The background from which the theory of evolution developed, and Darwin's forerunners
Ya'akov Yaakovson - a teacher at Katznelson High School in Kfar Saba
From: The Bulletin for Biology Teachers, Booklet D, Sivan 1985. Published by: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Center for Science Teaching
Objectives of this review:
1. To present a factual and bibliographic background to teachers who wish to teach the
The subject in a historical approach.
2. To present to the teachers interested in the application of the historical approach
For additional topics, a model for developing study material with a historical approach.
3. To serve as enrichment material on the subject, for all biology teachers.
This review was made while consulting a bibliography dealing with history and philosophy
of science
and of evolution in particular.
Appleman 1970, Cannon 1959, Fisher 1965, Gasking 1959
. Ghiselin 1969, Mayr 1970, Vorzimmer 1972
This literature served as the basis for the study material that was organized into a study booklet called
"Evolution in a historical approach" (the booklets "Evolution in a historical approach"
for the student and "Evolution in the historical approach" for the teacher can be purchased at the center
for the teaching of sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
In writing the review, we used, among other things, the idea presented by Elkana
(1969), of the "view of the world", or the "metaphysical" presentation of the scientist,
A decisive influence on his approach to solving the problems or interpreting the facts, and on
his design theory.
This idea also appears in Cohen's book (XNUMX), "The Structure of Revolutions".
Scientism": "Those who hold competing paradigms... when they work within
Different worlds, the scientists of the two groups see different things
Looking at them from that very point... again there is no meaning that they can see
As much as they can think of, both groups look at the world and what they look at
It hasn't changed, but in some areas they see different things..." (ibid.,
p. 120).
The review was written with reference to the following problems:
A. What is the period in which the intellectual background conditions for proposing an idea were created
The evolution?
B. What is the contribution of personalities such as Lina, Kibiya and Leil in the training of the background
The intellectual for proposing the idea of evolution?
third. Why didn't Lamarck's theory get the same sympathy that Darwin's theory got?
by the scientific communities?
d. Why was the theory of evolution proposed and accepted in the 19th century and not before?
(Most of the findings on which Darwin was based were also known in the 18th century
such as comparative anatomy, fossils, etc.).
God. The reasons for the fierce opposition to Darwin's theory by scientists
Prominent such as Agassiz and others.
and. Why was Mendel's theory not accepted by scientists in the 19th century?
G. Is there a contradiction between the new theory of heredity and the theory of
Darwin?
H. What are the open problems in Neoderrinism today?
Addressing the above problems reveals and highlights, in my opinion, several aspects
related to:
a) To understand the essence and development of science.
b) to the personality of the scientists.
The theory of evolution accepts the assumption that the creatures that exist today have evolved
From simpler species, which themselves evolved from simple life forms
most. The idea of evolution came to answer the question that preoccupied man
From the dawn of history it is: What is the origin of living creatures?
The evolution of the idea of the origin of species reflects to a certain extent ah development
the science We will begin the review in the time of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century
B.C. the view of the ancient Greeks regarding the origin of creatures
Life is benevolent to represent Aristotle, who is considered the world's greatest biologist
the ancient
The approach of Aristotle and his contemporaries to natural phenomena is based on logic
and presuppositions, when the observations must be in accordance with it.
For example: free fall; The stone strives to reach its natural place
the earth and therefore it falls in free fall in the direction of the earth. Bodies
Heavy will fall more quickly than light bodies because of their aspiration
to their natural place increased with the abundance of matter; This hypothesis was not tested on the way
Experimental until the 17th century when Galileo showed by his experiment that speed
Free fall is uniform for all bodies.
According to Aristotle's view represented in his biological writings exist
Three options for creating life:
A. A living creature of the same species.
B. An animal of one species develops into an animal of a different species.
third. spontaneous creation; A living thing develops from non-living matter such as mud,
decay, etc.
These views are confirmed by "observations". The Greeks didn't do it on the way
All experiments that require the use of instruments and involve manual labor.
