3 ms·

The similarities between ontogeny and phylogeny is well-known in modern biology. I wonder how the belief in a Creator in earlier times influenced the seemingly

The similarities between ontogeny and phylogeny is well-known in modern biology. I wonder how the belief in a Creator in earlier times influenced the seemingly prevalent idea that humans come pre-conceived like monads in the womb and then simply scale up during development on through childhood to adulthood. Kids in old paintings typically also looked like mere (linearly) down-sized adults.

stevenwoo 4y ago
I thought was simply impossible for our predecessors to understand embryonic development until the development of optics for sufficient magnification to see what was happening so we know many of the ancient Greeks had similar misconceptions that were continued in one way or another until disproved.
- arketyp 4y ago
  I'm not saying they should have known better. You're probably right that technological limitations played a part. On the other hand it doesn't require a microscope to see that a baby is born with different proportions than an adult. My point is that it seems like that aspect of reality was almost disregarded; seen maybe, but not recognized as of much importance. And why would that be?
  - stevenwoo 4y ago
    Agenda and what was taught by leading schools of thought just steered beliefs for a long time. Just from reading several laymen's books on genetics they tell pretty much the same story. Maybe those books have a slant their own that I cannot see, either, or the narrative guides what details are included. During the initial extended period of at home time of covid-19 pandemic I read The Gene: An Intimate History, I Contain Multitudes, and She Has Her Mother's Laugh and for different parts of science history illustrate similar if not the same issue. There were starts and stops in advances even after microscopes were able to see what was happening. Mendel got lucky that his pea plants fit into the classic 2x2 matrix we simplify into thinking about dominant recessive traits, the other plant he studied stymied him until his death because it did not fit into that matrix and he did not see into the cells to understand what was happening only that his meticulous planting and mating of different genetic lines did not match and confounded the results from his prior years long study that we learn about from elementary biology lessons in school. He was fortunate in his study of pea plants with simple inheritance traits and very unlucky in his choice of a second plant to replicate his pea success. It took forty years for other scientists to replicate his initial studies and papers and for his ideas to get more acceptance. Somewhat relatedly, around the same time animal husbandry was possibly the height of genetic science of its time since the middle ages and society derived the idea that purity of royal blood was something to be valued and gave us the weird inbreeding of the house of Hanover and others in Europe. It boils down to hypothesis and verification via experiment and it was mostly guesswork before microscopes since complex genetic interactions (much more than peas) are present in many life forms.
User23 4y ago
That was an artistic choice. I can assure you that people in a culture where it was common for families to have over seven children that survived knew exactly what babies actually looked like.
- arketyp 4y ago
  My point was also this, that the theo-philosophical idea shaped the artistic choice.

stevenwoo 4y ago

I thought was simply impossible for our predecessors to understand embryonic development until the development of optics for sufficient magnification to see what was happening so we know many of the ancient Greeks had similar misconceptions that were continued in one way or another until disproved.

arketyp 4y ago
I'm not saying they should have known better. You're probably right that technological limitations played a part. On the other hand it doesn't require a microscope to see that a baby is born with different proportions than an adult. My point is that it seems like that aspect of reality was almost disregarded; seen maybe, but not recognized as of much importance. And why would that be?
- stevenwoo 4y ago
  Agenda and what was taught by leading schools of thought just steered beliefs for a long time. Just from reading several laymen's books on genetics they tell pretty much the same story. Maybe those books have a slant their own that I cannot see, either, or the narrative guides what details are included. During the initial extended period of at home time of covid-19 pandemic I read The Gene: An Intimate History, I Contain Multitudes, and She Has Her Mother's Laugh and for different parts of science history illustrate similar if not the same issue. There were starts and stops in advances even after microscopes were able to see what was happening. Mendel got lucky that his pea plants fit into the classic 2x2 matrix we simplify into thinking about dominant recessive traits, the other plant he studied stymied him until his death because it did not fit into that matrix and he did not see into the cells to understand what was happening only that his meticulous planting and mating of different genetic lines did not match and confounded the results from his prior years long study that we learn about from elementary biology lessons in school. He was fortunate in his study of pea plants with simple inheritance traits and very unlucky in his choice of a second plant to replicate his pea success. It took forty years for other scientists to replicate his initial studies and papers and for his ideas to get more acceptance. Somewhat relatedly, around the same time animal husbandry was possibly the height of genetic science of its time since the middle ages and society derived the idea that purity of royal blood was something to be valued and gave us the weird inbreeding of the house of Hanover and others in Europe. It boils down to hypothesis and verification via experiment and it was mostly guesswork before microscopes since complex genetic interactions (much more than peas) are present in many life forms.

User23 4y ago

That was an artistic choice. I can assure you that people in a culture where it was common for families to have over seven children that survived knew exactly what babies actually looked like.

arketyp 4y ago
My point was also this, that the theo-philosophical idea shaped the artistic choice.