DOCSLIB.ORG

Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin B. E. Bishop Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum pa- per, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that It Is antievolutlonary In content, but also that it was specif- ically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical. Mendel does not mention Darwin in his Pi- [Mendel] in so far as they bore on his anal- sum paper (although he does in his letters ysis of the evolutionary role of hybrids." to Nlgeli, the famous Swiss botanist with Olby's (1979) article, entitled "Mendel whom he initiated a correspondence, and No Mendelian?," led to a number of revi- in his Hieracium paper, published In 1870), sionist views of Mendel's work and his in- but he states unambiguously in his intro- tentions, although no agreement has been duction that his objective is to contribute reached. For instance, some writers, un- to the evolution controversy raging at the like de Beer, Olby, and Callender, overlook time: "It requires a good deal of courage or minimize the evolutionary significance indeed to undertake such a far-reaching of Mendel's paper, while others maintain task; however, this seems to be the one that Mendel had little or no interest in he- correct way of finally reaching the solu- redity, an interpretation that has been op- tion to a question whose significance for posed by Hartl and Orel (1992): "We con- the evolutionary history of organic forms clude that Mendel understood very clearly must not be underestimated" (Mendel what his experiments meant for heredity." 1866). So It is not plausible that Mendel If there is any consensus at all about Men- could have been writing In ignorance of del, it is, quite extraordinarily, that he was Darwin's ideas, which had aroused the an evolutionist, but it is inconceivable that worldwide furor. a priest could have been openly support- Of course, neither Darwin nor Mendel ing a theory that Darwin had been hesi- used the word "evolution." It Is a term tant to publish because of Its heretical re- that came into vogue as a synonym for ligious and political implications. Darwin's "descent with modification" shortly after the publication of The Origin Mendel does not make a definite state- of Species, when it assumed application to ment about his stance, but it is argued fully developed organic forms, In contrast that there is evidence, both from the his- to its earlier embryological connotation. torical background and in Mendel's paper However, Gavin de Beer has observed that itself, that indicates that the latter was an it is in exactly this sense that Mendel em- ad hoc attempt to refute Darwin's ideas ploys the German expression "Entwick- and that Mendel's position was one of the- lungs-Geschichte," and he comments: ological orthodoxy. (Mendel was a well-in- "Here, therefore, was Mendel, referring to tegrated member of his monastic com- evolution and laying down an experimen- munity and a zealous defender of the faith, tal programme for its study by means of not a dissident.) Furthermore, if Mendel's research in breeding hybrids" (de Beer paper Is seen in this light, the many incon- 1964). Some years later, Robert Olby gruities (or apparent incongruities) that Address reprint requests to the author at 6 Barbados Rd., Federation Park, Port of Spain, Trinidad, Trinidad (1979) also emphasized the evolutionary have been the subject of discussion and Tobago, West Indies. orientation of Mendel's paper: "The laws throughout the twentieth century disap- Journal of Heredity 1996^7^05-213; 0022-1503/96/J5.00 of inheritance were only of concern to him pear. 205 Evidence From the Historical entifically likely, and that the strategy he possessed a copy, and his marginalia and Background really followed must have been complete- notes on the flyleaf suggest that he stud- ly different" (DI Trocchio 1991). Di Troc- ied it in detail several times (Orel 1984). It is known that Mendel possessed a copy chio argues that the numerical data for the Olby (1985) comments: "These notes are of the second German edition of The Ori- mono-, di-, and trlhybrid experiments important because they show Mendel at gin of Species published in 1863, many pas- were obtained by progressively disaggre- work, hunting for clearly-marked charac- sages of which he marked (de Beer 1964; gating those from polyhybrid crosses con- ter differences between the various forms Orel 1971), and his paper distinctly re- ducted for about three hybrid genera- of peas." flects certain important aspects of Dar- tions, that Mendel may have used the 3:1 There is no record of any previous ex- win's thought, as de Beer (1964) has point- ratio as his criterion for the selection of periments by Mendel that might have led ed out. Also, Mendel was most probably the seven traits, and that he did not report to the initiation of the famous Pisum pro- familiar with the earlier German edition all his data "because