Is Darwin wrong

Answer 1

He had problems reconciling them, but in the end, he knew he had it right. And that was before he even had DNA analysis to back it up.

DarwinDarwin just documented his observations. He never said he was wrong, and did not believe he was wrong.

He did have a hard time reconciling what he observed, when compared to his religious understanding of things, but make no mistake, he believed what he was observing was real.

Answer"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas."

Charles Darwin, 1858 in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, 'On the imperfection of the geological record', chapter X, The Origin of the Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp 292-293.

Thus, even though Darwin saw some of the problems with his theory and suggested ways they might show its correctness either way, there is no evidence he believed or thought he was wrong for putting it forward.

Answer 2

Alfred Russel Wallace was a naturalist, explorer, geographer, antropologist and biologist who proposed a theory called the theory of natural selection. That was something that made Darwing to publish his own theory first.

Basicly they kind of only differ in the name given by each author.

Answer 3

Using the scientific method, no theory can be proven with absolute certainty. There is always small room for doubt. That is what science is all about.

The evidence, however, is firmly on the side of Darwin's theory being essentially correct. Over time we have accumulated considerably more evidence than he had available to him to further support his theory. Examples are genetic similarities, particularly in mitochondrial DNA which does not specify physiological development. (A common argument against evolution is that a Designer might use the similar genetic codes for similar structures--this argument does not apply to mtDNA).

More evidence for common ancestry occurs in endogenous retroviral insertions, genetic sequences inherited from some early infection that became fixed in a population, and shared pseudogenes--genetic components of DNA that cannot express proteins.

One really interesting bit of evidence indicating the common ancestry between humans and simians concerns our chromosome count. Monkeys have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans typically have only 23 pairs. We have, however, identified human chromosome #2 as a fused pair of monkey chromosomes. The evolutionary implications of that evidence are fairly unequivocal.

Answer 4

Darwin's theory can never be fully proven to be correct. Science just doesn't work like that. However, there are thousands of observations to back up his theory and it is generally accepted as true among the scientific community.

Answer 5

Yes he is wrong because if we evolved from apes, apes would still be turning into humans.

Answer 6

Charles Darwin didn't "believe" in evolution; science is not based on faith. He accepted the evidence that showed it was a valid hypothesis and later a valid theory.

Answer 7

No , theories are not materials , hence not invented but formulated .