0
Natural selection with modification of traits. He could explain natural selection, however he had no explanation for modification of the traits from generation to generation (this had to wait for Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics, and the later discovery of nucleic acids and Watson and Crick's study of DNA to explain the storage of genetic information chemically).
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did someone win the Nobel prize for disproving evolution?
Evolution hasn't been disproved, so obviously nobody's been able to claim that particular honour.
What are the facts about evolution?
With regard to 'facts' this is still a very subjective question. That some form of evolution occurs there is no doubt. However, there are still many unanswered questions about the natureof evolution. There are similar problems, for example, over gravity; we know gravity exists but the mechanism by which it works is still not completely understood. There are theories about gravity 'particles', 'waves', and, of course, the warping of spacetime as postulated by Einstein. But, despite all these theories having a great deal of merit, the exact 'factual' means by which gravity works is still not fully understood. In the same way, evolution, though evidence supports its existence, is still not fully understood, and until it is, facts about it cannot be cited without some doubt. The word 'fact' can be either irrefutable mathematical evidence (eg 2 + 2 = 4) but can also mean an idea for which there is overwhelming evidence - until something else comes along and improves or modifies it, that is! As an example, Newton's laws of motion were 'fact' for hundreds of years until Einstein realised that they break down at speeds near the speed of light. This is not to say Newton was wrong - only limited. In the same way, we are still groping with Darwin and, although it is unlikely that Darwin will be 'proved' wrong, it is almost certain that the current 'facts' will be modified as new evidence comes along. With regard to Darwinian 'facts', there are two extremes, both of which are rather untenable. Firstly there are those, like Richard Dawkins, who accept Darwin as irrefutable fact. He once stated "Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.'Whilst he may be eventually shown to be correct, there are many questions about evolution that Darwin simply does not answer at the moment, and so such a statement by Dawkins is rather foolish and cavalier. There are some intermediary species that havebeen found, but, considering the multitude of different creatures that have existed since life began, there simply aren't nearly enough, even if we discovered many, many more. Also, rather than a gradual process of evolution as suggested by Darwin, the records suggest that it happened, in some cases, in leaps and bounds. Why? There are also many unanswered questions such as the unlikelihood of complex structures like the eye or the feather being formed by chance, and the great improbability of a complex code like DNA being formed also by chance, even in the most primitive of bacteria. While these unanswered problems and others like them, may eventually be solved, to stick ones neck out and claim that evolution, at this moment, is irrefutable, is as silly as Fred Hoyle's insistence in the Steady State Universe, until Wilson and Penzias came along and discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang, causing Hoyle's Steady State to be shelved overnight. Secondly there are those who deny evolution totally and who insist on an earth that is just a few thousand years old, where all species were created together. Creationists have formulated their own explanations of life's formation surrounding the 'falsified' evidence of Darwinism, and usually rely on scripture to dispute Darwin's theories out of hand. This rigid approach is equally untenable as there is clear evidence of the immense age of the earth, and clear, and overwhelming, evidence that some form of evolution through natural selection does actually take place. Creationists seem, also, to forget that the Darwin they demonise, despite some wobbly episodes, lived and died a Christian. He was once famously quoted as saying he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. Even his Origin of Species ends with the words "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. " In truth, then when asking about the 'facts' of evolution it is very presumptuous to either accept evolution as irrefurtable or deny it out of hand. It seems the truth lies somewhere in between. Until more evidence comes to light, until more theories and speculations come and go and until scientists and naturalists understand much (much) more about the workings of DNA, the facts about evolution will still be rather nebulous and controversial.
Why did Darwin's theory of natural selection challenge the ideas of the church?
Answer 1Many churches of the time posited that god created all the organisms of earth at one time, so that no organism was related except to vary from it's created kind. Darwin showed that through the process of natural selection new species were constantly arising from related organisms.Answer 2Theism rationalizes its beliefs in deities by pointing to the organized nature of nature, claiming that such complexities could not have come about through unguided natural processes. Darwin, with his theory of natural selection, provided just that: an explanation for natural complexities in terms of unguided processes. Basically, while Darwin's theory does not claim that no gods are involved in nature, it did away with the need for any gods to explain the diversity of life.
Do personal experiences affect the attitude toward evolution?
Do personal experiences affect the attitude toward evolution? Yes, personal experiences DO affect one's attitude towards evolution. The earth is a perfect environment, and it was created out of nothing by God. Evolution can't create a perfect environment out xof nothing. Evolution isn't all powerful, all knowing, or is everywhere. But they say they know how humans evolved, but how did everything else evolve. What there trying to do is make up stories to prove that evolution is real thats why they only know how humans evolved but nothing else. Because animals can't just appear out of nowhere. Thats when god comes in because the bible says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Evolution is faulty. Evolution is unrealistic. Evolution is atheist. You realize now that evolution is just a theory, a theory that proves nothing. Evolutionist say that we evolved from a fish that grew legs or even a armpit licking monkey. But, that isn't what the facts say. John 1:3 states "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This meaning, God created everything and everyone through his own image, and without him nothing would have been created. The evolutionist to my right/left state we evolved from species that still roam the earth to this day, but don't you think if they were, so to speak, "right" there wouldn't be apes or fish anymore, there would just be humans. The facts we have presented show you that evolution is a faulty inference to how we as humans came to be. Evolutionist can say all they want, but if they don't have to the facts to back them up then evolution will always be a theory, a theory that proves nothing.
What is the role of genes in evolution?