he was well aware gram. ["But despite all that has been dis- owned by the natural history society to that other Pisum characters did not follow covered and preserved we have no direct which he belonged (Orel 1971). In 1861, the law, having already ascertained that information on the sources of Mendel's In- the parent body of this society had dis- they produced strange ratios (i.e., that spiration ..." (Olby 1985).] Also, Mendel cussed The Origin, a year after the publi- they were linked)" (Di Trocchio 1991). Di does not provide a time schedule for his cation in a German journal, to which Men- Trocchio adds: "Had he [Mendel] de- experimental program or even state the del could have had access, of the "word- scribed the real course of his experiments date of commencement of the project, ob- by-word translation" of Darwin's chapter he would have had to admit that his law serving in his paper only that it occupied entitled "On the Geological Succession of worked for only a few of the hundreds of "a period of eight years." However, in his Organic Beings," in which Darwin clearly Pisum characters—and it would thus have second letter to Nageli, obviously a defen- formulated his theory of descent with been considered more of an exception sive response to the latter's criticism ["I modification through natural selection than a rule" (Di Trocchio 1991). (The pos- am not surprised," Mendel wrote, "to hear (Orel 1971). [Mendel was obviously inter- sibility that Mendel reported marginal to- your honor speak of my experiments with ested in Darwin's ideas. Hugo Iltis, Men- tals without saying so was first raised by mistrustful caution" (Stern and Sherwood del's first biographer, notes that Mendel Fisher in 1936.) 1966)], Mendel elaborates on several is- bought all Darwin's later works as soon as Therefore, 4 years would have been ad- sues, stating categorically that the exper- they were published in German, adding: equate time for Mendel to perform what- iments were conducted from 1856 to 1863, "... and not Darwin's books alone, for al- ever experiments were necessary and to when "they were terminated in order to most all the Darwinian literature of the write his paper, especially as he was fa- obtain space and time for the growing of 'sixties and 'seventies is to be found in the miliar with the prior work in the field, of other experimental plants" (Stern and monastery library at Brunn" (Iltis 1932).] which, however, he makes no acknowledg- Sherwood 1966). Nevertheless, through- This would have given Mendel at least 4 ment, although many of the earlier inves- out this period, Mendel maintained a live- years in which to carry out his experi- tigators had also used garden pea and re- ly correspondence with his brother-in-law, ments and prepare his paper for presen- ported very similar results: "It is well Leopold Schindler, and yet he never allud- tation in February and March 1865. Evi- known that practically all the points ed to his scientific work, although making dently this would not be sufficient time if proved by Mendel in his main paper had frequent references to the events of the the experimental program was conducted been made by others before—J. Goss and day (Iltis 1932). And it is clear from Na- as Mendel records, but recently doubt has A. Seton in 1822 reported the results of geli's reply to Mendel's first letter, with been cast on the veracity of Mendel's ac- their pea-crossing experiments, indicating which Mendel had enclosed his paper, count. Federico Di Trocchio (1991), in an dominance in the first hybrid generation that Nageli considered the latter to be no more than an outline: "I shall not remark article entitled "Mendel's Experiments: A and reappearance of recesslves in the sec- on any other points in your communica- Reinterpretation," observes: "To under- ond. Knight verified their results in 1824, tion, for without a detailed knowledge of stand Mendel's work we are forced to ad- adding such observations as the 'scatter- the experiments on which they are based mit, as was tentatively suggested by Wil- ing' of 'indivisible' characters in the gen- erations following hybridization.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • February 29, 1964 NATURE PHYSIOLOGY of COLOUR
