The Law Of Inheritance disproved Darwin's theory of natural selection??

Question

the science of genetics proved that it was not acquired physical traits but only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations this discovery made it clear that a scenario suggesting that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible.in other words there were no inheritable variations for Darwin's purposed mechanism of natural selection to choose from.Is this not correct?

Both of them believed that they also believed if you cut the arms off of every child born they would eventually begin to be born armless.

read chapter IV difficulties on theory

Answer 1

Correct. Despite Mendel's attempt to contact Darwin, the later remained woefully ignorant of modern genetics until his death.
In short, Darwin saw what was happening but did not have the proper model (genetic variations) to explain it.
It is exactly the same phenomenon as Wegener correctly observing continental drift but utterly failing to come up with a decent explanation (plate tectonics were explained 20 years after his death).

Answer 2

Jen, you do not understand Darwinian natural selection. The notion that cutting the tails off mice would lead to tailess mice was disproved long before Darwin.

DNA actually makes the argument for natural selection stronger. There is variation in DNA, which is constantly mutating. Every time to creatures mate, the DNA is different from that of either parent. From this endless variety we get the basis for natural selection. Those who are best suited to their environment survive longer, have more offspring, pass on their genes. Those genes then become more common in the population. Enough variation within a population will eventually give rise to a new species.

Answer 3

If you think that natural selection does not account for new species thru genetic mutation, then you better do some damn good field research and come up with a better explanation for all the geologic strata containing all those fossils - which seem to go from simpler organisms at deeper levels to more complicated ones at shallower depths. Geology has already confirmed that the deeper you go the further back in time you are. Or are you also arguing against Geology?

Answer 4

Darwin did not support inheritance of aquired traits. That was Lamarck. He didn't know the mechanism by which traits were passed, but genes fit into his theory absolutely perfectly. Much better than would be expected. Genes are the inherited variation.

As for your addition, lying for Jesus isn't nice. Darwin at one time agreed with Lamarck, but when he developed his own theory it had considerable differences. Read "On the Origin of Species" and then we can talk. Until then, stop lying.

Answer 5

In response to your additional detail that both Lamarck and Darwin believed that if you cut the arms off of every individual in a population they population would eventually become armless:

No! Darwin said only heritable traits could be subject to evolution. Though he did not know the mechanisms of heritability, he knew some traits (like the strong arm of a blacksmith) are not heritable, but some are (like relative arm length)

Answer 6

Brava! Science, like the Supreme Court, is willing to reverse itself when new data forces it to, however reluctantly in both cases. Recently many scientists admit that the "Laws of Nature" as we see them NOW, might not be for all time. Carbon dating might be "dated", since they have discovered that the rate of radioactive decay just likely VARIES by how much solar activity is impacting our planet Earth. This raises the Q whether even "Cosmic Constants" are so constant, after all. We have been here, the human species, for so SHORT a blink of "Cosmic Time", that it's very much like a drunk who staggers on awakening, to the window, takes a brief glance outside at the hustle and bustle of various living and nonliving shapes, and then passes out back in bed. He comes back with binoculars and telescopes, and learns that his initial impressions were not accurate. Then he falls asleep again. Later he opens the window, which was dirty, and uses the equivalent of a Hubble Telescope, and gets a better picture. And now that the window is open, he hears NOISES he did not hear previously, and smells scents, Etc.., etc. Glory Be to God and Science! LOL :-0)

Answer 7

You're confusing Darwin's theory with Lamarck's.

EDIT: After doing a little research, I've discovered that you're right. Darwin did believe in acquired genetic traits. That part of his theory has been disproved. However, the basic idea of natural selection still holds.

Answer 8

You have it so wrong that I literally spit milk out my nose.

The hypothesis of Use+Disuse by Lamarck is what says that superficial changes pass to offspring.

Darwin said "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment” it was NOT saying that if a parent lost an eye this trait passed to offspring...you misunderstood totally. Darwin said Evolution is worked by natural selction which is enviornment dependent as some traits work in 1 enviornment but not in another (Wooly Mammoth's fur worked great in Arctic but not in Africa)

Darwin was speaking of GENETIC traits..not SUPERFICIAL traits

Answer 9

Consider the common bacteria. If you take a particular type of anti-biotic, many will be killed. But there is something in the living ones DNA that causes a tolerance toward that anti-biotic. Those will be the ones that breed. Thus after some generations the anti-biotic will be ineffective. If you believe that evolution is a religious debate, think about it when you get MRSA. (it is a scientific fact-as demonstrated)

Answer 10

I have no idea, but I think the theory has moved on a bit since Darwins time, It does that you see science. Never has the arrogance to say this is absolute truth, and will never be bettered. As we learn more it changes. But the basics are still true.