This phenomenon has several explanations:
* One explanation refers to the social structure in ancient Greece; Aristotle and his colleagues
Belonged to the aristocracy. According to their view, manual labor is suitable for status
The slaves are less respectful to the aristocracy;
* Another explanation refers to the influence of the Platonic philosophy that was related
in the negative to experiment or test by experiment; "All things in nature
are in the process of changing so you will never have a corrected view
on them at some time".
"In order to know something as complete and absolute knowledge, we must free ourselves from our body,
to observe reality, with the eyes of our soul alone," Plato wrote in his essay
Phaedon (Yimer 45 p. XNUMX).
Aristotle's Biology
Aristotle, who was a student of Plato, deviated greatly from this view when
He studied biology. He described no less than 500 species of animals
Morphological, biological and anatomical evidenced by the analysis of dozens of owners
Haim. Aristotle, as a member of a family of doctors, apparently did not hesitate to use his hands
To analyze and study the anatomical structure of animals.
Below are some of Aristotle's principles in biology:
1. The world is made of four elements: earth, water, air and fire.
2. Life is created when a passive principle, which is matter, unites with a principle
Active called form = life force = entalchie = soul, and therefore exists
The possibility of animals and plants being created from non-living matter (under the conditions
certain).
3. Plants have a vegetative soul whose function is growth and reproduction, animals have a soul
Vegetative + living soul that gives movement and feeling. Man has a vegetable soul + soul
An intelligent animal + soul that gives it consciousness and thinking.
4. Teleology - purposefulness, final cause; Everything in the world, including a creature
alive, and every organ in it exists for a specific purpose; For example: a flying chicken does not
Because he has wings, but he has wings so that he can fly,
This is the purpose of the chicken.
Aristotle's method of sorting
Aristotle classified living things according to the gradual principle called by name
"The ladder of nature" (scale natura). At the top of the ladder is man; below him,
The creatures that have blood and give birth to live animals (corresponding to the group of mammals in the species
accepted today); At lower levels on the ladder are the egg-layers,
Those with blood, and below them the bloodless (corresponding to the invertebrates in the sort
ours), a transitional stage between animals and plants are the sponges and below them
the plants. At the bottom of the scale, an inanimate object that is not alive.
The idea of evolution was not proposed by Aristotle and his contemporaries; the answers
that were proposed to the problem of the origin of the living creatures as a pad that were brought up above prevented any
A proposal of the development of the animal world.
However, the gradual sorting scale proposed by Aristotle in a later period
In his life, to some extent prepares the background for the idea of a developmental relationship between
The steps of the ladder, as he says: "Nature progresses slowly and gradually from things
The animals are still and it is difficult to determine the exact areas and define
the place of everything in the scale of nature". (Yimer p. 46).
The evolution of Aristotle's theory
Greece was conquered by Rome in the 2nd century BC. The science center moved from Greece
to Rome; The Romans were not interested in abstract science and philosophy that were useful
The utility is zero; They were interested in useful science for example: installing a calendar
civil by Julius Caesar, or planning water supply systems. as a result
Therefore, the Romans were not particularly interested in Aristotle's writings.
Rome fell to the barbarians in the 5th century AD; The science center moved to Ami
Islam; The Arabs translated Aristotle's works from Greek into Arabic
and helped in a later period to transfer them to Western culture.
In the 12th century, the first universities in Europe were founded. in the 13th century
Aristotle's works rediscovered and translated from Western into Latin by
Jewish and Muslim scholars; In a later period the writings were translated
directly from the Greek source to Latin.
The new universities and the church institutions that oversaw them found Torah
Aristotle a scientific framework that fits the church's views on the world and man.
For example: the earth as the center of the universe and man at the top of the scale of nature as a creature
The only intelligent. As a result, a merging process and the adoption of a theory took place
Aristotle by the Christian Church. This merger was made in the 13th century
The combination created between theology (religion) and science is also called
Scholasticism. During this period, the intellectual and logical activity was expressed
in a predetermined framework. The functions of logical thinking - to confirm and justify the
The intelligentsia of the church, faith precedes science, and to add and develop interpretations
to Aristotle's writings (Yimer 113).
