Is the theory of evolution supported not because of its scientific value, but because of ideological reasons?

Question

When Charles Darwin advanced his theory, which was to be named "The Theory of Evolution" later on, disciplines like genetics and microbiology did not yet exist. Darwin was unaware of the structure of the DNA, proteins, and the cell. The scientists of the time were putting forward ridiculous theses about living things due to the insufficient level of science. For example, they supposed that worms appearing on meat were showing up all of a sudden without any origin. It was to be later discovered that these worms came out of the eggs laid by flies. Life was not so simple as to come about all of a sudden.

"This was the prevailing understanding of science at the time Darwin wrote his book The Origin of Species. The primitive theories of Lamarck were still welcomed: it was believed that acquired traits could be transferred to
later generations. Lamarck used this theory also to explain the long necks of giraffes: However, Mendel’s studies made it clear that acquired traits cannot be transferred to next generations.

Living things could transfer only their genes, not their elongated necks to subsequent generations… Thus both Lamarck's and Darwin's basic assertions were demolished by the end of the 19th century.

According to Lamarck, giraffes were once antelope-like animals and their necks were extended over time as a result of their attempt to reach higher tree branches

Answer 1

I think the fact that Darwin was wrong about the Giraffe necks etc actually supports the view that Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

Real science takes the form of experimentation and observation first, then thesis. Darwin did not start with a theory, or a magic answer, he studied life on earth and looked at similarities. His work provided the framework around which evolution was developed, but of course he didn't get it right in one fell swoop. Evolution was still very much unproven until Watson and Crick discovered DNA - in fact the strongest evidence of Evolution now comes from analysing DNA strands, not from observing living animal speicies.

Another important contributer to evolution was actually a monk, Gregor Mendel. It was he who began the first structured study of genetics.

Basically evolution is built up out of two core theories. Genetics tells us how traits are passed though generations and can evolve through mutation. Darwinism tells us about the mechanism of how new species become seperate and distinct from the mix of mutations, this machanism is natural selection.

No one person can take all the credit here, and no one person really understood the full implications of what they discovered.

Answer 2

you seem terribly confused.

the theory of 'spontaneous generation' of life was argued over in the middle ages (about five hundred years before darwin). people knew about flies laying eggs in rotten meat long before darwin was born.

darwin's theories of natural selection presuppose genetic inheritance (though darwin would not have called it that). lamarck suggested that acquired characteristics could be inherited, darwin never did.

and your dates for lamarck are also wrong: lamarckian inheritance was not 'demolished by the end of the 19th century'; it had some followers well into the 1930s (though almost nobody believes in it now).

darwin's notions on the origins of species are pretty much the backbone of the modern life sciences. darwin knew nothing about dna, but his theory predicted many of the discoveries that dna research would make possible a hundred years after his death.

darwin's theories are that powerful: they predict the future.

this is something no religious text has ever managed.

....

i wonder is cmw aware of the actual origins of his 'data'?

Answer 3

There is a scientific basis to Darwin's theory of evolution. Just because genetics was not as advanced back in his day does not mean that DNA did not exist and wasn't passed on.
The giraffes may have once been antelope-like animals, but their necks did not stretch from attempting to reach higher branches. The giraffe ancestors born with longer necks could reach higher into the trees in order to find sustenance. Because they were able to get food when shorter-necked giraffe ancestors could not, they survived to pass on their genetic material (e.g., the DNA that gave them a longer neck) to their progeny. This is also call Survival of the Fittest.

Answer 4

Charles Darwin was Wrong. Evolution CAN NOT be backed up by SCIENCE because IT IS FALSE! Parts of the Bible have been backed by Science, Forensics and Biology! This has been shown on the History Channel and various Pastor's and other's have spoken of the Truths!

I appreciate you asking this question - God Bless You!

JESUS IS THE ONLY TRUTH!

BE AT PEACE - ACCEPT THE GLORY OF GOD!

TAKE CARE AND GOD BLESS!

Answer 5

Natural selection explains this. It doesn't say that an animal will get a longer neck over the course of its lifespan and then produce longer-necked offspring - that's ridiculous. If you get a nose job, will your kids be more likely to have great noses? Of course not. What natural selection says is that genetic mutation occurs, and the ones with the longer necks, via mutation, had a greater chance of surviving and passing on the longer neck mutation to their offspring. After a while, the shorter necked variety dies out.

Answer 6

"Living things could transfer only their genes, not their elongated necks to subsequent generations… "

You do realize that the genes are what determines length of neck, yes?

Darwin didn't know how evolution worked because Mendel hadn't done his research yet -- so he said, "Hey, I don't know, but it seems to me that there HAS to be inheritable units of traits."

Mendel comes along and discovers alleles.

Darwin predicted something based on the Theory of Evolution, and Mendel validated it.

Theories are tested by their predictive capacity. ToE predicted inheritability, Mendel found it.

Can I make that any clearer for you?

Answer 7

Lamarck was wrong. Darwin was right, and his theory still forms a substantial part of modern evolutionary biology, though we now understand that factors other than random mutation and natural selection contribute to evolutionary change.

Answer 8

You re getting stuck on specifics. Evolutions is something which tikes place over a long timespan, but the mechanics of natural selection, or selection by consequences, are manifest if every living being's physiology and behaviour.

Once you understand, the universe will make perfect sense to you and you will stop quibbling over details.

Answer 9

No, it is the ENTIRE basis for modern Biology.

And I really think you need to look at Mendel's work again. He showed that inherited traits are passed on and he learned to take advantage of this to change the way plants evolved so that they did what he wanted.

Answer 10

If you cut and paste something, you really ought to give credit to the source:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/2.htm



Just like you seem incapable of having an original thought, but must use those of others to claim as you own, you seem incapable of actual understanding.

Try anyway. Work your way though this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

You will notice that all the articles actually have references in them to actual science. Something that was noticeably missing from the diatribe you pulled your information from.