds the
The two parts of the ribosomes. He connects these parts together and passes
in the middle like paper in a typewriter. tRNA connects to it and with the help of enzymes
Qualim translates the code, which is actually the code of DNA, into the language of acids
the credibility And who knows what the proteins are? Maybe they will build cells
brain and will connect a wonderful song.
Darwin: I see you are no longer a follower of the vitalist school.
Lemark: After my faith in her caused me to draw wrong conclusions from facts on the ground, I decided to stop supporting her.
Darwin: A noble quality of a researcher is the ability to change one's opinions. Do you know that today there is a whole school of new marketists who rely on your opinions in the active adaptation of the organism to its environment?
Lemark: We both made mistakes in our time, my friend, because of the lack of knowledge of our time. But we both left footprints behind us, even though your footprints were much bigger than mine.
* * *
bibliography
1. Hebrew encyclopedia, Darwin values, Darwinism; To Marx, to Marxism.
2. Bartov, H.S. / modern biology.
3. Gould / since being Darwin.
4. Winchester / Fundamentals of genetics.
5. Leibovitz Isaiah Prof. / between science and philosophy.
Dictionary of Scientific Biography: Lamarck, Darwin. 6