In the framework of this intellectual activity there is no place for an experimental approach or
observational. For example: in a debate about the problem "How many teeth does a horse have?" we discussed
in Aristotle's writings and interpretations on the subject and did not imagine the possibility of
Observational test. (ibid. p. 113). The combination between the Christian religion and
Aristotle's theory reached its peak when anyone who disagreed with Aristotle was considered an apostate in spirit
The holy place (ibid., p. 113).
Among other things, Aristotle's ideas about spontaneous creation were adopted
and the transformation of animals and "confirmed" by scientists of that time;
Aristotle's influence still remained strong until the 17th century even when
His ideas were not protected and sponsored by the church. As long as they lasted
Such views (spontaneous creation and transformation of animals) did not exist
A place for development theory.
Challenging the view of spontaneous creation is done directly through
Experiments which were carried out, among others, by Redi and Splenzani
(Spallanzani), and indirectly by Linnaeus who opened
the accepted sorting in biology, which requires the constancy of species.
By this the ground was prepared for the possibility of proposing a theory of development (1970
Mayr), Linnaeus had an Aristotelian worldview. as per
Aristotle division into groups (sorting) is the discovery of the existing truth and order
in nature The purpose of screening is to discover this truth and develop a well-founded method
for sorting
According to Lina there is no dichotomy between the true order that exists in nature and a method
The division into groups expressing this order, since these groups are
Fixed and unchangeable, there is no possibility of evolution.
Defining the differences between the above groups seems to be the final goal of the sorting.
The species according to Lina were created by the Creator and have remained constant ever since; access
This emphasizes the differences and the discontinuity in the lives of the species. during the time of
Lina used the term "evolution" for the "development of the individual" (ontogenesis).
The publication of Lina's sorting method in the 18th century had a noteworthy impact
on the development of biology.
1) the well-known biologists in the 18th and 19th centuries such as Lamarck, Kibiya,
Derwin and others continued and expanded Lina's work in the sorting field.
2) The acceptance of Lina's view regarding the permanence of the species and their immutability was removed
definitively the belief in the possibility of spontaneous creation (of
macroscopic creatures, visible to the eye) that lasted even after Reddy
(Mayr 1970 p.494).
3) The very presentation of the hierarchical sorting method of accommodation based on a criterion
of signs common to the different groups may lead to an idea of the matter
Common origin and developmental relationship between them (ibid.).
cuvier
Further training of the intellectual background towards a theoretical proposal of evolution
Made by Kibiya. Kibia occupied an important position in biology in France, there
He was called "the dictator of biology" because of his tendency to suppress the opinions of his opponents;
He founded and developed two important branches of biology: comparative anatomy
and paleontology. These branches provide classical evidence for the theory
The evolution accepted today.
Kibiya's view of the origin of living beings was
anti-evolutionary. He developed the doctrine of catastrophes. as per
This theory is that the earth went through a series of sudden catastrophes that destroyed it
life on earth. After each catastrophe the earth is repopulated
by new living beings, without any relation to those that preceded them.
This theory explains the findings of the representative fossil layers
Separately animal and plant fauna without any gradual connection
Including.
Lamark
Lamarck, a contemporary and co-worker of Kibeya, proposed a theory of evolution
Gradually in his book "Zoological Philosophy" in 1809 the theory
of Lamarck we can summarize as follows:
Changes in the environment cause changes in the needs of the animals;
The changes in needs cause changes in the animal's activities
That is, increased use of certain organs or non-use of organs
certain; Changes in activity cause the development or degeneration of organs
Due to use or non-use according to needs.
The changes in the organs are inherited and cause the development of new species.
Since the different environments cause different needs and different activities
Different species of animals from the same common origin will develop accordingly
to the different environments in which they live.
This theory is based on views that were revolutionary in relation to his time: *
Lamarck's fundamental worldview was that "nature does not make leaps"
and hence evolution is slow and gradual; As he said: "The water is the cradle
of the whole kingdom of life, after many generations the individuals belonging to one species
change into new species that are different from the first" (Mayr 1972).
