Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What stopped Darwin discovering the laws of inheritance?
Access Research Network ^ | February 27, 2009 | David Tyler

Posted on 03/07/2009 10:39:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

What stopped Darwin discovering the laws of inheritance?

Darwin devoted a large part of his life to understanding heredity. He wrote books on the subject. However, his views fluctuated with time, and historians have spent much time analysing the different ideas he entertained.

"Darwin's conclusion from his studies on inheritance was always the same, that the rules and mechanisms of inheritance were complex and not ready for a definitive analysis."

Mendel and his peas

Darwin's conceptual model of evolution meant his experiments on inheritance were quite different from those of Mendel (source here)

In a helpful analysis of the issues, Jonathan Howard of the University of Cologne suggests that it is legitimate to ask why Darwin did not reach a satisfying conclusion:

"The solution, at least to the inheritance problem, was apparently easily amenable to an experimental approach with materials that were daily to hand. Furthermore the time was ripe in the middle of the 19th century, with many breeders interested in the problem for commercial as well as scientific reasons. And after all, Mendel solved the logic of inheritance in his own backyard in the monastery at Brno with no more technology than Darwin had at his disposal in his garden at Down House. Why couldn't Darwin have done it too?"

Howard looks carefully at Darwin's writings on the subject, and finds he was highly selective in his interests. He sought to document the small variations that he thought could accumulate and lead eventually to speciation. His writings reflect his commitment to this concept: "the selection of infinitesimal varieties", "differences absolutely inappreciable to the naked eye", "the accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications". Howard makes this comment on Darwin's 1876 book The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom:

"His overriding purpose was to establish that progeny produced by self-fertilization are less thrifty than the products of cross-fertilization. He rightly concentrated his analysis not on unit characters, but on the quantitative characters that fitted better with his concept of differential fitness, the attributes that, by their infinitesimal differences, determine life and death in the wild. So Darwin counted seeds, weighed and measured them, planted them and looked for their vitality. He measured growth and general thriftiness in his self-fertilized and cross-fertilized progeny. Everything he measured was a quantitative variable that under these simple experimental conditions could yield no information about inheritance at all. His experiments are overwhelming in scale and scope; they established the point that he wanted to establish beyond all doubt, but they contributed nothing relevant to our understanding of the underlying logic of inheritance."

This distinction between 'quantitative measures of variation' and 'unit characters' provides a clear contrast between the respective methodologies of Darwin and Mendel. Whilst Darwin was trying to put some substance into the word 'fitness' by measuring dimensions and weighing samples (continuous data), Mendel was counting characters (discrete data). Howard points out that, in the course of Darwin's research, he documented findings that we can now understand as Mendelian behaviour. Because he was not looking for it, Darwin did not see it.

"In one especially poignant case, working with the recessive character of radially symmetrical (peloric) flowers of Antirrhinum, Darwin came close to the kind of result that might have ended with a law of segregation. He crossed pure-breeding peloric plants with pure breeding wild types, noting the dominance of the wild type in the F1 progeny. He then established the F2 generation and obtained wild-type and peloric plants in a ratio (88:37) that Mendel (and now we) would effortlessly accept as representing 3:1. However, Darwin had other priorities and was in no way programmed to see the critical meaning in these numbers. He cites them within a sentence and they receive no further comment."

Darwin tried to present his approach to research as Baconian. He is often described as a scientist who gathered data and, by a process of induction, drew out theory that was grounded in evidence. Yet his work on inheritance was not at all like this. He designed his experiments and gathered data about breeding in order to develop and elaborate on his theory of evolution by natural selection. Other data was overlooked or dismissed as not relevant to the problem he was considering.

"The explanation, though, for why Darwin turned away from the inheritance of unit characters as a possible route to resolving the general inheritance problem was simply that he did not believe that such characters had anything to do with the kind of variations that he thought were the raw materials of evolutionary change. Such qualitative and striking variations he characterized as 'sports'. They might be useful for the breeders of fancy plants and animals, but although artificial selection of such anomalous variants could provide an analogy to evolution by natural selection, this was not the real thing. Again and again, when Darwin wrote generally about evolution, he came back to one issue, the infinitely tiny differences between individuals that confer infinitesimal advantages or disadvantages in the interminable struggle for existence. The selection of these variants, continued over hundreds of thousands of generations, was the critical process in evolution. These were the variations, and this was the inheritance, that mattered."

But how did Darwin develop this blindness? Is it a quirk of his personality - or are there influences on his thinking which need to be more clearly recognised. Howard traces this back to the influence Charles Lyell had on Darwin via his books.

"This view of biology was uniquely Darwin's and one he took over wholesale from Charles Lyell's uniformitarian geology during and after the Beagle voyage. Indeed this was by far the strongest, most important, and heuristically most productive of all the influences Darwin was subject to ("I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brain"."

So Darwin was a product of his age. Through Hutton and Lyell, uniformitarianism entered geological science and became dominant for 150 years until people recognised that it was not unscientific to invoke catastrophes and discontinuities. Darwin brought this thinking into biology and the influence of uniformitarianism has had a negative impact on biological science for 150 years also! It delayed the acceptance of Mendelian genetics and steered scientists towards thinking that gradual adaptation was the only issue for understanding the history of life on Earth.