    No. 4922 February 29, 1964 NATURE 859 leads inevitably to cancer. The present state of knowledge fibres" are present. Again (p. 118), von Gelei's evidence of morphology in 'pre-cancerous' lesions does not permit for "m elanin-dispersing fibres" in Phoxinus is inadequat,e an accura te prediction of the direction along which t he and open to ot.her interpretations. There may be a lesion will proceed. This book should undoubtedly be double innervation, but the evidence in favour of it is available in all medical libraries and institutions associ- not n early so good as the present review suggests. ated with cancer research. H. JACKSON Recent work on the p art. played by pituitary hormones in vertebrate colour changes is well discussed. In this connexion, H. R. H ewer should be given the cred it for PHYSIOLOGY OF COLOUR CHANGE first observing the paling of minnows after they have been injected with minnow pituit ary extract. The t'ecent The Control of Chromatophores work of A. K. Kent unfortunately a.ppeared too late to (International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied be included. Biology: Zoology, No. 14.) By M. Fingerman. Pp. A small blemish in the writing is the use of "feeling". ix+ 184. (Oxford, London, New York and P aris : To say that after experiments an author "felt" that the Pergamon Press, 1963.) 50s. interpretation must be so-and-so is an unhappy ex­ HE physiology of colour change is a big subject and pression. Hunches (good and bad) are common enough T includes a study of receptor, integrative and effector when we embark on experiments, but " feelings" regarding mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Yasha Gall, Julian Sorell Huxley, 1887-1975
    Julian Sorell Huxley, 1887-1975 Yasha Gall Published by Nauka, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2004 Reproduced as an e-book with kind permission of Nauka Science editor: Academician AL Takhtajan Preface by the Science Editor The 20th century was the epoch of discovery in evolutionary biology, marked by many fundamental investigations. Of special significance were the works of AN Severtsov, SS Chetverikov, S Wright, JBS Haldane, G De Beer JS Huxley and R Goldschmidt. Among the general works on evolutionary theory, the one of greatest breadth was Julian Huxley’s book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). Huxley was one of the first to analyze the mechanisms of macro-evolutionary processes and discuss the evolutionary role of neoteny in terms of developmental genetics (the speed of gene action). Neoteny—the most important mechanism of heritable variation of ontogenesis—has great macro-evolutionary consequences. A Russian translation of Huxley’s book on evolution was prepared for publication by Professor VV Alpatov. The manuscript of the translation had already been sent to production when the August session of the VASKNIL in 1948 burst forth—a destructive moment in the history of biology in our country. The publication was halted, and the manuscript disappeared. I remember well a meeting with Huxley in 1945 in Moscow and Leningrad during the celebratory jubilee at the Academy of Sciences. He was deeply disturbed by the “blossoming” of Lysenkoist obscurantism in biology. It is also important to note that in the 1950s Huxley developed original concepts for controlling the birth rate of the Earth’s population. He openly declared the necessity of forming an international institute at the United Nations, since the global ecosystem already could not sustain the pressure of human “activity” and, together with humanity, might itself die.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada William Leeming OCAD University [email protected]
    OCAD University Open Research Repository Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences and School of Interdisciplinary Studies 2004 The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada William Leeming OCAD University [email protected] © Oxford University Press. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. Original source at DOI: 10.1093/shm/17.3.481. Recommended citation: Leeming, W. “The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada.” Social History of Medicine 17.3 (2004): 481–500. Web. Leeming, W. (2004). The early history of medical genetics in Canada. Social History of Medicine, 17(3), 481-500. Pre-Publication Draft The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada Abstract: This article shows that the intellectual and specialist movements that supported the growth of medical genetics in Canada between 1947 and 1990 were emergent phenomena, created, split, and reattached to different groups of actors, and reconfigured numerous times over the course of four decades. In each instance, new kinds of working relationships appeared; sets of diverse actors in local university- hospital settings coalesced into a new collectivity; and, as a collectivity, actors defined and/or redefined occupational roles and work rules. In its beginnings, medical genetics appears to be the object of a serious institutional manoeuver: a movement in support of the creation of examining and teaching positions in human genetics in North American medical schools. With time, the institutionalization of ‘medical genetics’ took hold, spurred on by changes in the rate and direction of service delivery associated with genetic consultation and laboratory services in clinical settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature Medicine Essay