* His view stands in contrast to Kibiya's view regarding the catastrophes
in geology. According to his view there are general laws that are responsible
For events that occur in a known order and not by revolutions.
These views indicate the negation of the idea of creation or creation and it was possible
By accepting the assumption about the age of the earth that it is higher than
The accepted according to the book "Bereshit".
third. From Lamarck's view of the uniformity in nature, which stands in contrast to the view
of accommodation, it follows that our sorting into groups of animals does not exist
in nature and this is actually an artificial division. He declares: "There is nothing in nature
Brigades, regiments or battalions. Nature shows a gradual and constant increase
in an organization but not hierarchically; The ladder of nature does not have distinct steps
Rather, it is a continuous slope lined with species" (Mayr 1972, p. 33).
The scientists of Lamarck's time and also those who came after him rejected the
his theory with vehemence, mockery or hostility.
We can offer several reasons for this general rejection:
A. Lamarck's ideas about the slow and gradual development were not
In polar contrast to Kibiye's catastrophic doctrine; In the collision of the
Avoiding their views was the hand of Kibiya, who enjoyed the authority
And the admiration of his contemporaries, on top. The results of this collision caused
Probably an attitude of enmity and disdain on the part of Kibiya towards Lamark.
B. Lamarck's theory does not correspond with the accepted views
At the beginning of the 19th century such as:
1. Creation of the animals as accepted according to the book of "Genesis".
2. The age of the earth which is about 6000 years.
3. Fixed and unchanging species.
third. Lemark did not provide enough practical facts to support his generalizations; In addition
His teachings were not inclusive since he referred mainly to the animals and not
for plants. However, the very proposition of the theory of evolution and its ideas is possible
The bold about gradual development, the concept of time, the role of the environment
As a factor in adaptation, prepare the background for receiving these new ideas
in a later period (Mayr 1976, p. 248-9).
Lyell
An important step in preparing the background for an evolution theory proposal was made by Sherl
Lyell Charles through his theory in the field of geology
Published in his book "Principles of Geology" 1882
According to Lyle, the traces of the past must be treated in terms of processes taking place
present and reject any idea of sudden coups; principle of his theory
Also known as: edeniformiatrism (uniformity) or actualism. in accordance
In his view, the exposure of marine areas or the flooding of the land by the sea, are not
sudden phenomena of revolutions but the cumulative result of retreat or
Progress of the sea that we can observe and measure even today.
It is likely that Lyle was influenced in proposing the idea of arndpodemiatrism
It was Malmarck who proposed this idea as the basis of his theory. the theory
Lyle's was adopted by the scientific community of his time and replaced the
The catastrophe theory that prevented any possibility of an evolutionary explanation.
Darwin
Darwin's theory of evolution.
Drouin published his book "The Origin of Species" in 1859. This book is a summary
Temporalities of the work which lasted 20 years (Darwin began writing in a year
1837). Drouin's ways of thinking went through a process of development, he began
From the time he set off on a voyage on the ship "Beagle" around the world in 1831 until
the end of his days.
Here we will review some of Drouin's views:
1. His views on the species:
At first, Drouin believed in Lina's definition that "species are fixed".
The many facts examined by him in his journey in areas such as biogeography
and paleontology caused his belief in the permanence of species to be shaken,
And instead he began to believe in the changing of the sexes.
The mechanism for the driving force in the development and change of species was drawn by Droin as
which he acknowledges from Malthus's article "On Population". Drouin suggests in his book
A theoretical introduction explaining evolution - the introduction of clarification
the natural
Drouin was aware of the fact that the revolutionary ideas presented in his book would arouse
Turmoil and opposition among the scientific community. The fate of the theory of development
of Lamarck, the ridicule and rejection that preceded it, were in some respects an instructive lesson
To Druin you studied, and because of that, probably, he devoted over 20 years
To establish and strengthen his theory by a very thick "seat belt".
Drouin presents in his book the facts supporting the theory, half of his work
consists of a collection of facts he collected from various fields such as geology,
Biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, domestication, horticulture, etc.
2. Drouin's approach to nature.
A. the view of continuity in nature; "Nature does not make jumps". this view
Prevented Drouin from accepting any proposal from his friends and supporters related to variations
Greatness as an explanation for evolution.
