Biology. Information field of life Simakov south information matrices and morphogenesis

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.

Biologists often compare their science to physics. They would like for biology the same precision and the same unshakable laws, once and for all established for our earthly conditions. But life is several orders of magnitude more complex than physical phenomena, and therefore few such laws have been found in it so far. The natural way to establish them is through a change of ideas and new discoveries. If ideas do not change for a long time, then most often for two reasons: the teaching either reflects the essence of the object of study, or has turned into a dogma that they strive to perpetuate.

In fact, it is not always easy to distinguish between these two cases. Who admits that he believes in some theory because it’s more convenient and peaceful for him to live? Rather, they can say that they do not doubt it, since it enjoys universal recognition. But is such an argument worthy of real, ever-evolving science, which for the most part was done by brilliant lone scientists? Already by virtue of their loneliness, they were always doomed to go against the prevailing belief. And ultimately, in science, it was not the generally accepted, but the correct ideas that prevailed.

A similar collision is characteristic of the evolutionary theory represented by modern Darwinism. Darwinism is protected, supported, “developed” and taught in Russia, Europe, the USA - throughout the civilized world - as the only true teaching. But how do you know if it is actually true?

True teaching is always open to criticism. His own reflection means the ability to self-criticize. Let us remember that Charles Darwin included in “The Origin of Species” chapters VI “Difficulties of the Theory” and VII “Various Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection.” Modern followers of Darwin avoid mention of difficulties (often masking them with arbitrary extrapolations), do not accept criticism and prefer to arrogantly ignore anything that they consider to be a challenge to established ideas. It should be noted that the very fact of the long existence of the evolutionary paradigm they defend creates a misleading impression of its solid validity and boundless fruitfulness.

A correct, or rather correctly constructed, doctrine is based on provisions that can be experimentally verified and assumes the possibility of refutation (falsification). Darwinism and especially the synthetic theory of evolution, as hypothetico-deductive constructs that deny the applicability of experiment and observation to the knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms, cannot be refuted. By placing themselves above the facts, they seemed to worry about their perpetuation in advance.

It seems that comparison with the progress of genetics, a discipline especially close to evolutionary theory and which selectionists consider its foundation, provides very eloquent evidence of the state of the synthetic theory. For 60 years - a time during which the development of this theory practically stopped - molecular genetics, in particular knowledge about the organization and functioning of the genome, has made a fantastic rise. Why such a difference in the destinies of these sciences?

Let's return to the comparison of biology with physics. There are no scientists in the world who, say, instead of the laws of Newton, Dalton, Huygens or Faraday, would propose something different. And the very idea of ​​​​the possibility of replacing them would seem absurd. In evolutionary theory the situation is different. Here, an alternative to Darwinism has existed throughout its history, and it is especially relevant today. There was no shortage of authors proposing new theories. These were outstanding thinkers and naturalists, people of high scientific intuition, but at one time they were ridiculed or ignored and regarded as the “prodigal sons” of science. Now their finest hour has come, and we will tell in the book about their bold hypotheses.

Therefore, it is natural to ask everyone who is involved in preserving the status quo in evolutionary theory: why are we still presented with the model of evolution of the 1930s and 1940s in textbooks on this discipline and, accordingly, in lectures by professors and teachers? Why aren't new models even mentioned? It is clear that only established, comprehensively tested ideas are included in textbooks, but then the question is appropriate: how many years should new knowledge that has passed experimental testing be “held” and wait for its turn? Wouldn't it be more correct to start by presenting in the textbook, along with the canonical theory, other views?

We have no doubt that sooner or later new knowledge will make its way. Wanting to bring this moment closer in every possible way, we decided to write a book in which all the latest achievements of evolutionary thought of a non-Darwinian orientation, as well as similar ideas of the past, would be collected together. More precisely, we tried to trace the fate of every noteworthy idea from its inception to the present day.
...
The author expresses deep gratitude to Yu.P. Altukhov, L.I. Korochkin, M.B. Evgeniev, M.D. Golubovsky, Yu.V. Tchaikovsky, E.A. Aronova for generous advisory assistance and provision of reprints of publications and rare editions and materials, as well as D.B. Sokolov, O.Ya. Pilipchuk (Kiev) and P.E. Tarasov for their participation in the technical design of the book. I also consider it my pleasant duty to express sincere gratitude to my colleagues from Holland - Mrs. Wendy Faber and Mr. Wim Heiting - for providing the portrait of J.P. Lotsi, which has never been published in Russia.
...
Vadim Ivanovich Nazarov (1933--2009)

Graduated from the Faculty of Biology and Soils of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov in 1957, majoring in zoology; in 1969 - correspondence postgraduate study at Moscow State University. From June 24, 1968 he worked at the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology. In 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation, and in 1990 his doctoral dissertation. In 2000, he was elected to the position of chief researcher.

The main works, including four books, are devoted to the study of the history of evolutionary thought of the non-Darwinian orientation of the 20th century, as well as the history of biology of the 20th century in general. According to the scientific community, the monograph “The Doctrine of Macroevolution. On the Path to a New Synthesis” (1991) made a significant contribution to evolutionary theory. The book is widely cited and widely used in the pedagogical practice of higher education in Russia and neighboring countries. It is included in the list of recommended literature given in a number of textbooks.

Applicants entering graduate school at IIET have been widely using the collective monograph “History of Biology. From the beginning of the 20th century to the present day” (1975), the material collected and edited by the author, for almost 30 years.

Between 1970 and 1989 V.I. Nazarov was the executive secretary of the “Historical and Biological Research” series. Until 2001, for 22 years he was the permanent secretary of the dissertation council K003.11.01. During this period, about 45 applicants and several applicants for a doctorate successfully defended their dissertations.

For 5 years (until 2001) he led a problem group in the social history of biology.

We are accustomed to the belief that genes control the entire development of the body. Now this view is changing. Genes alone cannot ensure morphogenesis and create the form of a living being; they contain little information. Genes are important, but they act as an “address”, thanks to which an information matrix (biomatrix) is selected for a developing organism. And to implement the information contained in the biomatrix and to control living cells, a phantom biofield is used that controls the spatial...

We are accustomed to the belief that genes control the entire development of the body. Now this view is changing. Genes alone cannot ensure morphogenesis and create the form of a living being; they contain little information. Genes are important, but they act as an “address”, thanks to which an information matrix (biomatrix) is selected for a developing organism. And to implement the information contained in the biomatrix and to control living cells, a phantom biofield is used, which controls the spatial distribution of cells and their specialization in various tissues and organs. All this happens during the individual development of the organism. A similar mechanism is apparently used in historical development, in the process of evolution. Then it turns out that only living matter evolves, and the path of evolution itself is predetermined (preformed) by the same biomatrices, which are consistently mastered by progressively developing living matter. This monograph is intended both for researchers involved in biology...