    COMMENTARY LASKER BASIC MEDICAL RESEARCH AWARD Of maize and men, or peas and people: case histories to justify plants and other model systems David Baulcombe One of the byproducts of molecular biology cork is altogether filled with air, and that air is has been support for the ‘model system’ con- perfectly enclosed in little boxes or cells distinct cept. All living organisms are based on the same from one another.”)2 (Fig. 1). Two hundred fifty genetic code, they have similar subcellular years later, Beijerinck discovered a contagium structures and they use homologous metabolic vivum fluidum in extracts of diseased tobacco pathways. So, mechanisms can be investigated plants that he later referred to as a virus3. using organisms other than those in which In contemporary science, a green alga— the knowledge will be exploited for practical Chlamydomonas reinhardtii—is a useful model benefit. Model systems are particularly use- in the analysis of kidney disease4. However, ful in the early discovery phase of a scientific in this article, I refer to the contribution of endeavor, and recent progress in biomedical plant biology to a family of mechanisms that I science has fully vindicated their use. Jacques refer to as RNA silencing. This topic has been Monod, for example, famously justified his reviewed comprehensively elsewhere5,6, so here work on a bacterial model system by stating I focus on personal experience and my view of that “what is true for Escherichia coli is also future potential from this work. true for elephants.” My fellow laureates, Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun, can defend the use The early history of RNA silencing in of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans as a good plants model system and so I will focus on plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodosius Dobzhansky: a Man for All Seasons
    GENERAL ARTICLE Theodosius Dobzhansky: A Man For All Seasons Francisco J Ayala In 1972, Theodosius Dobzhansky addressed the convention of Francisco J Ayala the National Association of Biology Teachers on the theme obtained his Ph D with Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolu­ in the 1960s and is tion". The title of that address (published in The American presently the Donald Bren Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, pp. 125-129) might serve as an epigram Professor of Biological of Dobzhansky's worldview and life, although it is limited in Sciences at the University of California, Irvine and a scope, for Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the impli­ member of President cations of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into Clinton's Committee of philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues. The Advisors on Science and place of biological evolution in human thought was, according Technology. He is a member of the U S to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted National Academy of from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "(Evolution) is a general Sciences and has been postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must President and Chairman hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be of the Board of the American Association for thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all the Advancement of facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is Science. He has worked what evolution is". extensively on the population ecology and The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory evolutionary genetics of Drosophila species.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of DNA Technology 1865 - Gregor Mendel the Father of Genetics
    A Short History of DNA Technology 1865 - Gregor Mendel The Father of Genetics The Augustinian monastery in old Brno, Moravia 1865 - Gregor Mendel • Law of Segregation • Law of Independent Assortment • Law of Dominance 1865 1915 - T.H. Morgan Genetics of Drosophila • Short generation time • Easy to maintain • Only 4 pairs of chromosomes 1865 1915 - T.H. Morgan •Genes located on chromosomes •Sex-linked inheritance wild type mutant •Gene linkage 0 •Recombination long aristae short aristae •Genetic mapping gray black body 48.5 body (cross-over maps) 57.5 red eyes cinnabar eyes 67.0 normal wings vestigial wings 104.5 red eyes brown eyes 1865 1928 - Frederick Griffith “Rough” colonies “Smooth” colonies Transformation of Streptococcus pneumoniae Living Living Heat killed Heat killed S cells mixed S cells R cells S cells with living R cells capsule Living S cells in blood Bacterial sample from dead mouse Strain Injection Results 1865 Beadle & Tatum - 1941 One Gene - One Enzyme Hypothesis Neurospora crassa Ascus Ascospores placed X-rays Fruiting on complete body medium All grow Minimal + amino acids No growth Minimal Minimal + vitamins in mutants Fragments placed on minimal medium Minimal plus: Mutant deficient in enzyme that synthesizes arginine Cys Glu Arg Lys His 1865 Beadle & Tatum - 1941 Gene A Gene B Gene C Minimal Medium + Citruline + Arginine + Ornithine Wild type PrecursorEnz A OrnithineEnz B CitrulineEnz C Arginine Metabolic block Class I Precursor OrnithineEnz B CitrulineEnz C Arginine Mutants Class II Mutants PrecursorEnz A Ornithine