B. Drowin got the idea of actualism in biology from Lyell; this idea
was contrary to the accepted belief, until then, of catastrophes in biology.
Drouin admits his debt to Lyell in establishing the theory of evolution: "Never
I did not forget that almost all my actions in the field of science were done thanks to studying
and a study of his great works" ("Life and Letters" (F, 1888
Darwin, Darwin's own book has evolved; It was printed for about 13 years
A year in 6 editions, each edition different from the previous ones, so the edition
The latter is not compatible with the first edition. the changes
Darvin included in his book came as a result of harsh criticisms from Bani scientists
His time, such as Agasis, Pouchet and Mivart.
The scientists' reviews were mainly based on findings from the geology fields
and paleontology and also on the mechanism of natural clarification as the sole explanation
for the development of species (Vorzimmer, 1972, p. 270). as a result of his will
To withstand the attacks of the scientists, Drowin made a slow roziya
from edition to edition. For example: in the various chapters of the latest edition of
"The Origin of Species", and in his book "On the Origin of Man", printed in 1871 appear
Distinct Lamarckist principles regarding the influence of environment and traits
acquired as a result of use and non-use (ibid. 237).
3. The heredity problem.
Drouin debated the problem of heredity. He was looking for a mechanism to transmit the variations
(originating from the influence of the environment) and the traits acquired for the offspring. according to their explanation
Called "pangenesis", the environment affects a system indirectly
Reproduction through "rewards" that migrate from all the body's organs to the system
Reproduction, so that the traits of the parents merge in the offspring.
This theory is internally unstable that Drouin himself also recognized
in the phenomena of dominance and reappearance of traits from previous generations
in the offspring, which contradicts the assumption about blending.
This theory which is not based on findings stands in contrast to the theoretical
Mendel's convention of defined functional particles that oversee the
Heredity.
The pangenesis theory is one of the weak points in the theory of evolution
Drowin. Drowin's failures in the area of heredity can be attributed to factors
the following:
A. Inability to fully define the variations and their factors and not
Distinguish between genotype and phenotype.
B. It is possible that his fundamental worldview is based on processes of continuity
Change and continuity (nature does not make leaps) prevented him from assuming reality
definite and indivisible hereditary particles (Vovzimmer 1972).
Drouin's greatness compared to his predecessors
Among the factors that contributed to Drouin's great success were these:
A. Exploiting and using the vast knowledge and facts accumulated in various areas such as
Geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and that
In addition to the facts he collected personally on his journey, in his research on the crabs
and hybridization in plants, and the organization of the aforementioned knowledge into a general theory of
evolution. His success is highlighted also against the background of the failure of Lamarck's theory
It was inclusive and did not provide enough facts and experimental findings to support it.
B. A significant factor that contributed to the success of the theory is the background training
The intellectual to receive a new theory in evolution, and this was done among other things
Based on Lamarck's revolutionary ideas and Lyell's theory
in geology as mentioned above.
third. The power of a theory is also measured by its power to predict and guide discoveries
new ones Darwin's theory of evolution which can also be called by name
The "Drowinist revolution" opened horizons for new studies in the territories
varied using the new principles proposed by Drouin.
d. Putting his theory to the test of refutation, which is the test of a scientific theory
real according to Popper (Popper 1963). Conditions for rebuttal have been provided by
As Drouin noted: "The reality of an organ (organ) in one species, exclusively
For the pleasure of another species, there will be a destruction of my theory" (p. 63
Ghiselin, 1969).
God. Social aspect: Drouin was able to make friendships with great people
in science during his time such as Lyle, Huxley, Wallace;
With their extreme support for Derwin, they made a maximum and very valuable contribution to the struggle
the ideological with the fierce opponents of the theory.
Mendel (Mendel)
Mendel published his work in 1865; he was not recognized by me
the scientific establishment in his time. His work remained without any reference until
. 1900
The researchers' success in arriving at the laws of heredity must probably be attributed to
For the progress made in the way of research, especially in the selection of samples and the analysis of the result
in a statistical way. With the development of the new theory of heredity beginning in 1900
In the first stages of its development, there was a discrepancy between it and theoretical
The evolution of Drowin.
