Do you think GREGOR MENDEL was sent just before DARWIN for a reason ?
827000
You should read John Campbell's article "Rhetorical Analysis of Darwin's Origin". \n\nIts kind of what's been happening in scientific thought since the beginning of science. Theories aren't always necessary accepted for the weight of the scientific evidence alone. Sociopolitical and religious ideologies play a great role in the receptivity of ideas. I recently wrote a paper on the influence of Malthusian population thoeries and the Ideas of Progress influencing Darwin along with a misinterpretion of Newton's mechanistic philosophies that contribued to the accptance of Darwin's theory. \n\nRead also Michael Ruse's "Darwin and Design" or Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea" both talk about the great deal of rhetoric that went into the formulation of the theory. \n\nWhere one model, Mendel's model was able to make predictions, another model, which was purely theoretical (common descent still unproven) was accepted b/c it justified the Victorian's ideas regarding progress and the advancement of humankind, it also justified the population struggled described by Thomas Malthus. \n\nIt was similar to what happened with Johannes Kepler who in trying to convince the established scientific community of elliptical orbits and non uniform circular motion and his defense of Copernicus' heliocentrism, was largely ignored despite the fact his model was able to make accurate predictions, the same goes with the ancient Babylonians whose astronomy was able to make far better predictions than later Greek astronomy. The reasons for the rejection were mainly a result of the biases held by the established scientific community. It doesn't matter how truthful a particular theory may be or its ability to make accurate predictions, its about extrascientific factors and biases that allow for theories to be accepted or rejected. \n\nAnd a reply to the last part of the question, though Darwin may be accused of being the "god" of the atheists he at best was a "muddled theist" according to a letter Darwin wrote to J. Hooker regarding his theological stance. \n\nA good thorough read of primary sources is a good place to start when trying to understand the history of science. \n\n--my two cents :)
1129313
Yes. Though Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, A THEORY, schools teach it as if it were scientific fact. It is not only idiotic, but blasphemy. The book of Genesis gives you all the information you need on creation. \n\nIt is quite ironic that many people don't believe the bible because, as they claim, it was written by men. (All scripture is divinely inspired - the obedient men of God wrote what they were inspired to write by God the Holy Spirit). But these same UNbelievers will believe such a ludicrous theory as that written by one man named Darwin. \n\nGo figure.\n\nP.S. A comment to your first answerer and to those who would agree with him/her: The wisdom of God is foolishness to those who perish. It will be quite an eye-opener for them when they finally meet their Maker.
748480
It's an urban myth, like most Creationist stories about evolution. In fact, from the biographies I've read, Darwin lent more and more towards agnosticism or atheism as he got older, starting out as a very strong believer in the Genesis story when he set sail on the Beagle, and disbelieving Christianity but still believing in God when he wrote the Origin of Species.
1049016
Putting arguments of a religious nature to one side... Darwinian evolution would say that that which we call a chicken (due to its unique genetic code) would have come from an egg laid by an animal almost a chicken but genetically slightly different. The theory being that a random genetic variation in the DNA of the offspring made it differ from its parent enough to be a different spicies, ie the first chicken. If this is the case, and science supports the theory, then we have a choice to answer your question. We can say that the first chicken egg was laid by a non chicken (the egg came first) or the first chicken came from a non chicken egg (the chicken came first).
296799
You can thank Darwin for that. His theory of evolution Has lead more people away from God than anything else.
502419
I heard that Darwin's conversion was just a theory and was a story made up. I found a link on it and talks a bit about it, but I've heard it before. \n\nIt dosent matter, It dosent matter if Charles Darwin was baptised or not, Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins!\nI know this, in my heart!♥
89411
Cor·rens (kôr'əns), Karl Erich 1864–1933.\n\nGerman botanist and geneticist whose research led to the rediscovery (1900) of Mendel's law of inheritance.
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????
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.
