Did Charles Darwin know of DNA when he wrote Origin Of Species?
931396
There is no way that Darwin could have been aware of the specific molecule we call deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). In the mid-eighteenhundreds Friedrich Miescher isolated "nuclein" and then purified it.  The substance was identified as an acid and named as such the same century.  It wasn't until 1929 that the components of DNA were identified and 1937 that an x-ray structure of the polymer was available.  Many people worked at solving the problem (an x-ray structure of a molecule isn't a real "map" like you might think of with bones, its more like a series of clues from which you might "back out" the structure with much difficulty) and in 1953 James Watson & Francis Crick published the seminal Nature paper detailing their proposed structure for DNA, a double-helix with a phosphate backbone and nucleoside interior having set "patterns" of left-right pairing.  \n\nThis was almost 100 years after Charles Darwin published Origin of Species (1859).  Darwin's proposal of evolutionary processes stemmed from observations of the macroscopic natural world and was based not on chemistry but primarily on phylogeny.  Darwin's concepts were utilitarian-based similar to Lamarck's proposals, but differed by rejecting inheritability of aquired characteristics, instead favoring a model where beneficial intrinsic characteristics would arise on their own but predispose their bearers for greater survival & reproduction.  \n\nA contemporary with Gregor Mendel, at the time he wrote his famous Origin of Species, Darwin was not aware of the work of Mendel on inheritance of traits.  However, both scientists' work supported the same conclusions.
20018
wow...I can't believe it, but YES..there are.\nTorn Rubbers, the obscure Scottish bard has a song about Darwin. Also, Scottish singer John Young has a song about Darwin. Lastly, the band R.E.M mention Darwin in their song "Man on the Moon" from their album Automatic for the People (1992). The lyrics say, "Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"\n\nHope this helps!
1114799
There is NONE! Everything he wrote was thought up! - And proven WRONG! Also - have you ever seen the title of his book, The Origin of Species? The actual title is: Ther Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured RACES  in the Struggle for Life\n  Darwin hated Black people, and any body that wasnt his "race". He ended up marrying his 1st cousin becausehe wanted to make a superior race(every one else is stupid). What ended up happening was all his kids ended dead or seariously retarded. And it was his book that gave the idea to Karl Marx for communism! \n  So there has NEVER been any proof for evolution! Every thing in museums that is based on evolution is  a lie! Why don't you ask about the skull links in the Smithsonian! Nothinbg for evolution has been proven!  It is purely religion!
1034393
The answer *appears* to be yes.  That is the current scientific theory of our origins.  There is no other *scientific* theory that explains what we see.  (I.e. 'something just created/designed everything' is a nice theory, but not a *scientific* theory as it is not testable, makes no predictions, and does not *explain* anything).\n\nAll the evidence points to the fact that every organism on the planet is a product of evolution from ancestral organisms.  This is not just fossil evidence, but genetic evidence linking humans to other apes (like chimps and gorillas), apes to other primates (like monkeys), primates to other mammals (like tigers and tree shrews), mammals to other vertebrates (like birds and salamanders), etc. etc. all the way back to single-celled organisms.  Every step has genetic links ... for example jellyfish are genetically linked to sponges, which have genetic links to amoebazoans, which have genetic links to early bacteria, etc.\n\nAnd the *amount* of genetic linkage can be computed based on the chemistry of a single molecule found in every organism on the planet ... a molecule called DNA.\n\nAnd the order of these genetic links all match up perfectly with order in which the ancestors for each organism appear in the fossil record (i.e. earlier genetic links appear in lower layers of rocks).\n\nAnd the *amount* of the molecular/genetic linkage all matches up with *when* each ancestor appears in the fossil record (i.e. the amount of molecular DNA difference expected based on known mutation rates, matches up perfectly with the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found). \n\nThat is the evidence.  Those are *facts*.  Those facts are not in dispute, only the explanation for them.  If you can come up with a better *scientific* explanation for this all this evidence ... these observed *facts* ... then you would get the Nobel Prize.
655475
Darwin was on his island, waiting around so he could prove something when he noticed that the finches were changing certain features to survive, so somehow he came up with the theory of evolution.\nIf that's what you mean.
345654
Wikipedia has a good summary:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_species\n\nAn extract from this wikipedia page:\nDarwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:\n\nSpecies have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. \nPopulations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. \nFood resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals. \nIn sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant. \nMuch of this variation is heritable. \nFrom this Darwin infers: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring; and that these advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection.\n\nDarwin did not suggest that every variation and every character must have a selection value. However, he pointed out that, because of our ignorance of animal physiology and its relationship with the environment, it was extremely rash to set down any characters as valueless to their owners. It is even more important to notice that he did not suggest that every individual with a favorable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favored animals were better or higher, but merely that they were more adapted to their surroundings.\n\nDarwin further infers that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. He puts forward myriad observations as demonstrations of this, and also claims that the fossil record can be interpreted as supporting these observations. Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.