    [Show full text]
  • DNA: the Timeline and Evidence of Discovery
    1/19/2017 DNA: The Timeline and Evidence of Discovery Interactive Click and Learn (Ann Brokaw Rocky River High School) Introduction For almost a century, many scientists paved the way to the ultimate discovery of DNA and its double helix structure. Without the work of these pioneering scientists, Watson and Crick may never have made their ground-breaking double helix model, published in 1953. The knowledge of how genetic material is stored and copied in this molecule gave rise to a new way of looking at and manipulating biological processes, called molecular biology. The breakthrough changed the face of biology and our lives forever. Watch The Double Helix short film (approximately 15 minutes) – hyperlinked here. 1 1/19/2017 1865 The Garden Pea 1865 The Garden Pea In 1865, Gregor Mendel established the foundation of genetics by unraveling the basic principles of heredity, though his work would not be recognized as “revolutionary” until after his death. By studying the common garden pea plant, Mendel demonstrated the inheritance of “discrete units” and introduced the idea that the inheritance of these units from generation to generation follows particular patterns. These patterns are now referred to as the “Laws of Mendelian Inheritance.” 2 1/19/2017 1869 The Isolation of “Nuclein” 1869 Isolated Nuclein Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss researcher, noticed an unknown precipitate in his work with white blood cells. Upon isolating the material, he noted that it resisted protein-digesting enzymes. Why is it important that the material was not digested by the enzymes? Further work led him to the discovery that the substance contained carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and large amounts of phosphorus with no sulfur.
    [Show full text]
  • DICTIONARY of the HISTORY of SCIENCE Subject Editors
    DICTIONARY OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE Subject Editors Astronomy Michael A. Hoskin, Churchill College, Cambridge. Biology Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr, Department of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Chemistry William H. Brock, Victorian Studies Centre, University of Leicester. Earth sciences Roy Porter, W ellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London. Historiography Steven Shapin, & sociology Science Studies Unit, of science University of Edinburgh. Human Roger Smith, sciences Department of History, University of Lancaster. Mathematics Eric J. Aiton, Mathematics Faculty, Manchester Polytechnic. Medicine William F. Bynum, W ellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London. Philosophy Roy Bhaskar, of science School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex. Physics John L. Heilbron, Office for History of Science & Technology, University of California, Berkeley. DICTIONARY OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE edited by W.EBynum E.J.Browne Roy Porter M © The Macmillan Press Ltd 1981 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1981 978-0-333-29316-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. First published 1981 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated Companies throughout the world. ISBN 978-1-349-05551-7 ISBN 978-1-349-05549-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-05549-4 Typeset by Computacomp (UK) Ltd, Fort William, Scotland Macmillan Consultant Editor Klaus Boehm Contents Introduction vii Acknowledgements viii Contributors X Analytical table of contents xiii Bibliography xxiii Abbreviations xxxiv Dictionary Bibliographical index 452 Introduction How is the historical dimension of science relevant to understanding its place in our lives? It is widely agreed that our present attitudes and ideas about religion, art, or morals are oriented the way they are, and thus related to other beliefs, because of their history.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Big Problem and Mendelian Genetics