797853
Yes Marx was on to something but some of his ideas were a little far fetched.\n\nalso Darwin's views have been twisted to be racist. he did not write the origin of species to relate to people. the man is talking about animals.
153183
This article considers the history of zoology before the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.\n\nZoology since 1859: Darwin and theory of evolution\nThen, in 1859, Charles Darwin placed the whole theory of organic evolution on a new footing, by his discovery of a process by which organic evolution can occur, and provided observational evidence that it had done so. This changed the attitudes of most exponents of the scientific method. Darwin's discoveries revolutionised the zoological and botanical sciences, by introducing the theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the diversity of all animal and plant life. The subject-matter of this new science, or branch of biological science, had been neglected: it did not form part of the studies of the collector and systematist, nor was it a branch of anatomy, nor of the physiology pursued by medical men, nor again was it included in the field of microscopy and the cell theory.
721353
He did not call it the "gene" he called it a "factor" He is the one and only Gregor Mendel!\n\nHere,\n\nGregor Mendel and Mendelian Genetics\n\nMendel\n\nGregor Johann Mendel was born on July 22, 1822 to peasant parents in a small agrarian town in Czechoslovakia. During his childhood he worked as a gardener, and as a young man attended the Olmutz Philosophical Institute. In 1843 he entered aAugustinian monastery in Brunn, Czechoslovakia.\n\nOlmutz Class He was later sent to the University of Vienna to study. By both his professors at University and his colleagues at the monastery, Mendel was inspired to study variance in plants. He commenced his study in his monastery's experimental garden. Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants. His experiments brought forth two generalizations which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Heredity. Ironically, when Mendel's paper was published on 1866, it had little impact. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the enormity of hisideas was realized.\nMendel's Law of Segregation\n\nMendel's hypothesis essentially has four parts. The first states that "Alternative versions of genes account for variations in inherited characters." In a nutshell, this is the concept of alleles. Alleles are different versions of genes that impart the same characteristic. Each human has a gene that controls height, but there are variations among these genes in accordance with the specific height the gene "codes" for. The second, "For each character, an organism inherits two genes, one from each parent", alludes to the fact that when somatic cells are produced from two gametes, one allele comes from the mother, one from the father. These alleles may be the same (true-breeding organisms), or different (hybrids). The third law, in relation to the second, declares that, "If the two alleles differ, then one, the dominant allele, is fully expressed in the organism's appearance; the other, the recessive allele, has no noticeable effect on the organism's appearance." "The two genes for each character segregate during gamete production," is the last part of Mendel's generalization. This references meiosis when the chromosome count is changed from the diploid number to the haploid number. The genes are sorted into separate gametes, ensuring variation.\nMendel's Law of Independent Assortment\n\nThe most important principle of Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment is that the emergence of one trait will not effect the emergence of another. While his experiments mixing one trait always resulted in a 3:1 ratio between dominant and recessive phenotypes, his experiments with two traits showed 9:3:3:1 ratios. Mendel's findings allowed other scientists to simplify the emergence of traits to mathematical probability. A large portion of Mendel's spectacular findings can be traced to his proper usage of the scientific method. His choice of peas as a subject for his experiments is extraordinarily lucky. Peas have a relatively simple genetic structure. Also, Mendel could always be in control of the plants' breeding. When Mendel wanted to cross-pollinate a pea plant he needed only to remove the immature stamen of the plant. In this way he was always exactly sure of his plants' parents. Mendel made certain to start his experiments only with true breeding plants. He also only measured absolute characteristics such as color, shape, and position of the offspring. His data was expressed numerically and subjected to statistical analysis. This method of data reporting and the large sampling size he used gave credibility to his data. He also had the foresight to look through several successive generations of his pea plants and record their variations. Without his careful attention to procedure and detail, Mendel's work could not have had the impact it made on the world of g
1054657
This question has been asked in this forum so many times - it's right up there with aliens and the Bermuda Triangle.\n\nWhat came first was the chicken WITH the egg. For more than a billion years there was life (whole beings) on earth with progeny but without eggs. It's known as asexual reproduction - fission - cell division. There were no males or females just clones. Sexual reproduction using cell division to separate cells into haploid gametes arose much later and the roots of this are explained by biology. But I agree it's a difficult subject and most people are not capable of understanding.\n\nI should also mention the Darwin was not concerned with the origin of life - modern culture has heaped that onto evolution which correctly only deals with living populations after life arises.