The conclusions stemming from the acceptance of the view of fixed independent heredity factors
and defined are:
A. Possibility of splitting into new varieties within the existing species.
B. The species itself is fixed and cannot be changed.
These conclusions also derive from Johansen's experiments (Johansen 1903)
published at that time. Johansen's conclusion was that the differences between
The plants of the same pure line are caused by differences in environmental conditions
and are not hereditary and therefore an inquiry in the areas of the pure line does not bring
to create fine new varieties; And hence the natural clarification will not do anything either
influence on evolution. The discrepancy between the two theories gave impetus
for the various researchers to look for mechanisms that would allow a compromise between them.
Discovery and explanation of the mutation phenomenon by Devries and development
The research in this direction by Morgan (Morgan) in the Drosophila fly, brought
to propose a mechanism for changes in the hereditary material; Geneticists could now
Merge the theory of heredity and Darwin's theory into a general theory
called Neo-Drewinism.
Most scientists who accept this theory do not see the tiny variations
on which Drouin bases the infrastructure for evolution because these are not
heredity.
Modern evolution is based on the reality of micro-mutations, that is
says, about changes that apply to the hereditary material. Mikar-these mutations
are considered the main raw material to change the species.
Development and integration of statistical methods dealing with gene frequency
in populations, such as the "Hardy-Weinberg principle", allowed researchers to show
that micromutations have some advantage in the war of existence in the conditions
suitable, their frequency in the gene pool of the population will increase from generation to generation.
It is difficult to accept the explanation that there was a coincidence or a lack of opportunity here. the newspaper
The scientific paper in which Mendel's work was published was sent to 120 universities
And copies of it also reached the "Royal Society" and the "Society named Lina".
A plausible explanation is that his views and way of thinking had no place
In the general background of the "spirit of the times" at the time. Mendel's way of thinking went ahead
his period; It will be said that he came to his discovery through logical thinking
Early arising from the following assumptions:
A. Hereditary factors are definite and unmixable particles.
B. The contribution of both parents in the next generation is equal.
The interest of the scientists in this period was focused on the new related ideas
to the theory of evolution and this under the influence of the publication of "The Origin of Species".
Problems that occupied the researchers were: the origin of new species and their origin
of variations. Even Drouin's own works on plant hybrids
And in heredity they did not receive special interest and continue in the same direction.
Support for the assumption that Mendel's work was not properly understood by his contemporaries
It should be seen in his correspondence with one of the greatest biologists of his time - Nagli
(Nageli) to whom he sent his work and expected an opinion from him. from
The correspondence between them shows that Mendel's studies did not make an impression on Nagli
positive or negative and in fact he canceled them and did not refer to them
In his reviews published later on hybrids between plants. In conclusion
We can point out that the intellectual climate in Mendel's time was not favorable
for new views on species (Gasking 1959).
The development of Neo-Derwinism
At the end of the 19th century there was significant progress in cytology, details were discovered
More in the cell structure, the chromosomes were discovered and the stages of cell division were observed
Fusion of the germ cell nuclei.
These discoveries focused the researchers' interest on the problems of heredity.
The researchers again sought an explanation for the variations and their inheritance. The laws of heredity were discovered
independently revised by three researchers at the same time in
. 1900
In combination with the various mechanisms of isolation, the accumulation of changes may occur
The genes in the different populations over many generations lead to differences
significant among the populations that will be expressed in the cultural decentralization; That is,
In the impossibility of hybridization between the populations so that we can define it as species
breaking up.
Open problems in neo-Drawinism
Despite the merger into a general theory, contradictions and open problems still remained
that cannot be explained through neo-Drewinism. We will present some of them below:
1. The area of classical evidence.
Paleontology provides the primary evidence for evolution. Yet
There are phenomena in this area that are difficult to explain, with the evolutionist approach.
for example:
A. Lack of continuity and lack of transitional forms in the fossil layers. not found
For example, fossils that represented to us transitional types between large groups such as
Fish, amphibians, or amphibians and reptiles.
