How did Darwin came to the conclusion of "evolution"?

Question

Due to the lack of technology of the 19th century microscopy did not work that well. For example, Darwin believedn that celll were "simple photoplasm." How could he explain evolution of a life being if he did not understand cells?

We should now know that cells are not photoplasm. Are they?

Answer 1

Evolution was already a known process by Darwin's time. The fossil record showed remarkable signs that species were "progressing" into other species. Darwin was the person who came up with a credible - and still scientifically unchallenged - theory for HOW that process actually worked.

Answer 2

Microscopy is certainly not *very* useful in the study of evolution. The theory of evolution theorizes that species evolve into other species over time. A microscope is certainly not needed for such a theory. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics#Mendelian_and_classical_genetics should help you to understand that Darwin was aware of genetic inheritance *without* being aware of the structure of genes themselves. He hypothesized that changes which occur due to genetics (an established scientific concept) result in the development of different species.

As suggested, you should read his book to determine *all* the reasons he had for arriving at such a conclusion. My point here was to make it clear that his hypothesis was in no need of microscopy.

Cells *are* primarily composed of protoplasm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplasm
However, the existing name was applied to the substance found within cells *after* Darwin's time. In other words, Darwin's definition of protoplasm was different from that substance which has come to be called protoplasm.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

Perhaps you should read up a bit on the history of power-tools.

I'm totally serious.
Better still... observe the changes that have taken place between chipped flint being used for everything and the truly ridiculous variety of saws, screwdrivers, hammers, knives, files, clamps, drills, etc that are around today.
You could take a few of those steps out.... and you would still conclude that most modern tools are simply progressions of chipped rocks..... or "evolved" thereof.

I suppose the real question is.... when there is quite a clear linear progression from ourselves right the way back to single-celled organisms.... without huge missing gaps.... what could honestly justify this being considered differently to the previous scenario?

Answer 4

Dave C is right. The evolutionary hypothesis existed long before Darwin, but no one knew how life evolved.

Darwin's big contribution wasn't the idea that life evolved. His contribution was figuring out the mechanism by which life evolved - the three factors of the evolution engine - namely variation, selection, and inheritance.

Answer 5

Darwin predicted there was a moth with a 12-inch-long tongue that could obtain the nectar at the bottom of a comet orchid. How did he know this? He observed natures process. I love that video when the moth surfaces just as predicted after a long nights wait and they almost gave up....

Answer 6

Why don't you read 'On the Origin of Species' and find out?

In fact, Darwin knew essentially nothing about cells or genetics, and didn't need to. There are many independent kinds of evidence for evolution, and Darwin proved evolution without needing to know anything about the mechanism of heredity.

Dave C is entirely correct - many people recognised that living organisms are related by common descent, even before Darwin published his book. Darwin just elucidated how it all happened.

Answer 7

He was just that smart. He could look at differences in populations, and see that every offspring is a little different from their parents, and think about how those differences could change the species as a whole.

Edit: And our knowledge of cells is "still" theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

Answer 8

When he went to Galápagos Islands and see so many difference creatures live in small island and their appearance is so difference from other places. He said evolution is true baby.

Answer 9

It's like how we figured out the earth wasn't the center of the universe. There were many different thinkers who made many different models. From Aristotle, to Ptolemy, to Copernicus. All of them had different models on the earth and it's rotation around the sun. We were able to use what they learned, expand on their ideas, and we corrected the errors they made.

Answer 10

scientists have found that within a cell, there are thousands of what are often called “biochemical machines.”

Lester and Hefley said, “We once thought that the cell, the basic unit of life, was a simple bag of protoplasm. Then we learned that each cell in any life form is a teeming micro-universe of compartments, structures, and chemical agents...”

Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information—hardly the simple ‘globules of plasm’ envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.”

As Dr. Michael Behe has said, “Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. . . highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process.” And Dr. Behe has pointed out that many structures show irreducible complexity; all of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or they can’t function.

These elegant machines are of greater sophistication than we are capable of making. Dr. Michael Denton (a non-Christian molecular biologist) said, “Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”

In trying to understand these biological systems, molecular biologists actually need to “reverse engineer” them. Is that not strong evidence that they were engineered to begin with?