82819
For those who said Darwin or Russell, sorry. Both fail. Not only did Lamarck's theory of evolution predate both in modern times but the first theory of evolution was proposed around 2500 years earlier than any of them.\n\nThe first theory of evolution that I know of was proposed by Empedocles around 450BC. \n\nFollow the second link for a full verbatim quote of the theory as it was originally written down.\n\n\nCaveat. I don't claim this is the first theory of evolution. It is just the earliest that I am aware of. It is certainly much earlier than Darwin or Wallace.
18310
Probably not.  If you believe in evolution, then remember that animals were laying eggs long before the chicken came along.
33683
<I>darwin denoiced his theroy before his death, claiming that a God could have only done this but the history books forgot that part</I>\n\nThere's the source of all life, and there's the concept of evolution.  These are two different discussions, and Darwin himself said that a "creator" started it all off and we could never know how.\n\nBut he always believed in evolution, which is provable (although not necessarily to the extent he was considering).  God and faith can exist while recognizing what we know about evolution.
1043304
Darwin's initial insights came from his studies of bird adaptation but there was much more to it. To say that "The Origin of Species" was just about birds demonstrates the intelligence of just a bird. Darwin knew his ideas were revolutionary and spent years and years gathering more data before he published. His first book mentioned almost nothing of human evolution. It was his later works (and there were many), where he continued to gather evolutionary evidence, that he advanced human evolution.\n\nYes - of course “evolution” is a commonly used word with its own vernacular meaning – thank you for pointing this out because most people have trouble here. Darwin’s theory is known as “evolution” to imply gradual change from simple to complex. However, the modern theory of evolution does not imply a progression from something worse to something better in an absolute sense. Evolution is a process that includes favoring the best adapted organisms in an environment. Species descend from others with modifications that are dictated by their environment. It’s not always random and it’s not always the result of mutation. It doesn’t produce creatures that are bigger and better or smarter and good-looking. What it does is weed out the organisms that are less suitable for reproduction, that is, passing on their genetic heritage. So how many kids do you have?\n******************************...\nFrom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/agnostic...\n\nIn 1879, as Darwin was writing his autobiography, a letter came asking if he believed in God and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist," citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples. As for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added, "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."\n\nOn Thursday, September 28, 1881, Darwin was visited by the atheist Doctor Ludwig Büchner and Edward Aveling (later the partner of Eleanor Marx). Darwin's son Frank was present, and Darwin's wife Emma invited their old friend the Reverend Brodie Innes. Darwin wittily explained that "[Brodie] & I have been fast friends for 30 years. We never thoroughly agreed on any subject but once and then we looked at each other and thought one of us must be very ill." In discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" saying that he preferred the word "Agnostic." Aveling replied that "Agnostic was but Atheist writ respectable, and Atheist was only Agnostic writ aggressive." Darwin responded by asking, "Why should you be so aggressive?" wondering what was to be gained from forcing new ideas on people when free thought was "all very well" for the educated, but were ordinary people "ripe for it?" Aveling then asked what if "the revolutionary truths of Natural and Sexual Selection" had been confined to the "judicious few" and he had delayed publication of the Origin of Species, where would the world be? Surely "his own illustrious example" encouraged freethinkers to proclaim truth "abroad from the house-tops." But while Darwin agreed that Christianity was "not supported by the evidence," he had been in no rush to force this idea on anyone and, in fact, "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age."