What was Darwin's original theory which he had to recant, replaced with the well known one today?
151991
Darwin's ideas are essentially the same ones accepted today. You could be referring to the fact that at the time of the publication of "The origin...", Mendel's genetic work was largely unknown (it had passed unnoticed), therefore Darwin did not have a good explanatory mechanism for the inheritance of characters. The predominant idea at the time was something called "blending inheritance" that assumed that the parental traits got "blended" in the offspring. This made it very difficult to support the idea that "good" characteristics would be conserved down the generations (they should blend and eventually disappear). Darwin could never provide a satisfactory explanation, and in subsequent editions of the book he even accepted Lamarckian inheritance again.\nWhen Mendel's work was rediscovered (1900), his model provided a strong support for Darwin's theory. Later other discoveries and developments led to the "New Synthesis" or neodarwinism.
384764
hmmm, well sorry, but I find the evolution theory much easier to understand than a rib, a garden, a tree and a talking serpent
328154
Charles Darwin, an English naturalist who established the theory of organic evolution known as Darwinism said that one!\n\n\n...boo for Darwinism
335431
There is only one - Darwin's.  Google it and you'll find more information than you could use in a year.  \n\nNo other idea regarding the origin of humankind and the process of evolution is viable - not "intelligent design", not "creation science", nor any other answer but Evolution.\n\nYou must remember that, in science, a theory is not just somebody's best guess.  A theory is an explanation based upon facts.  Evolutionary theory is the base upon which modern science is built.\n\nRight now the newspapers and t.v. are talking about "bird flu" as if it's something we need to be scared of.  Bird flu cannot be spread from person to person.  But the virus could, and is very likely to, change to the point that it can indeed be spread from person to person.  If that happens, it will happen because the virus evolved.  This sort of thing happens time and again - proving that not only has evolution happened in the past, but that it is still happening.\n\nOne more thing: Niether Darwin nor his theory ever said that humankind descended from monkeys!  Good luck on your school project - now get to work!
478857
While the echoes of Darwin's book The Origin of Species reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin. \nThese developments ought to have resulted in Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns. \nThe Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism\nDarwin's theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch up" Darwinism. \nThis cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and those who put forward the theory were called "neo-Darwinists".\nThe following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or "accidents" -that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.\nWhy Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?\nThere is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows; \nThe essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.16\nAnother of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are comp
283170
A god-fearing fundamentalist named Charles Darwin first theorized on evolution. Here's what he wrote (see ref.):\n....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than....the beliefs of any barbarian....\n  ....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.\n  And this is a damnable doctrine....\n\nSomehow I suspect he was less "ineduacted" than the questioner...
853160
THE EVOLUTION\n\n“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.\n\nYou will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.\n\nAn important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.\n\nAll the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.\n\nThis very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:\n\n“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”\n\nThe physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.\n\nGeorge Erl Devis writes further:\n\n“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___  our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:\n\nIs there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?\n\nAnd___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.\n\nWe can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.\n\nWe are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__  is almost possible.”\n\nAs we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logic
700698
The idea of evolution was not started by Darwin ... it actually goes back to the Greeks.  What Darwin's theory of natural selection did was provide the *mechanism* by which evolution occurred.\n\nIt consists of three basic observations:\n(1) Variation: All individuals within a species are NOT identical.  They vary in many different ways ... some are shorter, some taller.  Some are faster, some slower.  Some are hairier, some less hairy. etc.\n(2) Competition:  More offspring are born than can possibly survive to propagate.  If this were not true, then the world would be overwhelmed with overpopulation (of all species) within a few years.  This means that some will survive to pass on their genes, others will not.\n(3) Inheritance:  Every individual passes characteristics on to its offspring.  (Darwin did not know the mechanism for this inheritance ... what we now call "genetics", but it was clear that the offspring of a hairy individual, had a better chance of being hairy itself.)\n\nPutting these three things together, we realize that any characteristic, that is part of normal variation, that produces a slight advantage, will tend to get passed on through inheritance into offspring.  Therefore, advantageous characteristics will get passed on more within a species.\n\nOne important thing that a lot of people miss when you hear "survival of the fittest" ... it's not just survival ... it is SURVIVAL TO PROCREATE.  I.e. it doesn't matter if you survive if you don't have offspring.  E.g., a peacock's feathers don't help it survive, but it helps it to procreate (it attracts the ladies), and that is all that matters.\n\nAgain, the idea of *evolution* ... that organisms change over time ... is much bigger than the theory of natural selection.  Darwin's theory merely provides the missing piece of information of HOW that change occurs.
1160398
He came up with the Theory of Evolution
236776
Charles Darwin discovered the process of evolution. Evolution is a natural process by which novel traits are passed on from generation to generation, and an observable fact (i.e. you look a little like your mom and dad, for instance). Over long periods of time, you get a large variety of lifeforms.  No one really argues this; even modern religious fundamentalists accept it.\n\nHis 'theory' to explain the mechanism of evolution (how it works) is called 'natural selection.' \n\nWhile a large majority accept evolution, there are some who question 'natural selection' as its mechanism and instead suggest that 'super-natural selection' is at work (i.e. God).\n\nThis really isn't a 'flaw' per se, but more like a difference of opinion on the mechanics of evolution.\n\n===========================\n\nOh, and don't be confused by the common use of the word 'theory' and the more technical, scientific use of the word 'theory'.  In every day use, the word 'theory' often suggests a guess or conjecture, as opposed to a fact.  In scientific terms, 'theory' means a collection of facts which have a relationship to each other, and are not opposed to each other.
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
1134801
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
1069841
Chrales Darwins theory of evolution from apes is wrong! If we EVOLVED from apes, why are apes still here?? Chrales Darwin evolved from Adam and Eve the same as all mankind\n\nDr Pratt
633089
wat are you talking about?  Evolution is something that every major scientist agrees with.  It does fit with up-to-date findings.  Hello, we just figured out the last DNA thing and that totally supports the idea of evolution.  Also, a theory must be disproved to be discarded, evolution has not been disproved.  Go back to school!
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
445160
Actually, Darwin NEVER said we evolved from monkeys! (Quoted from my Biology Professor at LSUA). There is this huge creation/evolution stink going around, but all evolution states is what has already been stated...the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.  Now he DID say we could have all resulted from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, just so happened that the monkey developed one way, and the humans another way, but he doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever.  The result is evolutionary adaptation, the accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.  In modern terms, evolution is defined as a change over time in the genetic composition of a population.  in 1859, Charles Darwin published a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".  Look it up and check that out.
13278
Personaly, I do not fully believe in Darwin's theory. I think God meant to make us all special in our own way.\n\nPS) Happy New Year and good luck!!!