B. It is difficult to explain the phenomenon of the appearance of an abundance of fossils representing creatures
quite complex in the Cambrian period, and a lack of finds, almost, of fossils
The representatives are organisms that preceded them - in the Precambrian. And that despite
that in some places the layers of the Cambrian are similar and almost identical in structure
to those of the Precambrian.
2. The mechanism of evolution.
There are two main problems in the theory of evolution:
A. Evolution is the totality of all ontogenesis for the development of the individual -
ontogenesis), from the beginning of time to this day. We now know Shelby
The ontogenesis from the single cell to the perfect creature. But even after discovery
The genetic code We have no explanation for the entrances of ontogenesis. the cipher
Genetics provides an explanation for biosynthetic processes related to building and breaking down
The materials that make up living things, while in ontogenesis we
engaged in construction processes of buildings. From the organelles of the living cell, to differentiation
to different tissues and the organization of the tissues into complex organs such as: kidney,
eye or ear (Leibowitz 1978).
B, it is not understood how evolution based on tiny mutations can
To bring about through natural clarification the gradual creation of such a complex organ
such as an inner ear or a kidney, while such a tiny mutation is impossible
For a relationship of no significance in the war of existence.
In conclusion:
In the historical-philosophical overview presented above, several aspects are presented
related to the development of the theory of evolution. These aspects may illustrate
The student has general concepts and principles related to understanding the essence and nature of science
the scientists. for example:
A. The world view of the scientist plays a crucial role in the development of the theory
His, for example "nature does not make jumps" - Drouin Lemark's view
and Lyle.
B. There is no uniform method in science - through Drouin's investigation (collecting observations,
data and evidence) compared to Mendel's way of investigation (experiments, isolation
variables, statistical analysis).
third. Scientists as human beings, the personality of Drouin, of Kibiya and others.
d. Scientific journals, their importance and roles in the scientific establishment - Parashat
"Forgetting" Mendel's work and rediscovering it. Deciding on publication
The works of Wallace and Drouin at the same time.
God. A historical approach to the teaching of evolution may demonstrate some success
One of the main features of a scientific theory, which, among other things, serves as an instrument
for organization and explanation and may be replaced by another theory or change as a result
New discoveries, relevant facts or facts.
Application of the historical approach to the teaching of evolution in religious schools may,
In my opinion, to moderate or eliminate the apparently existing "contradiction" between the description
Evolution and religious belief in creation. The theory of evolution, as much
Another scientific theory does not represent the "absolute truth" - it is
Used as a device for organization and order.
Sources:
Elkana, Y. "Teaching science with a historical approach", Madad, vol. XNUMX, p.
-1969
. 119
Aristotle, a selection from the companions in biology, edited by Jacob Lorch, publishing house
Magnes, Jerusalem,
1974
Darwin, C. The Origin of Species, translated by Shaul Adler, Bialik Institute Jerusalem,
1960
Yimer M, The History of Science, Kiryat Sefer Jerusalem, 1965. XNUMX
Leibovitz Development and Heredity - Basic Chapters, University Library
The broadcaster, office
Security, 1978
Cohen, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, translated by Yehuda Meltzer,
Factories
Universities, Tel Aviv. 1977
. Appelman, P., Darwin New York, Morton 1970
HG, Lamarck and Modern Genetics, Manchester University
. Press, 1970
, Darwin F. ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Murray
. J
. London 1888
Fisher, RA Mendel Gregor, ed., by Bennett JH Oliver & Bord
. 1965
E. "Why was Mendel's Work Ignored" Journal of the History
. of Ideas, vol. 20, pp. 60-64, 1959
Ghiselin, MT, "The Triumph of the Darwinian Method" Berkeley
,
. University of California Press 1969
E., "Lamark Revisited" Journal of the History of Biology
. Vol. 5, pp. 55-94, 1972
,"Vorzimmer, PJ, "Charles Darwin, the Years of Controversy
London
. University of London Press, 1972
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~349706862~~~262&SiteName=hayadan