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."
150139
Charles Darwin | British Naturalist  \nLucidcafé';s Profile of Charles Darwin ... books ever written, Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species ... to his theory of natural selection. CLICK HERE to purchase this Hardcover edition of "Charles Darwin's Letters ...www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html - 13k - Cached - More from this site - Save\nOnline Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species  \nOnline Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species Online Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species Online Literature Library - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species ...www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species - More from this site - Save\nDarwin's Theory  \nDarwin's Theory of Evolution. Scientists at the beginning of the 1800s know of some kinds of fossils, and they were very aware of homologous and vestigial structures. ... theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin. Darwin's ...bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/theory.html - 6k - Cached - More from this site - Save\nUnderstanding Evolution  \nUnderstanding Evolution Understanding Evolution The intent of this website is to give teachers a background understanding of evolution, opening the door by giving them strategies for teaching and responding to misconceptions and roadblocks. The ...\nCategory: Biology > Evolution\nevolution.berkeley.edu
317538
Gideon Mantell was a physician and amateur paleontologist who is credited with the discovery of the Iguanodon.  However, there are stories of his wife Mary Ann discovering the first fossil remnants but some claim that these stories are unfounded.\n\nWhat is the truth?  Who knows, history is littered with women making discoveries and inventions only to have the credit go to some undeserving fellow:\n\nCatherine Littlefield Greene is credited by some as the actual inventor of the Cotton Gin, even though the patent is in Eli Whitney's name.\n\nWhile Watson and Crick are credited with the discovery of the structure of DNA, there model was based on X-ray crystallography by Rosalind Franklin and those pictures should not have been in their possession.  They were surreptitiously given to Crick and Watson without Franklin's knowledge or approval.\n\nI did a Yahoo Search for:\niguanodon discovered by\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?p=iguanodon+discovered+by&sp=1&fr2=sp-top&ei=UTF-8&fr=slv1-&SpellState=n-970269995_q-wXebE2bry4O64dolF.uYUwABAA%40%40\nand found this information and several articles.
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 :)
1049252
Charles Darwin was wise enough to steer clear of anthropology, despite suggestions to the contrary.\n\nHe did however discuss artificial selection (of pigeons) in detail, using it as a time-compressed analogy of natural selction. So if you consider breeds of domestic animals similar in origin to races, then that's about as far as he got.\n\nRemember, in Darwin's day there was as yet no concept of genetics (not until the popularization of Gregor Mendl's work, 30  years later).
654030
No and it was never claimed to be true by Darwin or evolutionary scientists.  This is part of the misinformation spread about evolutionary theory.\n\nThe theory of evolution supports the idea that monkeys and humans have common ancestors.  And likewise that all life on earth evolved from common ancestors if you go back far enough.
795181
1.  Charles Darwin was an English naturalist whose revolutionary theory laid the foundation for both the modern theory of evolution and the principle of common descent by proposing natural selection as a mechanism. He published this proposal in 1859 in the book The Origin of Species, which remains his most famous work.\n\n\n2.  Alfred Russel Wallace was a Welsh naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist. He independently proposed a theory of natural selection which prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own more developed and researched theory sooner than he had intended. Wallace is sometimes called the "father of biogeography".  (I have a M.S. in Biogeography.)\n\n\n3.  My father died three days ago. I'm so very lonely for him. I'd like just one more chance to tell him that i love him and what he has meant to me, to my children, in his life.  He knew, i know he knew, but i want another chance to hug him, my dad, and tell him what a terrific father he was.  I'm sure he'd very much enjoy having dinner with me, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.  My dad was a social guy.
1048274
Darwin didn't even know of Mendel when he first considered the origin of species, although they lived around the same time and could have compared notes if they ever met.  But thing is that they didn't meet so Darwin didn't consider evolution in terms of genetics, only in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest.\n\nSince Mendel was the first one to study heredity in terms of genetics, then he's the sole father of genetics as a science.
1161132
Here is how science proves the existence of a Creator.\n\nYou are here: Science >> DNA Double Helix \n\nDNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity\nThe DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. \n\nDNA Double Helix: The "Basics"\nDNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell. \n\nThe DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function. \n\nAlthough DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros. \n\nWe now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the mater
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.
318662
I would say that darwin saw a pattern in that certain fossils were only seen at certain depths, etc.. and was able to see that that meant certain animals must have come from other animals and that not all animals were on earth at the same time.  That was the standard thought of the day and he was able to break free of that traditional thought to see the data in a fresh creative way.