    Introduction to Biological Anthropology: Notes 7 Darwin’s big problem and Mendelian genetics Copyright Bruce Owen 2011 − Darwin’s big problem − We have seen that natural selection works by favoring the most successful variants among the individuals in a population − it only works if individuals vary in ways that affect their survival and reproduction − offspring must be similar to their parents, but not exactly the same − if offspring were identical to their parents, they would be identical to each other, and there would be no “more successful” and “less successful” individuals for natural selection to pick from − so there could be no change in the next generation: no evolution − Darwin had no good explanation for why offspring resemble parents, but also vary − he knew that this was a big gap in his theory − The prevalent idea of inheritance in Darwin’s time was blending inheritance − blending inheritance holds that the characteristics of offspring are mixtures of the characteristics of their parents − the idea was that the material from the two parents that controlled inherited characteristics blended like two colors of paint − this is a reasonable approximation, based on everyday experience − so, every mating should produce offspring that are intermediate between the parents − for example, if a six-foot man mates with a five-foot woman… − then the offspring should all be between five and six feet tall − no offspring are expected to be more extreme than either parent − there are two huge problems with the blending model of inheritance − First, it obviously isn't true − lots of parents have children who are taller, or shorter, than both of the parents − many kids have traits like hair color, eye color, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • On Darwin's and Mendel's Concepts and Methods in Heredity
    J Gen Philos Sci (2010) 41:31–58 DOI 10.1007/s10838-010-9122-0 ARTICLE Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity Ute Deichmann Published online: 10 June 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract Inheritance and variation were a major focus of Charles Darwin’s studies. Small inherited variations were at the core of his theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection. He put forward a developmental theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on the assumption of the existence of material hereditary particles. However, unlike his proposition of natural selection as a new mechanism for evolutionary change, Darwin’s highly speculative and contradictory hypotheses on heredity were unfruitful for further research. They attempted to explain many complex biological phenomena at the same time, disregarded the then modern developments in cell theory, and were, moreover, faithful to the widespread conceptions of blending and so-called Lamarckian inheritance. In contrast, Mendel’s approaches, despite the fact that features of his ideas were later not found to be tenable, proved successful as the basis for the development of modern genetics. Mendel took the study of the transmission of traits and its causes (genetics) out of natural history; by reducing complexity to simple particulate models, he transformed it into a scientific field of research. His scientific approach and concept of discrete elements (which later gave rise to the notion of discrete genes) also contributed crucially to the explanation of the existence of stable variations as the basis for natural selection. Keywords Variations Á Discreteness Á Gradualism Á Statistical laws Á Chance Á Blending inheritance Á Soft inheritance Á Pangenesis Á Mendel Á Darwin 1 Introduction The emergence of the science of genetics began as a result of the fruitful application of both the research methods and the concept of discrete ‘‘elements’’ (which later gave rise to the concept of discrete genes) developed by Mendel around 150 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Historiography of Molecular Biology
    Reflections on the Historiography of Molecular Biology HORACE FREELAND JUDSON SURELY the time has come to stop applying the word revolution to the rise of new scientific research programmes. Our century has seen many upheavals in scientific ideas--so many and so varied that the notion of scientific revolution has been stretched out of shape and can no longer be made to cover the processes of change characteristic of most sciences these past hundred years. By general consent, two great research pro- grammes arising in this century stand om from the others. The first, of course, was the one in physics that began at the turn of the century with quantum theory and relativity and ran through the working out, by about 1930, of quantum mechanics in its relativistic form. The trans- formation in physics appears to be thoroughly documented. Memoirs and biographies of the physicists have been written. Interviewswith survivors have been recorded and transcribed. The history has been told at every level of detail and difficulty. The second great programme is the one in biology that had its origins in the mid-1930s and that by 1970 had reached, if not a conclusion, a kind of cadence--a pause to regroup. This is the transformation that created molecular biology and latter-day biochemistry. The writing of its history has only recently started and is beset with problems. Accounting for the rise of molecular biology began with brief, partial, fugitive essays by participants. Biographies have been written of two, of the less understood figures in the science, who died even as the field was ripening, Oswald Avery and Rosalind Franklin; other scientists have wri:tten their memoirs.
    [Show full text]