Genes are the code, which when processed by a cell, result in a particular individual of a species. Slight changes (mutations) to these Genes therefore result in differences to an individual organism as compared to the rest of the members of its species. If these difference help the organism to survive and breed better than the rest of its species, then these Genes get passed on to its offspring. Thus evolutionary changes to organisms are in effect changes to the Genes which make the living organisms.
What is Charles Darwin's claim to fame?
Charles Darwin was not an inventor, he was a discoverer. He discovered a hypothesis for the origin and continuation of life on Earth. His theory is also called the Theory of Evolution.
Did Darwin deny evolution?
No. The story traces back to Lady Hope. In a publication 33 years after Darwin's death Lady Hope claimed that Darwin was reading the Bible, that he made some non-committal statements, and that he had asked her to speak to his servants about Jesus. Lady Hope did not claim that Darwin became a Christian, nor did she say he denied evolution. This conversation, if it happened, was during a visit than half a year before Darwin's death.All of Darwin's writings up until the end, including those after the claimed conversation, are all supportive of Evolution and being agnostic. When stories arose about Darwin converting or denying evolution, Darwin's wife and all of his children denounced it as a fabrication. One of the tensions between Darwin and his wife was her deep faith and his agnosticism. If the stories of conversion and recantation were true then his wife certainly would not have denied it.Historians consider this to be an urban legend. Even the Creationist organisation answersingenesis says: Lady Hope's story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution.
Did Darwin recall his theories before his death?
This is a common claim made by creationists, but is absolutely not true. Darwin never recalled his theory of evolution, or became a theist (seeing as he was an atheist later in life) before he died. This is a false rumor promoted by non-scientific figures, and should not be taken seriously. Darwin did, however, originally withhold publication of On The Origin of Species because of his religious wife.
Who made zebras?
Many would claim God. Others would claim evolution.
What did Darwin do on his death bed?
The death of Darwin is recorded by several of his contemporaries - no death bed conversion back to Christianity, no ringing endorsement of atheism. Just a wise old man at the end of his life. See Link.
What did Charles Darwin claim in his book?
That all species had changed over time.
Why were the many searched for a northwest passage significant?
They caused France to claim land
What paragraphs from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin most effectively develop Darwins claim that the voyage of the Beagle was the most important event in his life?
One key paragraph from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin that underscores Darwin's belief in the significance of the Beagle voyage is when he states that "the voyage of the Beagle has been by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career." Additionally, Darwin emphasizes the transformative nature of the journey by explaining how it shaped his scientific thinking and provided him with the necessary observations and experiences to develop his theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin further highlights the impact of the voyage by showcasing how it broadened his understanding of geology, biology, and the interconnectedness of life on Earth.
Who was the founder of biology?
There's no definitive answer to this, but many biologists would argue that biology as a subject didn't really exist before the publication of the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. Biology was studied before then, but without the understanding of evolution there was little structure to it. Another claim might be made forGottfried Reinhold Treviranus who actually coined the word "biology"; he proposed an alternative form of evolution similar to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory - which was the species changed because of direct effects from the environment (for example, a giraffe stretching to reach top of a tree caused the neck to extend).
How did Charles Darwin discovery change science?
Next year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. It is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The life and work of a great scientist and a seminal figure in intellectual history will, therefore, be the subject of intense interest and debate in the coming year. Such events as an outstanding Darwin exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London, a Darwin Anniversary Festival at Cambridge, and the reopening to public view of Darwin's home, Down House in Kent, merit enthusiastic interest and support.But one aspect of these educational ventures is especially worth noting. Darwin is not merely a man of his time. The extent of his achievement gives him a plausible claim to be counted the greatest figure in this nation's history. And his ideas, while confirmed by mountains of evidence, remain startling in their implications for prescientific modes of thinking. They are consequently an enduring target for movements that disdain critical inquiry and the life of the mind. In 2009 the celebration of Darwin has a value beyond a 19th-century scientist's findings about the natural world. The communication of Darwin's ideas is integral to a culture that values learning over superstition and dogmatism.The publication of On the Origin of Species on November 24, 1859, represented - in the words of Ernst Mayr, the biologist - "perhaps the greatest intellectual revolution experienced by mankind". The book's importance lay in Darwin's not only adducing the fact of evolution but also in discovering its main mechanism. This was natural selection, the process by which small variations operating over millions of generations produce new varieties and new species.The ideas formulated in Darwin's writings are not merely a branch of science. They are the keystone of numerous areas of inquiry. Theodosius Dobzhansky, the geneticist, encapsulated Darwin's importance when he observed: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." When, in 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson unravelled the structure of DNA - among the most important scientific discoveries of the last century - they demonstrated the power of Darwin's insights. Here were the units of inheritance that cause evolution, and that provide the link between all living organisms.Despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, Darwin's ideas remain unsettling to some, because they demonstrate that natural processes are a sufficient explanation for the development of life on Earth. Mainstream religious denominations have no difficulty accepting Darwin's discoveries. But a minority, across faiths, aim to present sacred creation myths (sometimes ineffectually disguised under the label "Intelligent Design") as if they were scientific truth. Extraordinarily, Sarah Palin, the defeated US Republican vice-presidential nominee, is on record as believing that biblical Creationism should be taught in science education alongside evolution.- times online
Darwin's claim that all of life descended from a common ancestor is best supported with evidence from?
molecular biology
Who is against evolution?
Muslims, Many Jews and Christians, scientists who aren't dogmatic enough to claim evolution is fact, and many other intelligent people.