"However, if Darwin failed to discover Mendel's laws, it was not so much because of what he lacked in genius or numeracy or the experimental cast of mind, but rather because of the forceful tendency of what he already possessed. His focus on continuous variation as the source of evolutionary change was not wrong, and coupled with the power he could see in the integration of infinitesimals over time he built his case on the solid foundation of Lyell's uniformitarian thinking. Much of variation and inheritance was simply opaque in those terms, but continuous variation, not unit characters, was, for Darwin, the way forward. Thus Darwin boxed himself in, unable to see the laws of inheritance in continuous variation, unable to see the real importance of discontinuous variation where the laws of inheritance could be discerned."

There are some really important lessons here for science students. Whilst researchers may set out with the best of intentions to implement Baconian induction, they need to realise that they bring mental constructs which govern experimental design and the interpretation of data. Even a genius cannot escape this! Darwin illustrates the negative impacts of uniformitarianism in biological science and provides some timely warnings to those who want to treat all critical evaluation of Darwin's work as subversive to science. In education, we need to encourage the critical appraisal of evolutionary theories, and Darwin's research into inheritance is a good place to start. The health and vigour of science demands it.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; darwin; evolution; goodgodimnutz; inheritance; intelligentdesign; mendel

1 posted on 03/07/2009 10:39:27 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Interesting side note:

Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/3/205


2 posted on 03/07/2009 10:43:00 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Full paper located:

Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

http://www.clt.astate.edu/aromero/M1.Mendel-Darwin.pdf


3 posted on 03/07/2009 10:45:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
YeeeeeHaW!

(For once I'm less than 12 hours late for a ping)
4 posted on 03/07/2009 10:58:20 PM PST by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

How could your timeless replies ever be late, Fichori? :o)


5 posted on 03/07/2009 11:07:52 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Well, when I show up and the last post was from the day before... (D'oh!)
6 posted on 03/07/2009 11:16:11 PM PST by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Mendel cheated. His data was statistically impossible and unrepeatable for the same scale of experiments - he fudged and filled in blanks to make his data fit his theories.


7 posted on 03/07/2009 11:30:27 PM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Go on.


8 posted on 03/07/2009 11:36:23 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

PS Skip down to the conclusion of the paper...very interesting indeed!

Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

http://www.clt.astate.edu/aromero/M1.Mendel-Darwin.pdf


9 posted on 03/07/2009 11:40:05 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Got it loaded. (read tomorrow)

I think I’m gonna set my clocks ahead and call it a night.


10 posted on 03/07/2009 11:59:26 PM PST by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

*bookmarkin’*


11 posted on 03/08/2009 3:07:48 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (American Revolution II -- overdue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m afraid the paper is just Darwinist propaganda. It claims that Mendel lied about the his experiments because he opposed evolution, that if he had been truthful with his results he would not have had the same conclusions. It claims that Mendel was in essence a fraud and that the reason Mendel’s theory was at odds with evolution was because Mendel fudged his data.

These libelous accusations are just more evo-atheist lying. This kind of Orwellian revisionism needs to be stamped out before it infects more unsuspecting minds.


12 posted on 03/08/2009 10:02:12 AM PDT by ToGodBeTheGlory (I'll take the Word of God over "science" every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


13 posted on 03/08/2009 10:31:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


14 posted on 03/08/2009 6:23:23 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

Thank you, Buck, for a post of sanity. The misguided (I think unwittingly malguided) GodGunsGuts (GGG) has gone on a FR crusade, it seems, to shout and stomp and scream and "pretend" into silence, voices of sense, truth, and a deeper faith. God is all-merciful and omnipotent and works His wonders in ways we cannot comprehend; if it is truth, then it IS of God. I've studied and understand evolutionary theory enough to understand that its elegance and simplicity IS intelligent design very much in keeping with God's biblical law. Adapt or perish -- we are seeing today as we have seen throughout history -- those nations that adapt to God's laws thrive; those that do not, those that ignore God's law, perish. I'm afraid GGG is a fool of huge proportions and does his faith little credit.

While America and Western Civilization slide into more toward decay as they discard Judeo-Christian morality and make immorality socially acceptable, this guy is hung up on attacking science because of a misguided assumption that because some evil people have rationalized their actions on the stupid, false assumption that the evolutionary "way" or ethic is that ruthlessness ensures survival -- a false, stupid, and self-serving assessment of evolutionary theory as it relates to the human race. GGG and his fellows cling to that false assessment out of pride and weak faith, I think.

The likes of GGG attack truth and knowledge because atheistic scientists have used findings in evolultionary science to "prove" that God doesn't exist, because they fear those atheist scientists might be justified -- that's the bottom line. If GGG had faith, confidence, and humility, he would be doing more important things and fighting REAL battles, such as spreading the Good News of Christ and the good news that the Bible is the key to our survival. Instead, GGG is wracked by doubt and pride; his faith is weak, and instead of building up the bible, he attacks science.

I say misguided -- I think GGG those who engage in vanity fighting a vain fight aganist science are more accurately malguided. I believe their drive is fueled by a very cleverly disguised devil who appeals to the self-righteous pride of those who mistake evolution as a challenge to God. Evolution doesn't challenge God, it challenges human pride.

15 posted on 03/09/2009 9:05:23 AM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Finny

I can’t expand on what you’ve posted—well done.

Welcome to the sanity team.


16 posted on 03/09/2009 11:03:22 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What stopped Darwin discovering the laws of inheritance?

Because Darwin believed most strongly in the inheritance of aquired characters. See here.

17 posted on 03/14/2009 9:53:43 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson