AHC: The Biological Revolution

AHC: Michael Crichton, in his infamous novel 'The Andromeda Strain', had made it clear to us that while wholesale revolutions in Physics and Chemisty were clearly evident, there had been No big leaps on Biology .

Charles Darwin had speculated 'Gammetes' were in the blood and passed on, so very close to a theory of genetics.

What would it take to make Darwin, or one of his 'followers', come up with the the discovery of Genetics and the ability to manipulate it?
 
Charles Darwin had speculated 'Gammetes' were in the blood and passed on, so very close to a theory of genetics.

What would it take to make Darwin, or one of his 'followers', come up with the the discovery of Genetics and the ability to manipulate it?

Aliens showing up with the necessary hardware. Mendel's work preceded Darwin, so a Theory of Genetics already existed, however rudimentary. But keep in mind that manipulation of genes, beyond the selective breeding that humans have been doing for 10,000 years, requires technology of at least 1970s levels.
 

Philip

Donor
What would it take to make Darwin, or one of his 'followers', come up with the the discovery of Genetics

I assume you want something-further reaching than Mendel's work

and the ability to manipulate it?
Farmers have been manipulating genetics for thousands of years.


If you intend to have some kind of sci-fi genetic engineering revolution, it won't happen any time near Darwin. You need too many advances in chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, and information theory first.


Edit: PE seems to be a bit quicker than me
 
Darwin actually had an unread copy of Mendel's paper on pea-plants in his library when he died. If he'd read it...who knows?
Not Much ...

As Noted Above, BOTH Ideas were Floating Around The General Knowledge Pool ...

Putting them Together Simply doesn't Offer Much in The Way of Progress, at Least until Modern Technology Started Allowing for TRUE Artificial Selection!

:eek:
 
But Mendel's book was not well known in his time, unlike Darwin's. Had he read it he would better understand how to model genetic change.
 
But Mendel's book was not well known in his time, unlike Darwin's. Had he read it he would better understand how to model genetic change.
All that Really Means, is that it is Bateson's Name Instead of Punnett's, that Winds up Getting Attached to Matrix-Based Representations of Genetic Relationships ...

It ALWAYS Puzzles me, How People can Assume that Simply Because a Theoretical Framework is Known, it'll Immediately Become Practicable ...

Mendelian Darwinism, Came about DECADES Prior to The Advent of Modern Means of Gene Manipulation, a Few More will Have VERY Little Effect!

:p
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Also Mendel's theory of genetics has huge enormous gaping holes and then you need not only to fill up those holes but to figure epigenetics and even then we still have more gaping holes. Not happening in the 19th century without a bunch of butterflies that are far too early in other sciences.
 
Hmmmm. Obviously, genetic engineering even of the most primtive kind is way beyond humanity for most of its previous history. But what if there was a more systematic approach to selective breeding earlier on? Nothing fancy like irradiation or systematic hybridisation, just the early realisation that traits can be bred into or out of animals over generationsa, and a more systematic approach to it. Rather than having a favoured stallion or bull make lots of offspring, you would have studbooks kept over generations. The thing that IOTL happened in Western Europe in the 18th century, but would have been feasible as early as - at least - Hellenistic times, if not the late Bronze Age. IIRC it was donme in some cultures with especially favoured animals, but a landowning class could make it systemic early on. Unlike the more modern approaches, this doesn't take complicated technology, just time and administrative know-how.

I'mpretty sure the Song did it, actually. It just seems like their kind of thing.
 
Top