When I was younger, I was asked if I believed in evolution and responded "yes" and proceeded to explain (what I thought was) Darwin's Theory of Evolution to anyone that was interested. It turns out, that the theory I was explaining was NOT Darwin's but rather was essentially Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Theory of Evolution (although I never heard of the fella) which 100 years earlier had been discredited by lack of evidence - and was completely wrong. The Theory of Evolution I told went something like this... Animals pass on their aquired traits to their offspring. For example, I would explain, the giraffe's neck grew a few centimeters from stretching to reach the leaves in a tall tree. This trait "long neckness" would then be passed on to its offspring.... and over a period of many generations... the necks of giraffes would grow longer and longer.
I am happy to announce I have since read Darwin and am all straightened out now. End of story!
2007-11-10 08:16:19 · 8 answers · asked by I'm an Atheist 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I thought that too. Makes more sense to me in a way.
2007-11-10 08:23:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lamarck postulated that beneficial aspects have been stepped forward by employing use or disuse. as an occasion, the neck of a giraffe grew to it relatively is modern-day length as a results of certainty each and every and each technologies saved stretching to devour leaves greater advantageous and greater valuable on wood. Darwin's concept of organic and organic decision at diverse hand says that extremely the heritable features that help an organism stay to tell the story AND reproduce could be preserved.
2016-10-16 01:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only part that you had wrong is that the giraffe's neck actually changed during the course of its life. Darwin's theory says that the ones with short necks won't change, and they end up dying out, without passing their genes on.
2007-11-10 08:23:27 · answer #3 · answered by Alex H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. - Charles Darwin
@>}----}----
AD
2007-11-10 12:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, what a nice story. Are you sitting on a bench waiting for a bus right now? And did a feather just land on your foot? Just kidding...so you're implying that some god believers make up their own versions of the T of E just to deceive their flock of fools? It wouldn't surprise me if they did, but if one wants to learn science, only a fool would ask a god believer.
2007-11-10 08:25:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
May the Yamster have mercy on the short necked giraffes.
2007-11-10 08:32:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
actually the first to point out evolution was the writer of Genesis.
"and each animal was created after his kind and after his kind."
try reading the bible. I know (eyes rolling like an atheist)
2007-11-10 08:32:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
um...good question
?
2007-11-10 08:20:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